Leave four takeaways of your own regarding what we have read so far in Outliers. These can be in one long commentary or they can be in four individual posts.
Then comment on the takeaways of two of your classmates, please. When you do this, mention them by name and then also explain what you agree or disagree with, extend their thinking on a topic, offer your own example, or add some new information from Outliers or from another text.
I'll leave my feedback as an example.
PS - If you can't log in with your Google account, be sure to put your name next to your takeaways and comments so I can give points to the proper people. Thanks!
My biggest take away from what I have read so far is a sense of relief. I say this because the big point Gladwell is illustrating is that success doesn't have one simple formula, as we are so often led to believe in school or movies.
ReplyDeleteFor example, just because you have the top ACT score doesn't guarantee you for a lifetime of success. Likewise, just because you're a hard worker, it doesn't mean you'll one day work your way to the top of the business one day.
Success if far more complex than that. And it's relieving to me because there are many way to combine skills that will allow us to find success or to be outliers.
Mr. Reynolds
This line from the book is very important - "Knowledge of a law student’s test scores is of little help if you are faced with a classroom of clever
ReplyDeletelaw students" (Gladwell 86).
One of my favorite authors and thinkers, Thomas Friedman, talks about the importance of bringing your 'extra.' This is will be true when you all head off to college. Yes, there will be people there far smarter than you, from far wealthier families, with far better connection than you. So what? Those are advantages for them, sure, but as we have seen with the case of Chris Langan, advantages all by themselves aren't enough.
That is why Oppenheimer was able to succeed in the university setting here Langan floundered. Oppenheimer had another hidden advantage: how he was raised. His parents raised him to develop great people skills so that he was able to charm and impress others. Langan, unfortunately due to his rough home life, was never equipped with those skills.
In other words, Langan didn't have an 'extra' besides his vast intellect. And the wasn't enough.
So what is your 'extra' going to be not just in college but later on in the work force when it really counts? I'd love to hear.
One of my favorite quotes from one of my wife's favorite writers and intellectuals (Jordan Peterson) is this: "Raise children other people will like." Now this seems simplistic, but it's actually quite astute.
ReplyDeleteThink about most adults (these would be your future professors and employers), what kind of people would they like? Selfish whiners who are on their phones 24/7 and who only show up to do the bare minimum? Probably not.
So if you are raised (or if you can transform yourself into) someone who is motivated and driven, able to work well with others, humble and honest, and will to work hard over a long period of time, I don't know of anyone who isn't looking to hire you.
This connects to what Gladwell talks about in Ch. 4 about how middle class and wealthy parents raise their children compared to parents who are poor raise their children. Now this isn't 100% consistent among parents. There are certainly impoverished parents who raise stellar children who will rise above and be outliers (I mean that's the American Dream right there) and there are rich parents who wreck their kids for life by spoiling them. But how we are raised matters. And that's an incredible hidden advantage.
I'm going to delve in to a topic that will come up soon - how do I know an extraordinary opportunity when it comes my way.
ReplyDeleteIn your earlier writings, many of you talked about the importance of following your passions. And that's true. It is important, but I think it's not as important as you think it is. That's not your fault though. At this point in your lives, you just don't know better.
But think of it this way - look at the jobs your parents have. Did they get those jobs by just following their passions?
What if your passions change? I bet you aren't as passionate about the same things you were passionate about in middle school. And trust me, when you're a junior in college, you'll look back at the person you are now as a senior in high school the same way you now look back at your sixth grade self!
What happens if you only do things that you are good at or that you love? What new experiences will you really have? How will you ever learn to step outside of your comfort zone?
So when I wrote a paper on Outliers two years ago, I came up with a way to determine if an opportunity is really an extraordinary opportunity or a waste of time.
If the opportunity checks all three of these boxes, it is worth jumping on and pouring your heart and soul into (and getting in your 10,000 hours).
1. The upcoming opportunity should play to most (but not all) of your strengths while also pushing you outside of your comfort zone (or it must 'stretch' you as Sir Ken wrote about in The Element). My example - in 2004 I had the chance to teach 120 teachers a lesson on Westward Expansion. I had never presented in front of my peers before, so this was a risk. BUT it did play to my strengths as a teacher (I had my 10,000 hours in by this time as a teacher) and scholar.
2. The opportunity must contain room for advancement. My example - I didn't realize this at the time, but when I presented to the 120 teachers, it opened up dozens of new opportunities for me. Teachers I presented to spoke to their administrators about possibly having me present to them. The director of the event, Faye Achenpaugh, liked what I did so much that she hired me to teach at other events over the next five years (I began working on getting in my 10,000 hours as a presenter).
3. The opportunity must finally allow you to work with a mentor or role model. Faye was a great mentor to me, but I also met Eric Bergerson, a noted author and public speaker, as well as my former colleague, Loiell Dyrud, also an author and public speaker, who were instrumental in giving men feedback and helping me grow.
If you can check those boxes when you come to an opportunity, take it immediately and work your a*( off on it. You won't regret it.
1. In the outlier we have learned that opportunity is everything. taking advantage of every single opportunity you're handed is vital in making it.
ReplyDelete2. advantage is real. Everyone. has forms of advantage and disadvantage in their lives. Some advantages seem small like what time of year you're born and some are huge like the difference between being raised poor or wealthy.
3. Your intelligence is not the only thing that matters. Having personality and social skills is just as important as having a high IQ and a degree. Without being able to talk to any and every one it will be incredibly difficult, if possible at all, to become successful.
4. Everyone needs someone. No matter how independent you are or how smart you are everyone needs someone. Having someone to back you, encourage you, open opportunities for you, and support you financially, mentally, emotionally, and physically. Without someone or something helping you it is difficult to find success
this is haley mcdermott
DeleteAbigail Molstad
DeleteI totally agree with you when you say that intelligence isn't the only thing that matters in life. I truly think we need to have people skills and be able to communicate with others when we go into the real world one day. I think a good example of showing social skills is that when we interview for our future jobs they will pay attention to if you know how to talk to them and communicate well with other employees. I also really agree with you when you say that everyone needs someone. We need to have that person who will encourage us and help us on our journey of being successful.
Ivy Wiggs
DeleteI agree with you when you said we need to have someone to have your back. Having someone to encourage you even when you are struggling helps you to keep pushing and get better. Knowing that someone is proud of you and can open doors for you really helps you find success.
Haley,
DeleteYour comment about everyone needing someone is spot on. Having someone to mentor or guide you ties in to all of the things that Gladwell argues are really vital for success: hidden advantages, extraordinary opportunities, and cultural legacies.
It's a hidden advantage to have a great boss, coach, parents, teachers, or other signifiant role models.
Our role models, coaches, bosses and so on can open up extraordinary opportunities for us that we could never get for ourselves (think of Oppenheimer how his parents - who were a hidden advantage for him - let him present to a professional audience, even though he was still a child - no lawnmower or helicopter parents there - and this paid off later when he was at Cambridge University, he tried to poison a professor, but he talked his way out of it because of how his parents raised him. This would later open up an extraordinary opportunity for him to lead the Manhattan Project).
And for some cultures (such as the Chinese culture where they revere their elders), this can even be a cultural legacy for you have the advantage of learning from all ages of people. This is a worry about your generation as today you really don't have to interact with many people outside of your peer group if you don't want to. Yet, the work force today is as diverse in terms of age as it has ever been.
Abigail Molstad
ReplyDeleteMy first biggest take away from the the book Outliers is that you can come from a bad childhood but still make it out okay. Christopher Langan is a great example of this. He had a lot of bad luck growing up. His family was poor and he only had one set of clothes to wear everyday. His family relied on government help for food as well. He was expected into a college and relied on financial aid to attend there. His mom forgot to fill in the papers and he was kicked out. Today people are writing about him in books and and he has one of the highest IQ. Even with a bad home life.
The second take away is People with high IQs lack other important skills you need in life. This reflects back to the termites. They later figured out that some of the members lacked these peoples skills that are important in order to succeed in life.
The third takeaway I have is how your birthday can have a big affect on your life and how successful you'll be at something. For example how the Canadian hockey team showed birthdays in certain months ranging from January to March. The reason they picked these players is because of how they could play with older members and how they were also better hockey players in general. Another example of this is when they stated that the people born closer to the beginning of the school year scored higher on tests than students born closer to the end of the school year.
My last take away is that you need to put in the time if you want to be successful, it won't just happen overnight. This applies to the "10,000" rule they talk about in the book. They explain that all these successful people put in time since they were kids into their passions to be where they are today in life.
haylie
Deleteyour 2nd and 3rd point also stuck out to me as I also wrote about those. I found that the whole idea that you don't need a great IQ to be successful in life and that other qualities matter more. As for your third point I find this upsetting because you can't really control when your born so your stuck with a disadvantage if you're born later in the year.
Abigail,
DeleteThe point Gladwell uses Langan for is that his life is a bit of a tragedy though. Yes, he's written about in books, but that isn't a good thing (he comes across as a sad, whiner who squander a lot of his golden opportunities and tends to blame others for it). The sad thing is that his upbringing was paramount in destroying all of the potential he had due to his high IQ.
I agree with you on the 10,000 hour rule. I like how you said "it won't just happen overnight." It's definitely true because nobody has ever made in big in life without putting in some work to get there.
DeleteKylie Alby^^
DeleteSam Zaviska
ReplyDeleteMy first takeaway is how hidden some advantages are. Like in Hockey how birth month can have a great effect on how successful one is. It makes a person wonder how many other hidden advantages there are like that that don't seem like they have any meaning but do.
Second takeaway is how simple the divide between successful people and those that aren't is. Gladwell shows it really comes down to how one is parented, based on how wealthy the family is. It seems like there should be more nuance to it than that, but it is at least a large part of being successful or not.
Third takeaway is how large an amount of time 10,000 hours is. That much time makes it seem impossible to master something. Only people lucky enough to have that much time growing up would be able to master anything at a young age. Also, finding a passion young enough to do that can't happen often.
Fourth takeaway is that Gladwell seems to have a narrow view of what success is. He talks about how Langan isn't successful because he didn't live up to his potential, but in the quotes from Langan he seems perfectly content with where he is in life. If Langan was raised differently he could've been more successful, but he seems happy with how his life is. Just because someone doesn't isn't famous for being super smart and accomplishing a lot doesn't mean they're a failure.
Ivy Wiggs
DeleteI agree with you 10,000 hours is a lot of time. You really have to be passionate about something to put in that practice time. Bill Gates was missing classes to stay up later to program, he dropped out of Harvard to pursue his passion. That takes a lot of guts. But it payed off.
Zach and Ivy,
DeleteTen thousand hours does sound like a lot of time. If you look at it from a limited perspective. The average person spends almost 38,000 hours driving in their life times and almost 30,000 surfing the web!
Just look at the things you've already spent 10,000 hours on or that maybe you're closing in on 10,000 hours on - schooling certainly. Sports? Technology use? Gaming? Texting/snapchatting/tiktoking?
I wouldn't get hung up on the hours. I'd focus more on the fact that it takes time to get really good at something. And as you said, Ivy, if you're passionate about it or enjoy it, then you tend to want to spend time doing it. That makes racking up the 10,000 hours that much easier.
Haley McDermott
Deleteyour point about 10,000 hours being a long time stuck out to me. 10,000 hours seems like eternity especially when talking about achieving it in the first 20 years of your life. I think it is entirely possible if you care about what you're doing enough and may not even realize how fast you're racking up hours if you truly enjoy what you're doing.
Ivy Wiggs
ReplyDeleteMy first takeaway is that there is a lot more that goes into succeeding whether it's hidden advantages or just plain luck. In school we, as students, are taught that if you work hard, get good grades, do good on the state tests, and go to a good college you will succeed. After reading only four chapters in Outliers I now know that intelligence isn't the key to live a successful life.
My second takeaway is how much your family and how you are raised can affect how you succeed in life. Annette Lareau's study on different family dynamics showed that if you are in a wealthy or middle class you're more likely to succeed. This doesn't mean that if you were born into the lower class you can't succeed.
My third takeaway is that the month you are born can either help you succeed in you athletics or not. By just having a birthday in January you already have a higher chance of succeeding in hockey than those born in the summer or fall months.
My fourth takeaway is that not everyone who is intelligent succeeds. Terman's experiment with the termites showed that just because you are smart and have a high IQ doesn't automatically make you more successful in life. 20% of the Termites fell into the A group, the true success stories, 60% were in the B group, those who are doing adequately, and the last 20% were in the C group. 1/3 of the C group were college dropouts.
I also thought it was very interesting how much of an affect your family and how you're raised plays into your future. And how being in the upper or middle class gave you an advantage over being in the lower class.
Delete^^haylie
DeleteAlex Osowski
DeleteIvy, I agree with what you said in your first takeaway about how succeeding is so much more than just being smart. Honestly, this book has opened my eyes for me and actually kind of made me feel a little relief to realize there is so much more to it than just having a good ACT score or high IQ. It is comforting to know that you don't have to be the smartest person in the world to achieve your dreams.
Kaitlyn
DeleteIvy, I totally agree with your first takeaway. Being the smartest persom out there does not really matter in how you succeed. I thought that chapter one was very intresting when they talked about your birth month. It is crazy to me how statistics stad by that.
I really liked your first point, Ivy. We have grown up thinking that effort and intelligence are the only factors that contribute to us thriving in life. While doing well in school can be very helpful, we need to realize that there is so much more to a person than a score.
DeleteJonah Kalsnes ^
DeleteI agree with you in your first paragraph where you talk about the hidden things that go into succeeding. That really is what this book is all about, and it's crazy to see all the things they have discovered. How IQ isn't everything, but that there is so much more.
DeleteKylie Alby
1. One of my biggest takeaways would have to be that IQ doesn't really matter all that much. I think we as a society we tend to tell kids that you need good grades to get into a good college in order to be successful. But that isn't always the case. Some of the most successful people didn't get all A's or even go to college. It's also good to hear that the ACT doesn't define your life and that even if you get a bad score there's nothing stopping you from being a success story.
ReplyDelete2. Another thing that was fascinating to me starting on page 102 was the study of the rich kids and poor kids. The parents of the rich kids liked to be involved and have their kids be busy going form activity to activity. They liked to always know what was going on in their lives and would speak to their teachers on the children’s behalf. Whereas the poorer families wouldn’t be as involved in their kids’ life and wouldn’t question the teacher during conferences. The kids themselves always had to keep themselves occupied because they weren’t in all those sports and activities that the rich were. Annette Lareau, who conducted this study, found that the “poorer children were, to her mind, often better behaved, less whiney, more creative in making use of their own time, and had a well-developed sense of independence.” (page 104).
3. Something else that I found interesting would be the whole point that you can't go it alone. You need people and things that help you grow and reach your goals. In the book, page 115, it stated "He'd had to make his way alone, and no one- not rock stars, not professional athletes, not software billionaires, and not even geniuses- ever make it alone." This is referring to Chris Langan, the smartest man alive and how you could've been the 20th century's greatest mind but without anyone to support and guide him along he didn't make it through college and ended up living up on a farm. This is upsetting and refreshing at the same time because it's sad to see people that could possibly change the world reduced to a menial job but at the same time kind of refreshing because it shows that no one was born this talented they had to work on it and they need people to help them
4. One more thing that stuck with me would have to be the idea that people have hidden advantages. It’s crazy how being born a couple of months later can affect your hockey or soccer career so drastically. It can even affect your academics as shown on pages 28 and 29. The kids who were born earlier in the year were seen as more advanced when in reality they were just more mature. The kids who were older got better coaches and better teachers, they were given more opportunities and better ones at that. Another way people have hidden advantages is by living in a certain town or country. Like Reynolds said playing hockey in Canada is an advantage compared to playing hockey in Texas or playing soccer in Brazil versus Alaska. A lot of things can give you an advantage in life which can consist of your family or home life, where you live, your culture, your drive, and even your birthdate.
^^ haylie rogalla
DeleteTayli Brekkestran
DeleteI agree that IQ doesn't really matter that much. There's so much more to a person than if they're considered "geniuses" or not. You could have a really high IQ but still be considered unsuccessful, as seen with the group The Termites.
Jennica
DeleteI totally with your third point that you really can't do it alone. It's really nice to have the validation of someone cheering you on and supporting you along the way, it makes it seem a little easier than doing it all alone.
Sam Z
DeleteI totally agree that our culture puts too much emphasis on just IQ or test scores like the ACT when they actually don't matter as much as we say they do.
Kylie Alby
ReplyDeleteMy first takeaway from The Outliers is how not everyone with a high IQ is going to be really successful in life. Sometimes people are really smart, but they never get the chance to do something big. Just because someone does well in school and seems really smart doesn't mean that they have a bright future ahead of them. For example, not all the "termites" ended up with really successful careers or futures. Some of them just went on to live normal lives.
My second takeaway is how your childhood and the way you grew up can affect your success. Sometimes people have advantages when growing up that will help lead to a successful future. For example, Oppenheimer was raised in a way that taught him to have good people skills. So even when he tried to poison his teacher, he got out of a big punishment, and got to continue his college career.
My next takeaway is the fact that your birthday can determine your success. Like the Canadian hockey team, only people born in certain months of the year really had a chance to be successful. As well as some of the soccer teams. It's crazy to think that something as simple as a birthday could have that much of an effect on success.
My last takeaway is the 10,000-hour rule. It really shows just how much work and effort it takes for a person to truly be good at something, and to be successful at it as well. The Outliers gives us many real life examples of this. Like the Beatles. They started out as just an average high school band, but after doing so many shows for hours at a time, they became outstanding performers. That shows how if you put in the work, it will pay off.
That really stuck out to me too when the book mentioned how not everyone with a high IQ will be successful. I think it truly comes down to your people/social skills. That is a huge key to getting somewhere in life when it comes to jobs and making a living, but being smart plays a big factor too. Also when you talk about childhood I think that plays a huge role in being successful too. How your parents are raising you can have a huge affect. For example in todays world, if your parent really doesn't care if you get your work done what are the odds you actually do it. But if you have a parent who harps you on getting your school work done you are more likely to do it.
DeleteAbigail Molstad ^^
DeleteJennica Bakken
DeleteI agree with how crazy it is that your birthday can determine your success. After reading that chapter I wondered if my life would be any different if I had been born in a different month, it's crazy how something we can't control can impact our life so much.
Haley McDermott
DeleteI agree with your point on how crazy it is that your birthday can determine your success. I think that is so interesting and almost kind of sad. Just the matter of the month you're born can determine success or prevent you from being successful.
I agree with what you said about the 10,000 hour rule, how even if your are good at something, if you don't put in work you will rarely ever come successful.
DeleteElla ^
DeleteSam Z
DeleteI agree with your second takeaway because people like to think that anyone can work their way up in life with enough willpower, but how you are raised really has a large affect on it.
Jonah Kalsnes
ReplyDeleteHere are my four takeaways through four chapters of Outliers:
1. Hidden advantages, like birthdays, are integral when it comes to becoming successful. The two Canadian hockey teams mentioned in chapter one prove this. The rosters of the the two teams reflect how having a birthday in the first three months of the year contributes to more opportunities. The cutoff date for hockey is January 1st, therefore those who are born soon after that date are physically more mature. Elite teams notice this maturity and figure it will translate directly to success. While this may or may not be true, it does reveal how essential hidden advantages are to success. No matter what hidden advantages people have, without them, people would have to rely only on their own merit. The Canadian junior hockey system displays that relying on individual merit is not the only contributing factor of success.
2. The "10,000 hour rule" is essential when it comes being successful. If somebody wants to play piano professionally or program computers for a living, they need to practice. 10,000 hours worth of practice is incredible and not everybody has the opportunity to put in that amount of time. This is where opportunities come in. If a person were able to rely on their own merit, they still would not have the opportunity to practice enough. However, people like Bill Joy are sometimes given extraordinary opportunities which allow them to put in 10,000 hours of practice. Even so, the "10,000 hour rule" is just one of the contributing factors for thriving in life.
3. Intellect does not contribute directly to success. When we hear the word "genius" we make the assumption that those with high IQ's are doing really well in life. Lewis Terman's study group, the "termites," prove that this is far from the case. While about one-third of the group was thriving, another third were average, and another third were not living up to their "potential." While being gifted at a young age was viewed as having potential, there are so many other factors that determine how a person will do in life. Intelligence is one tool, but if someone does not have other qualities, they could end up like Chris Langan who was not able to thrive in other areas of life.
4. The most prominent factor in determining success is how a person is raised. Parents play an integral role in their child's future. Wealthier parents tend to raise their children in a way where they are able to respond to authority easily. Poorer parents generally have a different approach where their children are more reserved and less responsive to authority. The first parenting style encourages children to work well with others while the second style does not allow for this. This displays how everybody needs other people to succeed in life, it can not be done only on a person's own merit.
Tayli Brekkestran
DeleteI also thought that your third point was an important takeaway from the book. The three different groups of Termites just goes to show how having a high IQ doesn't define who you are.
Kaitlyn Hagevold
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I have taken from the outliers is there are hidden advantages everywhere. For emample being born in early January for Canadian hockey players. Being born in early January puts them as the older age group of there team. They become bigger and stronger than the kids born in the second half of the year.
Ten thousand hours of work I have found out makes you a proffesional in whatever you are doing. Putting in that many hours of work and taking those opertunitys gives you such a higher advantage of becoming the best.
Being a "genius" is not everything aswell. I have learned that people with more creative minds might have a higher chance in sucsess. Being a genius your mind works in diifferent ways and you have a harder time sucsseding.
My last takeaway is how you grew up does matter. Gladwell explaines in the book that if you grew up in a wealthier family you have a better chance at sucseeding. Your parents spend time with you and want you to express your opinion. If you grew up in a less wealthy family you are more likely to be quiet and let other people do the thinking for you
Baylie Johnson
DeleteI agree with you when you say that being a genius is not everything. This is definitely true because we read what happened to Chris Langan. He had a very high IQ but he didn't have other resources to go far. I also like how you mention that people born in wealthy families are more likely to express themselves, while people in poorer families tend to be quiet and let others do the talking for them. I think this is true for the most part because when we look at Robert Oppenheimer and Christopher Langan we can see that they had similar stories but Oppenheimer was born in a wealthy family so he developed "social savvy." This allowed him to talk his way out of anything including trying to murder his teacher. Overall, how you grow up does matter and can hypothesis how you'll be as an adult.
Kenzie Sorter
DeleteAll of your takeaways are very similar to mine. We mentioned a lot of the same thing in your first and second paragraphs, about the Canadian hockey team and the fact that it takes roughly 10,000 hours to be considered a professional or "Good" at something.
Tayli Brekkestran
ReplyDelete1. My first takeaway from Outliers is that having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be a success. If you don't have the small push in the right direction that some people have, then it's hard to be a success.
2. Hidden advantages are essential when it comes to being successful. An example of a hidden advantage would be like the birthday cutoff for Canadian hockey. If you were born not long after the cutoff date, which is January 1st, then you had more time to mature physically compared to someone in the later months. Older students also have a hidden advantage compared to a student born in the second half of the year.
3. The 10,000 hour rule is another important takeaway I got from Outliers. Putting in the hours of practice is essential if you want to be successful at something. An example of this stated in the book is Bill Joy, who put in well over 10,000 hours of practice at a computer to get to where he is.
4. My last takeaway would be how the way you're raised matters. Wealthier parents were more involved in their children's lives, and their kids knew how to speak up for themselves. Lower-class kids were more quiet and didn't have the same social skills as the wealthier ones.
Baylie Johnson
DeleteI agree with all of your take aways, especially the 10,000 hour rule. You have to put in the work to be successful at something like Bill Joy, The Beatles, and Bill Gates. They all spent years becoming an expert. They also had hidden advantages like you mentioned. These now successful people also used their resources to use these advantages such as creativity and people skills. They used every opportunity, even small ones (like playing at clubs in Hamburg) to get where they are today. All of these things go hand in hand in order to be successful.
Max Forst
DeleteI agree with how you said the way someone is raised affects how successful they can be. Children who are taught that they are entitled have more "practical intelligence," which is essential to developing social skills and becoming successful.
1. My biggest take away from Outliers is that that opportunities are everything. We have to take advantages of any and all opportunities we are given. Even opportunities that we don’t think are important, like our birthdays. This mattered for hockey players and even children at school. The day that you are born can impact how much of an advantage you are given. For example, players who were born at the beginning of the year were able to get more practice and that is why they had more of an advantage.
ReplyDelete2. A person’s intelligence is not the only thing that matters. Chris Langan had a very high IQ but lacked the people skills and therefore wasn’t able to keep himself in college. You need more than an IQ score. People skills, creativity, etc all matter.
3. If you want to be better at something, you need to put the hours in. There is no such thing as a “natural” who can make it to the top without practice. The ones who succeed are the ones who put in their 10,000 hours to be better.
4. Family background has an effect your life. For example, Chris Langan grew up in a poor and abusive family so, he didn’t have anyone to help him along the way. If he had someone to properly prepare him for the world he could have learned other skills as well as have intelligence. We need someone in our lives to help guide us because no one ever makes it alone.
^^Baylie Johnson^^
DeleteMax Forst
DeleteI agree with how you said that opportunities are everything. If you have the drive to do something and you put the effort into doing it, but you have no opportunities, all of your hard work can go to waste. Not taking the opportunities that you are given is a big mistake.
Alex Osowski
DeleteBaylie, I like what you said in your third takeaway about the 10,000 hour rule, especially that no one is a natural. A person can't be born and just know every guitar chord by heart... They have to put in the effort and hard work to achieve that knowledge.
Jennifer Nehring
DeleteBaylie, I like how you said "The ones who succeed are the ones who put in their 10,000 hours to be better."
The term "better", I feel, describes how success happens. No one can really perfect something.
Max Forst
ReplyDeleteMy first big takeaway from the book Outliers is that while intelligence is important to success, it is not the only thing responsible for it. Taking a look at Terman’s Termites, we can see that even though all of them were very intelligent as children, only a few of them actually became very successful. This is because another big factor that helps determine success is your families class and culture.
The second takeaway is that opportunities are key to success. You could have the potential. To be the most successful person in the world, but without opportunities to actually do this, all that potential goes to waste. If Bill Joy or Bill Gates didn’t have all the opportunities that they did, they probably wouldn’t be as successful as they are now.
The third big takeaway is that hidden advantages play a big role in how successful you can be. Starting at an early age, these advantages may not be very significant, but over time, as one is given more practice, they start to stand out more and more until they become an outlier. This is clearly the case with professional hockey players.
The last big takeaway is that you have to work at something to become good at it. Just working a little bit each day won’t get you anywhere. If you want to master something, you will need about 10,000 hours of practice. It is only with all of this practice that one can become an outlier.
Kaitlyn
DeleteMax, yes how smart you are does not define how your life will play out. If you are looking to succeed you need to take every opertunity handed to you. They are evrywhere! I agree with your last takeaway if you dont work for something you will never become the best you need to master that.
Chloe
DeleteI agree with your first point how you talk about a big part of success would be family class and culture because this is a perfect example of Langen and Oppenheimer. Just as smart, but raised very differently and given many different opportunities.
Max, I agree with your third takeaway. Hidden advantages are a huge part of being successful and we don't always notice that because sometimes this can happen through accumulated advantage which builds up over time to show big results in the end.
DeleteMax, your second point is very similar to one of my points. We tend not to look at what opportunities super successful people have been given, but it does in fact shape their potential future.
DeleteJennifer
DeleteAlex Osowski (Part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteOne of my four takeaways would be that cutoff dates are so much more important than we think. In chapter one, Gladwell describes the importance of the day you were born and how it can be a huge impact on your life. I had never considered my birthday had to do anything with my life besides being the day I was born until I read that chapter. Gladwell gives us a roster of two Canadian hockey teams and asks us to spot something strange. He then points out the birthdays; 'Seventeen out of the twenty-five players on the team were born in January, February, March, or April.' (Gladwell 23). The importance of this as that the deadline 'for age-class hockey is January 1.' (Gladwell 24). This means that even if someone was born just a day later, that person could end up being stuck playing with a teammate(s) that don't have a birthday until the end of the year. That year difference allows for a lot more maturity, physically and mentally. This can be seen as an unfair advantage, and we should try and alter how we do cutoff dates like Gladwell mentions, '"We could set up two or even three hockey leagues, divided up by month of birth. Let the players develop on separate tracks and then pick all-star teams.
My second takeaway is that you have to work hard to achieve what you want in life; you can be an incredible genius, like Chris Langan, and still not achieve your goals. We can take a look at Lewis Terman's experiment and study with the 'Termites' as an example of this. Lewis Terman gathered elementary students that had the highest IQ scores and made them his study. He watched these children and tested them, he watched them grow and become young adults. He even followed them into their late lives, but what he found was to his dissatisfaction. When Terman reviewed the Termites when they were in adulthood, he was shocked to see that only some of them had 'grown up to publish books and scholarly articles and thrive in business.' (Gladwell 89). It is also mentioned that many had run for a public office and two of them even had been superior court justices, a court judge, two of California's state legislature, and a state official. Some of them made it, but very few of his Termites had become nationally known. Gladwell writes that 'a surprising number ended up with careers that even Terman considered failures.' (Gladwell 89). Pitirim Sorokin, a sociologist, had shown that if the groups were randomly selected children from similar family backgrounds without worrying about IQ, he would have gotten a group that would have done nearly as many impressive tasks as the Termites. Terman says later in conclusion that, '"intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated."' (Gladwell 90).
Your first talking point is very similar to mine we both mentioned the Canadian hockey team roster and how their birth months had could contribute to how good you are.
Delete^Kenzie Sorter
DeleteAlex Osowski (Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteMy third takeaway is social skills are more important than you may think. For example, Chris Langan grew up in an unstable, poor household and wasn't really praised for what he did. Chris was lucky enough to get financial aid for a school he wanted to attend, Reed College in Oregon. But Chris was unable to continue attending Reed College anymore because his mother forgot to sign his financial aid form and the deadline was passed. Then, he ended up at Montana State University but then his transmission fell out of his car. He had requested his morning classes be changed to evening, but his request was denied not only by the counselors but by the Dean as well. In Outliers, Gladwell compares Langan to a physicist who had led the project of developing the nuclear bomb in WWII, Robert Oppenheimer. Gladwell mentions that they had similar minds, except Oppenheimer grew up in a different household and was praised for his work. Robert Oppenheimer, while in college, was forced to attend classes he was overqualified for and it is remarked that Oppenheimer hated it. Oppenheimer had struggled with mental health issues before but his mental state was deteriorating and in a fit of rage, he tried to poison his tutor. As punishment, he was only put on probation. Although placed in situations that were similarly jeopardizing their college career. In order to continue college, they must go to the authorities and the outcomes are completely different: Langan has his scholarship taken and Oppenheimer goes to therapy. Gladwell describes that this is because Oppenheimer had practical knowledge, which is described as '"knowing what to say to whom, knowing when to say it, and knowing how to say it for maximum effect."' (Gladwell 101) without really knowing why you know.
Now, my fourth and final takeaway is, unfortunately, your family background really does make a difference in a lot of things in your life and some things have huge advantages. For example, in Outliers, there is a study on twelve different families of all kinds of backgrounds (e.g. wealthy, poor, different racial ethnicities) done by sociologist Annette Lareau. In the study, she discovered two types of parenting despite having twelve families to study. The poorer parents knew their responsibility as a parent, but also believed that they had to let their kids develop and grow on their own. The wealthier parents were the complete opposite and completely involved in their child's life and had them on a tight schedule with all types of activities, sports, and events. The children of the poorer parents were often a lot less whiny and better behaved as well as creative when making use of alone time. The children of the wealthier parents often talked through things with their parents and expected to talk back, to question, and negotiate something the poorer children were not expected of. Lareau reported that while one style of parenting isn't necessarily better than the other, usually the parenting style of the wealthier parents had better advantages. Because of having to adapt to those quick-paced environments, those children 'learns teamwork and how to cope in highly structured settings...is taught how to interact comfortably with adults, and to speak up.' (Gladwell 105). Gladwell mentions that Lareau mentioned that the poorer children didn't trust as much and were far more distanced than the children of the wealthier children, showing the advantage of how just being 'wealthy' can greatly impact your life.
I agree with your fourth point that being the child of wealthy parents is itself an advantage, not because of the money, but because of the people skills that the children develop. However, if this is true, then the reverse must be true as well: poor parents raise their kids in a way that makes it difficult for them to succeed, which makes them generally poorer, and those kids don't raise their kids in a way that society likes either, etc. This cycle is dangerous to those families, but it proves how there is undoubtedly a hidden advantage or two if you are the child of wealthy parents.
Delete~ Ben
Alex and Ben,
DeleteGood points about how children are raised, especially by poor parents. Gladwell actually investigates this in his final chapter, "Marita's Bargain." He notes that when children come to school - regardless of economic background - after first grade, they tend to be pretty even. Sure the wealthy kids who have exposure to books and parents who talk to them (or have the luxury of being home more with them and then know what to actually do with their kids when they are home - read to them and talk to them as much as possible, which totally helps them with word acquisition) are ahead of most students from poor families. But then it's over the summer where the huge gaps in learning and growth happen. Simply put, poor kids lose ground over the summer and rich kids don't lose as much if they don't in fact gain over the summer.
Wealthier students have the hidden advantage of parents who buy them books, take them to museums or performances and expose them to more activities and ideas than most poor families do.
So that by third grade, the wealthy kids are on grade level and a majority of poor kids are still at a first grade level. That can be overcome - we take this seriously at Franklin, which is why we have the read and math 180 programs there, which are insanely expensive, but it's that important to get kids caught up before high school.
As a parent - regardless of your economic status - it's vital to raise your children so that they have the biggest hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities possible.
DeleteThat means talking with your kids early on so they get exposure to words. A child whose parents talk to him or her will come to pre k with tens of thousands of more words than one whose parents don't talk to her or him. That's a hidden advantage.
It can be overcome, but will the child work hard enough to learn new words (probably in school and out)? Probably not. Then it becomes a terrible disadvantage.
Take Kenzie for example. She has two English majors for parents. She has the vocabulary of a 9th grader - and she is just starting sixth grade. She was telling me about a book Mrs. Hegge was reading to them. She didn't like the basic situation of the book, but the themes were strong and the climax was rewarding. I'm serious here. She has a leg up academically than many of her peers.
Kenzie Sorter
ReplyDelete1. Something that really stuck out to me in this chapter was in Chapter 4 section 4 on the last page. The only lesson Langan learned from his childhood was distrust authority and be independent. He also never had a parent teach him how to stand up for himself or how to reason and negotiate with those in the position of authority. They mention on the same page that if Chris was born into a wealthy family or the son of a doctor, they guarantee he would have been one of those very smart successful people you read about, and probably would have had his PHDs at seventeen. Langan never had any hidden advantages growing up. He had to work hard for everything. Especially when he lost his scholarship when his mother did not sign it in time. I think all the difficulties that he had to go through only made him grow as a person. Now he's 50 living in rural Missouri on a horse farm working on stuff that he loves which is waking up and working on something on his computer that he had worked on the night before. His life was very different from Oppenheimer's. Oppenheimer was born into one of the wealthiest neighbors in Manhattan, son of an artist and a successful garment manufacturer, and attended one of the progressive schools in the nation.
2. The whole topic of hidden advantages in chapter one also really stands out to me. I never really realized how many advantages hockey players in Canada have. One example of them is that hockey is a huge thing in Canada everyone is pretty much expected to at least try the sport. Everyone starts at a very young age and those who show potential move on and start putting more hours in working out and hours on the ice. Coaches and recruiters watch them and if they become really good they are placed in teams and keep moving on up. But on the thing that makes them different from other countries hockey is that you can not buy your way onto a Major Junior A hockey team. it doesn't matter who your mother or father is, or what business your family is in, nor the location you live. "If you have the ability, the vast network of hockey scouts and talent spotters will find you (Gladwell 17)." Another hidden advantage that was kinda a weird one was most great hockey players’ birthday was either in January, February, and March. They noticed this in the Men’s 2007 Medicine Hat Tigers team roster. They did further research on this by looking at other team rosters and this started to. become a common thing, with people having those same birth months.
3. Chapter 2 is filled with the example of people who have worked for hours on end for many years doing something they love. Gladwell believes that to be "Good" at something you need at least 10.000 hours of work put into this activity. Another thing that he mentions is that you don't go to a practice to show off and show everyone what you have you go to become better. In this chapter, they use a study that was run by K Anders Ericsson and some of his colleagues. They used a group of violinists. As they grow up they compared to groups of a violinist who practice and couple hours and week to a group who all they do is practice. In his study, he and his colleagues couldn't find any "naturals' musicians who floated effortlessly to the top while practicing a fraction of the time.
4. Also in Chapter 2 and the topic of being at something requires at least 10,000 hours of practice at something; they talked about The Beatles. The Beatles worked tirelessly on becoming the best they could possibly be. Even if that required playing hours on ends for many days in a row. They were so dedicated that they moved all the way the States just to get a start to the music careers. Lennon and McCartney were undeniably talented musicians and were called gifted musicians by many.
Chloe
DeleteI totally understand your point about the people with natural talents and they can't just become the best without ever practicing as apposed to someone who actually puts the time and effort into it.
Yes, I totally agree with your first point; Chris Langan almost certainly would've been more successful had he had more people skills. Although his impressive IQ not matter so much as the threshold effect, his ideas would certainly have been much more palatable to the scientific community if he simply had more people skills.
Delete^ Ben
DeleteI agree with your first point, Kenzie, as that was my first point as well. While I do not think that all Canadian hockey players have an advantage, there are those who are born in the first months of the year that have an advantage over the other Canadian hockey players. One thing that I am glad you mentioned is how it does not matter who your mother or father is when it comes to junior hockey in Canada. This can make people think that these players are earning their way off individual merit, when really it is their hidden advantages that make them stand out.
ReplyDeleteJonah Kalsnes ^
ReplyDeleteChloe
ReplyDelete1. My first take away would be how your raised effects you the rest of your life. In chapter 4 it talks about the study done on rich, middle class, and poor parents and how they raise their children. A big difference was how the rich and middle class parents tought their children to speak up for themselves and be more assertive while poor parents tended to fear those in authority so they tended to be more quiet.
2. In chapter 1 Canadian hockey is discussed and the advantages that some of the players receive. It seems unfair to me that the kids born in January, February, and March are the ones getting extra practice time and more opportunities. They kids start out a little bit better a little bit stronger which ends up giving them better opportunities early on which leaves them outliers later in life.
3. In order to commit to doing 10,000 hours of something you have to really love it. You wouldn't want to do 10,000 hours of something you hate. People who become experts at things are the ones who are dedicated and willing to put in the time and work into doing it. The example of the piano players in the book is a good one. At a young age they all start out at about the same amount of practice time and as they grew older practice more and more until like were older and doing almost 30 hours a week. Any one who hated playing piano would not continue to do this for that many years and that many hours a day.
4. Chris Langen had a rough child hood, but he was a genius. When he went to college his scholarships ended up being taken away because his mother for got to fill out financial forms. He struggled in college because he didn't have the money or people skills to speak up for himself. Oppenheimer on the other hand was very successful. He was raised in the wealthiest part of Manhatten which gave him lots of opportunities unlike Langen. That's why no one knows who Langen is, but everyone knows of Oppenheimer.
Chloe, I agree with #2. Its unfair that some kids never get the chance to prove themselves and it kind of makes you wonder how many good hockey players there could be if everyone had an equal chance.
DeleteBrooklyn Brouse
I agree with you're third claim that you have to have a passion for what you do in order to hit that 10,000 hour mark. I know that personally I wouldn't be able to practice an instrument or excersise a skill for 10,000 hours unless I really loved what I was doing. I think this goes for anything that we do, if you don't have a passion you will have no drive and evenually get burnt out.
DeleteBrooklyn,
DeleteYou make an excellent point. There are talented players all over, but because the system doesn't set them up for success, they never get discovered.
Look at one of your sports: basketball. A hidden advantage is if your parent is a coach. I've never seen - in my experience with the youth program here anyway - a coach's kid who didn't make the final 10 player travel team. That in itself is an advantage.
But then when you factor in that they probably get extra coaching at home and on the weekends, that turns in to more skill and understanding and that turns in to more playing time, which then compounds the skills . . .
But what about a kid who doesn't make the cut because their parent isn't a coach and then they grow three inches in sixth grade? They are behind because they haven't had the advantages, even though they could pay huge dividends on a team in high school.
Brooklyn Brouse
ReplyDeleteMy first takeaway is that just because you are the smartest, doesn't mean you will be the best in college and have the best job in your future. Gladwell talks about the termites in chapter three to look into a group of kids that showed to be the top IQ's of their class at a young age... but in the end only about 20% were considered to have the best jobs, 60% had middle class jobs, and 20% considered to have wasted potential.
My second takeaway is the 10,000 hour rule that was discussed in chapter two. That sounds like such a crazy amount of time but then you look at the things we do all the time, like when Reynolds used the example of how many hours we've spent in school throughout our lives so we can be ready for college. This shows how much hard work it takes for people to become the best of the best.
My third take away is from chapter one when they talk about hidden advantages. An example of hidden advantages that the book uses is the month that Canadian hockey players are born in. If they are born in the early months they are more likely to be on better teams because they have had more time to mature before they first start playing. It's so odd to think that something so out of our control can have such a big impact on how successful we are in certain activities.
My fourth take away is the advantage of growing up in a better family atmosphere from chapter four. Gladwell uses the comparison between Langan (poor, bad family structure) to Oppenheimer (wealthy, healthy supportive family). Langan was much smarter but lacked people skills and basic communication skills due to the way he was raised. Because of this Lagan was less successful than Oppenheimer. It's sad to think some people will never reach their full potential due to the way they grew up.
Brooklyn I agree with your third takeaway that children born within a certain timeframe are given an unfair advantage, we are so lucky that we are given the opportunity to prove ourselves and play alongside children of all ages in the U.S.
Deletedominica b.
Anna Knott
DeleteI agree with Brooklyn's first take away because just having a high IQ score does not mean that you will be the most successful in college. An IQ score is just a number.Most jobs require at least some individuality. without that individuality and creativity a person will just be another worker at a job. In order to stand out you must have more than just an IQ score.
I would say my first takeaway from chapters 1-4 is that, when you are born can be a huge factor in how successful you are in life. This book discusses past successes such as bill gates and the beatles, proving that being born in the right year, in a certain timeframe, having access to the right tools and being dedicated are the keys to success. The book also talks about Canadian hockey players and how your rate of success is systematically determined by your age and therefore before youre even the age of 12 you will know if you'll make it in the industry or not. My second takeaway from the book is that your background or upbringing also plays a key role in your success rate. Gladwell used the example of different social classes and how well off they were, in the study they decided that children who grew up in wealthier homes often did better than children who grew up needing financial aid, simply because the parents from the wealthier homes took an interest in their children's passions and tried to make something out of it, whereas parents from lower income families often didn't have time to express much interest in their children's passions. My third takeaway is that an IQ score can only get you so far, in the text gladwell used einstein and the langan as an example. They both had extremely high IQ scores over 120 (in fact langans was higher) but the theory is that nothing really matters after 120, thats the maximum potential. Gladwell states that any IQ over 120 is pretty much equivelent and that people potential once they reach the maximum is pretty much the same. My fourth takeaway is that culture bplays a huge role in what we do and what we say. gladwell talks about why many plane crashes were a result of communication error, due to culture differences, therefore these instances couldve been avoided.
ReplyDeletethis is dominica lol^^^
DeleteJennica Bakken
ReplyDeleteMy first takeaway from this book is, you can become successful from nothing. Chris Langan talks about how poor him and his family were, to the point where they lived in a teepee on a reservation. Being poor didn't stop him from learning to speak at 6 months or having an IQ above Einsteins. Of course it would've helped if he had grown up wealthy and maybe gotten proper schooling while growing up to help him succeed faster in life, but he did just fine on his own.
My second takeaway is the Termites and how the book explained that not all of them were successful. The most successful ones moved onto becoming doctors, lawyers, and politicians. Even though they were successful they weren't wildly popular or known, which I think means that being smart won't always guarantee your success in the future.
My third takeaway is the topic of hidden advantages. I thought Chapter one about the hockey players was crazy when I first started reading it but after realized how much it really makes sense. These hockey players are bred to be the best and being born in a specific month really gives them an advantage to get there. Another example was Oppenheimer. He was born in wealthy Manhattan and went to a very good school, it was said that the students were groomed to reform the world. Oppenheimer had an advantage because he was able to go to schools that pushed him along and helped him succeed.
My fourth takeaway from the book so far would have to be the 10,000 hour rule. I really never thought about the type or work and effort that goes into people being successful if they haven't had it handed to them. Of course 10,000. hours is a roughly estimated number because the message really is that if you want to be successful at something you will work as hard as it takes to get there. It's inspiring and kind of validating to know how much everyone in the Outliers have worked for what they want.
yes I completely agree with what you said because you explained all the topics perfectly. They all became successful working hard and it doesn't matter how smart they were they could still end up with a normal job
DeleteElla ^
DeleteBen Van Schaick (part 1)
ReplyDelete1) One of the most important things that I took from the book is that there seems to be a sort of "threshold effect" when it comes to IQ. In his book, Gladwell goes over the colleges which have produced Nobel Prize winners. You'd expect that the list would be dominated by Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, but as it turns out, Harvard is only on the list three times out of 50 awards. Stanford once. MIT three times. These colleges which have the pick of the most qualified and "smart" high school seniors end up falling short of the mantle that society has established for them. Gladwell sums it up very well: "To be a Nobel Prize winner, apparently, you have to be smart enough to get into a college at least as good as Notre Dame or the University of Illinois. That's all" (Gladwell 83).
2) Something that surprised me when I read chapter 3 was when the book introduced affirmative action. Gladwell uses the University of Michigan to illustrate that affirmative action students have very similar outcomes to otherwise normally accepted students. While this might be true, it is incredibly difficult to say where this went right. Perhaps it was that they got the same education as everyone, therefore they would have similar outcomes. Perhaps the highly academic and competitive culture of the school pushed the students with lower qualifications to work harder and strive for more. It's nearly impossible to tell these apart, so I believe that instead of incorporating a framework which in of itself some may consider to be racist, universities should instead accept the applications from everyone who meets the threshold and find out what composition of work ethic, creativity, and booksmarts yields the greatest results from your college without changing the highly academic and competitive culture of the college. Imposing a blanket lowering of standards for students of a minority (racial or otherwise) does not seem like the solution to the problem.
Ben, good point with #2. Affirmative action certainly works as a hidden advantage for some and a hidden disadvantage for others (usually white males or any dominant culture). I think both of your factors are right - the African American lawyers did go on to success because of a better education and the environment that pushed them. We will see this addressed more fully in the final chapter "Marita's Bargain" where Gladwell examines a charter school for inner city kids which demands they pay an insane price to be good at math, which is one of the threshold skills for college entrance.
DeleteI think - due to COVID and the ACT being delayed and seriously limited as to who can take it - we will see colleges look at a wider array of skills than the limited ones the ACT checks.
After all, the ACT is simply a quick and easy and cheap indicator of who is "college ready." But if that was really true, would we see upwards of 60% of people leave college without a degree?
Ben Van Schaick (part 2)
ReplyDelete3) Christopher Langan, American genius with an IQ of 200, is probably the single best example of how having a high IQ can be detrimental to your success. The book points out that others with more people skills than him ended up being more successful than Langan, Oppenheimer for example, and how his genius was never realized. Intrigued by Gladwell's claims on Langan, I decided to watch a couple videos: one of him at the game show "1 vs 100" and an interview. During this interview, Langan carries himself in such a way that it is evident that he has people skill issues, and can sometimes be abrasive. Take this quote from 1 vs 100 as an example: "To have a high IQ, you tend to specialize, thing deep thoughts. You avoid trivia. But now that I see these people–I think I'll do okay," or perhaps from his interview, "I am closer to absolute truth than any man has been before me." It shows a sense of entitlement, that only the man with 200 IQ could possibly fathom. As the book previously discussed, there is a threshold to where any IQ above a certain amount will do fine, and unless that IQ threshold is set at 199, I think that every other theoretical model of the universe deserves a shot. But one thing's for sure: Chris Langan's personality played a huge role in the lack of his success.
4) Something that I found very interesting was the 10,000 hour rule. We've all seen people much younger than us that are way better at something than we are, like perhaps a 4-year-old violinist that can play Paganini's Caprice No. 24 better than most 20-year-old music students. Or maybe take for example, Mozart, who was composing concertos while he was still 6. However, considering that Mozart's greatest original pieces were written when he was 21, Gladwell goes on to say that, "Even Mozart–the greatest musical prodigy of all time–couldn't hit his stride until he had his ten thousand hours in" (Gladwell 42). Even the greatest prodigy of all time needed 10,000 hours to become an expert in his art, so prodigies aren't born, they're made.
#4 is an interesting point. And the 10,000 hour rule is not set in stone. Many people argue that you don't need 10,000 hours to master many skills today.
DeleteI think it comes out of the old world "apprenticeship" programs where you studied with a master (tailor, blacksmith, painter, carpenter . . .) for years until you slowly built up your own skill and started your own business.
I don't think we should get hung up on the number 10,000 hours. Instead, we should focus on - as Carol Dweck popularized in her work at Stanford - the growth mindset and working hard to get better.
I found it interesting that even prodigies still put in the time and effort to improve their skills.
My first takeaway would have to be the fact that how you are raised has effects that last for your life. Chris Langan was a genius and he unfortunately wasn't successful because he lacked a social game. When his mother didn't sign his financial aid. He couldn't persuade Reed college to allow him to stay and Chris couldn't negotiate because he didn't know how because of how he was raised.
ReplyDeleteMy second takeaway would be hidden advantages who knew that birthdays could be so influential. Canadian Hockey amazed me because birthdays mattered a lot when it came to getting into teams. Also how teachers would mistake maturity for ability when in all reality the kids who were older had an advantage because they could be nearly a year older than the other kids.
My third takeaway would have to be the Termites. As we recall they were geniuses in their childhood but in their adulthood they had regular jobs and they weren't a popular politician. They were successful but they never were famous even though in their childhood they were geniuses. So this makes me come to the conclusion that just because you are smart in your childhood doesn't mean you will be successful in the future.
My third takeaway is the 10,000 hours rule. I honestly just thought that the people who were really good at something just had raw talent but what was surprising to me is that 10,000 hours was the magic number to be an expert. Like the Beatles when they did finally get as big as they were they had already had well over 10,000 hours of performing and song writing because of Hamburg.
My fourth takeaway would have is that how you are raised has a huge impact unfortunately like Oppenheimer was probably one of the worst candidates for the Manhattan project he tried poisoning his tutor but his social game was so good that it got him the job. Chris Langan never did that and he ended up living on a ranch for the rest of his life because he never had the social game like Oppenheimer did which is why Oppenheimer was so successful.
Ashleigh Kruse ^
DeleteCamden Broadwell
ReplyDeleteThe four main takeaways that i have made so far are that hidden advantages are some of the most important things we have, yet they are very rarely talked about. The next. thing that I learned about is that culture plays one of the biggest factors in our future success. This is due to the fact that some kids are taught to challenge more ideas, which allows them to gain a better understanding of the topic and to put it into real-world situation. The third thing that I had learned about is that certain people are more apt to be successful because of their creativity and some will be successful because of their intelligence. The fourth and final thing is that some people will just squander any sort of opportunity they are given, no matter the intelligence they possess. This is because some people aren't as committed or willing to get out of their comfort zones in order to develop their skills!
Anna Knott
DeleteI agree with Camden's fourth take away because in the end a person has control over his or her success in life. if people do not take the opportunities that they are given then they will not have the chance to succeed to their full potential
Ella Budish
ReplyDelete1. The first thing I took away was the 10,000 hour rule it really made me realize how no matter how good I am at something I won't be successful unless I put a lot of practice in. To gain confidence and know exactly what I am doing. Just pure talent will get you places but without practice you'll never know how really good you could be.
2. The second big take away for me is how birthdays affected the hockey team. It is crazy to think how much your birthday impacts you, especially because there's no way to control it. Even in my exploratory essay about zodiac signs if your born a certain month that might have a lot of affect on your personality too.
3. Next is extraordinary opportunities. A lot of times I think about how different my life would be even if I grew up in a different town, different state, different family, different house, or a different school, it's crazy to think about how everything we do or opportunities we have makes us who we are and how things could be so different.
4. Lastly, this kind of goes with my third one, but again how we grow up. if you grew up in a poor house compared to if you live in a rich household, that is going to affect you pretty much your whole life and you can't really even control it, and if you can it is still going to effect you your whole life.
Chris Langan's intelligence is difficult to match. He has an incredible IQ that is is estimated as high as 210. He was called "the smartest man in America" or "in the world," by journalists. Yet, Langan hasn't really made it in the real world even with his smarts.
ReplyDeleteI like chapter four because it discusses the impact of upbringing. Kids from wealthy, middle-class, and poor families all have different traits. The parents in the rich scenario make sure that their children are staying active and covering for them if they struggle. These kids also usually have the most access to opportunities. On the other hand, those families from poor situations offered little to no support for their children's interests or skills. Middle-class kids, however, are given a sense of entitlement. This is not the stereotypical entitled attitude; it is simply the method of the middle-class child. These kids feel that they have to work for what they get. This leads to a sense of independence and rebellion from authority figures. These kids are usually more comfortable speaking to adults and have no problem speaking up.
The 10,000 hour rule seems a bit cliche to me. Yes, I am aware that it was studied and it was determined that 10,000 hours are required to achieve success or be an expert in a field or practice. So, in. this theory, anyone can master anything given this amount of time. I just don't like how the 10,000 hour rule puts all skills on the same level.
There is another point I would like to discuss that ties in to the one involving family background: opportunities. I understand that not all opportunities happen because a child's parents can afford to have them in the best school with the best opportunities, but that seems to help a lot. Bill Gates is perfect example of great opportunities. If he hadn't went to one of the only private schools in the world, at the time, to have a new computer, then he wouldn't have been exposed to new methods of programming and creating software. He was given the opportunity to become comfortable with new computers by the 8th grade. This a huge advantage over kids who didn't have access to the same resources.
Jennifer Nehring (forgot to put my name on it)
DeleteAnna Knott
ReplyDelete1. My first take away from the novel outliers is, many people have hidden advantages that will go unnoticed. we have to look deep into the detail of their life, how they grew up, where they grew up, and what generation they grew up in. when we look back at the hockey team people didn't even notice that many of the players had birthdays in the early months. this is an example of a hidden advantage.
2. My second takeaway was stated in the early chapters of the book. When we look at the success of some people we have to take into consideration the opportunities that they may have been given. For example the book talks about Bill Gates, he created Microsoft and many thought he was a genius with computers, however after looking into his childhood he was given many opportunities to practice and learn about computers. this means that Bill Gates may not have just been a genius he may have just taken more opportunities than the people around him.
3. My next takeaway is about the Matthew effect. the Matthew effect means that opportunity played a huge role in their success they were said to not deserve it or earn it. Robert Merton brought up the idea of the Matthew effect. Some people became successful just because they were born in the right time era. Many of the people that are in the top list of billionaires were victims of the Matthew effect. this means that they became billionaires by accident because the opportunities that they had growing up.
4. My fourth and final take away is probably the one that made the most impact on my opinions. some people tend to believe that the score you get on a test can determine what happens for the rest of your life. This may be good for some and bad for others. For example Chris Langan was the oldest of four siblings, Chris was a very smart student however he had terrible grades and test scores. Chris struggles to take tests and attend his classes due to some of the experiences in his life. this causes Chris to not get the opportunity that was given to him making him less likely to get into a college. To those that say the test score will decide how successful they will be in life they can be correct.