Man, I love listening to Mr. Gladwell at these talks!! This one is aged a bit, but still holds a ton of relevancy. So glad I am able to find these on TH-cam!
This is the best Interview I saw in a long time. The interviewer is poking and actually asking questions. Questions Gladwell is uncomfortable with. That leads to the most interesting answers Gladwell ever gave about his books. We need more provoking interviews like this one.
I feel like interviewers are so often worried about their own star power that they don't actually care about the work they're talking about. They haven't read the book or seen the film, etc, and it shows both to the audience and to the person they are interviewing.
It’s crazy this video was posted 13 years ago and the opening of the interview is talking about the Medicine Hat tigers and Vancouver giants as Canadian hockey teams. I just so happen to be playing hockey against both of those teams currently in my life.
What a pleasure! I felt like I was the third wheel at my kitchen table having a relaxing conversation. Only, I dare not speak for missing something Gladwell said. But it was better this way with the opportunity to rewind as many times as needed, "what'd he say?", ha, ha!
Great, thanks. Minor quibble "An extraordinary number of great hockey players are born in the first four months of the year" (Response to Q at 6.00) to mean 'An extraordinary number of (-) hockey players who are born in the first four months of the year (become) great hockey players' for the reasons given.
My birthday is October and I started school early. I had to test in to get in....I was soon put in remedial reading.....VERY INTERESTING!!! Then in regard to the village helping... It was when a teacher had Me tested that I was no longer in remedial reading. She saw beyond My title. I am an avid reader today....Of which Mr Gladwell is one of the authors....
Geniuses ARE rare; that's why we call them geniuses. Hard work and sacrifice is necessary, but generally not enough to be a genius. There are generally certain advantages one needs to have the opportunity to be a genius and the more you have the better, e.g., parents' educational level and wealth, birth year, birthplace, social networks, opportunities to practice, culture, lack of material mental/physical handicaps, etc. Gladwell's writing supports this notion.
I think you have it backwards, as if anyone can be a genius with hard work and the right circumstances. Those things expose the genius, and parents capitalize on it. Listen to Gladwell's other talks. He speaks about success as being influenced by poverty, stupidity (not what you think), and attitude.
Why are folks on the interviewer's case? I find him to be a non-factor. Gladwell does 90% of the talking and takes it in the direction he wants. Anyhow, it's very stimulating. Thanks for posting.
I think what some are neglecting to acknowledge, or just playing can't see, is that it takes an antagonist and a protagonist in any situation to make it interesting. Krulwich ,or whatever his name is, is simply playing the role. Great interview for a great book.
But there more to his genius: on the three or four occasions when Krulwich says something really hostile and stupid, Gladwell simple pauses for about half a second and then carries on as before. If it's phrased as a question, he doesn't answer it. If it's a totally bald and ignorant contradiction, he simply folds it in as an outside possibility and carries on. Just really nicely done!
I kind of feel similar about that. I get bored of things so easily. It's very rare for me to find something that I feel really stimulates my mind. And even then I get bored of it after a while.
The interviewer is Robert Krulwich. The people at 92nd Street Y would know who he is and the role he plays at RadioLab and WNYC. His "pompous" attitude is his character and is not to be taken seriously. You should definitely check out RadioLab. It is the absolute best science radio show around.
Amazing and fabulous discussion. I did not like the way the moderator spoke to Malcolm Gladwell, there was some deep rooted jealousy or other type of disdain he had for the phenominal writer. And in all of his GENIUS, Mr. Gladwell remained poised.
This is basically the entire book "Outliers" in one interview. If you want a summary of the book's highlights and main ideas, all you have to do is listen to this video.
Yep, I read most of Outliers as the result of a conversation with my dentist. (Go figure). What I think is helpful with Gladwell is that he stimulates questioning of assumptions. If he doesn’t stop to take some sort of political breath, he will have my undying respect.
for all of you talking about hip-hop videos that have more views than this video: (respectfully) you need a basic math lesson, this video is over 100 minutes long whereas the typical rap video clocks in at about 4 minutes, this means that in the time it takes to view this, we could watch a lil Wayne 25 times. 37,000 X 25 = 925,000. Now then, in order to really understand the depth/breadth of what these gentlemen are discussing, chances are you need to be at least 14 years old or older.
Recently released book Everyone is an Einstein; and There is an Einstein in Everyone: The Constitution of Genius by author Benjamin Michael. A very compelling read!
He's a fascinating man. My only disagreement with him is on his comment about reading. Yes, reading as a skill doesn't get better an better over time, but a child who has read at 2 1/2 years old vs. a child that read at 4 has decoded more things on his/her own thereby learning more and have had more processed 1 1/2 years more of information. I guess by his definition of the 10,000 hrs. achieved, that child is ahead.
Sociologist, Malcolm Gladwell, is very funny. He makes good points regarding success. Mentioning affirmative action to murk-up the clear pool for an example is true to the core.
Gladwell makes the same point as Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' (and the same point as Michael Lewis in Moneyball). That there remains a deep, and deeply flawed, human bias to see momentum before value when it comes to other human beings. If semi-strong efficient market hypothesis is actually true and markets move to find the best value for the best price, opportunities abound to arbitrage superior ability separated from its (false) narrative of momentum.
i'd venture to say that it's not laziness, but rather fear of being unsung despite all the sacrifice that hinders people from attempting genius. once anyone discovers his or her passion/s then such fear becomes irrelevant and the magic begins to happen, because the intrinsic reward suffices enough to keep going. then, we conjure up the magic of endurance despite all obstacles, then does the magic of hard work and sacrifice become available. Consider yourself extremely lucky if u have that.
critics of his have said he re-states the obvious in an interesting way, i.e. Blink and Tippin Point. His appeal to me has always been that there are practical applications for his statistics. perhaps why his books can be found in the business section .. When i read blink i was turning pages madly until it was over and then while relaying what i had learned to my dad her said "WELL, DUH!" The way to appreciate Gladwell is to enjoy his uncovering of the paradoxes right under our noses
Name anyone who was a genius or who attained genius status without hardwork... One can only be a genius with an enormous amount of passion and passion leads to hard work and while they are working hard dedicating massive amounts of time to their goals they are sacraficing social events, free time, leisure time, etc etc etc
There were countless other Liverpool bands who performed long arduous hours in Hamburg. Yet, the Big Three, Gerry and the Pacemakers, King Size taylor and the Dominoes etc didn't end up producing Revolver or Sgt Pepper. The Stones, Kinks, Who etc had a fraction of the Beatles "rehearsal" time yet could rival them. The seed has to fall on fertile ground.
Success requires both talent and hard work. You can love something but still be bad at it however much time you put into it. It will definitely take an untalented person much longer to master the skill compared to a talented person, and sometimes as hard as they try they cannot break through to become a genius. On the other hand geniuses are good at the skill without much trying. But to be successful (well known) you need both hard work and talent, not just talent on its own. Also, humans tend to enjoy the things they're good at because they find it easy to master and get positive feedback from others. It works the other way around as well, people tend to avoid things that they find difficult or that they do not understand.
I imagine you're not the only one. In a way, if a lot of passion is needed to be extraordinary, then that is just another form of luck because who decides what anyone is passionate about and whether that passion is a lucrative or important field. Some people are passionate about shopping or watching TV, but it's tough to see how that translates to success, unless they can take that passion and put it toward a career that is related.
status, that's it in a nutshell.. being a genius doesn't inevitably give you status. i'd say that most people would be more inclined to believe they can become geniuses if they get to enjoy the special status of being considered a genius. but being a genius doesn't inevitably entail recognition. people who are intrinsically motivated, that don't care about the rewards or being a genius but are instead obsessed w/ the work itself are the ones who inevitably become geniuses.
wayne gretzky ... greatest hockey player in history ... born in january. mark messier also born in january. mario lemieux born in october. he's got some correlations, but an aspiring hockey player born in the last third or quarter of the year shouldn't just 'give up'.
Wayne Gretzky Ice hockey player Wayne Douglas Gretzky, CC is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player and former head coach. He played 20 seasons in the National Hockey League for four teams from 1979 to 1999. Wikipedia Born: January 26, 1961 (age 52), Brantford, Canada To answer the question at the 1:20 point affirmatively.
You're missing the point. People from disadvantaged backgrounds DON'T have the same ability to put in 10,000 hours before that first job. Example: rich teenager doesn't have to work, spends all free time on schoolwork and developing skills. Poor teenager, on the other hand, starts working at 14 years old in the service sector, working full time through most of high school with little time for anything else in order to help pay the family's bills. There is clearly a difference of opportunity.
if it was fear of being unsung then that would imply that people realize that genius is attainable. However they don't everyone believes its a magical unreachable status.
I would argue that in addition to a love of something, physicality also has something to do with it. Someone may love horse racing, really love it, and want to be a jockey, but if they are taller and stockier there is no way they could realize their dreams. Just like a professional ballet dancer, which I was, the physicality is so important. Children are weeded out between the ages of 6-10 based on their physicality. There is a list of physical traits that teachers look for in potential elite ballet dancers, and not that many possess those traits (for example: long neck, small head, long torso, long legs, highly arched feet, a proper proportionality of length of upper legs and lower legs, long arms, “proper-sized” hands, etc.). My problem with this when I became a master ballet teacher, is that someone can have these traits but no joy for ballet. No deep-seeded love for the technique/art form. To me that love & joy is at least half of what creates an extraordinary elite ballet dancer (female or male). It is a fascinating conversation.
Or a 6 and half -foot Basket ball player. There are physical traits that are required for some sports. In addition, many gymnastics players happen to find a couch early on in their career often in their local gym.
This was a wonderful forum. And gladwell is funny and extremely intelligent to say the least. Now, why was he not afforded a handshake from the interviewer, instead he went for his phone. so crass..........................really
Question- Who is Chris Langan? Who is Robert Oppenheimer? What role did they play in their respective lives? (comments on this are preferred BEFORE 3/9/2017 12:00(in the afternoon)
As much as Gladwell emphasizes the importance of practice, opportunity, and support, he also acknowledges the importance of talent. Genius is not "attainable" though hard work and practice. Yes, mastery of a sport, art, or musical instrument takes 10,000 hours of "purposeful practice," and people like Bobby Fischer may need only 9,000, but you are not going to make an Einstein or Oppenheimer out of any high school physics student with a spark of interest and ability.
Also, as Gladwell pointed out, most people don't have 10,000 hours of quality practice time - it's not just 'cuz they're lazy, it's that they were born into circumstances that if they were to attempt genius, they are at least forced to not only be late-bloomers but also sacrifice EVERYTHING to achieve that and might not be as lucky as Van Gogh (a posthumous success). Think about it. Think about what Gladwell was trying to explain when he wrote Outliers, seems like you kinda missed the point.
i would like to respond to the question of 10000 hour rule to film directors.. I think there is also the hours spent in mental imagination.. and this can start as young child thinking about stories and visual things. Going to see films. I have heard of some great film makers that would spend several hours re watching films..
How about when you read a novel or short story and consciously visualize how it could be staged or filmed and write dialog and move the camera for affect. I bet that happens, as well and a lot.
One thing to quibble with here - he should've been more explicit in who he was talking about during the discussion about WASPy lawfirms. He mentions Sullivan & Cromwell - but Sullivan & Cromwell WAS one of THE leading mergers and acquisitions lawfirms of the 1970s-1980s and had some of the top lawyers in that field. Bad example for him to use..
this guys theory on hockey players is wrong, sidney crosby born in august alexander ovechkin borin in september Pavel Datsyuk born in july Sedin twins born in september so that theory is not correct he only has a 1/4 chance of being right
The start of this reminds me of the story about the toddler girl who picked up a stethoscope in the back of a car and put the two ear pieces in her ears... And the mother was thinking "ooh, this is great! It looks like we've got another budding doctor in the family!". Then the girl put the tube to her mouth and said "welcome to mcdonalds... take order please"
1.16.30 - I have no love for the asian culture too. Was born in it and only grew my brains when I saw how much bullshit there was. "You must listen to your elders! Don't talk back! I'm your mother/father/older uncle/older sister! I'm wiser than you! So you must listen to my advice and change, because I'm saying this for your own good!" Then when I saw that they had feet of clay too, I tried telling them that they weren't perfect too. They laughed in my face. What did I know? Bullshit.
I think people think genius is a rare magical thing because they dont want to acknowledge that genius is attainable though hard work and sacrifice. They would rather settle for mediocrity rather than admit their laziness.
very interesting and very funny. already read blink aaannnddd i'm waiting for outliers to get to my neighborhood library.... let the waiting begin lol Since these are easy reads (easier than shakespeare), maybe i should borrow the tipping point as well....
I understand that this is partially a promotion for Malcolm’s book, but the interviewer here is just asking Malcolm to reexplain all the stories. Unfortunate.
They ended it terribly, as well. Malcom had just delivered a poignant point as the crux of a serious discussion, and the interviewer basically shuts the whole thing down with a single joke line, without even giving Gladwell a chance to make a closing farewell remark, leaving him to just stumble around the stage in darkness for a bit, before he unceremoniously just walks off.
SKIP TO 3:40 It was as if the compere woman at the beginning were talking to a room of aliens, or perhaps it was an alien talking to a room full of people!
The example of Shakespeare as a lone genius who couldn't be replaced by a few other less gifted writers, working hard, is misguided. In fact, that's exactly a theory expounded on another 92nd st Y show!
In another later speech (ted?) he claims no special advantage of class size, in fact he offers a quite different explanation that this disadvantage may actually be an advantage as you learn to survive better. As a teacher and as a person who experienced both I do not share this view, just as he doesn’t in this interview. Jus’ sayin’!
...but i suppose you're right if we don't equate genius as necessarily involving extrinsic rewards. people would rather not be geniuses because they don't see the point, they don't see how all that sacrifice can ever make them happy, so if you want to call that laziness that's fine. However, it seems that sort of misanthropic attitude is arbitrary.
Continued: For example if I need the best engineer for a project I am not hiring based on what someone MIGHT can do 10 years and an additional 10,000hrs from when I hire them. I want the guy who already has close to 10,000hrs. Giving the position to a guy who only has 3,000hrs just to fill a quota gives me a less capable individual, worse output, and a potential diminished return to society.
ActiveAero yeah but you can pay him much less... The 10,000 hour guy will want top dollar and might be a construction/contractor snob with a big fancy truck...(fancy as my accountants Mercedes). Both are spoiled yuppies. I'd rather give a competent 3,000+ hour worker the job.. He's hungry for the work and will go above and beyond to do a perfect job been though it might take twice as long to do..
I am sure Malcolm Gladwell writes amusing books. And it is clear he has fans all over. But, I do not get all his preaching. What is his point? Does he even have a political philosophy? He talks on, and on, and yet he says very little.
Dude, that's Robert Fucking Krulwich. I won't even begin to explain who he is, and his immeasurable influence to journalism. You need to listen to Radiolab. Look it up. Also, I'd say that your perception of Gladwell's godlike intellectual prowess is testament to Krulwich's skill as an effective journalist. So many others would have had the impulse to compete with Gladwell during an interview.
child prodigies are primed, circumstances allow them to grow,, if you have mean ignorant parents, then chances are you're at the back of the class, if you have encouraging thoughtful parents then you're more likely to be a child prodigy, simple
Oppenheimer being able to talk his way out of that problem may be just a proof of his high verbal intelligence. To talk about the impact of class privilege in twentieth-century USA, as if it were eighteenth-century England, is retrograde. To say the least.
I would assume that professor was intimidated by his intellect. I mean you really can’t tell a person like that anything because they know what you know and then they know more. I mean they can challenge you on every level except for life experience.
No. He's challenging Gladwell on his understanding of genius, and what part that plays in the success of people like Mozart, Gretzky, and people in the sciences.
Hi Susan, I read your comment before watching this video, and kept it in mind when I did watch it. I see your point. I was annoyed that Robert constantly interrupted Gladwell, and would ask a question, but not let him answer! However, I am concluding that Robert's behavior is more about believing himself more important than he is. For fun, watch the body language. Robert has some behaviors of a narcissist. Gladwell's body language is expressive and relaxed and jokes around a bit.
All very appealing intellectually. Let’s not give any “advantages” to smart kids. My wife and I and most of my friends were always in the smartest classes in public school. We should have been distributed into the classes of idiots who shoot spitballs? Hockey would seem to merit addressing. Tax policy also.
I agree that this interview is terrible. Krulwich comes across very badly. Also the way he is setting up the parts of the interview by feigning ignorance at the content of the book (which he obviously read in order to set them up), seems really cheesy to me. And the cellphone ringing - are you serious? Give me a break. Amateur hour. Malcolm was very gracious in dealing with him.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
Man, I love listening to Mr. Gladwell at these talks!! This one is aged a bit, but still holds a ton of relevancy. So glad I am able to find these on TH-cam!
This is the best Interview I saw in a long time. The interviewer is poking and actually asking questions. Questions Gladwell is uncomfortable with. That leads to the most interesting answers Gladwell ever gave about his books.
We need more provoking interviews like this one.
I feel like interviewers are so often worried about their own star power that they don't actually care about the work they're talking about. They haven't read the book or seen the film, etc, and it shows both to the audience and to the person they are interviewing.
It’s crazy this video was posted 13 years ago and the opening of the interview is talking about the Medicine Hat tigers and Vancouver giants as Canadian hockey teams. I just so happen to be playing hockey against both of those teams currently in my life.
What a pleasure! I felt like I was the third wheel at my kitchen table having a relaxing conversation. Only, I dare not speak for missing something Gladwell said. But it was better this way with the opportunity to rewind as many times as needed, "what'd he say?", ha, ha!
This is a great discussion with Gladwell Always a joy to listen to him. Here, he is on top form.
Great, thanks.
Minor quibble "An extraordinary number of great hockey players are born in the first four months of the year" (Response to Q at 6.00) to mean 'An extraordinary number of (-) hockey players who are born in the first four months of the year (become) great hockey players' for the reasons given.
My birthday is October and I started school early. I had to test in to get in....I was soon put in remedial reading.....VERY INTERESTING!!! Then in regard to the village helping... It was when a teacher had Me tested that I was no longer in remedial reading. She saw beyond My title. I am an avid reader today....Of which Mr Gladwell is one of the authors....
What an interesting man, that Gladwell.
My hero for 2009.
Geniuses ARE rare; that's why we call them geniuses. Hard work and sacrifice is necessary, but generally not enough to be a genius. There are generally certain advantages one needs to have the opportunity to be a genius and the more you have the better, e.g., parents' educational level and wealth, birth year, birthplace, social networks, opportunities to practice, culture, lack of material mental/physical handicaps, etc. Gladwell's writing supports this notion.
I think you have it backwards, as if anyone can be a genius with hard work and the right circumstances. Those things expose the genius, and parents capitalize on it. Listen to Gladwell's other talks. He speaks about success as being influenced by poverty, stupidity (not what you think), and attitude.
Why are folks on the interviewer's case? I find him to be a non-factor. Gladwell does 90% of the talking and takes it in the direction he wants. Anyhow, it's very stimulating. Thanks for posting.
I agree.
Very stimulating. Thanks for posting. BTW, I don't find the interviewer to be much of a factor so the complaints about him are lost on me.
I think what some are neglecting to acknowledge, or just playing can't see, is that it takes an antagonist and a protagonist in any situation to make it interesting. Krulwich ,or whatever his name is, is simply playing the role. Great interview for a great book.
Fabulous and wide ranging discussion ... best for the last when Gladwell talks about Chris Langan ...
Gladwell is a great writer, but I also love to listen to him.
this guy is an intellectual rock star.
But there more to his genius: on the three or four occasions when Krulwich says something really hostile and stupid, Gladwell simple pauses for about half a second and then carries on as before. If it's phrased as a question, he doesn't answer it. If it's a totally bald and ignorant contradiction, he simply folds it in as an outside possibility and carries on.
Just really nicely done!
Best quote: 44:20 "Love isn't the whole explanation, but love is the way in."
I kind of feel similar about that. I get bored of things so easily. It's very rare for me to find something that I feel really stimulates my mind. And even then I get bored of it after a while.
This is the best interview! I love coming back to watch this video. So interesting and entertaining.
I love this video, I've watched it too many times to count, please leave it up for ever!
You still watching it or you got sick of it already?
The interviewer is Robert Krulwich. The people at 92nd Street Y would know who he is and the role he plays at RadioLab and WNYC. His "pompous" attitude is his character and is not to be taken seriously. You should definitely check out RadioLab. It is the absolute best science radio show around.
Thanks a lot for sharing this. Robert is a very engaging interviewer.
Amazing and fabulous discussion. I did not like the way the moderator spoke to Malcolm Gladwell, there was some deep rooted jealousy or other type of disdain he had for the phenominal writer. And in all of his GENIUS, Mr. Gladwell remained poised.
This is basically the entire book "Outliers" in one interview. If you want a summary of the book's highlights and main ideas, all you have to do is listen to this video.
Yep, I read most of Outliers as the result of a conversation with my dentist. (Go figure). What I think is helpful with Gladwell is that he stimulates questioning of assumptions. If he doesn’t stop to take some sort of political breath, he will have my undying respect.
for all of you talking about hip-hop videos that have more views than this video: (respectfully) you need a basic math lesson, this video is over 100 minutes long whereas the typical rap video clocks in at about 4 minutes, this means that in the time it takes to view this, we could watch a lil Wayne 25 times. 37,000 X 25 = 925,000. Now then, in order to really understand the depth/breadth of what these gentlemen are discussing, chances are you need to be at least 14 years old or older.
Great discussion, thanks.
Recently released book Everyone is an Einstein; and There is an Einstein in
Everyone: The Constitution of Genius by author Benjamin Michael. A very
compelling read!
I just like the way he thinks and articulates his ideas. He is so right!
He's a fascinating man. My only disagreement with him is on his comment about reading. Yes, reading as a skill doesn't get better an better over time, but a child who has read at 2 1/2 years old vs. a child that read at 4 has decoded more things on his/her own thereby learning more and have had more processed 1 1/2 years more of information. I guess by his definition of the 10,000 hrs. achieved, that child is ahead.
Sociologist, Malcolm Gladwell, is very funny. He makes good points regarding success. Mentioning affirmative action to murk-up the clear pool for an example is true to the core.
Lovely stuff.
Gladwell makes the same point as Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' (and the same point as Michael Lewis in Moneyball). That there remains a deep, and deeply flawed, human bias to see momentum before value when it comes to other human beings. If semi-strong efficient market hypothesis is actually true and markets move to find the best value for the best price, opportunities abound to arbitrage superior ability separated from its (false) narrative of momentum.
i'd venture to say that it's not laziness, but rather fear of being unsung despite all the sacrifice that hinders people from attempting genius. once anyone discovers his or her passion/s then such fear becomes irrelevant and the magic begins to happen, because the intrinsic reward suffices enough to keep going. then, we conjure up the magic of endurance despite all obstacles, then does the magic of hard work and sacrifice become available. Consider yourself extremely lucky if u have that.
They couldn't get a microphone or two for the Q&A?
critics of his have said he re-states the obvious in an interesting way, i.e. Blink and Tippin Point. His appeal to me has always been that there are practical applications for his statistics. perhaps why his books can be found in the business section .. When i read blink i was turning pages madly until it was over and then while relaying what i had learned to my dad her said "WELL, DUH!"
The way to appreciate Gladwell is to enjoy his uncovering of the paradoxes right under our noses
extremely interesting, Malcolm, do you read these comments? Saying "right?" is annoying.
Name anyone who was a genius or who attained genius status without hardwork... One can only be a genius with an enormous amount of passion and passion leads to hard work and while they are working hard dedicating massive amounts of time to their goals they are sacraficing social events, free time, leisure time, etc etc etc
not true
There were countless other Liverpool bands who performed long arduous hours in Hamburg. Yet, the Big Three, Gerry and the Pacemakers, King Size taylor and the Dominoes etc didn't end up producing Revolver or Sgt Pepper. The Stones, Kinks, Who etc had a fraction of the Beatles "rehearsal" time yet could rival them. The seed has to fall on fertile ground.
Success requires both talent and hard work. You can love something but still be bad at it however much time you put into it. It will definitely take an untalented person much longer to master the skill compared to a talented person, and sometimes as hard as they try they cannot break through to become a genius. On the other hand geniuses are good at the skill without much trying. But to be successful (well known) you need both hard work and talent, not just talent on its own.
Also, humans tend to enjoy the things they're good at because they find it easy to master and get positive feedback from others. It works the other way around as well, people tend to avoid things that they find difficult or that they do not understand.
I imagine you're not the only one. In a way, if a lot of passion is needed to be extraordinary, then that is just another form of luck because who decides what anyone is passionate about and whether that passion is a lucrative or important field. Some people are passionate about shopping or watching TV, but it's tough to see how that translates to success, unless they can take that passion and put it toward a career that is related.
This looks like it was recorded in the 90s. o.O
"Oppenheimer, tries to KILL HIS TUTOR..." I love that line. The same line is in the book (Outliers) in italics. Always makes me laugh.
status, that's it in a nutshell.. being a genius doesn't inevitably give you status. i'd say that most people would be more inclined to believe they can become geniuses if they get to enjoy the special status of being considered a genius. but being a genius doesn't inevitably entail recognition. people who are intrinsically motivated, that don't care about the rewards or being a genius but are instead obsessed w/ the work itself are the ones who inevitably become geniuses.
yes but sometimes you can make your own luck and contacts. social skills and charisma are also big factors imo
He is amazing
wayne gretzky ... greatest hockey player in history ... born in january. mark messier also born in january. mario lemieux born in october. he's got some correlations, but an aspiring hockey player born in the last third or quarter of the year shouldn't just 'give up'.
Wayne Gretzky
Ice hockey player
Wayne Douglas Gretzky, CC is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player and former head coach. He played 20 seasons in the National Hockey League for four teams from 1979 to 1999. Wikipedia
Born: January 26, 1961 (age 52), Brantford, Canada
To answer the question at the 1:20 point affirmatively.
+Rob Myers so he's a January 26th
so true.give those students a solid foundation in learning
You're missing the point. People from disadvantaged backgrounds DON'T have the same ability to put in 10,000 hours before that first job. Example: rich teenager doesn't have to work, spends all free time on schoolwork and developing skills. Poor teenager, on the other hand, starts working at 14 years old in the service sector, working full time through most of high school with little time for anything else in order to help pay the family's bills. There is clearly a difference of opportunity.
if it was fear of being unsung then that would imply that people realize that genius is attainable. However they don't everyone believes its a magical unreachable status.
Well, yes. That is to say, this child is ahead as long as they continue to read at or above the rate that they are reading when they began @ 2 1/2.
I would argue that in addition to a love of something, physicality also has something to do with it. Someone may love horse racing, really love it, and want to be a jockey, but if they are taller and stockier there is no way they could realize their dreams. Just like a professional ballet dancer, which I was, the physicality is so important. Children are weeded out between the ages of 6-10 based on their physicality. There is a list of physical traits that teachers look for in potential elite ballet dancers, and not that many possess those traits (for example: long neck, small head, long torso, long legs, highly arched feet, a proper proportionality of length of upper legs and lower legs, long arms, “proper-sized” hands, etc.). My problem with this when I became a master ballet teacher, is that someone can have these traits but no joy for ballet. No deep-seeded love for the technique/art form. To me that love & joy is at least half of what creates an extraordinary elite ballet dancer (female or male). It is a fascinating conversation.
Or a 6 and half -foot Basket ball player. There are physical traits that are required for some sports. In addition, many gymnastics players happen to find a couch early on in their career often in their local gym.
This was a wonderful forum. And gladwell is funny and extremely intelligent to say the least. Now, why was he not afforded a handshake from the interviewer, instead he went for his phone. so crass..........................really
Question- Who is Chris Langan? Who is Robert Oppenheimer? What role did they play in their respective lives? (comments on this are preferred BEFORE 3/9/2017 12:00(in the afternoon)
As much as Gladwell emphasizes the importance of practice, opportunity, and support, he also acknowledges the importance of talent. Genius is not "attainable" though hard work and practice. Yes, mastery of a sport, art, or musical instrument takes 10,000 hours of "purposeful practice," and people like Bobby Fischer may need only 9,000, but you are not going to make an Einstein or Oppenheimer out of any high school physics student with a spark of interest and ability.
Great thinker !
Also, as Gladwell pointed out, most people don't have 10,000 hours of quality practice time - it's not just 'cuz they're lazy, it's that they were born into circumstances that if they were to attempt genius, they are at least forced to not only be late-bloomers but also sacrifice EVERYTHING to achieve that and might not be as lucky as Van Gogh (a posthumous success). Think about it. Think about what Gladwell was trying to explain when he wrote Outliers, seems like you kinda missed the point.
i would like to respond to the question of 10000 hour rule to film directors.. I think there is also the hours spent in mental imagination.. and this can start as young child thinking about stories and visual things. Going to see films. I have heard of some great film makers that would spend several hours re watching films..
How about when you read a novel or short story and consciously visualize how it could be staged or filmed and write dialog and move the camera for affect. I bet that happens, as well and a lot.
One thing to quibble with here - he should've been more explicit in who he was talking about during the discussion about WASPy lawfirms. He mentions Sullivan & Cromwell - but Sullivan & Cromwell WAS one of THE leading mergers and acquisitions lawfirms of the 1970s-1980s and had some of the top lawyers in that field. Bad example for him to use..
Your sample size is not large enough. In his book, Gladwell uses quite a large sample.
Thank you so much. I found you. Light up my mind of so many things not knowing of god bless you sir.
I am not saying everyone can be a genius. I am just saying that it would be more common if everyone wasnt so lazy.
I agree with what youre saying.
this guys theory on hockey players is wrong,
sidney crosby born in august
alexander ovechkin borin in september
Pavel Datsyuk born in july
Sedin twins born in september
so that theory is not correct he only has a 1/4 chance of being right
@criminalistic And a compelling speaker.
The start of this reminds me of the story about the toddler girl who picked up a stethoscope in the back of a car and put the two ear pieces in her ears... And the mother was thinking "ooh, this is great! It looks like we've got another budding doctor in the family!". Then the girl put the tube to her mouth and said "welcome to mcdonalds... take order please"
1.16.30 - I have no love for the asian culture too. Was born in it and only grew my brains when I saw how much bullshit there was.
"You must listen to your elders! Don't talk back! I'm your mother/father/older uncle/older sister! I'm wiser than you! So you must listen to my advice and change, because I'm saying this for your own good!"
Then when I saw that they had feet of clay too, I tried telling them that they weren't perfect too. They laughed in my face. What did I know?
Bullshit.
It's in most cultures
I think people think genius is a rare magical thing because they dont want to acknowledge that genius is attainable though hard work and sacrifice. They would rather settle for mediocrity rather than admit their laziness.
Some people don't have anything left to sacrifice.
very interesting and very funny. already read blink aaannnddd i'm waiting for outliers to get to my neighborhood library.... let the waiting begin lol Since these are easy reads (easier than shakespeare), maybe i should borrow the tipping point as well....
“Love deniers” will never understand...
I understand that this is partially a promotion for Malcolm’s book, but the interviewer here is just asking Malcolm to reexplain all the stories. Unfortunate.
Tons of good conversation in this interview.
They ended it terribly, as well. Malcom had just delivered a poignant point as the crux of a serious discussion, and the interviewer basically shuts the whole thing down with a single joke line, without even giving Gladwell a chance to make a closing farewell remark, leaving him to just stumble around the stage in darkness for a bit, before he unceremoniously just walks off.
Matt Schwartz great observation.. Funny how the m.c. Can make or break a performance/lecture by not being deliberate about the conclusion.
SKIP TO 3:40
It was as if the compere woman at the beginning were talking to a room of aliens, or perhaps it was an alien talking to a room full of people!
i have the same hair as this guy and i play with it just like that
I don't believe that even a Genius can make use of their full talents, if they grew up poor and/or abused and mentally disturbed.
Did you see the movie a Beautiful Mind?
The example of Shakespeare as a lone genius who couldn't be replaced by a few other less gifted writers, working hard, is misguided. In fact, that's exactly a theory expounded on another 92nd st Y show!
In another later speech (ted?) he claims no special advantage of class size, in fact he offers a quite different explanation that this disadvantage may actually be an advantage as you learn to survive better. As a teacher and as a person who experienced both I do not share this view, just as he doesn’t in this interview. Jus’ sayin’!
...but i suppose you're right if we don't equate genius as necessarily involving extrinsic rewards. people would rather not be geniuses because they don't see the point, they don't see how all that sacrifice can ever make them happy, so if you want to call that laziness that's fine. However, it seems that sort of misanthropic attitude is arbitrary.
This interview cleared a lot of FEARS that reading Outliers created in me.
Continued: For example if I need the best engineer for a project I am not hiring based on what someone MIGHT can do 10 years and an additional 10,000hrs from when I hire them. I want the guy who already has close to 10,000hrs. Giving the position to a guy who only has 3,000hrs just to fill a quota gives me a less capable individual, worse output, and a potential diminished return to society.
ActiveAero yeah but you can pay him much less... The 10,000 hour guy will want top dollar and might be a construction/contractor snob with a big fancy truck...(fancy as my accountants Mercedes). Both are spoiled yuppies. I'd rather give a competent 3,000+ hour worker the job.. He's hungry for the work and will go above and beyond to do a perfect job been though it might take twice as long to do..
There's a reason Malcolm picked the Beatles and not Bob Dylan for his example
+MarcBrewer which is?
_And that would be...._
I am sure Malcolm Gladwell writes amusing books. And it is clear he has fans all over. But, I do not get all his preaching. What is his point? Does he even have a political philosophy? He talks on, and on, and yet he says very little.
dude that's Robert Krulwich!
Dude, that's Robert Fucking Krulwich. I won't even begin to explain who he is, and his immeasurable influence to journalism. You need to listen to Radiolab. Look it up. Also, I'd say that your perception of Gladwell's godlike intellectual prowess is testament to Krulwich's skill as an effective journalist. So many others would have had the impulse to compete with Gladwell during an interview.
yup i got nothing to argue with there.
January 26,1961
@alique087 If yu're refering to Malcolm Gladwell, why?
And this matters why??
child prodigies are primed, circumstances allow them to grow,, if you have mean ignorant parents, then chances are you're at the back of the class, if you have encouraging thoughtful parents then you're more likely to be a child prodigy, simple
@lynleyinlondon Its called a conversation, though I doubt you would know about that.
Oppenheimer being able to talk his way out of that problem may be just a proof of his high verbal intelligence. To talk about the impact of class privilege in twentieth-century USA, as if it were eighteenth-century England, is retrograde. To say the least.
I would assume that professor was intimidated by his intellect. I mean you really can’t tell a person like that anything because they know what you know and then they know more. I mean they can challenge you on every level except for life experience.
This interviewer doesn't respect Gladwell at all.
He is one of the best interviewers as he is not letting the so-called respect ask questions to really dig the issue as elaboratively as possible.
No. He's challenging Gladwell on his understanding of genius, and what part that plays in the success of people like Mozart, Gretzky, and people in the sciences.
Hi Susan, I read your comment before watching this video, and kept it in mind when I did watch it. I see your point. I was annoyed that Robert constantly interrupted Gladwell, and would ask a question, but not let him answer! However, I am concluding that Robert's behavior is more about believing himself more important than he is. For fun, watch the body language. Robert has some behaviors of a narcissist. Gladwell's body language is expressive and relaxed and jokes around a bit.
what? no! did you read his conclusion?
All very appealing intellectually. Let’s not give any “advantages” to smart kids. My wife and I and most of my friends were always in the smartest classes in public school. We should have been distributed into the classes of idiots who shoot spitballs? Hockey would seem to merit addressing. Tax policy also.
@liquidcashcow Says alot about our culture.
28.31-28.35 Marcus Aurelius?
I've seen his book Blink but I didn't blink twice... ok, not good. Actually, i batted my lashes 10,0000 times (yesterday?) so I guess I'm good now.
@angela1894 He thinks natural ability matters up to a point because of the intelligence threshold
I agree that this interview is terrible. Krulwich comes across very badly. Also the way he is setting up the parts of the interview by feigning ignorance at the content of the book (which he obviously read in order to set them up), seems really cheesy to me. And the cellphone ringing - are you serious? Give me a break. Amateur hour. Malcolm was very gracious in dealing with him.