Are You Smarter Than Malcolm Gladwell?

I recently saw Malcolm Gladwell live at the National Arts Centre. We weren't sure what to expect, but when we took our seats you could see two chairs at centre stage. This immediately told me that it would be an interview.

The CEO for The United Way introduced us to Mr. Gladwell and Mark Sutcliffe, an Ottawa Citizen columnist who would be conducting the interview. The interview was fine, the show was fine. It was nothing mind blowing and really nothing new if you've read Mr. Gladwell's books or his articles in the New Yorker (I haven't, but the CBC radio guys love him so much I feel like I have). At the end of the interview, the CEO for The United Way said a few more words. I'm always surprised when CEOs, presidents, and other people of power in organizations cannot speak in public. This guy was horrible. My friend thinks it likely had to do with the fact that he was reading from notes prepared by someone else. I understand that, but still, it was really uncomfortable watching him and took the whole thing off the rails.

The major theme of the interview was a subject that had recently come up in various forms during discussions with some of my friends; innate talent or skill versus hard work. There are varying ways to frame this theme, like street smart versus book smart, left brain versus right brain, etc. The main point that Mr. Gladwell made was that you need two things to succeed and they have little to do with innate ability, skill, or talent. You need to work hard and you need an opportunity or luck.

Mr. Gladwell had numerous examples of this, such as:

• Tiger Woods has been golfing since he was 3 and had a dad who loved golf with him and supported him through a love of golf (hard work and opportunity);
  

• Dale Carnegie worked hard and was born in the best time of the world to get rich (1935) through the industrial revolution (hard work and luck); and


• Bill Gates worked hard and was born in the best time of the world to get rich in Silicon Valley (hard work and luck).

(A quick aside. Mr. Gladwell doesn't believe in self-made individuals. He thinks that everyone is shaped by their past and their ancestors. He used the extreme example of Jeb Bush. While campaigning in Florida, Jeb Bush positioned himself as the self-made man. The crowd laughed, the son of a former President of the United States is not a self-made man. But, Mr. Gladwell pointed out, the Floridians bought it.)

I agree to an extent with Mr. Gladwell. I've always thought that anyone with a certain degree of aptitude (see below) can learn to do anything they want with enough hard work, practice, study time, etc. I'm good at math, but I'm sure if I studied enough I could excel at physics, computer science, or psychology. I'm not very good at golf, but I'm sure if I practiced everyday that I could become a good golfer.

I think this extends into other areas as well, such as art and creativity. I'm not an artistic type, I'm a math guy (left brain vs. right brain) but I believe that if I studied an art (let's say I wanted to learn about painting) I could learn the history, the techniques, etc. and become a good artist.

For some, the reason they don't excel at school is the way they are taught. They may not be built to learn the same way as their classmates. Mr. Gladwell spoke of how we are all treated the same way in modern society, which seems intrinsically fair, but isn't. I am culturally different than you and may require different treatment, in particular in the way I learn.

This is best illustrated by comparing people that are street smart or book smart. You know the street smart type, they didn't get very good grades in school but they seem to be well versed in life skills. The street smart person can read body language well, is good at spotting scams, may be good at conning people or picking up girls/guys.

On the other end there's the book smart type. This person always had good grades, is good at math, sciences or some other difficult subject, but is naive and easily conned. He or she is not street smart.

Both street smart and book smart people are smart. Also, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The difference is the subject matter and perhaps how the knowledge was accumulated. A book smart person can gather the street smart person's knowledge, though it generally doesn't come from a book. The book smart person may have to learn how to gather that knowledge. The street smart person can learn math or physics, they just have to put the time and effort into the learning process or find the right way for them to soak up the information. Reading a book may not be the best method for them to learn.

Where I disagree with Mr. Gladwell is the importance of aptitude or ability. I think you need a certain degree of innate ability or talent to become exceptional. Using Mr. Gladwell's example of Tiger Woods, I'm sure if I golfed everyday since I was 3 that I'd be a much better golfer than I am today (I am not very good). But I don't know that I'd be as good as Tiger Woods.

There are people who are exceptionally built or wired for what they do that allows them to excel in certain endeavours. I remember reading an article about Michael Phelps during the Summer Olympics and a swim expert said something like "if you wanted to build the perfect human to be a swimmer, you'd build Michael Phelps".

While I don't necessarily disagree with Mr. Gladwell's view that hard work can help you succeed, I think he understated the value of aptitude. I think you need some skill to succeed. I previously posted about how the world is full of stupid people. I sort of believe that, but I think maybe the world is full of people that do stupid things. People are generally smarter than they give themselves credit for. If they only put in the effort, they could learn new things or get better at golf. However, there are people who are better equipped to do a certain thing than others. And there are stupid people. I don't think a stupid person can be taught integral calculus. Put simply, stupid people can't become smart with hard work.