"Gladwell’s hit upon a politically charged topic and reached conclusions that are discomfiting to the very successful"

Matt Yglesias on Malcolm Gladwell and the reception in the media to his new book:

"I’ve really been taken aback by a lot of the hostile response to Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers that I’ve read. This isn’t a book without flaws. But the flaws in the book are flaws that have long been present in Gladwell’s writing. And at the same time, Gladwell has long been one of America’s most successful and celebrated non-fiction writers. And that’s because the flaws in his work are, frankly, pretty darn forgivable. Nothing he writes is up to the standard of a peer reviewed scientific journal, and everything he writes is about a million times more readable than anything you’d find in a journal. Yes, some of the stuff in Outliers (in particular, the bit about airplane crashes) doesn’t really seem relevant to the main point, but that’s true of The Tipping Point and Blink as well and folks didn’t seem to mind too much. Nor should they mind too much — the bit about plane crashes is fascinating."

I tend to enjoy this kind of writing of non-fiction, but I also often end up just thumbing through the book instead of reading it carefully all the way through. One problem I often find now, and Gladwell's previous books fit into this category, is that, once I've gotten what I believe is the main argument, I start to lose interest in the book, even if well written. I will probably take it out from the library at some point, and thumb through it or maybe even read it all way through, but I'm in no hurry. I will probably have read a number of reviews of it by then, so I'll be somewhat prepared, depending on the quality of the reviewers of course, for what the main argument of the book will be.

"At the end of the day, it’s hard for me not to reach the conclusion that the backlash is, not coincidentally, coming just as Gladwell’s hit upon a politically charged topic and reached conclusions that are discomfiting to the very successful. I’ve seen a few people express the notion that Gladwell’s conclusion — that success is determined largely by luck rather than one’s powers of awesomeness — is somehow too banal to waste one’s time with. I think those people need to open their eyes and pay a bit more attention to the society we’re living in. It’s a society that not only seems to believe that the successful are entitled to unlimited monetary rewards for their trouble, but massive and wide-ranging deference."

Well, Gladwell's book is going to be like Taleb's for me. If what Yglesias says is true, I can already say that I agree with the main thesis and will probably feel slightly stronger about it than he does. I don't immediately see the political point that Yglesias is making. One can make such an argument, that the wealthier are more deserving than lucky, and so they should be left to their riches. Nozick makes such an argument, but it's in the context of setting up a system that works for other reasons than simply wealth, as I remember. But Hayek pointed out that the value that wages determined doesn't necessarily equate with what jobs or careers we most value in a sense not determined by supply and demand, or the ability to tie the value to wages or profit. We can certainly value priests and teachers more than investors, based on our own personal morality.

"Beyond that, it’s a society in which the old-fashioned concept of noblesse oblige has largely gone out the window. The elite feel not only a sense of entitlement, but also a unique sense of arrogance that only an elite that firmly believes itself to be a meritocracy can muster. Gladwell not only shows that this is wrong, but he does an excellent job of showing why it feels right. He explains that success does, in fact, require hard work — lots of it — and that people who think they got where they are through effort rather than good fortune are at least half right. The issue is that in some ways the best luck of all is the luck to be in a position to do hard work at a time when it pays off. Bill Gates, Gladwell explains, put in vast hours programming computers at a very young age at a time when almost nobody in the United States even had the opportunity to put in that kind of time in front of a computer screen."

Hard work and talent are necessary, but not sufficient inputs into wealth in many cases. Yes.

"It’s a discomfiting thought. And an important one. So I hope people read Outliers. Or at least David Leonhardt’s review rather than Michiko Kakutani’s. And could someone tell me what the deal is with The New York Times reviewing some books twice?"

Well, one deal is that the reviews might differ, and so provoke debate among the paper's readers. I might follow this book more, but, again, since I tend to agree with it, I'm more likely to read something else first.