> No, the books makes three points:
>
> 1. It takes a lot of work to succeed: the ten thousand hour rule.
>
> 2. Despite that work or talent, some don't succeed: wrong class,
> wrong birth date.
>
> 3. Success matters and let's not talk about what the content of
> the statement means. Everybody applauds at the end, that's enough.
I think it's important, when reading a book like Outliers, to not just finish it, form an opinion, and set it aside. Instead, I like to go read what other people have said about it. And not just one or two, but a good selection of reviews and analysis. Because it's possible that you missed the point of the book -- and I think you did.
In this case, I think it's easy to do, because it's such a muddled mess! Gladwell has some interesting things to say, but he does it in such a poor way that the first time I tried to read it I had to put it down. When I finally pressed through it, I came to more of the same conclusion that Andy did: circumstance can, in some cases, have more to do with the outcome than you'd think it does. And you're right, there's no analysis of what that Means.
However: the whole thing is lousy, because -- even starting with the title -- he's talking about statistically improbable events. He might as well muse on what factors go into getting hit by lightning. He takes the subject seriously, though, instead of saying: being as successful as Bill Gates is about as likely as getting hit by lightning two or three times in a week.
This would tend to up-end the status quo, rather than support it, because (as opposed to:)
> If you put those things together, you must conclude that success
> is important and it befalls the lucky few who work hard. Therefore
> anybody who has "made it" is lucky and has worked hard. The fact
> that Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire means that he has worked
> 100,000 harder than any one of us.
Given his subject -- statistically improbable events -- you'd have to conclude that there's *nothing* you can do to be successful like Bill Gates has been. That is: working as hard as he is purported to have worked doesn't have anything to do with the story.
The 10,000 Hour Rule is *some other subject* from a *totally different* context: it supports the idea that Gladwell himself is not an outlier ... and thus shouldn't be in the book (!). When he talks about the 10,000 Hour Rule, he's talking about something that produces "normal success" -- and not outliers! And specifically about being a good hockey player, getting the opportunity to spend 10,000 hours on it is pre-determined by your birthdate. There aren't very many pro-level hockey players born late in the year because they've all given up on it by the time they are 10: far earlier than the 10,000 Hour Rule would require.
What the 10,000 Hour Rule is doing in that book is one of the reasons that I can't take the book seriously at any level.
I agree with Michael Pollak: Gladwell should stick to short essays.
/jordan