I had been meaning to listen to Outliers for a while now because I really enjoyed Gladwell’s other books, Blink and Tipping Point. Gladwell has a gift for storytelling. He is one of the few non-fiction authors I know of who can create a feeling of suspense usually only experienced with fiction. (Jon Krakauer is another example.)

Gladwell’s books are largely about connecting patterns in human behavior (patterns we don’t always recognize) in an attempt to find correlations that expand our understanding of the world. He enjoys questioning the basic assumptions we make about ourselves and about others, and challenging us to see things differently. He doesn’t always present enough evidence to prove his hypotheses, but he lets the fieldwork of other psychologists and social scientists lead him closer to answering some of the more bewildering psychosocial questions of our day.

As I listened to Outliers, I found myself both fascinated and slightly offended. He is, after all, openly attacking the American idea of rugged individualism, the idea of a self-made man—the protagonist of the classic rags to riches story. Instead of an innate gift, he argues, extraordinary success is almost always the result of an equally extraordinary opportunity made available to the achiever.

Now, the achiever still must work hard and be prepared to seize upon the opportunity. Chance, as Louis Pasteur observed, does tend to favor the prepared mind. But, as Gladwell argues, extraordinary success can often be traced to a series of remarkable opportunities that resulted from somewhat random circumstances, like date and place of birth, parenting practices, family connections, socio-economic status, laws of the land, cultural norms and traditions, etc. The achievers are often unaware that the opportunities afforded to them could lead on to greatness. They seize upon a relatively small opportunity, such as the chance to practice playing music seven days a week for eight or more hours a day (as the Beatles did in Hamburg, Germany) and their hard work (literally thousands and thousands of hours of practice) pays off big.

That’s not to say choices, hard work, and innate talent don’t have prominent roles in success—Gladwell admits they do—but he wants us to see that external circumstances also play an important, if not equal, role. In other words, we are just as much products of our environment as we are our nature. As a result, the brightest among us sometimes fail through a lack of opportunity rather than lack of talent. If we can understand how our environments sometimes thwart the most talented (or potentially talented), maybe we can enable more people to reach greater levels of success. We do have more control over our environment than we do our nature.

He offers as an example the statistical fact that a large number of great Canadian hockey players (around 40 percent) have birthdays in January, February and March. This has to do with the January 1st cutoff date for joining an age-class league, when a child is at least 8 years old. Coaches will observe the 8- or 9-year-olds who join the league and will begin making coaching decisions for the more talented players, often giving them special training sessions and more practice opportunities.

A child who misses the January 1st cutoff date but who is born during the earlier months may gain as much as 10 to 11 extra months of practicing and growing before joining the age-class league. Naturally, the older players born January through March tend to stand out as better players. Hockey playing, of course, does not have that great of an impact on quality of life, but what about when such random factors influence a child’s educational opportunities?

Gladwell offers similar examples throughout the book and makes a fairly compelling case for what some people might call “luck.” Bill Gates, he points out, had access to a mainframe computer in 1963 at age 13—something most college professors didn’t have at that time. Of course, the young Bill Gates had to be talented and industrious enough to take advantage of the extraordinary opportunity.

Ironically, none of Gladwell’s findings negate the idea of the self-made man. Instead, they seem to reinforce it. There are two common elements underlying all the extraordinary success stories he cites:  hard work and an almost tireless drive to figure things out. In other words, successful people don’t give up.

Gladwell (and the social scientists he cites) observe that great success is almost always associated with a “10,000 hour rule”—that is, to be great at something almost always requires about 10,000 hours of practice. This level of practice typically takes 7-10 years to achieve. It’s having the opportunity (as well as focus and drive) to put in your 10,000 hours that provides the extra leverage that can later lead on to extraordinary success.

People who are extraordinarily successful often had an opportunity to begin putting in their 10,000 practice hours at an earlier age, so that by the time they reached their twenties, they were able to seize upon other opportunities that led to more and more opportunities to do what they were good at. Again, they had to be willing to put forth a huge amount of effort.

After listening to Outliers, I saw more clearly how the “victimhood” mentality is so damning in life. Instead of practicing an art, the victim wastes time blaming metaphysical factors (things they generally cannot change) such as the circumstances of their birth, their cultural baggage, their parents, unjust laws, etc.

Ultimately, to be great at something (or even just really good) you need an intense resolve to not give up, to keep practicing at an art and figuring things out. Eventually, hard work and dedication will pay off on some level. Sometimes we just have to create our own opportunities, or be better prepared and more open to them when they do show up.

Share/Bookmark

Then, when I started to see images on blogs of rallies starting at Tehran University, I thought it was just a few rebellious youth. But then I started to see streams of Twitters from people in Iran talking about the police coming for them, and in their communication there was a determination I did not expect. Then, to my horror, I started to see images of bullet-riddled dorm room doors, bloody fighting, fires, continuing police brutality–there were reports of police firing into crowds and at least one person confirmed dead.

I notice that many of the larger news outlets were not reporting the uprisings much until last night, but instead on Saturday many were leading with stories like crowds hold “celebrations for Ahmadinejad.”

But then social media outlets dominated and broke through. I think the government in Iran cracked down on the Internet, but people were still able to Twitter using mobile phones. It’s almost as if the youth (those under 25, who are reportedly 70% of Iran’s population) have seized on a rare opportunity to let the world know what is really happening in their country. I fear they only have a few days left before the remaining foreign reporters are expelled or quieted. The foreign reporters who were allowed in to cover the “election” will be sent home now. I fear the government will become more violent at that point, and I hope the international community will not forget what it happening there and what has happened to the people.

No matter the outcome, I think it is too late for the Iranian government to escape without injury. The current regime has lost any remaining respect they had, and I believe the days of dictatorship in Iran are numbered. The people want to be free, and this is clear.

I just read on Bloomberg.com that “[H]undreds of thousands of people demonstrated today in downtown Tehran at a rally led by Ahmadinejad’s defeated opponent, Mir Houssein Mousavi, who charges widespread fraud in the June 12 vote.”

This is a huge movement of brave dissenters! Now, I don’t know Mousavi, and I don’t know how he would rule under the clerics. But I still think the revolt itself is a hopeful sign in the right direction.

In honor of the protestors, and as we approach July 4th, here are the opening words of our own Declaration of Independence…

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…

Share/Bookmark

To understand the magnitude of his “seditious proposal,” you have to know that Harris is considered one of the leading public voices for atheism — along with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett — but, therein lies his point — you cannot be for something that is by definition simply an absence of belief.

He called for anyone using the concept “atheist” to reject it forthright:

We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar — for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

His entire lecture is worth reading, whether you use any of these labels or are just intellectually curious. You can find a full transcript of it at Washington Post online.

Sam Harris is one of my favorite writers. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience, and I look forward to reading his books in the years to come. He is an extremely honest intellectual, and he is not afraid to go where the evidence takes him.

He gets criticized by fellow scientists for his desire to explore “spirituality,” despite his lack of religion. I admit, I am sympathetic to his soul-searching. I agree we can learn much about the human mind and experience by exploring phenomena usually associated with the mystics — meditation, hypnotism and the power of prayer, to name a few.

He makes a fascinating point about what we can learn from the mystics, or “contemplatives”:

Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.

Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself — that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people — he’s probably mentally ill.

But if we talk to ourselves all day long silently — thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen — but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.

I think he may be on to something — something that could add to our body of knowledge about health and well-being.

In any event, as a result of Harris’ lecture, I will cease using the term “atheist.” I have only used that term in the last few months, and, oddly enough, I was emboldened to use it after reading Harris’ book, End of Faith.

But, he is right. It is intellectual honesty and reason that need to be brought to the forefront of the current conversations.

For what it’s worth, I have been without organized religion for nearly 20 years now, yet consider virtue and pursuit of the good paramount. While I am non-religious now, my past is a mosaic of religious, mystical and philosophical pursuits.

I was raised Southern Baptist, attended Catholic masses during middle school, converted to Lutheranism in high school, dabbled in tarot and delved into Buddhism before finally letting religion go altogether — but only in exchange for psychology and philosophy.

There were too many religions to explore, and what I was always after was simply inner peace. I have found the best way to inner peace is living virtuously, or taking the “right action,” as Abraham Maslow called it. And, the idea of living virtuously brought me full circle to Aristotle, who had come to that conclusion in the 4th Century B.C.

My whole path could have been a lot shorter had I been taught Aristotle’s philosophy in high school, but they don’t teach philosophy at that level anymore, at least not at public schools.

And, the few brave souls who take philosophy at the universities today are lucky if they avoid brain damage. They don’t generally emphasize Aristotle at colleges either. (I learned about Aristotle and Epicurus indirectly, through my study of art history.)

Modern philosophy (post Kant), as taught by academics, can be summed up as follows: You can never know anything for certain because you cannot perceive reality directly; and, therefore, there is no reality.

If you laugh at this statement, then you have not studied philosophy at the college level. I assure you, if you do, you will be taught this at some point. And, yes, it is egregious. It’s even scarier when you realize that there are people graduating from Ivy Leagues who actually believe this nonsense, and scarier still that they are running our country.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that philosophy is useless or esoteric. It is, as I learned from Ayn Rand, an inescapable influence that shapes our lives and ultimately the course of human history.

Epicurus said it well:

Let no man be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more.

And, in our quest for answers, we would all be better off if we we follow Harris’ lead, going only where the evidence takes us, correcting our errors along the way.

(hat tip: Joseph Stewart)

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

Assuming quantum physicists don’t destroy the concepts of self and consciousness, we may see psychology expand its knowledge base exponentially in the coming years. I’m heartened to see these books emerge on the scene: Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain by Sharon Begley and The Brain That Changes Itself by psychiatrist Norman Doidge.

The theme of both books is the idea that the brain is malleable and “plastic” throughout life. In other words, the adult brain is not necessarily doomed to stagnation and degeneration any more than the body is. For anyone who accepts the mind-body union principle, this may be a rather obvious point.

Matthew Blakeslee has a good review of these books in this month’s issue of Discover Magazine, in which he notes:

By recognizing neuroplasticity as a real and powerful force, we can tilt our theories of mind back into a realm where choice and free will are meaningful concepts, and where radical improvement to the human condition is possible using the right, scientifically proven techniques.

The empirical data supporting neuroplasticity may also shed light on why changing core beliefs and assumptions is effective in breaking habits.

Share/Bookmark

Blink is about–well, Mr. Gladwell, says it best:

It’s a book about rapid cognition, about the kind of thinking that happens in a blink of an eye. When you meet someone for the first time, or walk into a house you are thinking of buying, or read the first few sentences of a book, your mind takes about two seconds to jump to a series of conclusions. Well, “Blink” is a book about those two seconds, because I think those instant conclusions that we reach are really powerful and really important and, occasionally, really good.”

He goes on to cite numerous psychological research experiments, news events and other anecdotes that illustrate how humans make split-second decisions.

One of the more interesting illustrations to me was on the work of psychologist, John Gottman. You may recall Gottman was popular in the 90s for his relationship studies. He wrote Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: And How You Can Make Yours Last. Gottman’s work is largely based on Paul Eckman’s research on microexpressions that reveal human emotions. Gottman is able to “thin slice” his subjects’ facial expressions and determine (with almost 90 percent accuracy) whether their relationship will be successful or not. The secret lies in his ability to measure the ratio of negative to positive emotions revealed in the couple’s rapidly changing facial expressions. The higher the level of contempt revealed during the couple’s videotaped conversations, the less their chance of success.

Another interesting segment involves the advertising campaign of Pepsi. Remember the “Pepsi Challenge”? Everyone taking the Pepsi Challenge liked the taste of Pepsi better than Coke. This led Coca-Cola executives to doubt their product. Maybe, they thought, Coke should taste better. They brought out “New Coke,” and the resulting backlash from loyal Coke drinkers was disastrous. Coke fans hated “New Coke.” They hated “New Coke” so much that the company had to reintroduce “Classic Coke.” In this case, the two-second taste test was not necessarily indicative of a better product. Most people, it turns out, will judge sweeter tastes as tasting better than something slightly more bitter. Yet, the slightly bitter taste of Coke ends up being quite enjoyable when drinking a whole can. Here a snap judgment–the Pepsi taste test–was accurate in one sense, but not relevant.

Gladwell’s book has been criticized, and perhaps rightly so, for “not going anywhere.” I’ll admit Gladwell’s vignettes are at times more thought-provoking than they are useful. (It should be noted that his books are found in the marketing or self-help sections, not the science section.) What he does succeed in doing is making the reader aware of the power of split-second decisions. Because our rapid cognitions can be very right or very wrong, we need to find ways to improve the quality of these types of decisions and to better understand how to control them.

This book, despite its limitations, is responsible for my renewed interest in the state of psychology today…more on that subject later.

Share/Bookmark