wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Charles Lukoba from Newark, NJ November 19, 2008 - 10:27AM

  Has order of birth any correlation to this? I find that first born of a mother are more successful than others.

  
  
• [2] Mark James from Arlington, VA November 19, 2008 - 11:56AM

  Typically authors miss the mark on this topic for those who could use some guidance. As for "why others never reach their full potential", I do hope Mr Gladwell comes around to offering strategies and a mechanism for those caught up in redundant mediocrity while trying to move beyond. "Take risks!" is one mantra out there, but that's not the heart of the matter. All the best.

  
  
• [3] David Hume from Staten Island, NY November 19, 2008 - 12:00PM

  Lenny,

  Can Malcolm give us a breakdown of Success? Is it 90% Luck, 5% Hard work and 5% Skill?

  How much of skill and talent are simply based on luck? Born at the right time with a gift?

  Also, at some level every works equally hard, how come they don't all much the same income? Is Hard Work actually a very low factor? There are only so many hours in the day, you can only work so hard! Thanks.

  Dave

  
  
• [4] Hedeer El-Showk November 19, 2008 - 12:18PM

  On the # of hrs for success...can't we say learning for a child is more accelerated? learning something between 20 to 30 is different than learning it from 10 to 20 unfortunately...

  
  
• [5] David Hume from Staten Island, NY November 19, 2008 - 12:19PM

  This is terrible logic. It would be more informative to study the people who worked at something 10,000 hours and did not make it. Instead of cherry Picking the "winners" and then reflecting backwards on why they made it.

  Study the people that did not make it would be better.

  But, Studying Tiger Woods, Bill Gates and other celebrities insures better sales for you book.

  Faulty logic here.

  
  
• [6] Hugh from Crown Heights November 19, 2008 - 12:23PM

  Largely agree with Gladwell (meaning, it sounds intuitively obvious, or that it sounds comforting to us supposed early stars who have never hit).

  One point about Nobel Prize winners. There is also a lot of lobbying for the prize, which is why one school will have several prize winners in chemistry while another may have a lot in physics. Also the prize is political. Vocal opponents can damn their colleagues by pissing off the committee.

  Since lobbying is possible, it's at least possible that a mentor, having one, can then lobby for student.

  This doesn't in any way count against Gladwell's point.

  
  
• [7] jennifer from manhattan November 19, 2008 - 12:26PM

  my really smart son has dyslexia and I would appreciate your guest speaking about the subject of learning disabilities and what impact that can have

  
  
• [8] LM from Union Square November 19, 2008 - 12:28PM

  I grew up in Washington Heights in the 1980's and dreaded the summer months. My sisters and I wished for summer activities and looked forward to september... completely agree with the guest.

  
  
• [9] ericf November 19, 2008 - 12:28PM

  Joy, Gates, Jobs? sure. But howzabout Douglass Engelbart (born 1925), Alan Kay (born 1940), Don Estridge (born 1937), etc., etc. ?

  
  
• [10] ericf November 19, 2008 - 12:33PM

  Oops. Left out a host of others, but the obvious one is Ken Thompson. If Joy was important, then Thompson was more so. Born 1943.

  
  
• [11] Listener from Queens from Queens November 19, 2008 - 12:34PM

  Does he think there should be affirmative action at his own office? Because the New Yorker-- even though it has some writers of color-- seems to come from a very ivy league perspective.

  
  
• [12] eric j from new york November 19, 2008 - 12:34PM

  the idea of correcting for artificially embedded opportunity would actually yield well beyond the investment in any one place. for example, what kind of return would we get on simultaneous investment in teaching excellence, parental involvement, child health. it would go far beyond the kids themselves to the things the kids will contribute to neighborhoods and cities. we have examples but they remain just that, examples, when we need to generalize this. i think mr. gladwell's thought is progress. the backside is to continue to lean on the legacy advantage which, by definition, discounts qualifications.

  
  
• [13] Melinda Hunt from East Village November 19, 2008 - 12:35PM

  I thought the school year was the product of an agrarian culture. Children were needed to work on the family farm during the summer months.

  
  
• [14] Bill Mullen from New Rochelle November 19, 2008 - 12:36PM

  I have worked as a highly skiled electronic technician for 38 years at the telephone company.

  Years ago, I made the observation that it takes 5 years (40 hour/ week) to learn to do my job well...

  40 hours x 50 weeks = 2000 hours/year.

  200 x 5 = 10,000 hours

  I couldn't agree more, Malcolm.

  
  
• [15] ericf November 19, 2008 - 12:48PM

  Perhaps what's missing here are clear criteria for "success". Are Jobs, Joy and Berners-Lee (50's kids) more "successful" than Kay, Thompson, and Nelson (not 50's kids) because the the former were involved in products that well commercially? or were the latter just as "successful" because the concepts they developed became pervasive?

  
  
• [16] ericf November 19, 2008 - 01:48PM

  afterthought:

  seems to me that tcp/ip is successful by any standard. IIRC it was invented, implemented, and popularized by kahn and cert, neither of whom were 50's kids.

  
  
• [17] Be November 19, 2008 - 03:54PM

  I agree with Gladwell. Too many privileged people are born on third base yet think they hit a triple.