This argument enraged various sports pundits when Gladwell made it in The New Yorker, where he’s been a fixture since 1996. But it will presumably only enrage them more to learn that he doesn’t fully believe it himself. “When you write about sports, you’re allowed to engage in mischief,” he says. “Nothing is at stake. It’s a bicycle race!”
.. he’s “totally anti-doping … But what I’m trying to say is, look, we have to come up with better reasons. Our reasons suck! And when the majority has taken a position that’s ill thought-through, it’s appropriate to make trouble.” His expression settles into a characteristic half-smile that makes clear he’d relish it if you disagreed.
.. Gladwell has always excelled in this role as intellectual provocateur. At their best, which is often, his articles and books force you to reappraise assumptions so deeply held that you didn’t realise you held them, and millions have found the experience intoxicating. What if the most successful entrepreneurs aren’t the risk-takers, but the risk-averse?
.. The point isn’t necessarily to accept his conclusions, but to be jolted – even if via the improbable medium of ketchup – into seeing the whole world afresh. This galls some critics, who’d prefer it if Gladwell made smaller, more cautious, less dazzling claims.
.. He’s also responsible more than anyone else for the birth of the modern pop-ideas genre, in publishing and beyond. “Without Gladwell,” Ian Leslie wrote recently at Medium.com, “no Daniel Pink, no Steven Johnson … no Brainpicker, no TED. I exaggerate, but only slightly.”
.. He’s also responsible more than anyone else for the birth of the modern pop-ideas genre, in publishing and beyond. “Without Gladwell,” Ian Leslie wrote recently at Medium.com, “no Daniel Pink, no Steven Johnson … no Brainpicker, no TED. I exaggerate, but only slightly.”
.. The outcome of the original David-and-Goliath clash wasn’t a miracle, he argues: it’s just what happens when the weak refuse to play by rules laid down by the strong.
.. this one is a very Canadian sort of book,” says Gladwell, who was born in Fareham, in Hampshire, but grew up in Ontario. “It’s Canadian in its suspicion of bigness and wealth and power. Someone told me – did you know that there’s never been a luxury brand to come from Canada? That’s never happened. That’s such a great fact to have about your home country.”
.. Conversely, having power can backfire, not least because it tricks the powerful into thinking they don’t need the consent of those over whom they wield it. In a compelling account of the Troubles, Gladwell argues that the British were plagued by a simple error: the belief that their superior resources meant “it did not matter what the people of Northern Ireland thought of them”. More isn’t always more.
.. He is routinely accused of oversimplifying his material, or attacking straw men: does anyone really believe that success is solely a matter of individual talent, the position that Outliers sets out to unseat? Or that the strong always vanquish the weak? “You’re of necessity simplifying,” says Gladwell. “If you’re in the business of translating ideas in the academic realm to a general audience, you have to simplify … If my books appear to a reader to be oversimplified, then you shouldn’t read them: you’re not the audience!”
.. To some critics, usually those schooled in the methods of the natural sciences, it’s flatly unacceptable to proceed by concocting hypotheses then amassing anecdotes to illustrate them. “In his pages, the underdogs win … of course they do,” the author Tina Rosenberg wrote, in an early review of David and Goliath. “That’s why Gladwell includes their stories.
.. You make your case, you illustrate it with statistics and storytelling, and you refrain from claiming that it’s the absolute, objective truth. Gladwell calls his articles and books “conversation starters”
.. I’m puzzled by how much vitriol was directed at him. If I was going to be psychoanalytic about it, I’d say it has to do with anxiety within the world of journalism, about its loss of authority
.. King’s organiser in Birmingham, Wyatt Walker, used cunning to turn the movement’s weaknesses into strengths. By delaying street protests until late afternoon, when Birmingham’s black residents were walking home from work, he led authorities to believe that onlookers were actually protestors. (“They cannot distinguish even between Negro demonstrators and negro spectators,” Walker later recalled. “All they know is negroes.”) By luring police into arresting hundreds of children, they overwhelmed Birmingham’s jails, turning police commissioner Bull Connor’s eagerness to arrest black people against him. Perhaps it wasn’t “right”, by some definition of that word, to send children for arrest
.. Perhaps it wasn’t “right”, by some definition of that word, to send children for arrest, or to engineer confrontations between passers-by and police dogs – but Gladwell argues: “We need to remember that our definitions of what is right are, as often as not, simply the way that people in positions of privilege close the door on those at the bottom of the pile.” Underdogs have to use whatever they’ve got. And in the end, “much of what is valuable in our world arises out of these kinds of lopsided conflicts … the act of facing overwhelming odds produces greatness and beauty.”