Outliers

Malcolm Gladwell provides his readers of Outliers with a complicated and vague concept of what success really is that only further confirms the idea that there is only so much one can do to be successful. I do find myself agreeing with the conclusion that past a certain point intelligence is no longer a driving factor towards success. After reaching an IQ of 120 it doesn’t matter if you're score is 121 or 150, both persons have equal chances of success from an intelligence standpoint (Gladwell 79). Gladwell does have intriguing points that make us think if we were lucky enough, if we ceased enough opportunities to be an outlier. But I feel as if Gladwell discredits the success of many accomplished men. He contributes their success to mere luck and underserved opportunities. 

This is not the first time I’ve heard about the 10,000-hour rule. I read the excerpt from this book prior and found interest in the fact that the key to mastery is just 10,000 hours, reigning true to the fact that practice makes perfect. But reading the 10,000-hour rule when it’s wedged between stories of unworthy hockey players and geniuses seemed to water down its validity. Gladwell does away with the idea that having a natural talent or affinity for something contributes to overall success, and even with the data that was clearly handpicked to prove his point, I don't believe it. But that’s just my opinion.