Gladwell is successful because he tells so many people what they want to hear: your lack of talent doesn't matter.
I always lol when I hear the Bill Gates example. The guy is a freaking genius. He had to go through Math 50 at Harvard to figure out there were people smarter than he was. Somebody else sneaking into the computer lab to learn programming (I'm sure there were many) wouldn't have been as good.
This has nothing to do with the article. Whatever you think of his books, Gladwell is demonstrably a talented public speaker, and this article explains his basic method.
No, Gladwell is a demonstrably successful public speaker.
Gladwell's point -- and the OP author's -- is that you should taboo the word "talent." Talent is the idea you wind up with when you commit the Fundamental Attribution Error while observing success or skill:
In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error ... describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations ["he is very talented at X"] for the observed behaviors [extreme skill at X] of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. ["he spent his entire childhood practicing X"]
Have you ever watched him give a talk? Have you, yourself, ever given a talk to a large audience? I have, and it's a bitch. He's a demonstrably talented public speaker. It is extremely interesting to me, and, I assume, to most people who do public speaking, that Gladwell is actually writing out the entire content of his speeches.
The rest of your comment, whatever. I don't care about his books. Neither does the author of this article, if you care to read it.
The fact remains, Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent.
If you call someone talented, you're implicitly conceding they were somehow predisposed to have the skill they've got. Gladwell says there are no such predispositions, only histories, habits, and hard work.
> The fact remains, Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent.
That's not what I read in it. If you look up the passage about the conservatory students, you'll find that he says that you need a sufficient amount of talent to get into it, and beyond that level, effort expended is a more important factor.
"Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent."
Did you read Outliers? Because it doesn't actually say that. Let's see what it really says:
"Yes, the hockey players who make it to the professional level are more talented than you or me. But they also got a big head start..." (p 30)
"Joy and Gates and the Beatles are all undeniably talented. Lennon and McCartney had a musical gift of the sort that comes along once in a generation, and Bill Joy, let us not forget, had a mind so quick that he was able to make up a complicated algorithm on the fly that left his professors in awe. That much is obvious. But what truly distinguishes their histories is not their extraordinary talent but their extraordinary opportunities..." (p 55)
Gladwell argues against what his book calls "the primacy of talent." He says talent is one ingredient in success - even a necessary one - but not the most distinguishing one. He describes all the successful people he profiles as very talented, but adds that many equally talented people are unsuccessful because of different historical, cultural, and personal backgrounds.
This conversation is doubly funny because it reminds of something this guy Paul Graham once wrote in an essay: http://paulgraham.com/hs.html :
* Don't think that you can't do what other people can. And I agree you shouldn't underestimate your potential. People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.
Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.
If I understand correctly this is clearly BS. If it weren't we'd have more painters like van Gogh or Picasso. Hard work is fine if you want to learn java or something like that, but where talent is needed - well, you need to be talented.
Technically he's not a talented public speaker as "talent" implies an innate capacity. He's a very skilled speaker, in that his ability is derived from relentless practice and preparation.
I was stuck by the line: "It occurred to me afterwards that Gladwell’s success as a speaker illustrates one of his homespun themes - hard work pays off."
Indeed, Gadwell has a talent for writing and speaking. While tastes for what he offers differ, he's taken that talent and worked hard to develop it.
We all might not have the brain of Bill Gates, but I've seen many go surprisingly far on hard work with moderate talent. I've also sadly seen some very bright people just drag along through life from lack of effort. It's really sad to witness.
> Gladwell is successful because he tells so many people what they want to hear: your lack of talent doesn't matter.
Actually, I thought he told people something they really don't want to hear: your superb talents don't mean a thing unless you straighten up and put in your 10k hours. It's a matter of perspective ;)
Right, because that's clearly what's driving sales of Outliers. Telling a small group of people what they might not want to hear as opposed to telling a large group of people what they want to hear.
I read it as an argument that to reach truly obscene, globally recognizable levels of achievement, you need talent, determination, discipline, and luck.
It kind of makes sense if you think about it, since achievement typically has a log-normal distribution with a long right-hand tail, which implies that it's based on multiple normally distributed underlying factors.
Take away any one of the factors, and you rapidly approach more "normal" levels of achievement.
It seemed to me he actually told people "Bill Gates may be a freaking genius, but he also worked harder than you've ever considered working, and took advantage of incredible, nearly unique, opportunities. That's what being a true outlier takes." How many high school kids were taking the bus to the conveniently located university computer lab in the middle of the night and programming all night in the early 1970s?
Should be titled: Malcom Gladwell's public speaking secret. And the answer is plain as day,and rather boring. Said Gladwell, "I know it may not look like this. But it’s all scripted. I write down every word and then I learn it off by heart. I do that with all my talks and I’ve got lots of them"
That's like asking someone who looks physically fit what their secret is, and they tell you, "Diet and exercise."
Everyone knows this, but no one wants to put in the work.
No, not everyone knows this. In fact, nearly every public speaker is initially taught not to do this. (I was in Forensics in high school, and recently joined Toastmasters.) For most people, if you try and memorize a speech, it will look like you've memorized a speech, because you will be fumbling for where you are next.
If you are a professional speaker on a tour, someone with a lot of drama experience, or a salesperson with the same pitch every time, then it might make sense to do Gladwell's approach. For the rest of us, practice extensively but don't memorize start-to-finish.
I just make mine up on the spot. Does no one else do this?
It depends. There are some advantages to winging it: true spontaneity, an ability to have a more interactive presentation that is tuned to the rhythm and responses to the audience.
The oft-materialised risk is that it turns into a rambling incoherent mess.
In front of an unknown audience, the risk is too large, because if they don't feed you the right response, you are dead in the water. At least with a prepared talk you have something to fall back to.
If you know your audience, or if you are determined to engage it whatever it takes (school talks come into this category), a certain amount of off-the-cuffness works well, provided you are confident you know what you are talking about.
It depends on the quality of speech you need and your audience. Usually, I don't, but that's because of the standards I set for myself. :) (Then again, I haven't done a major speech in a while)
The operative word is of course "initially". It is a matter of time before one has to practice that big speech enough times that one ends up committing it to memory.
I learned that one by accident. I used to do open mike standup (really) and would amuse myself by composing bits talking out loud during long commutes. I couldn't write them down so I would end up composing/practicing a piece 40 or 50 times the week before a show, tuning every little word and intonation. When I got up on stage they rattled off like magic, and I had several words/tones to choose from right in the moment, depending on the mood. The illusion of spontaneity takes a lot of practice.
I went to see him speak at a sportswriter's event in Brooklyn last week (he writes a lot about sports).
He was unbelievable. I could listen to him for hours. He's as engaging in person as he is on paper--clear, not overly verbose, and unfailingly entertaining.
Surprised none of the editors caught this spelling mistake: perverserance. For a second I thought maybe that's the British way of spelling it but, no, it seems like it's just a spelling mistake.
"Perverseverance." That makes an excellent portmanteau of "perverse" and "perseverance." I may have to start using that, though not especially for Malcolm Gladwell.
Er, no, admitting that you put a lot of effort into a speech is exactly what sprezzatura is not.
Sprezzatura would be more like "oh, was the speech that good? I hadn't noticed myself. Well, now that you mention it, I guess it just comes naturally to me...".
I've done presentations and speeches as short as 30 seconds, and as long as 75 minutes, and in both cases, I always memorize and rehearse the talk, but I never memorize a script. This is generally a simple concept, and I think a lot of public speakers (who are far better than I am) do this as well. The idea is that you should know what you are talking about, but it should always be fresh, new, and interesting.
When I do power point presentations, this is easy to accomplish - the points (1 to 2 at most, usually) are on the slide, and I simply expand on them in my talk. I may rehearse the slide/talk 10 times, and each time it will come out slightly different, and that is generally good. I want to make sure that I know what I am going to talk about, but I trust myself to be able to discuss the topic with some insight on the spot.
Granted, this only works for topics you are familiar with, but no amount of prep in the world will make you comfortable leading a 75 minute discussion on a topic that is not close to your heart and mind.
37 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 79.9 ms ] threadI always lol when I hear the Bill Gates example. The guy is a freaking genius. He had to go through Math 50 at Harvard to figure out there were people smarter than he was. Somebody else sneaking into the computer lab to learn programming (I'm sure there were many) wouldn't have been as good.
Gladwell's point -- and the OP author's -- is that you should taboo the word "talent." Talent is the idea you wind up with when you commit the Fundamental Attribution Error while observing success or skill:
In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error ... describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations ["he is very talented at X"] for the observed behaviors [extreme skill at X] of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. ["he spent his entire childhood practicing X"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
The rest of your comment, whatever. I don't care about his books. Neither does the author of this article, if you care to read it.
The fact remains, Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent.
If you call someone talented, you're implicitly conceding they were somehow predisposed to have the skill they've got. Gladwell says there are no such predispositions, only histories, habits, and hard work.
UPDATE: the definition of TALENT I'm using is here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent
tal·ent (tlnt) n. 1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. See Synonyms at ability.
That's not what I read in it. If you look up the passage about the conservatory students, you'll find that he says that you need a sufficient amount of talent to get into it, and beyond that level, effort expended is a more important factor.
Did you read Outliers? Because it doesn't actually say that. Let's see what it really says:
"Yes, the hockey players who make it to the professional level are more talented than you or me. But they also got a big head start..." (p 30)
"Joy and Gates and the Beatles are all undeniably talented. Lennon and McCartney had a musical gift of the sort that comes along once in a generation, and Bill Joy, let us not forget, had a mind so quick that he was able to make up a complicated algorithm on the fly that left his professors in awe. That much is obvious. But what truly distinguishes their histories is not their extraordinary talent but their extraordinary opportunities..." (p 55)
Gladwell argues against what his book calls "the primacy of talent." He says talent is one ingredient in success - even a necessary one - but not the most distinguishing one. He describes all the successful people he profiles as very talented, but adds that many equally talented people are unsuccessful because of different historical, cultural, and personal backgrounds.
* Don't think that you can't do what other people can. And I agree you shouldn't underestimate your potential. People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.
Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.
Indeed, Gadwell has a talent for writing and speaking. While tastes for what he offers differ, he's taken that talent and worked hard to develop it.
We all might not have the brain of Bill Gates, but I've seen many go surprisingly far on hard work with moderate talent. I've also sadly seen some very bright people just drag along through life from lack of effort. It's really sad to witness.
Actually, I thought he told people something they really don't want to hear: your superb talents don't mean a thing unless you straighten up and put in your 10k hours. It's a matter of perspective ;)
People on both sides of the talent vs hard-work debate are posting here using his books and lectures as support.
Personally, I'm in the "work matters more than talent" camp. so of course, that's what I remember from his work :-)
[edit: clarification]
It kind of makes sense if you think about it, since achievement typically has a log-normal distribution with a long right-hand tail, which implies that it's based on multiple normally distributed underlying factors.
Take away any one of the factors, and you rapidly approach more "normal" levels of achievement.
That's like asking someone who looks physically fit what their secret is, and they tell you, "Diet and exercise."
Everyone knows this, but no one wants to put in the work.
If you are a professional speaker on a tour, someone with a lot of drama experience, or a salesperson with the same pitch every time, then it might make sense to do Gladwell's approach. For the rest of us, practice extensively but don't memorize start-to-finish.
It depends. There are some advantages to winging it: true spontaneity, an ability to have a more interactive presentation that is tuned to the rhythm and responses to the audience.
The oft-materialised risk is that it turns into a rambling incoherent mess.
In front of an unknown audience, the risk is too large, because if they don't feed you the right response, you are dead in the water. At least with a prepared talk you have something to fall back to.
If you know your audience, or if you are determined to engage it whatever it takes (school talks come into this category), a certain amount of off-the-cuffness works well, provided you are confident you know what you are talking about.
He was unbelievable. I could listen to him for hours. He's as engaging in person as he is on paper--clear, not overly verbose, and unfailingly entertaining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprezzatura
Sprezzatura would be more like "oh, was the speech that good? I hadn't noticed myself. Well, now that you mention it, I guess it just comes naturally to me...".
When I do power point presentations, this is easy to accomplish - the points (1 to 2 at most, usually) are on the slide, and I simply expand on them in my talk. I may rehearse the slide/talk 10 times, and each time it will come out slightly different, and that is generally good. I want to make sure that I know what I am going to talk about, but I trust myself to be able to discuss the topic with some insight on the spot.
Granted, this only works for topics you are familiar with, but no amount of prep in the world will make you comfortable leading a 75 minute discussion on a topic that is not close to your heart and mind.