Blog #5

The second part of Gladwell's book is called "The Theory Of Desirable Difficulty" and it begins with a chapter about dyslexia.  I have no doubt that there are scientists that will be frustrated with the brief description given for how dyslexia works and how brain scans have validated these theories. There are just way too many things Gladwell could have, and some may argue should have, said, but none of it would be relevant to the story. I think what he says is enough background to let the story makes sense. Then the chapter explains the difficulties dyslexics face. Gladwell argues that there are advantages to dyslexia, and says that many entrepreneurs, CEOs, and successful people have it and that there seems to be a correlation between people who overcome dyslexia and success. The rest of the chapter is filled with personal stories of successful people with dyslexia.

This chapter took me longer to read than the others and helped me understand why Gladwell is so criticized amongst many scientists.  It provoked me to think deeply about important issues.  However, I couldn't come to any provable conclusions about dyslexia, learning disabilities or any of the other issues the chapter touches on.  The stereotypical scientist doesn't like to think about something unless it gives him a concrete result.

It is interesting to think about dyslexia as a “desirable difficulty.” When you think of a difficulty, you think of something that will get in your way, something that will hold you back. When you think of a desirable trait, you think of something that will help you, something that will give you an advantage to getting where you want to get. Whether it is success in business, sports, or just personal success, an advantage is something that will give you a leg up in the competition. How can you combine those two and create a trait that may look like a problem on the outside but end up with a trait that ends up helping you. Gladwell uses a few different anecdotes to prove his point that there are such traits as “desirable difficulty.”

“ ‘The one trait in a lot of dyslexic people I know is that by the time we got out of college, our ability to deal with failure was highly developed.’ … Dyslexia – in the best of cases – forces you to develop skills that might otherwise have lain dormant. It also forces you to do things that you might otherwise never have considered, like doing your own version of Kamprad’s  disagreeable trip to Poland or hopping in the cab of someone you’ve never met and pretending to be someone you aren’t.”

Blog post 10/20 David and Goliath

Malcolm Gladwell is such a brilliant writer that he can make any idea or concept into a controversial statement and back it up in a form that captivates readers. A lot of people are pessimistic about Gladwell's writing, saying he "Lacks scientific rigor or depth" and because of that he may suffer from a bias. Others say he "forces analogies" and that his examples are don't back up his ideas like they did in Outliers, without a doubt his best book. I think what is really interesting about this book, whether what the critics say are true or not, is that it is very relevant. I think that Gladwell backs up his claims with anecdotes that are not only interesting but reach a wide crowd of people. One of the stories that really resonates with me is the story of Caroline Sacks, the brilliant college girl who got lost in the "Big Pond" of higher education.

Caroline Sacks was a brilliant high school senior planning to go to a prestigious university and study chemistry. She applied to the prestigious Brown University, with the University of Maryland as her backup. She was accepted to Brown and the next fall she went there to study chemistry. While at Brown, Caroline took chemistry classes and it just didn't click for her; concepts were making sense, she was falling behind, spending countless hours studying, and yet she still couldn't pass. She tried again her Sophomore year and the same thing happened. Caroline just stuck as a little fish in a Big Pond.

Gladwell highlights the importance of being a Big Fish in a little pond by telling Caroline's story. "If I went to University of Maryland, I would probably still be in science," said Sacks. He compares the number of papers published by the top students at the Harvards and Yales and Browns of the country with the number of papers published by the top students at “lower caliber” schools of the country. His findings stated that, without much digression, the top students at the Harvards and Yales published a much larger number of articles than the top student at lower caliber schools, but the surprising thing is how those students did compared with the lower students and Harvard and Yale. The top students at lower caliber schools published more articles than most of the students at the prestigious schools. What that means is that the students at Harvard, who are obviously brilliant but not the top of their classes, are not published nearly as many articles as the top students at the lower schools. Hence, Gladwell argues it is better to be a Big Fish in a little pond.

This anecdote is so relevant because next these are decisions we as high school seniors are making right now. I think it is so interesting that so many people these days focus their entire lives to get accepted to the Harvards and Yales, and maybe they get accepted, but a very select few are accepted and graduate at the top of their classes and publish more papers than the student at lower schools. It really highlights the importance of individuality in the student and that there really isn’t anything wrong with a “lower caliber” school, if that is where YOU will succeed.

Blog #3 David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell

Ever since I read Outliers the summer of Sophomore year, Malcolm Gladwell has been one of my favorite, if not my favorite author. Gladwell has a way of storytelling that can not be reproduce. One review of David and Goliath and about all of Gladwell's book were that they were a bit too predictable. What this reviewer meant was that “Malcolm Gladwell is one of those authors who you remember reading, but may not quite recall which book a particular phrase came from. They're all pretty similar. But that's the beauty of Gladwell. He's developing a coherent canon and, really, do you want to be surprised all the time? The world is disconcerting enough already.”

I think this reviewer makes a good point, but he is also wrong about some things. While it is true that yes, his books may be similar, yes you may confuse some quotes between his books, but his books are very different. Personally, I have read one and a half other Malcolm Gladwell books, and I would agree that his books are a bit predictable and similar, but that is only because they follow a distinct pattern that Gladwell has perfected.

The way Gladwell writes, in my eyes, goes something like this: First, he picks a topic or thesis, a debatable, controversial idea or reason. Next, he does TONS of research, and I mean tons! Each book typically has ten to fifteen chapters, if not more, each chapter being a different story, each story needing its own varying amount of research! After he has enough research per chapter/story, he writes an intro. The intro is usually a topic closely related to the title of the book. The purpose of the intro is to introduce the book, but more importantly the topic of the book. In David and Goliath, Gladwell opens up with the biblical story of David and Goliath. He talks about how Goliath is a massive Philistine warrior, heavily armed and heavily equipped, who challenges the Israelis to a one on one for the kingdom. When no Israeli volunteered, David, a little herder boy, volunteered, King Solomon was skeptical, but he had no other choice. David stepped out to where Goliath could see him, started running at him with a stone, chucks it at Goliath’s most vulnerable spot, his forehead between his eyes, and kills Goliath. After telling the story of David and Goliath, Gladwell begins to analyze the story to make his point about underdogs and why David won. What Gladwell likes to do is intertwine stories with analyses of those stories to fit his thesis. So what Gladwell does is analyze everything about David and Goliath. When David appears over the ridge with his slingshot and staff, Goliath sees him and says “ Am I dog, that you should come to me with sticks?” Sticks. Goliath sees sticks, yet David only has one stick. Gladwell points out that some research shows that one of the reasons Goliath was so big was that he had a tumor in his pituitary gland that made him keep growing and growing, but once the tumor grew too large, it started to affect other functions, and the most common type of functional loss with this state is blurred or double vision. Goliath could not see. Goliath had strength, he had size, but David had speed, accuracy, and most importantly, the act of surprise.

What I really like about Gladwell is how he weaves the stories into the analyses. He writes in a way that is coherent, yet does not require the reader to read the book chapter by chapter, in order. I think Gladwell is a great, one of my favorite authors, and look forward to continuing this book and reading why underdogs win.

Blog Post 10/2

Surprisingly enough, Tom Henderson does not get involved with drugs as the previous post may have suggested, but he does have an indirect encounter with it, and it has become a big back story that Tom has dealt a lot with. Tom's only friend Sam Hellerman has old friends from another school in the area who are having a big party and Tom is coerced into going. He wrestles with it for about a week but then decides he will go to the party because he wouldn't be doing anything better, his only friend is going, and the people that would be there wouldn't be anybody he knew so there really was no reason not to go. Once they arrive, Sam essentially leaves Tom to find his own fun while he talks to his friends. Tom wanders around the party for a little, scoping out the people, judging them based on their clothing choices and what they seem to be talking about, and looking for something to occupy his night. He grabs a red cup and a drink so he doesn’t seem too out of place and continues to walk around looking for something to do. He happens upon a door to what looks like a basement, so he checks it out. When he gets down to the basement, he meets Fiona, the seamster from CHS who is sitting alone in the dark basement with a few candles lit and trying to finish a joint. Although somewhat in the dark, Fiona’s attire immediately attracts Tom to her. Her homemade denim jacket doesn’t cover her “sexy stomach” and he can’t focus on anything else. Fiona starts talking to Tom and they strike up a conversation for a while, even though socially awkward Tom only says a total of 22 words. There was something about Tom to Fiona that just made her want Tom, maybe it was just her being really high, but she started kissing Tom and they went at it. Tom, being his socially awkward self had no idea what he was doing, but it seemed enough for Fiona. Tom, not knowing what to do and wanting to explore, started moving his hands around and put his fingers under her underwear strap when she stopped him and said, “no stupid, my tits.” Reluctantly Tom started rubbing her all over her chest and they continued going at it, until suddenly Fiona stopped and said, “I have to go,” and left in a hurry. Tom got up and tried to follow her upstairs, but once he got upstairs and looked around for her, she was out of sight. Tom kept bringing it up with Sam, but Sam had no idea who she was and, when he asked around in his other friend group, neither did any of them.

It is really interesting to me to read something like this because; one, it is certainly a relatable topic, being in high school and enduring all of these weird events and trying your hardest to decode its meaning, and two, it adds a sense of mystery to the story. It is hard for me to believe that this girl can just disappear and not have anyone know who she was in the first place, and it obviously was for Tom too because he can’t think about anything but Fiona. The Fiona mystery has only provoked more mystery for the story, which seems to be beginning to get to the juicy, mystery-filled climax.

1st Blog Post 9/18 King Dork

Tom Henderson,  a.k.a., King Dork, Chi-Mo (short for child molester, there is a funny story about this that made me laugh), Hender-fag, Hender-pig or Hender-fuck, is very unpopular in school so he has only one friend, Sam Hellerman. Sam and Tom are in a band together, a band with a constantly changing name and logo that doesn't seem to be too important, but the idea helps them through the school day. 
Tom lives at home with his "traditional suburban mom with a thin veneer of yesterday's counterculture not too securely fastened to the outside" (pg 24) who likes to think of herself  as "more sensitive and virtuous and free-spirited than thou" (pg 23), her full-on hippie husband (or "former hippie" by his standards) whom she was recently remarried to after Tom's father died, and his twelve year old sister Amanda who was "going through changes" (pg 23). 
Tom and Sam are constantly getting harassed by their schools fat, buffoonish mascot, Principal Mr. Teone. 
I find it is interesting how Portman paces the book out. Sam and Tom seem to be the only thing happening so far and it paces out for a interesting build up. Portman has been introducing the characters, and while doing so, he introduced what seems like it would be the source of the main conflict or tension. Tom talks about Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger and, based off the front flap, the source of the fun. "When Tom Henderson finds his deceased father’s copy of J.D. Salinger’sCatcher in the Rye, his world is flipped upside down. Suddenly high school just got more complicated as Tom (a.k.a. King Dork) is in the middle of at least half a dozen mysteries involving dead people, naked people, fake people, a secret code, girls, and rock and roll.  As he goes through sophomore year, he finds more clues in unexpected places that may very well unravel the puzzle of his father’s death and-oddly-reveal the secret to attracting semi-hot girls" (front flap). As I can see the book slowly building after being introduced the characters, Catcher in the Rye seems to play a big part. I like how resentful of the book Tom is, which contrasts the front flap because it is the exact opposite of what Tom will probably be thinking about the book once he finds his dad's cryptic copy. "If you can make it to puberty without already having become a Catcher in the Rye casualty you're a better man than I, and I'd love to know your secret. It's too late for me, but Future Children of America will thank you" (pg 13).