Becoming successful is what most people aspire to be. Most people fantasize the dream house, car, and having the dream job. Even though success is viewed so highly, not everyone can be successful. Malcolm Gladwell explains that idea throughout his book Outliers. Gladwell’s chapters contain endless amounts of evidence that support his claims exceptionally well. But, Michiko Kakutani, a critic for New York Times, exposes Gladwell’s evidence as unreliable and unconvincing, and upon further research, Gladwell’s faults grew deeper.
Even though Gladwell provides an extensive amount of evidence, that evidence is one-sided and relies on suggestion. Each chapter of Outliers provides an enormous amount of evidence to support the overall claim which helps the reader come to an agreement with Gladwell. During chapter four Gladwell examines two children, Alex and Katie. Both grew up in opposite household structures. Alex grew up with parents who both had successful jobs. Alex's parents taught him to question authority and stand up for himself which would ultimately make Alex more successful (Gladwell 108).
Whereas Katie who lived with her mom, was uninvolved in Katie's life. Katie's mother felt threatened by Katie's teachers because the teacher's had authority over Katie’s mother. (Gladwell 104). The absence of challenging authority would decrease Katie's chances of becoming successful. This supports Gladwell's claim that cultural legacy affects one's chances of becoming successful. Later in the book Gladwell introduces Marita, a young girl who lived with her single mother in an apartment on a bad side of town. At that time, her cultural legacy would leave Marita to be unsuccessful.
Marita took a chance at a KIPP school, which had extended hours and much more homework. This school gave Marita a chance to succeed (Gladwell 269). This anecdote provided strong evidence to support Gladwell's claim that cultural legacies can be changed. Both anecdotes support each claim Gladwell is arguing perfectly. Using strong anecdotes helps the reader agree with Gladwell’s claims much easier than if Gladwell threw in a multitude of random ideas. Even though Gladwell does a great job providing evidence to support his claims, his evidence is one-sided and relies on suggestion.
Gladwell doesn't explore other possibilities other than the possibilities that support the points he is trying to get across. One extreme example of this is when Gladwell blames the first officer for the KAL 801 Korean air plane crash. He blames the first officer because of his Korean ethnicity which he explains to be "a culture in which enormous attention is paid to the relative standing" (Gladwell 215. ) Gladwell goes on to explain the different forms on Korean language and how the first officer wouldn't question authority because the officer was of lower ranking. Not once does Gladwell suggest anything different.
Other reasons could have played into effect such as the captain inability to figure out where he was or the first officer could have already known the captain was unapproachable and he didn't want to deal with the attitude. As she puts it in her example "does not explain why other groups, who practiced as much as the Beatles, never became one of the seminal rock groups. " The way Gladwell doesn't explore further options about how Rock bands become successful also proves his evidence is all one-sided. Due to Gladwell’s evidence being one-side it becomes hard to believe his ideas since he does not acknowledge ideas outside of his own.
Gladwell's one-sided evidence ties right into another problem that occurs in the book. Throughout his book all the evidence Gladwell provides relies on suggestion. Gladwell does not present the actual outcome. As Kakutani describes Gladwell's suggested evidence through her article "glib, poorly reasoned and thoroughly unconvincing. " Though Marita’s story, Gladwell describes Marita's chances of becoming successful to be greater than other who are not a part of the KIPP program. Though her chances were greater Gladwell never addresses if Marita actually became successful or not he just suggests that she is.
Another example of suggestion is when he compared Alex's chances of becoming successful verses Katie's chances. Gladwell suggests that since Alex grew up in a more successful household he would be successful. But Gladwell never presents that information. There is a chance that Katie became a neurosurgeon and all Alex became was a gas station manager. Due to Gladwell's lack of fully addressing his evidence, it's hard to fully understand what all it takes to be a successful individual. The unknown of whether or not each of these individuals ultimately became successful leaves Gladwell’s agrument unreliable.
Gladwell uses strong anecdotes and studies to prove all the claims he presents throughout his book. He explains he evidence well and ties everything back to the point he is trying to prove. This helps further understand Gladwell’s argument. But, even though Gladwell uses multiple anecdotes and studies to support his claims, the problem that is faced is that he merely suggests his sources are correct but never fully explains the overall outcome. Ultimately, this leaves all of Gladwell's evidence unconvincing because the final outcome is never presented.
