Charlie Rose

thepat30  11/18/2009 03:34 PM Report

During the conversation Gladwell mentioned a study of the Hunter College Elementary School alumni and couldn't come up with the name of the author.

I was curious and looked it up. I think its "Genius Revisited: High IQ Children Grown Up" by Subotnik et al.

Thought I'd post in case anyone else wanted to know.

deeguttik  11/03/2009 04:33 PM Report

constructive to the discussion on the Malcolm Gladwell's book- but I am not very pleased with the new website and my inability to view most of the videos. I understand that upgrading a site can be prolonged and tedious, but the fact that it spans over such a long period of time, rendering the view unable to watch most of the programming demonstrates incompetency on the part of the group managing this website. Don't forget that your viewers make this show a success and disgruntled viewers wont help your cause

djtonyz  02/01/2009 01:22 PM Report

Marc asks here: "There must be objection to the 10-year, 10K-hour rule. How else would child prodigies be explained?"

Gladwell does say in his book that his theory does not apply to every instance and that there are, of course, exceptions to the rule.

The video interview with Mr. Rose does not touch on that fact. Gladwell's position is that there is a valid explanation to how someone becomes and "Outlier." I don't think he is writing about how one becomes a "success." It's more about the process one takes to achieve and be good at something through luck, hard work and the advantages of being in the right place at the right time. For example, Bill Gates ability to learn how to program on mainframes that weren't accessible to most people at the time. It was a combination of luck, hard work, curiosity and, in many ways, fun.

I think it's a mistake to say that Gladwell is equating fame and success. I don't read that at all in the book. Gladwell is far from a motivational speaker. That's Tony Robbin's world. Gladwell is intellectually curious about why things are the way they are. His curiosity and discoveries can simply help people understand the nature of things; what drives society. That is not something I equate with motivational speaking. In all his books, the writing is not about what you "need" to do to get somewhere. It's about how a combination of factors leads to a result, whether intending or unintended. I find that a far cry from being motivational, but helpful nonetheless.

If one were to take Gladwell's words in a motivational sense, they would be left asking themselves, "so you've told me how things are, now what do I do to change my life to fit into the structure of things." Gladwell does not even attempt to answer that question. He simply states that in his research, he's come upon some conclusions that are helpful to know in your everyday life.

I find it refreshing to find someone publishing information about the structure of things instead of constantly saying that you can change if you just do this or do that. We need to know how difficult change is, before we can go about the task of adapting to other environments.

Matchbook  01/01/2009 09:46 PM Report

There is something to be said for psychological stability in the ability for someone to apply themselves with the dedication needed for ultra-success. A good helping of neurosis can have a huge hinderance to anyone, the brilliant included (and maybe everyone can be brilliant?). In fact, the relative absence of neurosis I believe is what permits people to have the clarity necessary to recognize at what it is they are brilliant, not to mention the ability to practice it on the road to perfection.

Marc  12/26/2008 01:43 PM Report

There must be objection to the 10-year, 10K-hour rule.

How else would child prodigies be explained?

There must be something to innate and natural abilities that also explain talent and success.

REMant  12/22/2008 05:17 PM Report

I think more ppl are personally highly successful than become well-known, and I would separate the two categories. Famous ppl are famous. Successful ppl are successful. Fame does not equal success, unless you think it does. Ppl who desire fame usually find some way to achieve it. Shame is usually behind that desire and so most of the rich and famous are discovered to have started out poorer, and lower status.

I would also appeal to the idea of multiple intelligences. Unquestionably diff ppl have diff abilities.

I don't think work ethic per se really has much to do with it. The Beatles may have played long hours for a while, but a lot of bands are still playing long hours in many dives world-wide. Many actors are still part-time waiters.

It is often said that when you enter political office you don't have time to do your homework, but the problem is that if you enter the world of work, you NEVER have time to do it, and if you don't enter the world of work, no matter how much you know later, you will almost never be able to get a job commensurate with your abilities, certainly not with your principles. It is a significant problem with our system, because, except for some crossover allowed at higher levels, it means we get, for instance, stupid civil servants and impractical teachers. Even in the crossover cases we get impractical civil servants, and stupid teachers. Part of American anti-intellectualism I suppose, what Tocqueville would have traced to our preference for equality over liberty. T. has quite a lot to say about this subject.

Gladwell seems to be one of those "motivational speakers" PBS loves to torture ppl with to get them to contribute during fund drives, and probably not worth serious consideration. It is interesting that he says he learned to write at the Post, because it seems he learned to think there also.

anghiari  12/22/2008 03:58 PM Report

I thought this a wonderful conversation. Charlie has a habit of almost telling a guest what they mean, rather than allowing them to explain. It is irritating for me the viewer, but nobody has held his feet to the fire and made him stop doing it. Sometimes Charlie has been presumptious and has not known what the guest was thinking or saying. The explantion by Gladwell about lucky circumstances playing a part with the hard work (10,000 hours)was charming when he spoke of Bill Gate's 8th grade encounter with a mainframe in his school. I have to read Gladwell's new book. I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.

mabraham  12/22/2008 04:25 AM Report

The irony of this conversation is that on one side you have Cladwell who is desperately trying to explain that luck is a very important factor in success, and on the other you have Mr Rose's fascination for success and his firm belief it stems primarily out of hard work.

The other point I found interesting was when Gladwell alluded to the fact that most brilliant children don't become "successful" but usually have "happy" lives. He suggests that it is an almost deliberate choice, i.e. because they were brilliant they realized the combination of sacrifices and luck needed to become successful, and determined it just wasn't worth it.

ShalomFreedman  12/21/2008 01:05 PM Report

This was a great conversation, and I learned from it a lot about what it may take to be an outstanding success. Gladwell's explanation of his own talent , his combination of the ability to probe into an obscure complicated area and communicate the results in a clear way for a wider public was one of the major revelations. The explanation of other successes , the Beatles, Bill Gates, Bill Joy, Tiger Woods, also was of great interest. Gladwell is clearly tilting back a bit in the direction of giving credit to circumstance- envirornment rather than genetic endowment, individual brilliance. I do wonder about how the ten- thousand hour rule applies in a realm I know a bit about Poetry. How does it explain the brilliance of the young Keats and Wordsworth , and too the failure of inspiration for Wordsworth in later years?

Charlie Rose reads and understands in depth and detail the work of Gladwell. But he does not test and question it.

And that said, this was a tremendously enlightening and enjoyable conversation.