I'm finding that part two isn't as interesting as the first part, probably because it doesn't relate to me as much. What do you think about that? Some of it is still interesting though. The Power Distance Index was new to me.
When I started reading part two, I was a little confused. What do the shoot-outs Harlan, Kentucky have to do with being outliers? What were your initial thoughts about the section? Did you already understand what the connection was?
While there are no "outliers," the term representing a person with an abnormal amount of success, in this section as of yet, it is still relevant to the book as it talks about the many factors which contribute to being an outlier. For example, Gladwell drives home the point about how culture is a significant factor in the way someone acts and succeeds with his examples about the Korean and Colombian plane crashes. Because those cultures are very high on the power distance index (a list which refers to how much there is an ingrained respect for superiors and a deference to authority present in a country's people), the flight crew on those planes were afraid to inform the tired pilot of a problem and only hinted at it, resulting in an easily avoidable crash. Of course, these accidents resulted due to a variety of factors (weather, exhaustion, culture), but I guess that Gladwell is trying to state that many random chance events cause failure in the same way that it creates success, with culture being one of those "major" contributors that cannot be controlled despite how smart or determined one is. Now, I don't understand why he chose to focus on culture when that had very little to do with the outliers in the beginning part of the book, but it is interesting to learn why Asians tend to do better in math (much more logical number system, hard work and determination coming from rice paddies). So yes, I understand the connection between the shoot-outs and the beginning part of the book (certain cultural factors create negative outliers/failures), but I don't understand why he chose this specific topic as his focus.
I found it strange as well, the Korean flight captains and assistants were not exactly outliers, as it's simply their culture to speak to superiors in an indirect manner. A crew member cannot say to a captain that he is doing something wrong or should change what he is doing. The way I understood it was that this section of the book was not describing individual people as outliers, but more that the culture of one group was unique to other cultures. Suren Ratwatte, the pilot who found a way to be calm and speak to the ATC and to his attendants in a clear manner, had an interesting story, however. He was not exactly an outlier, since he was Sri Lankan and not Korean, but his story seems to explain that even in stressful situations, if a person is able and knows what he is doing, he can do impressive feats that most others could not.
While there are no "outliers," the term representing a person with an abnormal amount of success, in this section as of yet, it is still relevant to the book as it talks about the many factors which contribute to being an outlier.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Gladwell drives home the point about how culture is a significant factor in the way someone acts and succeeds with his examples about the Korean and Colombian plane crashes. Because those cultures are very high on the power distance index (a list which refers to how much there is an ingrained respect for superiors and a deference to authority present in a country's people), the flight crew on those planes were afraid to inform the tired pilot of a problem and only hinted at it, resulting in an easily avoidable crash. Of course, these accidents resulted due to a variety of factors (weather, exhaustion, culture), but I guess that Gladwell is trying to state that many random chance events cause failure in the same way that it creates success, with culture being one of those "major" contributors that cannot be controlled despite how smart or determined one is.
Now, I don't understand why he chose to focus on culture when that had very little to do with the outliers in the beginning part of the book, but it is interesting to learn why Asians tend to do better in math (much more logical number system, hard work and determination coming from rice paddies). So yes, I understand the connection between the shoot-outs and the beginning part of the book (certain cultural factors create negative outliers/failures), but I don't understand why he chose this specific topic as his focus.
I found it strange as well, the Korean flight captains and assistants were not exactly outliers, as it's simply their culture to speak to superiors in an indirect manner. A crew member cannot say to a captain that he is doing something wrong or should change what he is doing. The way I understood it was that this section of the book was not describing individual people as outliers, but more that the culture of one group was unique to other cultures. Suren Ratwatte, the pilot who found a way to be calm and speak to the ATC and to his attendants in a clear manner, had an interesting story, however. He was not exactly an outlier, since he was Sri Lankan and not Korean, but his story seems to explain that even in stressful situations, if a person is able and knows what he is doing, he can do impressive feats that most others could not.
ReplyDelete