My first topic. Always tricky you know. Trying to go with something thought provoking over here. But again, that which provokes my thoughts might not provoke other's. Aaarrgggh!! look at me already digressing from the topic in my first post.
I guess I should start by explaining "Accumalated advantage". Well I just started reading the "The outliers" and this books tries to explain the reason behind the success of successful people. It argues that people who are extraordinarily successful (The outliers) are not only successful because of their extraordinary talent, grit and determination and hardwork but also another major factor that nobody considers. It says success also depends on where these people came from, where they were born, who their ancestors were even as far as when they were born!!! It disagrees with those autoboigraphies that talk about "self made" successes. It charts the example of sportspersons from every game in almost every country. How their success is dependent on their ealier pickings into junior squads which ultimately depends on their date of birth in relation to the cut-off dates for entrants. So naturally, people with birthdays just after the cut-off date would be more older and mature and hence more equiped than their peers. Same can be applied to education in many countries. It tells you that at the time of their first picking they only had a slight advantage, but gradually after getting picked in successive squads because of the same advantage they get more incentive. Sort of like rich getting richer and poor staying poor. This in sociology is called "Accumulative advantage".
Do you agree with the authors view? Personally, I am a quite skeptical. I mean throughout my life I have seen people with all the comforts and advantages (yours truly included) squander them, whereas people who have quite a few hindrances to success are all the more motivated and to achieve it. Applying the same concept I figure wouldn't the other kids be more motivated to perform seeing that they are competing with marginally older and mature kids. Would they not be more inclined to prove themselves.
But again there are comprehensive statistics to back the authors claims - I could say "statistics never give the whole picture" but then like a really good TVshow says ;) "Number's don't lie" I have to respect that too.
What do you people think?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, to start with " How do you define success?"
ReplyDeleteI personally believe it to be a very relative term. Do you consider our parents to be successful or just the like of Warren Buffets' and Dhirubhai Amabanis' to be successful ?
And as far as stats are concerned, I agree "number don't lie" provided they are not manipulated and/or interpreted as per ones own convenience..
so there it is the first comment by ur fav cousin who is as wasteful as u r ;-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSuccess just in the general sense. people who exceeded in their fields far above their peers. enough to put them out of the normal graph(outliers). Our parents are great successes too, considering where they started from. though the case of our parents does support the author's claim i guess. I mean you could attribute our parents success to how our grandfather raised them. Also their humble beginnings from rajasthan does support the authors claims and also their high ability in maths (them being from asia and all) none of which they had any control over but sort of just got anyways. But compared to us, the situation supports what i was saying. Our parents who definitely did not have the advantages we do slogged harder and succeeded whereas we toh you know ;). Us having lenient parents, according to the author, makes us the disadvantaged bunch.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Welcome to your first blog Mr. Dargad. its a privilege to be commenting here ;)
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand from your description of the author's take on success, I don't think he/she is dismissing any of the other factors of 'self made' success. He/she is simply adding on another contributing factor to it. Instead of narrowing it down to birth date, I'll generalize his narrow addition to be environment and background. When considered so, it definitely plays a big role in an individual's success.
Mo :)
PS: Since this is your very first article, couldn't help myself but correct a grammatical error: in your blog: 'a skeptical' ;)
@Mo - Actually the author is sure that this factor to a large extent defines success. He says that at the time these people got their first advantage they probably were just s little better than others (and that too due to factors they did not have control over) and then this initial advantage successively turned into a huge margin overtime. He says that if the system of cut-off dates should be changed so that we can explore the whole population for talent
ReplyDelete