Malcolm Gladwell versus Ayn Rand: Who is right?(dealflow.typepad.com)
dealflow.typepad.com
Malcolm Gladwell versus Ayn Rand: Who is right?
http://dealflow.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/11/malcolm-gladwell-versus-ayn-rand.html
132 comments
Rand's vilification of people who disagree with her is irritating, but what's more troublesome is the victim mentality that goes along with it. Inevitably the protagonist (who is handsome, smart, determined, and surprisingly domineering in the bedroom) is held back by the mediocrity of the masses. If only circumstances were different, the books tell us over and over again, our hero could achieve his true potential.
This, to me, is a cop-out. Most proponents of Objectivism never make something excellent, they just talk a lot about how they could, maybe, if only things were different. Or, in an amusing variation, they can just declare themselves to have achieved excellence (Ayn Rand once declared herself "the best writer today") in spite of the opposition.
Both of these approaches seem to sidestep the very real challenges of making something great and enduring. While I think the comparison to Gladwell is apples to oranges, I much prefer his attempts to quantify what make someone exceptional to Rand's ineffable "greatness".
This, to me, is a cop-out. Most proponents of Objectivism never make something excellent, they just talk a lot about how they could, maybe, if only things were different. Or, in an amusing variation, they can just declare themselves to have achieved excellence (Ayn Rand once declared herself "the best writer today") in spite of the opposition.
Both of these approaches seem to sidestep the very real challenges of making something great and enduring. While I think the comparison to Gladwell is apples to oranges, I much prefer his attempts to quantify what make someone exceptional to Rand's ineffable "greatness".
That's why I find it deeply amusing that a whole ton of successful people are Randesque without ever once attributing Rand. A lot of Objectivists miss the fact that just saying you agree with Rand doesn't immediately make you Randesque. That's why people who really think Rand's got something worth saying don't go out and socialize only with other Rand readers.
The world has a history of cocky jackasses who succeed because they're entirely certain that they're right, because they are. Rand tapped a few of them to write her novels, actually.
The world has a history of cocky jackasses who succeed because they're entirely certain that they're right, because they are. Rand tapped a few of them to write her novels, actually.
Rand was rude towards people who disagreed with her for the sake of publicity just like this article. Disagreeing with good reason is what they should do instead.
Rand was also a little bit extreme in her beliefs. It's very much a "do as I say, not as I do" situation. She told people that they should disagree with her if they found logical merit in dismissing her theories, then disowned anybody who attempted to do so.
How is it rude?
How is which rude?
Rand is rude when she dismisses some of her critics because she often refuses outright to admit that any of them have valid points.
Rand is rude when she dismisses some of her critics because she often refuses outright to admit that any of them have valid points.
Rand's vilification of people who disagree with her is irritating, but what's more troublesome is the victim mentality that goes along with it. Inevitably the protagonist (who is handsome, smart, determined, and surprisingly domineering in the bedroom) is held back by the mediocrity of the masses. If only circumstances were different, the books tell us over and over again, our hero could achieve his true potential.
-
Hence the blogger's comment:
"Atlas Shrugged is a similar story. In it a group of scientists and tycoons decide in equally petulant fashion that they will "simply take their ball and go home", when society refuses to capitulate to their capricious demands. So what happens? Well, according to Ayn Rand everything in the world grinds to a halt. In her bizarre world view, no replacements are available amongst the rest of humanity to rise up to the occasion and take over from the cry-babies who have gone home in a snit."
Yes, in real life others would have stepped up to the plate.
Hence the blogger's comment:
"Atlas Shrugged is a similar story. In it a group of scientists and tycoons decide in equally petulant fashion that they will "simply take their ball and go home", when society refuses to capitulate to their capricious demands. So what happens? Well, according to Ayn Rand everything in the world grinds to a halt. In her bizarre world view, no replacements are available amongst the rest of humanity to rise up to the occasion and take over from the cry-babies who have gone home in a snit."
Yes, in real life others would have stepped up to the plate.
I think Atlas Shrugged assumes a fantastic future in which the amount of people who CAN step up to the plate have dwindled immensely, and in which many of the ones who COULD are already broken.
In real life as it stands today, Atlas Shrugged is not a plausible scenario. The trick to reading it without casting it aside in horror is realizing that Rand knows that, and that she's drawing things to their extremes to make a specific point about how she thinks human beings work. People who mock Atlas on that point are missing the point of the book.
In real life as it stands today, Atlas Shrugged is not a plausible scenario. The trick to reading it without casting it aside in horror is realizing that Rand knows that, and that she's drawing things to their extremes to make a specific point about how she thinks human beings work. People who mock Atlas on that point are missing the point of the book.
[deleted](1)
The article misses that Rand's books are romantic, whereas Gladwell is a journalist. Rand writes fiction; Gladwell writes theories based on anecdotes and statistics. For an analogy, that'd be a lot like saying "Pablo Piccasso, or xyz modern photographer: Who is right?"
Not sure what profession has to do with a comparison of beliefs.
Not sure what profession has to do with a comparison of beliefs.
They each have different aims with their writing. Gladwell wants to illustrate things as they are. Rand wants to illustrate things as they could be.
Gladwell's writings undermine Rand's beliefs justifying her vision of what could/should be.
To some extent, yes. As I said: Gladwell is like a Rand villain. But they aren't polar opposites. I doubt Rand ever saw the world as stylized as she wrote it. She's openly a Romantic Realist.
Gladwell opposes Rand. But they still hold fast in certain things. The opposite of Rand is not the person who says that people aren't responsible for their success. It's the person who says that civilization isn't a success, that human beings are beasts, that the solution to our problems is to go back to being savages. Similarly: I think Rand would disagree with Gladwell's claim that nobody is responsible for their life, but she wouldn't dispute his findings. She would just argue that they aren't as relevant as Gladwell thinks they are.
Gladwell opposes Rand. But they still hold fast in certain things. The opposite of Rand is not the person who says that people aren't responsible for their success. It's the person who says that civilization isn't a success, that human beings are beasts, that the solution to our problems is to go back to being savages. Similarly: I think Rand would disagree with Gladwell's claim that nobody is responsible for their life, but she wouldn't dispute his findings. She would just argue that they aren't as relevant as Gladwell thinks they are.
[deleted]
[deleted]
My favorite Randian hero is not from a Rand novel, but Final Fantasy 6: Kefka.
It's only a garbage article if you're a fanatical Rand groupie.
The post contributes to an important societal debate over whether or not the successful owe anything back to society, such as taxes.
Obviously it's stimulated a lot of heat.
The post contributes to an important societal debate over whether or not the successful owe anything back to society, such as taxes.
Obviously it's stimulated a lot of heat.
No, it's garbage because it makes a claim, then fails to back it up well.
I read the NYmag article. Gladwell in that article does appear to be Rand's favorite villain. However, the blog post doesn't use those points. It doesn't contrast Gladwell's "cutting down the great man" to Rand's points. It brings up Rand, attacks her, brings up Gladwell, draws no conclusions whatsoever, and then says that the author can see a connection. The fact that a good argument as come up is because of the various Hacker News factions, not because of any merit that article had whatsoever.
I read the NYmag article. Gladwell in that article does appear to be Rand's favorite villain. However, the blog post doesn't use those points. It doesn't contrast Gladwell's "cutting down the great man" to Rand's points. It brings up Rand, attacks her, brings up Gladwell, draws no conclusions whatsoever, and then says that the author can see a connection. The fact that a good argument as come up is because of the various Hacker News factions, not because of any merit that article had whatsoever.
[deleted](1)
No, it's garbage because it makes a claim, then fails to back it up well.
--
The guy simply asked a question. A question which then led to this long tirade by Rand groupies.
The guy simply asked a question. A question which then led to this long tirade by Rand groupies.
FTA:
Well, according to Ayn Rand everything in the world grinds to a halt. In her bizarre world view, no replacements are available amongst the rest of humanity to rise up to the occasion and take over from the cry-babies who have gone home in a snit.
Then, citing Gladwell out of context:
Then there's the question of why so many Asian students excel at mathematics:
And then there are the math geniuses who, as anyone can’t help noticing, are disproportionately Asian. Citing the work of an educational researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, Gladwell attributes this phenomenon not to some innate mathematical ability that Asians possess but to the fact that children in Asian countries are willing to work longer and harder than their Western counterparts. That willingness, Gladwell continues, is due to a cultural legacy of hard work that stems from the cultivation of rice. Turning to a historian who studies ancient Chinese peasant proverbs, Gladwell marvels at what Chinese rice farmers used to tell one another: “No one who can rise before dawn 360 days a year fails to make his family rich.”
Elsewhere in this thread was an argument from somebody who saw this and assumed that Gladwell was being racist and saying that working in rice paddies make Chinese people hard-working.
Then it sums up:
So the question is then: Are the successful truly independent of the society within which they grew up or do they owe their success, at least in part, to the benefits, attitudes, and advantages it bestowed upon them?
Read the entire article, Why Success Is More Circumstantial Than Personal.
Who is right? Malcolm Gladwell or Ayn Rand?
It doesn't add anything of interest. It doesn't make an initial comparison. It doesn't argue about how they're opposed in any way. We the commenters did that.
Well, according to Ayn Rand everything in the world grinds to a halt. In her bizarre world view, no replacements are available amongst the rest of humanity to rise up to the occasion and take over from the cry-babies who have gone home in a snit.
Then, citing Gladwell out of context:
Then there's the question of why so many Asian students excel at mathematics:
And then there are the math geniuses who, as anyone can’t help noticing, are disproportionately Asian. Citing the work of an educational researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, Gladwell attributes this phenomenon not to some innate mathematical ability that Asians possess but to the fact that children in Asian countries are willing to work longer and harder than their Western counterparts. That willingness, Gladwell continues, is due to a cultural legacy of hard work that stems from the cultivation of rice. Turning to a historian who studies ancient Chinese peasant proverbs, Gladwell marvels at what Chinese rice farmers used to tell one another: “No one who can rise before dawn 360 days a year fails to make his family rich.”
Elsewhere in this thread was an argument from somebody who saw this and assumed that Gladwell was being racist and saying that working in rice paddies make Chinese people hard-working.
Then it sums up:
So the question is then: Are the successful truly independent of the society within which they grew up or do they owe their success, at least in part, to the benefits, attitudes, and advantages it bestowed upon them?
Read the entire article, Why Success Is More Circumstantial Than Personal.
Who is right? Malcolm Gladwell or Ayn Rand?
It doesn't add anything of interest. It doesn't make an initial comparison. It doesn't argue about how they're opposed in any way. We the commenters did that.
Why do people on HN discuss the title, and not the content? The average discussion on reddit/programming (for example) is now of higher quality than HN these days, for the same story - and with less oneupmanship.
To me, the interesting thing about this story isn't the presentation of the thesis (using Ayn Rand), but to question the thesis itself: Is success more circumstantial than personal? http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index6.html
The hockey player example creates a subset of advantaged people (i.e. those born nearer the start of the year), for which evidence is claimed.
I'm not sure about the "rice fields" causation, but I have observed, and it's well known that students who are culturally asian study harder. But again, "asian students" is a subset of all students.
In contrast, Bill Gates and the Beatles are subsets of one each. What about all the other bands who played Hamburg (Ringo wasn't there anyway)? Was there a wave of "Hamburg" bands?
And what about all the other kids who had a computer lab - for one thing, Bill wasn't the only kid in that school.
Circumstance (obviously) can provide providential assistance - though it's worth noting that the aid given in all the above cases was not a gift, but more work. And I certainly agree with that - skill comes from practice.
It might be that your potential is set at birth; and there is nothing you can do about it - you cannot affect it in the slightest, no matter what you do or how hard you try. But there is no way of knowing what that potential is... except by practicing as hard and as long as these guys did and finding out.
To me, the interesting thing about this story isn't the presentation of the thesis (using Ayn Rand), but to question the thesis itself: Is success more circumstantial than personal? http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index6.html
The hockey player example creates a subset of advantaged people (i.e. those born nearer the start of the year), for which evidence is claimed.
I'm not sure about the "rice fields" causation, but I have observed, and it's well known that students who are culturally asian study harder. But again, "asian students" is a subset of all students.
In contrast, Bill Gates and the Beatles are subsets of one each. What about all the other bands who played Hamburg (Ringo wasn't there anyway)? Was there a wave of "Hamburg" bands?
And what about all the other kids who had a computer lab - for one thing, Bill wasn't the only kid in that school.
Circumstance (obviously) can provide providential assistance - though it's worth noting that the aid given in all the above cases was not a gift, but more work. And I certainly agree with that - skill comes from practice.
It might be that your potential is set at birth; and there is nothing you can do about it - you cannot affect it in the slightest, no matter what you do or how hard you try. But there is no way of knowing what that potential is... except by practicing as hard and as long as these guys did and finding out.
I have always found Gladwell's work to be interesting, but he suffers severely from confirmation bias. His pieces seem like very well laid out hypotheses with a lot of biased support and no further development nor testing. But again, they are interesting and great conversation starters.
I strongly recommend voting up the original article so that we may refocus the discussion (I did not submit it):
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=359511
I strongly recommend voting up the original article so that we may refocus the discussion (I did not submit it):
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=359511
Does this apply to the particular thesis of his in question?
On HN, I've also heard that Seth Godin suffers from "confirmation bias" - but if we generalize about the person, instead of examining each specific thesis (and their support for it), it is an ad hominem argument - however kindly, balanced and reasonable the tone.
On HN, I've also heard that Seth Godin suffers from "confirmation bias" - but if we generalize about the person, instead of examining each specific thesis (and their support for it), it is an ad hominem argument - however kindly, balanced and reasonable the tone.
The original article has nothing of interest in it.
The original article is vastly better than this blog post.
BS
The original one is a thorough discussion of Gladwell, his life, and his beliefs. This article was a poorly-written attempt to get hits through controversy alone. It doesn't show Rand off well, and it cites Gladwell out of context.
If you disagree, I'd love to discuss. But let's do it by actually making arguments back and forth. Let's put an effort into it.
If you disagree, I'd love to discuss. But let's do it by actually making arguments back and forth. Let's put an effort into it.
The point of the blog is the question: do the successful at least part of their success to the society they grew up in.
Ayn Rand says no; Gladwell says yes.
Ayn Rand says no; Gladwell says yes.
I'm not convinced that Ayn Rand says no. She really never addresses the question of how her heroes get to be the way they are -- they just appear in her books fully formed with their brilliance and their values already in place.
I expect that if Ayn Rand were actually pressed on the issue of "do the successful owe at least part of their success to their upbringing" she'd be forced to admit that yes, they do.
I expect that if Ayn Rand were actually pressed on the issue of "do the successful owe at least part of their success to their upbringing" she'd be forced to admit that yes, they do.
Her heroes work hard at whatever they love - it's not established why they love it, but it's established that they act on their love.
Peter Keating (the shadow or antagonist of Howard Roark in the Fountainhead, with comparable ability but different choices) provides a counter-example: he loves painting, but doesn't practice it until after many years of ("aw, hell") architecture. When he eventually does turn to it, Howard Roark gently tells him "it's too late".
Yes, her heroes' ability (brilliance) and loves (values) are already in place - but in this, they are no more gifted than anyone else. What differentiates them is their consistent choice to apply their ability to what they love, seek mentors, etc. As a personal choice, it is within their power, and does not come from their upbringing. It comes from them - as do your choices (of course, they also have many blessings and opportunities - as do you).
Peter Keating (the shadow or antagonist of Howard Roark in the Fountainhead, with comparable ability but different choices) provides a counter-example: he loves painting, but doesn't practice it until after many years of ("aw, hell") architecture. When he eventually does turn to it, Howard Roark gently tells him "it's too late".
Yes, her heroes' ability (brilliance) and loves (values) are already in place - but in this, they are no more gifted than anyone else. What differentiates them is their consistent choice to apply their ability to what they love, seek mentors, etc. As a personal choice, it is within their power, and does not come from their upbringing. It comes from them - as do your choices (of course, they also have many blessings and opportunities - as do you).
and what do you think? Please elaborate.
You first!
Can I jump in and say "It's most likely a mix of the two?"
Steve Jobs was not and is not a huge computer hacker. Not like Bill Gates. But still, he was able to conceive of the idea of a personal computer, before anybody else had the idea. How did he get 10,000 hours working into that? From his own words, he got the idea by dropping acid and deciding that people weren't using this new technology in a way that could change the world. He repeated this again and again with the iPod, the iTunes store, the iPhone, even with how he changed Pixar.
Jobs is unquestionably talented. However, it isn't shown that he's talented solely because he practiced at what he did heavily. I think that part of what makes Jobs as great as he is is his unbridled ego, his belief that he alone is right until proven otherwise. And that's something that you can't entirely pin on the society around you.
Steve Jobs was not and is not a huge computer hacker. Not like Bill Gates. But still, he was able to conceive of the idea of a personal computer, before anybody else had the idea. How did he get 10,000 hours working into that? From his own words, he got the idea by dropping acid and deciding that people weren't using this new technology in a way that could change the world. He repeated this again and again with the iPod, the iTunes store, the iPhone, even with how he changed Pixar.
Jobs is unquestionably talented. However, it isn't shown that he's talented solely because he practiced at what he did heavily. I think that part of what makes Jobs as great as he is is his unbridled ego, his belief that he alone is right until proven otherwise. And that's something that you can't entirely pin on the society around you.
There were way too many people responsible for Steve Jobs success. Steve Woznaik, Jonathan Ive, John Lasseter, Gil Amelio and many many others. Steve Jobs didn't have to put in 10000 hours because someone else did it for him.
But that's too easy an association. Jobs has the ability to get rid of excess. While he doesn't make every single thing by hand, he's usually the final arbiter in most cases. And from most stories, he's the one who usually demands that people remove everything but the essentials. And that's absolutely a talent - not everybody can do it - and it's one that isn't explained by the sorts of work Jobs does.
One of his abilities, absolutely, is the ability to spot which people are incredible at what they do, and to put them in a situation in which they can do it. In Pixar, he created the central hub that got people interacting with one another. (I forget the article that talks about this - anybody have the link?) He has a genius ability to fix things, to make them better.
I argued once that if Jobs hadn't found Woz, he'd have found somebody else capable of doing what he needed done. And I think the end result would be largely the same. Woz was a programmer. Jobs was the visionary and the designer.
One of his abilities, absolutely, is the ability to spot which people are incredible at what they do, and to put them in a situation in which they can do it. In Pixar, he created the central hub that got people interacting with one another. (I forget the article that talks about this - anybody have the link?) He has a genius ability to fix things, to make them better.
I argued once that if Jobs hadn't found Woz, he'd have found somebody else capable of doing what he needed done. And I think the end result would be largely the same. Woz was a programmer. Jobs was the visionary and the designer.
I wonder if a factor is that Jobs makes many more attempts than most people, and goes from "failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" - but we remember the successes? He's had failures that would wash up most of us. Meanwhile, he gets better and better, while others give up.
I agree that not everybody can "remove everything but the essentials" - but I think that everybody can try to do it; can practice it. The difficulty is in knowing what the essentials are, which requires knowing what you are really doing, and what it needs. Through practice, we improve.
Could it be as simple as believing in your intuition? I mean: to consider what you believe is essential, and then act on it And find out if you were right or not. Then repeat many times. Without loss of enthusiasm...
I agree that not everybody can "remove everything but the essentials" - but I think that everybody can try to do it; can practice it. The difficulty is in knowing what the essentials are, which requires knowing what you are really doing, and what it needs. Through practice, we improve.
Could it be as simple as believing in your intuition? I mean: to consider what you believe is essential, and then act on it And find out if you were right or not. Then repeat many times. Without loss of enthusiasm...
As a friend of the author, I know that people at Apple and Microsoft used Ted Nelson's Computer Lib as a bible on personal computing. Sadly, you can't buy it cheap (I have a signed reprint), but it's an astounding book.
It's likely that Jobs saw this early on.
It's likely that Jobs saw this early on.
In the comment you first replied to I did just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=359751
EDIT I see now you were part of the sockpuppet trolling rampage. Now defeated and deleted: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=360128
EDIT I see now you were part of the sockpuppet trolling rampage. Now defeated and deleted: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=360128
Why not just submit the original article?
http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/
The blog post adds nothing to the discussion and the title chosen by the submitter makes things worse.
http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/
The blog post adds nothing to the discussion and the title chosen by the submitter makes things worse.
The article doesn't bring up Ayn Rand who is the dead opposite of Gladwell.
There was no reason to bring her up as the blog author's commentary wasn't very insightful.
OMG! Which part of "putting two ideas together in order to stimulate thinking" is so difficult for you to grasp? It's done all the time.
But he didn't put two ideas together. He brings up Rand, says that she appalls him, and then talks about Gladwell separately. There's a very loose attempt to tie them together, which falls flat (the Beatles having to play long sets doesn't do away with the explanation that each member of the Beatles was incredibly talented). The article is spam overall.
Gladwell and Rand don't contradict each other. They barely overlap at all. And if there is a connection, it's not one that this article points out.
Gladwell and Rand don't contradict each other. They barely overlap at all. And if there is a connection, it's not one that this article points out.
unalone, get over it. Sheesh!
I'm in class, and nothing's going on, and I love this debate, and it concerns two authors who I've read and enjoyed reading. Hell, I love debating in general. This is what I do rather than play Halo.
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.
What's the deal with linking to this crappy "So You Want to be a Billionaire" site?
It's obviously blog spam of the worst kind. Using Rand for bait is a nice touch.
It's obviously blog spam of the worst kind. Using Rand for bait is a nice touch.
And yet here we all are engaged in an empassioned argument over it.
Here we are rehashing silly debates about Ayn Rand instead of discussing the ideas contained in the original article.
The Asians - hard work - rice explanation is a bit cutesy.
In what recently underdeveloped nation do people NOT work like mules? Where in the developing world do parents NOT push their kids hard to study?
China, India, All of Eastern Europe?
There's nothing magical about rice.
In what recently underdeveloped nation do people NOT work like mules? Where in the developing world do parents NOT push their kids hard to study?
China, India, All of Eastern Europe?
There's nothing magical about rice.
"Chinese Students: They work much harder at their studies and exhibit greater patience in problem-solving than their American counterparts thanks to their cultural legacy of long days toiling in rice paddies."
Gladwell is a great writer, but this point is not him at his best. I'm married to a Chinese-born woman and we have plenty of Chinese friends and co-workers. They are indeed a hard-working people, but there are no rice paddies in northern China (too cold), where they work just as hard and do not eat much rice. Their preferred cereal grain is wheat, eaten primarily as noodles and buns. Unfortunately for point cited, it's also the preferred grain of much of the rest of the world.
A more important question is "why have the Chinese suddenly become more productive in the last 25 years?" The culture is much the same now as it was then. What changed? Economic freedom and the decline of economic authoritarianism.
"Having to give something back to the society that developed you" is exactly the argument that the Soviets used to justify prohibiting emmigration, etc. Nice.
Gladwell is a great writer, but this point is not him at his best. I'm married to a Chinese-born woman and we have plenty of Chinese friends and co-workers. They are indeed a hard-working people, but there are no rice paddies in northern China (too cold), where they work just as hard and do not eat much rice. Their preferred cereal grain is wheat, eaten primarily as noodles and buns. Unfortunately for point cited, it's also the preferred grain of much of the rest of the world.
A more important question is "why have the Chinese suddenly become more productive in the last 25 years?" The culture is much the same now as it was then. What changed? Economic freedom and the decline of economic authoritarianism.
"Having to give something back to the society that developed you" is exactly the argument that the Soviets used to justify prohibiting emmigration, etc. Nice.
"Right" is such a silly word for discussing philosophies, it implies an absolute and dealing in absolutes is one of the easiest ways to get yourself in trouble from a decision making based on philosophical opinions standpoint
True, but Rand's philosophy deals entirely in absolutes, and is resistant to reconciliation with any other philosophy. Any golden mean approach need not apply.
So, yes, it's a silly word, but by that same measure Objectivism is a silly philosophy.
So, yes, it's a silly word, but by that same measure Objectivism is a silly philosophy.
It's a silly philosophy with some grains of truth behind it. I think it's absolutely worth studying.
Similarly, I doubt anybody would call Gladwell's writings a "philosophy." He doesn't write all his books with a single, unified theory around them. Each one pursues a separate venue.
Similarly, I doubt anybody would call Gladwell's writings a "philosophy." He doesn't write all his books with a single, unified theory around them. Each one pursues a separate venue.
"Society or Individual?" = "Nature or Nuture?"
Bad questions lead to bad answers.
Bad questions lead to bad answers.
The first thing I noticed is that this article misspells 'Roark', the protagonist in The Fountainhead. It's hard to take anything else in the article seriously. But I will answer the titular question nevertheless:
Malcolm Gladwell and Ayn Rand are both wrong.
Contra Gladwell, most great successes have great ability; they succeed where mediocrities would fail. Contra Rand, most great successes have great luck; they succeed where the unlucky would fail.
Indeed, if both ability and luck are major factors in success, the truly great are those who are both lucky and good. This leads to what I immodestly term Hartl's Law:
Since great success requires great luck, everyone great is overrated.
This includes, by the way, both Gladwell and Rand---as, I suspect, Gladwell would readily concede, but Rand (were she alive) would surely not.
Malcolm Gladwell and Ayn Rand are both wrong.
Contra Gladwell, most great successes have great ability; they succeed where mediocrities would fail. Contra Rand, most great successes have great luck; they succeed where the unlucky would fail.
Indeed, if both ability and luck are major factors in success, the truly great are those who are both lucky and good. This leads to what I immodestly term Hartl's Law:
Since great success requires great luck, everyone great is overrated.
This includes, by the way, both Gladwell and Rand---as, I suspect, Gladwell would readily concede, but Rand (were she alive) would surely not.
Rand is very dogmatic, unfortunately. I like her ideas more than I do her execution of them.
Gladwell takes it a bit too far, in my opinion. The NYmag was the first interview I read of his, and he seems too determined to avoid taking the credit. It doesn't make him evil per se, not like Rand would say, but it does annoy me when I read his interview.
Gladwell takes it a bit too far, in my opinion. The NYmag was the first interview I read of his, and he seems too determined to avoid taking the credit. It doesn't make him evil per se, not like Rand would say, but it does annoy me when I read his interview.
I agree, on both points.
So according to Malcolm Gladwell I need to be Chinese to be good at math and because I was born in the later half of the year I am not good at sports therefore I am good at computers.
Man these guys have it all figured out. Bunch of shit both of them. Know why Bill Gates succeeded? Cause he worked hard. Know why Chinese kids do better in Math? Cause they usually start from nothing, parents come over here start a new life and tell them to work hard to make it. Cause of the Chinese tradition of strong family the kid listens.
People who start from the bottom work harder to get out, people who start at the top sit around and do nothing until they've been passed up.
These are of course generalizations of a majority of these social groups.
Man these guys have it all figured out. Bunch of shit both of them. Know why Bill Gates succeeded? Cause he worked hard. Know why Chinese kids do better in Math? Cause they usually start from nothing, parents come over here start a new life and tell them to work hard to make it. Cause of the Chinese tradition of strong family the kid listens.
People who start from the bottom work harder to get out, people who start at the top sit around and do nothing until they've been passed up.
These are of course generalizations of a majority of these social groups.
Yeah you've got it all figured out...</irony>
Read the NYmag article. You'll find that Gladwell argues the exact same point that you just made. Except for the "people at the top" argument, because I know a lot of people from wealthy families who still work incredibly hard. I think there are lazy people in every class.
They're both wrong.
How so?
Because they both take such extreme positions and often ignore the path of compromise and moderation.
This isn't to say that absolutes are always wrong (or right), but taking absolute positions on so many different items lends itself to arrogance and the inability to incorporate new evidence.
This isn't to say that absolutes are always wrong (or right), but taking absolute positions on so many different items lends itself to arrogance and the inability to incorporate new evidence.
False choice. Rand usually makes valid points in her novels but tends to wildly overstate them (perhaps in order to underscore her points). Gladwell may be somewhat reductive in his reasoning, but certainly social and environmental factors play a large role in success.
Simply put, it's both nature and nurture. It's what you do (by nature) and your circumstances (nurture) that determine success.
Simply put, it's both nature and nurture. It's what you do (by nature) and your circumstances (nurture) that determine success.
Michael77(3)
[deleted]
Randinistas!
A question.
Did Roarke have the moral or legal rights to destroy the development after the owners changed the design?
A question.
Did Roarke have the moral or legal rights to destroy the development after the owners changed the design?
Legally, no. Morally, yes.
Samuel Beckett, possibly the best writer since Joyce, insists that if you perform his play, you do it precisely according to his directions: you use his setting, you follow his directions, you don't edit a line. It is his idea. In Beckett's case, thanks to copyrights it was both legally and morally his right to demand that.
In Roark's case, he did not submit the plan under his own name. Therefore, he couldn't have a legal right to it (Peter's confession is legally shady ground). However, it was his idea and therefore his right to demand that it be created without compromise. I think the ending of that book is a fantasy that would never actually happen, but if I were on that jury, I'd vote to acquit.
Samuel Beckett, possibly the best writer since Joyce, insists that if you perform his play, you do it precisely according to his directions: you use his setting, you follow his directions, you don't edit a line. It is his idea. In Beckett's case, thanks to copyrights it was both legally and morally his right to demand that.
In Roark's case, he did not submit the plan under his own name. Therefore, he couldn't have a legal right to it (Peter's confession is legally shady ground). However, it was his idea and therefore his right to demand that it be created without compromise. I think the ending of that book is a fantasy that would never actually happen, but if I were on that jury, I'd vote to acquit.
I can see how Roark has every right to be pissed off, but I still can't see how that translates to the right to blow it up with dynamite.
Followup question: What if Roark were a lousy architect? (But still thought he was brilliant?) Of course we know he wasn't because the book never gets tired of telling us how brilliant he is, but what if his original plans actually did kinda suck and the alterations were actually improvements? (cf. the Sydney Opera House).
Followup question: What if Roark were a lousy architect? (But still thought he was brilliant?) Of course we know he wasn't because the book never gets tired of telling us how brilliant he is, but what if his original plans actually did kinda suck and the alterations were actually improvements? (cf. the Sydney Opera House).
Well, if he isn't then the argument is moot. But we have to trust Rand, and trust context: a famous, controversial architect takes him under his wing and loves his stuff, and the right sorts of people like his stuff. I've found that similar situations occur in real life, where there are particular movements of people with similar beliefs.
If the original plans sucked... well, I think that morally he still has the right. But the point of the novel is that if they sucked he wouldn't BE in that situation. He submits plans because he wants to help the middle class, which will get hurt vastly by this plan. And his plans are good enough that his absolute worst enemy agrees with how practical they are.
Dynamite is the only way to remove architecture, especially if the rights to building it are removed from you. A playwright can choose to remove his play from circulation. An artist can rip apart a painting. Roark can't do that so easily. And I think he has the right to remove his idea even if it's brilliant. In particular, he and Peter signed a contract that Keating would get it built exactly to standards, and Keating broke that. So there's some moral precedent: signs of his anticipating this happening. It's not a random act. Similarly, playwrights can choose to retroactively deny you performing rights if you go to far. It's happened before. There was controversy over Pinter performing a Beckett play a year or two ago, where Pinter changed one of the core parts of the play. It was resolved in Pinter's favor only because Pinter was Beckett's good friend, and understands his work thoroughly.
What's this about the Sydney Opera House? I don't know this story.
And, because I've seen your name pop up before, I feel like I ought to tell you that even though we disagree a lot, I've liked every debate we've gotten into. Thanks. :-)
If the original plans sucked... well, I think that morally he still has the right. But the point of the novel is that if they sucked he wouldn't BE in that situation. He submits plans because he wants to help the middle class, which will get hurt vastly by this plan. And his plans are good enough that his absolute worst enemy agrees with how practical they are.
Dynamite is the only way to remove architecture, especially if the rights to building it are removed from you. A playwright can choose to remove his play from circulation. An artist can rip apart a painting. Roark can't do that so easily. And I think he has the right to remove his idea even if it's brilliant. In particular, he and Peter signed a contract that Keating would get it built exactly to standards, and Keating broke that. So there's some moral precedent: signs of his anticipating this happening. It's not a random act. Similarly, playwrights can choose to retroactively deny you performing rights if you go to far. It's happened before. There was controversy over Pinter performing a Beckett play a year or two ago, where Pinter changed one of the core parts of the play. It was resolved in Pinter's favor only because Pinter was Beckett's good friend, and understands his work thoroughly.
What's this about the Sydney Opera House? I don't know this story.
And, because I've seen your name pop up before, I feel like I ought to tell you that even though we disagree a lot, I've liked every debate we've gotten into. Thanks. :-)
Rand thought that she was a great philospher when in reality she was a mediocrity.
Her heroes likewise see themselves as ubermensch when they are in reality nothing more than pompous assholes.
Her heroes likewise see themselves as ubermensch when they are in reality nothing more than pompous assholes.
I disagree with "pompous" very much. Rand is many things, but she's very rarely pompous. She's quite down-to-earth.
She's great in that she's concise and accessible. She writes an incredible "gee-whiz" action story.
And, pardon me if this is off the mark, but I've noticed 4 accounts being made in the last hour, all of whom have the same attitude to this conversation, all of whom comment twice. Are these all throwaway accounts? I've never seen something like this happen on Hacker News before.
She's great in that she's concise and accessible. She writes an incredible "gee-whiz" action story.
And, pardon me if this is off the mark, but I've noticed 4 accounts being made in the last hour, all of whom have the same attitude to this conversation, all of whom comment twice. Are these all throwaway accounts? I've never seen something like this happen on Hacker News before.
Ayn Rand is the philospher for the shallow and immature.
I think many people read Rand all wrong. I found large elements of satire in Atlas and Fountainhead. Like Orwell in Animal Farm, she created a silly cartoon version of the world with its dynamics hugely out or proportion in order to bring out the subtle absurdities of modern life and government.
You're not supposed to read it and decided to move to the mountains of Colorado. You're supposed to read it and then have a fresh look at some of the dynamics that are going on around you and wonder if some change is in order.
You're not supposed to read it and decided to move to the mountains of Colorado. You're supposed to read it and then have a fresh look at some of the dynamics that are going on around you and wonder if some change is in order.
That's a valid argument. Unfortunately, looking at some of the essay work that I remember being included in the paperbacks (sorry I'm not specific, I read it almost a decade ago), it seems that Rand was more serious than humorous, and her readers seem the same way as you've pointed out. Someone with a fresher memory / more time to Google can feel free to prove me wrong.
I think Rand ended up getting too full of herself. The Fountainhead is my favorite book of hers. By Atlas, she was dealing with a beautiful scope and marvelous characters, but she lost the willingness to really flesh her characters out. You get hints of moral contradiction and moral struggle, but that's it. Not like The Fountainhead, in which the hero and the villain are thoroughly explained.
Rand believed very firmly in her philosophy. Her fiction, however, is romanticized: Rand says that she portrays things not as they are, but as how she wishes they could be. It pains me when her "followers" take her black-and-white approach literally.
Rand believed very firmly in her philosophy. Her fiction, however, is romanticized: Rand says that she portrays things not as they are, but as how she wishes they could be. It pains me when her "followers" take her black-and-white approach literally.
I'm not sure the gigantic speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged is merely about getting you to "wonder" if some change is in order. Rand wrote exactly what she thought you should think.
Yeah. But that's an exception to the rest of the book. I mean, good heavens, there's a mad scientist with a mustache who creates a death machine called Project Xylophone, there's a failing novelist named Balph Eubank, and a pirate is fraternizing with a coal miner. You can't look at that with any mindset other than "This is, above all, a fun read."
To rephrase that, u r a fag!
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
KeshRivya(1)
[deleted]
Rand and Gladwell represent opposites of the scale.
As far as I'm concerned they're talking about two orthogonal subjects, and I think it takes a bit of cloudy thinking to conflate the two.
Rand never posited that people are born productive. Productive people are productive by virtue of doing things, in Ayn's world...while a lot of other people are envious of the doing and stand in their way. People can become productive. Individualism requires that people can do whatever it is they want to do, as long as it doesn't harm another. Rand wasn't talking about what childhood occurrences make for a Galt or a Roarke. Perhaps she believed they were pre-destined, but I can't think of a single instance where that was indicated in her writing (and I went through a two year Rand phase in college...I've read just about everything she ever wrote). And certainly not in Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.
Gladwell, on the other hand, is saying that people we view as stars in their field are sometimes given a more obvious path to becoming stars than others, and thus things society does can help or hinder people who would be productive. I don't think Rand would argue that there aren't people in the world who can help you as well as people in the world who can hinder you.
Note that I'm not making any judgment call on either idea. I'm just not seeing how anyone could come away thinking this article is a useful addition to the subject (or subjects, in this case, since there are two under discussion, and somehow the author believes they contradict one another). I agree with others that this is blogspam, making use of hot button names like Gladwell and Rand. It's almost as if they have a machine that churns out high hit ideas...
Rand never posited that people are born productive. Productive people are productive by virtue of doing things, in Ayn's world...while a lot of other people are envious of the doing and stand in their way. People can become productive. Individualism requires that people can do whatever it is they want to do, as long as it doesn't harm another. Rand wasn't talking about what childhood occurrences make for a Galt or a Roarke. Perhaps she believed they were pre-destined, but I can't think of a single instance where that was indicated in her writing (and I went through a two year Rand phase in college...I've read just about everything she ever wrote). And certainly not in Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.
Gladwell, on the other hand, is saying that people we view as stars in their field are sometimes given a more obvious path to becoming stars than others, and thus things society does can help or hinder people who would be productive. I don't think Rand would argue that there aren't people in the world who can help you as well as people in the world who can hinder you.
Note that I'm not making any judgment call on either idea. I'm just not seeing how anyone could come away thinking this article is a useful addition to the subject (or subjects, in this case, since there are two under discussion, and somehow the author believes they contradict one another). I agree with others that this is blogspam, making use of hot button names like Gladwell and Rand. It's almost as if they have a machine that churns out high hit ideas...
Rand never made her sociological understanding of how people become productive explicit because she sort of didn't have any. That's what enables her to view the highly productive and the less productive (or unproductive or even counterproductive) as good and evil, respectively. If she actually understood the subtle forces at work, she wouldn't have been so quick to judge.
I don't disagree with that. It doesn't alter the fact that the author of the article manages to misunderstand a lot of things, and then presents it as useful discourse. I just wanted to call out that cloudy thinking. It's a pet peeve.
Rand doesn't view those of lesser productivity as "evil", assuming they aren't leaching off of others when they could be providing for themselves. She simply viewed them as uninteresting: they aren't the people changing the world. She was admittedly quite harsh in her judgement of what constituted "productive". She described the character of Eddie Willers in _Atlas Shrugged_ as "a typical man of mediocrity", and he was a top-level exec in a large railroad company!
It's too bad, really. There is so much good in her philosophy that gets obscured by her personnal flaws and her limited (and self-admitted) lack of understanding of human psychology. _The Fountainhead_ is a great novel, raw and bitter and steeped in human struggle as few books are. It has a dozen flaws, but it's still one of the greatest books I've ever read. There is a scene in it where Roark and Dominique discuss the chemical properties of the different kinds of marble. Boring right? It has to be one of the greatest extended allegories ever written. (TASTE the dialog there. Slippery silibants suggesting sly secrets of the soul.)
It's too bad, really. There is so much good in her philosophy that gets obscured by her personnal flaws and her limited (and self-admitted) lack of understanding of human psychology. _The Fountainhead_ is a great novel, raw and bitter and steeped in human struggle as few books are. It has a dozen flaws, but it's still one of the greatest books I've ever read. There is a scene in it where Roark and Dominique discuss the chemical properties of the different kinds of marble. Boring right? It has to be one of the greatest extended allegories ever written. (TASTE the dialog there. Slippery silibants suggesting sly secrets of the soul.)
Yeah. That's another misconception of Rand's work, I think.
People assume that Rand is saying that people are inherently good or inherently evil. That's absolutely not the case. She says that they're inherently imbalanced, that we aren't all perfectly equal, but that we still have the freedom to decide which side of her argument we stand on. Look at Guy Francon in The Fountainhead, who is a fool and a faker but who decides, in the end, to support his daughter. Or look at Fred Kinnan, in Atlas Shrugged, who is talented and bright enough to know that he's doing the wrong thing, who is morally straight, but who decides that compromise is inevitable and that it's worth him sacrificing himself if it means protecting the people underneath him.
Rand has imperfections in her writing, but she doesn't have a lot of the ones that she's accused of. And it makes discussing her online rather difficult. Neither side wants to admit the virtues of the other side.
People assume that Rand is saying that people are inherently good or inherently evil. That's absolutely not the case. She says that they're inherently imbalanced, that we aren't all perfectly equal, but that we still have the freedom to decide which side of her argument we stand on. Look at Guy Francon in The Fountainhead, who is a fool and a faker but who decides, in the end, to support his daughter. Or look at Fred Kinnan, in Atlas Shrugged, who is talented and bright enough to know that he's doing the wrong thing, who is morally straight, but who decides that compromise is inevitable and that it's worth him sacrificing himself if it means protecting the people underneath him.
Rand has imperfections in her writing, but she doesn't have a lot of the ones that she's accused of. And it makes discussing her online rather difficult. Neither side wants to admit the virtues of the other side.
Exactly. Chances are the answers lies somewhere in the middle...
Or the answer could be on an entirely different scale, so they're equally wrong.
Any examples of how this would work? I'm a bit confused.
If it were found that people are more or less productive/successful based on the amount of iron in their diets during early childhood they would both be proven wrong (this example is strictly for illustration).
I believe that there are many contributing factors and possible paths to productivity and success (as well as many ways to measure both).
I believe that there are many contributing factors and possible paths to productivity and success (as well as many ways to measure both).
Okay, gotcha.
Nerdlinger(1)
Gladwell has a few racist bones in his body:
"And then there are the math geniuses who, as anyone can’t help noticing, are disproportionately Asian. Citing the work of an educational researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, Gladwell attributes this phenomenon not to some innate mathematical ability that Asians possess but to the fact that children in Asian countries are willing to work longer and harder than their Western counterparts. That willingness, Gladwell continues, is due to a cultural legacy of hard work that stems from the cultivation of rice."
That's right up there with claiming that Africans and African Americans excel at athletics because they purportedly once chased or were chased by wild animals: Patronizing and offensive to the extreme. People in entertainment have lost their careers for saying such things.
"And then there are the math geniuses who, as anyone can’t help noticing, are disproportionately Asian. Citing the work of an educational researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, Gladwell attributes this phenomenon not to some innate mathematical ability that Asians possess but to the fact that children in Asian countries are willing to work longer and harder than their Western counterparts. That willingness, Gladwell continues, is due to a cultural legacy of hard work that stems from the cultivation of rice."
That's right up there with claiming that Africans and African Americans excel at athletics because they purportedly once chased or were chased by wild animals: Patronizing and offensive to the extreme. People in entertainment have lost their careers for saying such things.
By your logic, stating the obvious fact that there are differences between races makes you a racist.
There are differences between the races and some do stem from environmental factors, a fact that is well documented and is part of the theory of evolution and natural selection.
It's ridiculous to call Gladwell a racist for pointing out one of those differences and theorize on its cause.
There are differences between the races and some do stem from environmental factors, a fact that is well documented and is part of the theory of evolution and natural selection.
It's ridiculous to call Gladwell a racist for pointing out one of those differences and theorize on its cause.
My good-at-math friend is Asian, and her parents instilled a very powerful work ethic in her. That's not racism. It's a cultural difference.
What you've said is 100% correct. Notice how you didn't attribute it to a history of rice farming, but rather to academic prowess and diligence.
I think you're associating two things that Gladwell didn't. He brings up rice farming for the anecdote about fallow-fields versus 360-days-of-work.
In that case I was wrong to trust the article linked here.
Yeah. It's a pretty bad one.
I just remembered that I read "Tipping Point" years ago and didn't detect any prejudice or really any negativity. I just didn't put two and two together (Gladwell's name doesn't stand out to me).
The article is good. Just look a the discussion it's begun.
But the discussion exists because the topic is so vivid. The article itself is rambling, incoherent, and at many times wrong.
It's not a theory he came up with, that Asian cultures tend to have stronger and more rigid work ethics because rice is labor-intensive, whereas Europeans tend to seek clever ways of eliminating work because the farming of traditional European grains is capital-intensive. I don't buy it, but it's not a crack theory and Gladwell isn't the first to propose it.
The article misses that Rand's books are romantic, whereas Gladwell is a journalist. Rand writes fiction; Gladwell writes theories based on anecdotes and statistics. For an analogy, that'd be a lot like saying "Pablo Piccasso, or xyz modern photographer: Who is right?"
The guy's synopsis of Rand is pretty telling --> "Atlas Shrugged is a similar story. In it a group of scientists and tycoons decide in equally petulant fashion decide that they will "simply take their ball and go home" when society refuses to capitulate to their capricious demands."
Rand misses some points, the world isn't so black and white. But her general message is pro-individualism, hard work, anti-politicking, pro-competition, etc. It's anti-interventionism, anti-socialism, anti-labor, etc. It also mocks the hell out of people who come from opposite backgrounds, and interprets their motivations as scared and selfish. It makes for a good read, but makes her books hard to discuss with people from those viewpoints.
In reality, most people who are pro-collective, pro-socialism, etc. are decent folk with great intentions. Free marketists and socialists just happen to violently disagree on how to build the best world. Unfortunately, Rand's ruthless treatment of people who disagree with her all being nincompoops makes the books hard to discuss with someone who doesn't already have some of the underpinnings of her philosophy.