Need help with assignments

I have attached everything listed for this 

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

· “Introduction: The Roseto Mystery” (pp. 3–11)

· Chapter 1, “The Matthew Effect” (pp. 15–34)

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Statistical language—Quantitative and qualitative data. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+-+quantitative+and+qualitative+data

Glaze, L., & Parks, E. (2012). Correctional populations in the United States, 2011 (NCJ 239972). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus11
Miniño A. M., & Murphy S. L. (2012). Death in the United States, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db99

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Employment projections. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

By Day 3

Post a minimum of 100 words to Discussion Question A.
Review the assigned pages in Gladwell’s Outliers as well as the articles on statistics. Consider how statistical data were used in the examples in the Learning Resources.
Identify two examples in the Learning Resources and explain how statistics were used in each example. State whether statistics were used effectively in each example and explain why. Finally, explain a strategy you could use to ensure the data you collect and interpret is done in a reliable manner.
By Day 3

Post a minimum of 100 words to your choice of Discussion Question C.
Numerical data are used everywhere to prove points, support claims, define situations, and provide insight for decision making. While reading this weeks’s Learning Resources, you may have noticed how some individuals used numerical data. To prepare for this Discussion, identify a newspaper article, news report, speech, or public presentation in which an individual uses quantitative data to support a position.
Then, post an evaluation of the author/speaker’s use of quantitative data by explaining whether the data was collected and interpreted in a reliable manner. Provide support for your position.
Note: If you conclude that not enough data is available in your selected resource to complete an accurate evaluation, state why this is so. Then, state what steps you might take to learn more about the data used to support the position. Explain how these steps would help you evaluate the data.
By Day 7

Submit your Week 4 Milestone that includes the following:
· A problem statement that addresses the social change topic you identified in the Week 3 Milestone
· An explanation of at least one stakeholder’s perspective on the social change issue; explain how this perspective is similar to or different from your own
· APA references for at least two scholarly resources you are using for your Final Project
(This is all about your work on drug abuse from last week)
By Day 7

Submit a completed copy of the Week 4 Assignment Handout: Statistical Evaluations.
(attached)
By Day 7

In one paragraph, summarize how the resources in Unit 4 extend your understanding of problem solving when it comes to Quantitative Decisions

1

Project: Final Project Milestone

Eva Youman

Walden University

Project: Final Project Milestone

There’s a problem in many schools, bullying. Despite organiszations websites and school officials something more drastic has to be done to curb bullying. The problem I am disgusing are the ages of 12-18 school age children. Bullying is “about 28 percent of students 12-18 have reported being bullied during the school year.”(American Society for the Positive Care if Children, 2018). Bullying can cause many negative impacts such as mental , physical health it can also lead to suicide, low self esteem and even deptression. A Possible cause is many “such as a bullier being bullied by someone else i.e. family members, jealousy- perhaps the bullied life style appears to be better than the bullier”(American Society for the Positive Care if Children, 2018) there are many factors that can lead to one being bullied or a person wanting to bully an innocent person.

A study which investigates thoroughly the stages of bullying , whats being done after the first initial incident using quantitative and qualitiative data methods which would gather moer pertinent information and less assumpotions of what works. This could remedy the situation to some extent and perhaps eventually stop it, this along with other methods I perviosuly listed without violating anyone rights. There was one finding that had similar ideas as mysef which as proven to work.

Austrilian schools study antibullying strategies:

Due to the rise in bullying nationwide the Austrilian government school decided to conduct a study that would provide different strategies that worked to curb bullying in their schools.

I choose this school because some of their methods that are working actually are the same

as some of my ideas. They’ve proven that their methods reduced bullying. Their way of

handling cases were the same ideas as myself. They used Direct Mediation: involved

harsher penalties, punishment, consequences, Restorative practices which allows both parties

to meet for the offender to deal some remorse and support group method which a meeting is set

Project: Final Project Milestone

up separately between the offender and then defender, then a final meeting with the offender and other peers to speak on the defender half to let the offender feel the pain of the victim without the victim present.” (Rigby, 2017).

When you look at my ideas/methods on a better way to curb bullying, it’s similar to the tatctisc used by the Australian government school.

District mediation by grouping kids within the same age group together to work out their past issues- only after initial notification of bullying

Jail time if all the above has not ceased them a more severe approach should be taken by placing the bulkier in juvenile.

In conclusion I feel that this is not just a problem that happening here in the United States and if the problem Australia has taken a hold of bullying and their method is working. I now feel something can and should be done differently to put a firm hold on bullying.”The school shooting in 1990’s school were retaliation from the shooter being bullied.” (Effects of Bullying). This is 2018 and the shooting are still occurring if this is not evidence enough to put an end to, what else needs to be shown to prove this.

References

American Society for the Positive Care of Children. (n.d.). Bullying Stastics for the Positive Care of Children. (n.d.). Bullying Stastics & Information. Retrieved from

https://americanspcc.org/bullying/statistics-and-information/

Rigby, K. (2017). School Perspective on bullying and preventive strategies: An exploratory story. Australian Journal of Education, vol 6, Issue 1, pp.24-39. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0004944116685622

United States. Department of Health and Human Services,. (n.d.). Stopbullying.gov.

Effects of Bullying: Kids who are Bullied. Retrieved from:  

http://www.stopbullying.gov/what-is-bullying/roles-kids-play/index.html

Out l ie rs
THE S T O R Y OF S U C C E S S
M A L C O L M
G L A D W E L L
#1 bestselling author of The Tipping Point and Blink

$ 2 7 . 9 9
$ 3 0 . 9 9 in C a n a d a
Why do some people succeed far more than others?
T h e r e is a story that is usually told about
extremely successful peop le , a story that focuses
on intelligence and ambit ion. In Outliers Malcolm
Gladwell argues that the true story of success is
very different, and that if we want to unders tand
how some peop le thrive, we should spend more
time looking around them — at such things as
their family, their bir thplace, or even their birth
date. T h e story of success is more complex — and
a lot more interesting — than it initially appears .
Outliers expla ins what the Beat les and Bill
Ga tes have in c o m m o n , the extraordinary success
o f As ians at math, the h idden advantages of star
athletes, why all top N e w York lawyers have the
s ame r é sumé , and the reason you ‘ve never heard
o f the wor ld ‘ s smartes t man — all in terms o f gen­
erat ion, family, cul ture, and c lass . It matters what
year you were born if you want to be a Si l icon
Valley bi l l ionaire, Gladwel l a rgues , and it matters
where you were born if you want to be a suc ­
cessful pi lot . T h e lives o f outliers — those peop le
whose achievements fall ou ts ide normal experi­
ence — follow a pecul iar and unexpec ted logic ,
and in making that logic plain Gladwell presents a
fascinating and provocative blueprint for making
the mos t o f human potential.
(continued on back flap)

In The Tipping Point M a l c o l m Gladwel l
changed the way we unde r s t and the wor ld .
In Blink he changed the way we think abou t
thinking. Outliers will t ransform the way we
unde r s t and s u c c e s s .
M A L C O L M G L A D W E L L is the author o f the
# 1 international bestsellers The Tipping Point and
Blink. H e is a staff writer for The New Yorker
and was formerly a business and science reporter
at the Washington Post. For more information about
Malcolm Gladwell, go to www.gladwell.com.
L O O K F O R
The = = ; •
T I P P I N G P O I N T blink
M A L C O L M
G L A D W E L L
Malcolm Gladwell
Also avai lable from V ” * ” ”
J a c k e t des ign by Al l i son J . Warner
J a c k e t p h o t o g r a p h © Andy C r a w f o r d / D o r l i n g K i n d e r s l e y / G e t t y I m a g e s
Author p h o t o g r a p h by Brooke Wil l iams
Vis i t our Web site at w w w . H a c h e t t e B o o k G r o u p . c o m
Printed in the U . S . A . © 2 0 0 8 Hachet te B o o k G r o u p , Inc .

http://www.gladwell.com

http://www.HachetteBookGroup.com

Two of the most
influential books of the past decade
T H E T I P P I N G POINT
H o w Li t t l e T h i n g s C a n M a k e a B i g D i f f e r ence
“A fascinating book that makes you see the world in a different way.”
— Fortune
“GladwelPs theories could be used to run
businesses more effectively, to turn products into runaway bestsellers,
and perhaps most important, to alter human behavior.”
— New York Times
B L I N K
T h e Power o f T h i n k i n g W i t h o u t T h i n k i n g
“A real pleasure Brims with surprising insights about
our world and ourselves.”
— Salon.com
“Royally entertaining.”
— Time
ISBN 9 7 8 – 0 – 3 1 6 – 0 1 7 9 2 – 3

http://Salon.com

O U T L I E R S

A L S O BY M A L C O L M G L A D W E L L
Blink
The Tipping Point

O U T L I E R S
The Story of Success
M A L C O L M G L A D W E L L
L I T T L E , BROWN A N D C O M P A N Y
N E W Y O R K • B O S T O N • L O N D O N

Copyright © 2008 by Malcolm Gladwell
Al l rights reserved. Except as permitted under the U.S . Copyright Act
of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval
system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Little, Brown and Company
Hachette Book Group
237 Park Avenue, N e w York, N Y 10017
Visit our Web site at www.HachetteBookGroup.com
First Edition: November 2008
Little, Brown and Company is a division of Hachette Book Group, Inc.
The Little, Brown name and logo are trademarks of
Hachette Book Group, Inc.
The author is grateful for permission to use the following copyrighted material:
American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J . Sherwin, copyright 2005
by Kai Bird and Martin J . Sherwin. Used by permission of Alfred A . Knopf,
a division of Random House, Inc.; Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and
Family Life, by Annette Lareau, copyright 2003 Regents of the University of
California. Published by the University of California Press; “Intercultural
Communication in Cognitive Values: Americans and Koreans, by Ho-min
Sohn, University of Hawaii Press, 1983; The Happiest Man: The Life of Louis
Borgenicht (New York: G . P. Putnam’s Sons, 1942). Used by permission of
Lindy Friedman Sobel and Alice Friedman Holzman.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Gladwell , Malcolm.
Outliers : the story of success / Malcolm Gladwell. — 1st ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
H C I S B N 978-0-316-01792-3
Int’l ed. I S B N 978-0-316-03669-6
1. Successful people. 2. Success. I. Title.
BF637.S8G533 2008
302 —dc22 2008032824
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
RRD-IN
Book designed by Meryl Levavi
Printed in the United States of America

http://www.HachetteBookGroup.com

For Daisy

Contents
INTRODUCTION
T h e R o s e t o M y s t e r y
” T h e s e p e o p l e w e r e d y i n g o f o l d a g e .
T h a t ‘ s i t . ” 3
P A R T O N E : O P P O R T U N I T Y
ONE
T h e M a t t h e w E f f e c t
” F o r u n t o e v e r y o n e t h a t h a t h
s h a l l be g i v e n , a n d h e s h a l l h a v e
a b u n d a n c e . B u t f r o m h i m t h a t h a t h
n o t s h a l l be t a k e n a w a y e v e n t h a t
w h i c h he h a t h . ” — M a t t h e w 2 5 : 2 9 1 5

C O N T E N T S
TWO
T h e 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H o u r R u l e
” I n H a m b u r g , w e h a d t o p l a y
f o r e i g h t h o u r s . ” 35
THREE
T h e T r o u b l e w i t h G e n i u s e s , P a r t 1
” K n o w l e d g e o f a b o y ‘ s I Q is o f
l i t t l e h e l p i f y o u a r e f a c e d w i t h
a f o r m f u l o f c l e v e r b o y s . ” 6 9
FOUR
T h e T r o u b l e w i t h G e n i u s e s , P a r t 2
” A f t e r p r o t r a c t e d n e g o t i a t i o n s ,
it w a s a g r e e d t h a t R o b e r t w o u l d be
p u t o n p r o b a t i o n . ” 9 1
FIVE
T h e T h r e e L e s s o n s o f J o e F l o m
” M a r y g o t a q u a r t e r . ” 1 1 6
P A R T T W O : L E G A C Y
six
H a r l a n , K e n t u c k y
” D i e l i k e a m a n , l i k e y o u r
b r o t h e r d i d ! ” 1 6 1
V I I I

C O N T E N T S
SEVEN
T h e E t h n i c T h e o r y o f P l a n e C r a s h e s
” C a p t a i n , t h e w e a t h e r r a d a r h a s
h e l p e d u s a l o t . ” 1 7 7
EIGHT
R i c e P a d d i e s a n d M a t h T e s t s
” N o o n e w h o c a n r i s e b e f o r e d a w n t h r e e
h u n d r e d s i x t y d a y s a y e a r f a i l s t o
m a k e h i s f a m i l y r i c h . ” 2 2 4
NINE
M a r i t a ‘ s B a r g a i n
“Al l m y f r i e n d s n o w a r e f r o m K I P P .” 2 5 0
EPILOGUE
A J a m a i c a n S t o r y
” I f a p r o g e n y o f y o u n g c o l o r e d
c h i l d r e n is b r o u g h t f o r t h , t h e s e
a r e e m a n c i p a t e d . ” 2 7 0
NOTES 2 8 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2 9 7
INDEX 3 0 1
I X

O U T L I E R S

I N T R O D U C T I O N
The Roseto Mystery
” T H E S E P E O P L E W E R E D Y I N G
O F O L D A G E . T H A T ‘ S I T . ”
out-li-er \ – , l ï ( -9 ) r \ noun
i: something that is situated away from or classed differ-
ently from a main or related body
2: a statistical observation that is markedly different in
value from the others of the sample
1.
Roseto Valfortore lies one hundred miles southeast of
Rome in the Apennine foothills of the Italian province of
Foggia. In the style of medieval villages, the town is orga-
nized around a large central square. Facing the square is the
Palazzo Marchesale, the palace of the Saggese family, once
the great landowner of those parts. An archway to one side
leads to a church, the Madonna del Carmine—Our Lady
of Mount Carmine. Narrow stone steps run up the hill-
side, flanked by closely clustered two-story stone houses
with red-tile roofs.
3

O U T L I E R S
For centuries, the paesani of Roseto worked in the
marble quarries in the surrounding hills, or cultivated the
fields in the terraced valley below, walking four and five
miles down the mountain in the morning and then mak­
ing the long journey back up the hill at night. Life was
hard. The townsfolk were barely literate and desperately
poor and without much hope for economic betterment
until word reached Roseto at the end of the nineteenth
century of the land of opportunity across the ocean.
In January of 1882, a group of eleven Rosetans—ten
men and one boy—set sail for New York. They spent
their first night in America sleeping on the floor of a tav­
ern on Mulberry Street, in Manhattan’s Little Italy. Then
they ventured west, eventually finding jobs in a slate
quarry ninety miles west of the city near the town of Ban­
gor, Pennsylvania. The following year, fifteen Rosetans
left Italy for America, and several members of that group
ended up in Bangor as well, joining their compatriots in
the slate quarry. Those immigrants, in turn, sent word
back to Roseto about the promise of the New World, and
soon one group of Rosetans after another packed their
bags and headed for Pennsylvania, until the initial stream
of immigrants became a flood. In 1894 alone, some twelve
hundred Rosetans applied for passports to America, leav­
ing entire streets of their old village abandoned.
The Rosetans began buying land on a rocky hillside
connected to Bangor by a steep, rutted wagon path. They
built closely clustered two-story stone houses with slate
roofs on narrow streets running up and down the hillside.
They built a church and called it Our Lady of Mount Car-
mel and named the main street, on which it stood, Gari-
4

T H E R O S E T O M Y S T E R Y
baldi Avenue, after the great hero of Italian unification. In
the beginning, they called their town New Italy. But they
soon changed it to Roseto, which seemed only appropri­
ate given that almost all of them had come from the same
village in Italy.
In 1896, a dynamic young priest by the name of Father
Pasquale de Nisco took over at Our Lady of Mount Car-
mel. De Nisco set up spiritual societies and organized
festivals. He encouraged the townsfolk to clear the land
and plant onions, beans, potatoes, melons, and fruit trees
in the long backyards behind their houses. He gave out
seeds and bulbs. The town came to life. The Rosetans
began raising pigs in their backyards and growing grapes
for homemade wine. Schools, a park, a convent, and a
cemetery were built. Small shops and bakeries and res­
taurants and bars opened along Garibaldi Avenue. More
than a dozen factories sprang up making blouses for the
garment trade. Neighboring Bangor was largely Welsh
and English, and the next town over was overwhelmingly
German, which meant—given the fractious relationships
between the English and Germans and Italians in those
years—that Roseto stayed strictly for Rosetans. If you
had wandered up and down the streets of Roseto in Penn­
sylvania in the first few decades after 1900, you would
have heard only Italian, and not just any Italian but the
precise southern Foggian dialect spoken back in the Ital­
ian Roseto. Roseto, Pennsylvania, was its own tiny, self-
sufficient world—all but unknown by the society around
it—and it might well have remained so but for a man
named Stewart Wolf.
Wolf was a physician. He studied digestion and the
5

O U T L I E R S
stomach and taught in the medical school at the Univer­
sity of Oklahoma. He spent his summers on a farm in
Pennsylvania, not far from Roseto — although that, of
course, didn’t mean much, since Roseto was so much in
its own world that it was possible to live in the next town
and never know much about it. “One of the times when
we were up there for the summer—this would have been
in the late nineteen fifties — I was invited to give a talk
at the local medical society,” Wolf said years later in an
interview. “After the talk was over, one of the local doc­
tors invited me to have a beer. And while we were having
a drink, he said, ‘You know, I’ve been practicing for sev­
enteen years. I get patients from all over, and I rarely find
anyone from Roseto under the age of sixty-five with heart
disease.’ ”
Wolf was taken aback. This was the 1950s, years before
the advent of cholesterol-lowering drugs and aggressive
measures to prevent heart disease. Heart attacks were an
epidemic in the United States. They were the leading cause
of death in men under the age of sixty-five. It was impossi­
ble to be a doctor, common sense said, and not see heart
disease.
Wolf decided to investigate. He enlisted the support
of some of his students and colleagues from Oklahoma.
They gathered together the death certificates from resi­
dents of the town, going back as many years as they could.
They analyzed physicians’ records. They took medical
histories and constructed family genealogies. “We got
busy,” Wolf said. “We decided to do a preliminary study.
We started in nineteen sixty-one. The mayor said, ‘All my
6

T H E R O S E T O M Y S T E R Y
sisters are going to help you/ He had four sisters. He said,
‘You can have the town council room/ I said, ‘Where are
you going to have council meetings?’ He said, ‘Well, we’ll
postpone them for a while/ The ladies would bring us
lunch. We had little booths where we could take blood, do
EKGs. We were there for four weeks. Then I talked with
the authorities. They gave us the school for the summer.
We invited the entire population of Roseto to be tested.”
The results were astonishing. In Roseto, virtually no
one under fifty-five had died of a heart attack or showed
any signs of heart disease. For men over sixty-five, the
death rate from heart disease in Roseto was roughly half
that of the United States as a whole. The death rate from
all causes in Roseto, in fact, was 30 to 35 percent lower
than expected.
Wolf brought in a friend of his, a sociologist from
Oklahoma named John Bruhn, to help him. “I hired med­
ical students and sociology grad students as interview­
ers, and in Roseto we went house to house and talked to
every person aged twenty-one and over,” Bruhn remem­
bers. This happened more than fifty years ago, but Bruhn
still had a sense of amazement in his voice as he described
what they found. “There was no suicide, no alcoholism,
no drug addiction, and very little crime. They didn’t have
anyone on welfare. Then we looked at peptic ulcers. They
didn’t have any of those either. These people were dying
of old age. That’s it.”
Wolf’s profession had a name for a place like Roseto—a
place that lay outside everyday experience, where the nor­
mal rules did not apply. Roseto was an outlier.
7

O U T L I E R S
2.
Wolf’s first thought was that the Rosetans must have held
on to some dietary practices from the Old World that left
them healthier than other Americans. But he quickly real­
ized that wasn’t true. The Rosetans were cooking with
lard instead of with the much healthier olive oil they had
used back in Italy. Pizza in Italy was a thin crust with salt,
oil, and perhaps some tomatoes, anchovies, or onions.
Pizza in Pennsylvania was bread dough plus sausage, pep-
peroni, salami, ham, and sometimes eggs. Sweets such as
biscotti and taralli used to be reserved for Christmas and
Easter; in Roseto they were eaten year-round. When Wolf
had dieticians analyze the typical Rosetan’s eating habits,
they found that a whopping 41 percent of their calories
came from fat. Nor was this a town where people got up at
dawn to do yoga and run a brisk six miles. The Pennsylva-
nian Rosetans smoked heavily and many were struggling
with obesity.
If diet and exercise didn’t explain the findings, then
what about genetics? The Rosetans were a close-knit group
from the same region of Italy, and Wolf’s next thought was
to wonder whether they were of a particularly hardy stock
that protected them from disease. So he tracked down rela­
tives of the Rosetans who were living in other parts of the
United States to see if they shared the same remarkable
good health as their cousins in Pennsylvania. They didn’t.
He then looked at the region where the Rosetans lived.
Was it possible that there was something about living in the
foothills of eastern Pennsylvania that was good for their
health? The two closest towns to Roseto were Bangor,
8

T H E R O S E T O M Y S T E R Y
which was just down the hill, and Nazareth, a few miles
away. These were both about the same size as Roseto, and
both were populated with the same kind of hardworking
European immigrants. Wolf combed through both towns’
medical records. For men over sixty-five, the death rates
from heart disease in Nazareth and Bangor were three
times that of Roseto. Another dead end.
What Wolf began to realize was that the secret of
Roseto wasn’t diet or exercise or genes or location. It had
to be Roseto itself. As Bruhn and Wolf walked around
the town, they figured out why. They looked at how the
Rosetans visited one another, stopping to chat in Ital­
ian on the street, say, or cooking for one another in their
backyards. They learned about the extended family clans
that underlay the town’s social structure. They saw how
many homes had three generations living under one roof,
and how much respect grandparents commanded. They
went to mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel and saw the
unifying and calming effect of the church. They counted
twenty-two separate civic organizations in a town of just
under two thousand people. They picked up on the partic­
ular egalitarian ethos of the community, which discour­
aged the wealthy from flaunting their success and helped
the unsuccessful obscure their failures.
In transplanting the paesani culture of southern Italy
to the hills of eastern Pennsylvania, the Rosetans had cre­
ated a powerful, protective social structure capable of
insulating them from the pressures of the modern world.
The Rosetans were healthy because of where they were
/row, because of the world they had created for themselves
in their tiny little town in the hills.
9

O U T L I E R S
“I remember going to Roseto for the first time, and
you’d see three-generational family meals, all the baker­
ies, the people walking up and down the street, sitting on
their porches talking to each other, the blouse mills where
the women worked during the day, while the men worked
in the slate quarries,” Bruhn said. “It was magical.”
When Bruhn and Wolf first presented their findings
to the medical community, you can imagine the kind of
skepticism they faced. They went to conferences where
their peers were presenting long rows of data arrayed in
complex charts and referring to this kind of gene or that
kind of physiological process, and they themselves were
talking instead about the mysterious and magical benefits
of people stopping to talk to one another on the street and
of having three generations under one roof. Living a long
life, the conventional wisdom at the time said, depended
to a great extent on who we were—that is, our genes. It
depended on the decisions we made—on what we chose
to eat, and how much we chose to exercise, and how effec­
tively we were treated by the medical system. No one was
used to thinking about health in terms of community.
Wolf and Bruhn had to convince the medical estab­
lishment to think about health and heart attacks in an
entirely new way: they had to get them to realize that they
wouldn’t be able to understand why someone was healthy
if all they did was think about an individual’s personal
choices or actions in isolation. They had to look beyond
the individual. They had to understand the culture he or
she was a part of, and who their friends and families were,
and what town their families came from. They had to
I o

T H E R O S E T O M Y S T E R Y
appreciate the idea that the values of the world we inhabit
and the people we surround ourselves with have a pro­
found effect on who we are.
In Outliers, I want to do for our understanding of
success what Stewart Wolf did for our understanding of
health.
1 1

P A R T O N E
O P P O R T U N I T Y

C H A P T E R O N E
The Matthew Effect
” F O R U N T O E V E R Y O N E T H A T H A T H S H A L L
B E G I V E N , A N D H E S H A L L H A V E A B U N D A N C E ,
B U T F R O M H I M T H A T H A T H N O T S H A L L B E
T A K E N A W A Y E V E N T H A T W H I C H H E H A T H . ”
— M A T T H E W 2 5 : 2 9
1.
One warm, spring day in May of 2 0 0 7 , t n e Medicine Hat
Tigers and the Vancouver Giants met for the Memorial
Cup hockey championships in Vancouver, British Colum­
bia. The Tigers and the Giants were the two finest teams in
the Canadian Hockey League, which in turn is the finest
junior hockey league in the world. These were the future
stars of the sport—seventeen-, eighteen-, and nineteen-
year-olds who had been skating and shooting pucks since
they were barely more than toddlers.
The game was broadcast on Canadian national televi­
sion. Up and down the streets of downtown Vancouver,
Memorial Cup banners hung from the lampposts. The
arena was packed. A long red carpet was rolled out on the
ice, and the announcer introduced the game’s dignitar­
ies. First came the premier of British Columbia, Gordon
Campbell. Then, amid tumultuous applause, out walked
1 5

O U T L I E R S
Gordie Howe, one of the legends of the game. “Ladies and
gentlemen,” the announcer boomed. “Mr. Hockey!”
For the next sixty minutes, the two teams played spir­
ited, aggressive hockey. Vancouver scored first, early in
the second period, on a rebound by Mario Bliznak. Late
in the second period, it was Medicine Hat’s turn, as the
team’s scoring leader, Darren Helm, fired a quick shot past
Vancouver’s goalie, Tyson Sexsmith. Vancouver answered
in the third period, scoring the game’s deciding goal, and
then, when Medicine Hat pulled its goalie in desperation,
Vancouver scored a third time.
In the aftermath of the game, the players and their
families and sports reporters from across the country
crammed into the winning team’s locker room. The air
was filled with cigar smoke and the smell of champagne
and sweat-soaked hockey gear. On the wall was a hand-
painted banner: “Embrace the Struggle.” In the center
of the room the Giants’ coach, Don Hay, stood misty-
eyed. “I’m just so proud of these guys,” he said. “Just look
around the locker room. There isn’t one guy who didn’t
buy in wholeheartedly.”
Canadian hockey is a meritocracy. Thousands of Cana­
dian boys begin to play the sport at the “novice” level,
before they are even in kindergarten. From that point on,
there are leagues for every age class, and at each of those
levels, the players are sifted and sorted and evaluated,
with the most talented separated out and groomed for
the next level. By the time players reach their midteens,
the very best of the best have been channeled into an elite
league known as Major Junior A, which is the top of the
pyramid. And if your Major Junior A team plays for the
16

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
Memorial Cup, that means you are at the very top of the
top of the pyramid.
This is the way most sports pick their future stars. It’s
the way soccer is organized in Europe and South Amer­
ica, and it’s the way Olympic athletes are chosen. For that
matter, it is not all that different from the way the world
of classical music picks its future virtuosos, or the way
the world of ballet picks its future ballerinas, or the way
our elite educational system picks its future scientists and
intellectuals.
You can’t buy your way into Major Junior A hockey. It
doesn’t matter who your father or mother is, or who your
grandfather was, or what business your family is in. Nor
does it matter if you live in the most remote corner of the
most northerly province in Canada. If you have ability,
the vast network of hockey scouts and talent spotters will
find you, and if you are willing to work to develop that
ability, the system will reward you. Success in hockey is
based on individual merit—and both of those words are
important. Players are judged on their own performance,
not on anyone else’s, and on the basis of their ability, not
on some other arbitrary fact.
Or are they?
2.
This is a book about outliers, about men and women who
do things that are out of the ordinary. Over the course of
the chapters ahead, I’m going to introduce you to one kind
of outlier after another: to geniuses, business tycoons, rock
stars, and software programmers. We’re going to uncover
1 7

O U T L I E R S
the secrets of a remarkable lawyer, look at what separates
the very best pilots from pilots who have crashed planes,
and try to figure out why Asians are so good at math. And
in examining the lives of the remarkable among us—the
skilled, the talented, and the driven—I will argue that
there is something profoundly wrong with the way we
make sense of success.
What is the question we always ask about the successful?
We want to know what they’re like—what kind of person­
alities they have, or how intelligent they are, or what kind of
lifestyles they have, or what special talents they might have
been born with. And we assume that it is those personal
qualities that explain how that individual reached the top.
In the autobiographies published every year by the bil­
lionaire/entrepreneur/rock star/celebrity, the story line is
always the same: our hero is born in modest circumstances
and by virtue of his own grit and talent fights his way to
greatness. In the Bible, Joseph is cast out by his brothers
and sold into slavery and then rises to become the pharaoh’s
right-hand man on the strength of his own brilliance and
insight. In the famous nineteenth-century novels of Horatio
Alger, young boys born into poverty rise to riches through
a combination of pluck and initiative. “I think overall it’s a
disadvantage,” Jeb Bush once said of what it meant for his
business career that he was the son of an American president
and the brother of an American president and the grandson
of a wealthy Wall Street banker and US senator. When he
ran for governor of Florida, he repeatedly referred to him­
self as a “self-made man,” and it is a measure of how deeply
we associate success with the efforts of the individual that
few batted an eye at that description.
1 8

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
“Lift up your heads,” Robert Winthrop told the crowd
many years ago at the unveiling of a statue of that great
hero of American independence Benjamin Franklin, “and
look at the image of a man who rose from nothing, who
owed nothing to parentage or patronage, who enjoyed no
advantages of early education which are not open—a hun­
dredfold open—to yourselves, who performed the most
menial services in the businesses in which his early life
was employed, but who lived to stand before Kings, and
died to leave a name which the world will never forget.”
In Outliers, I want to convince you that these kinds of
personal explanations of success don’t work. People don’t
rise from nothing. We do owe something to parentage and
patronage. The people who stand before kings may look
like they did it all by themselves. But in fact they are invari­
ably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordi­
nary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to
learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways
others cannot. It makes a difference where and when we
grew up. The culture we belong to and the legacies passed
down by our forebears shape the patterns of our achieve­
ment in ways we cannot begin to imagine. It’s not enough
to ask what successful people are like, in other words. It is
only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the
logic behind who succeeds and who doesn’t.
Biologists often talk about the “ecology” of an organ­
ism: the tallest oak in the forest is the tallest not just
because it grew from the hardiest acorn; it is the tallest
also because no other trees blocked its sunlight, the soil
around it was deep and rich, no rabbit chewed through its
bark as a sapling, and no lumberjack cut it down before it
1 9

O U T L I E R S
matured. We all know that successful people come from
hardy seeds. But do we know enough about the sunlight
that warmed them, the soil in which they put down the
roots, and the rabbits and lumberjacks they were lucky
enough to avoid? This is not a book about tall trees. It’s a
book about forests — and hockey is a good place to start
because the explanation for who gets to the top of the
hockey world is a lot more interesting and complicated
than it looks. In fact, it’s downright peculiar.
3.
Here is the player roster of the 2007 Medicine Hat Tigers.
Take a close look and see if you can spot anything strange
about it.
N o . Name Pos. L / R Height Weight Birth Date Hometown
9 Brennan
Bosch
C R 5’8″ 173 Feb. 14, 1988 Martensville,
SK
11 Scott Wasden C R 6*1″ 188 Jan. 4 ,1988 Westbank, BC
12 Colton Grant LW L 5’9″ 177 Mar. 20 ,1989 Standard, AB
14 Darren Helm LW L 6′ 182 Jan. 21,1987 St. Andrews,
MB
15 Derek Dorsett RW L 5’11” 178 Dec. 20 ,1986 Kindersley, SK
16 Daine Todd C R 5’10” 173 Jan. 10,1987 Red Deer, AB
17 Tyler Swystun RW R 5’11” 185 Jan. 15,1988 Cochrane, AB
19 Matt Lowry c R 6′ 186 Mar. 2 ,1988 Neepawa,MB
20 Kevin
Undershute
LW L 6′ 178 Apr. 12,1987 Medicine Hat,
AB
21 Jerrid Sauer RW R 5’10” 196 Sep. 12,1987 Medicine Hat,
AB
2 O

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
N o . Name Pos. L / R Height Weight Birth Date Hometown
22 Tyler Ennis C L 5’9″ 160 Oct. 6 ,1989 Edmonton,
AB
23 Jordan
Hickmott
C R 6′ 183 Apr. 11,1990 Mission, BC
25 Jakub Rumpel RW R 5’8″ 166 Jan. 27,1987 Hrnciarovce,
SLO
28 Bretton
Cameron
C R 511″ 168 J a n . 2 6 , 1 9 8 9 Didsbury, AB
36 Chris Stevens LW L 5’10” 197 Aug. 20 ,1986 Dawson
Creek, BC
3 Gord Baldwin D L 6’5″ 205 Mar. 1,1987 Winnipeg, MB
4 David
Schlemko
D L 6’1″ 195 May 7,1987 Edmonton,
AB
5 Trever Glass D L 6′ 190 Jan. 22 ,1988 Cochrane, AB
10 Kris Russell D L 5’10” 177 May 2 ,1987 Caroline, AB
18 Michael Sauer D R 6’3″ 205 Aug. 7,1987 Sartell, M N
24 Mark
Isherwood
D R 6′ 183 Jan. 31 ,1989 Abbotsford,
BC
27 Shayne Brown D L 6’1″ 198 Feb. 20 ,1989 Stony Plain,
AB
29 Jordan
Bendfeld
D R 6’3″ 230 Feb. 9 ,1988 Leduc, AB
31 Ryan Holfeld G L S’il” 166 Jun. 29 ,1989 LeRoy, SK
33 Matt Keetley G R 6’2″ 189 Apr. 27, 1986 Medicine Hat,
A B
Do you see it? Don’t feel bad if you don’t, because
for many years in the hockey world no one did. It wasn’t
until the mid-1980s, in fact, that a Canadian psychologist
named Roger Barnsley first drew attention to the phe­
nomenon of relative age.
Barnsley was at a Lethbridge Broncos hockey game in
2 1

O U T L I E R S
southern Alberta, a team that played in the same Major Junior
A league as the Vancouver Giants and the Medicine Hat
Tigers. He was there with his wife, Paula, and their two boys,
and his wife was reading the program, when she ran across a
roster list just like the one above that you just looked at.
“Roger,” she said, “do you know when these young
men were born?”
Barnsley said yes. “They’re all between sixteen and
twenty, so they’d be born in the late sixties.”
“No, no,” Paula went on. “What month.”
“I thought she was crazy,” Barnsley remembers. “But
I looked through it, and what she was saying just jumped
out at me. For some reason, there were an incredible num­
ber of January, February, and March birth dates.”
Barnsley went home that night and looked up the birth
dates of as many professional hockey players as he could
find. He saw the same pattern. Barnsley, his wife, and a col­
league, A. H. Thompson, then gathered statistics on every
player in the Ontario Junior Hockey League. The story
was the same. More players were born in January than in
any other month, and by an overwhelming margin. The
second most frequent birth month? February. The third?
March. Barnsley found that there were nearly five and a
half times as many Ontario Junior Hockey League play­
ers born in January as were born in November. He looked
at the all-star teams of eleven-year-olds and thirteen-year-
olds—the young players selected for elite traveling squads.
Same story. He looked at the composition of the National
Hockey League. Same story. The more he looked, the more
Barnsley came to believe that what he was seeing was not
a chance occurrence but an iron law of Canadian hockey:
2 2

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
in any elite group of hockey players—the very best of
the best—40 percent of the players will have been born
between January and March, 30 percent between April
and June, 20 percent between July and September, and 10
percent between October and December.
“In all my years in psychology, I have never run into
an effect this large,” Barnsley says. “You don’t even need
to do any statistical analysis. You just look at it.”
Look back at the Medicine Hat roster. Do you see it
now? Seventeen out of the twenty-five players on the team
were born in January, February, March, or April.
Here is the play-by-play for the first two goals in the
Memorial Cup final, only this time I’ve substituted the play­
ers’ birthdays for their names. It no longer sounds like the
championship of Canadian junior hockey. It now sounds
like a strange sporting ritual for teenage boys born under
the astrological signs Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.
March 11 starts around one side of the Tigers’ net, leav­
ing the puck for his teammate January 4, who passes it
to January 22, who flips it hack to March 12, who shoots
point-blank at the Tigers’ goalie, April 27. April 27 blocks
the shot, but it’s rebounded by Vancouver’s March 6. He
shoots! Medicine Hat defensemen February 9 and Febru­
ary 14 dive to block the puck while January 10 looks on
helplessly. March 6 scores!
Let’s go to the second period now.
Medicine Hat’s turn. The Tigers’ scoring leader, January
21, charges down the right side of the ice. He stops and
2 3

O U T L I E R S
circles, eluding the Vancouver defenseman February 15.
January 21 then deftly passes the puck to his teammate
December 20—wow! what’s he doing out there f!—who
shrugs off the onrushing defender May 17 and slides a
cross-crease pass back to January 21. He shoots! Vancou­
ver defenseman March 12 dives, trying to block the shot.
Vancouver’s goalie, March 19, lunges helplessly. January
21 scores! He raises his hands in triumph. His teammate
May 2 jumps on his back with joy.
4.
The explanation for this is quite simple. It has nothing to
do with astrology, nor is there anything magical about the
first three months of the year. It’s simply that in Canada
the eligibility cutoff for age-class hockey is January i. A
boy who turns ten on January 2, then, could be playing
alongside someone who doesn’t turn ten until the end of
the year—and at that age, in preadolescence, a twelve­
month gap in age represents an enormous difference in
physical maturity.
This being Canada, the most hockey-crazed country
on earth, coaches start to select players for the traveling
“rep” squad—the all-star teams—at the age of nine or ten,
and of course they are more likely to view as talented
the bigger and more coordinated players, who have had
the benefit of critical extra months of maturity.
And what happens when a player gets chosen for a
rep squad? He gets better coaching, and his teammates
are better, and he plays fifty or seventy-five games a
season instead of twenty games a season like those left

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
behind in the “house” league, and he practices twice as
much as, or even three times more than, he would have
otherwise. In the beginning, his advantage isn’t so much
that he is inherently better but only that he is a little older.
But by the age of thirteen or fourteen, with the benefit of
better coaching and all that extra practice under his belt,
he really is better, so he’s the one more likely to make it
to the Major Junior A league, and from there into the big
leagues.””
Barnsley argues that these kinds of skewed age dis­
tributions exist whenever three things happen: selection,
streaming, and differentiated experience. If you make a
decision about who is good and who is not good at an early
age; if you separate the “talented” from the “untalented”;
and if you provide the “talented” with a superior experi­
ence, then you’re going to end up giving a huge advantage
to that small group of people born closest to the cutoff
date.
In the United States, football and basketball don’t
select, stream, and differentiate quite as dramatically. As
* The w a y Canadians select hockey players is a beautiful exam­
ple of what the sociologist Robert Merton famously called a “self-
fulfilling prophecy”—a situation where “a false definition, in the
beginning.. .evokes a new behavior which makes the original false
conception come true.” Canadians start with a false definition of who
the best nine- and ten-year-old hockey players are. They’re just pick­
ing the oldest every year. But the w a y they treat those “all-stars” ends
up making their original false judgment look correct. A s Merton puts
it: “This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates
a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as
proof that he was right from the very beginning.”
2 5

O U T L I E R S
a result, a child can be a bit behind physically in those
sports and still play as much as his or her more mature
peers.”” But baseball does. The cutoff date for almost all
nonschool baseball leagues in the United States is July 31 ,
with the result that more major league players are born in
August than in any other month. (The numbers are strik­
ing: in 2005, among Americans playing major league base­
ball 505 were born in August versus 313 born in July.)
European soccer, similarly, is organized like hockey
and baseball—and the birth-date distributions in that
sport are heavily skewed as well. In England, the eligibil­
ity date is September 1, and in the football association’s
premier league at one point in the 1990s, there were 288
players born between September and November and only
136 players born between June and August. In interna­
tional soccer, the cutoff date used to be August 1, and
in one recent junior world championship tournament,
135 players were born in the three months after August
1, and just 22 were born in May, June, and July. Today
the cutoff date for international junior soccer is Janu­
ary 1. Take a look at the roster of the 2007 Czechoslova-
kian National Junior soccer team, which made the Junior
World Cup finals.
Here we go again:
* A physically immature basketball player in an American city can
probably play as many hours of basketball in a given year as a rela­
tively older child because there are so many basketball courts and so
many people will ing to play. It’s not like ice hockey, where you need a
rink. Basketball is saved by its accessibility and ubiquity.
26

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
N o . Player Birth Date Position
1 Marcel Gecov Jan .1 ,1988 MF
2 Ludek Frydrych Jan .3 ,1987 GK
3 Petr Janda Jan .5 ,1987 MF
4 Jakub Dohnalek Jan .12 ,1988 D F
5 Jakub Mares Jan .26 ,1987 M F
6 Michal Held Jan. 27, 1987 DF
7 Marek Strestik Feb. 1,1987 F W
G
O

Jiri Valenta Feb. 14,1988 MF
9 Jan Simunek Feb. 20 ,1987 DF
10 Tomas Oklestek Feb. 21,1987 M F
11 Lubos Kalouda Feb. 21,1987 MF
12 Radek Petr Feb.24,1987 GK
13 Ondrej Mazuch Mar. 15,1989 D F
14 Ondrej Kudela Mar. 26 ,1987 M F
15 Marek Suchy Mar. 29 ,1988 DF
16 Martin Fenin Apr. 16,1987 F W
17 Tomas Pekhart May 26 ,1989 F W
18 Lukas Kuban Jun. 22 ,1987 DF
19 Tomas Cihlar Jun. 24,1987 DF
20 Tomas Frystak Aug. 18,1987 GK
21 Tomas Micola Sep. 26 ,1988 MF
At the national team tryouts, the Czech soccer coaches
might as well have told everyone born after midsummer
that they should pack their bags and go home.
Hockey and soccer are just games, of course, involving
a select few. But these exact same biases also show up in
2 7

O U T L I E R S
areas of much more consequence, like education. Parents
with a child born at the end of the calendar year often
think about holding their child back before the start of
kindergarten: it’s hard for a five-year-old to keep up with
a child born many months earlier. But most parents, one
suspects, think that whatever disadvantage a younger child
faces in kindergarten eventually goes away. But it doesn’t.
It’s just like hockey. The small initial advantage that the
child born in the early part of the year has over the child
born at the end of the year persists. It locks children into
patterns of achievement and underachievement, encour­
agement and discouragement, that stretch on and on for
years.
Recently, two economists — Kelly Bedard and Eliza­
beth Dhuey—looked at the relationship between scores
on what is called the Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study, or TIMSS (math and science tests given
every four years to children in many countries around the
world), and month of birth. They found that among fourth
graders, the oldest children scored somewhere between
four and twelve percentile points better than the young­
est children. That, as Dhuey explains, is a “huge effect.” It
means that if you take two intellectually equivalent fourth
graders with birthdays at opposite ends of the cutoff date,
the older student could score in the eightieth percentile,
while the younger one could score in the sixty-eighth
percentile. That’s the difference between qualifying for a
gifted program and not.
“It’s just like sports,” Dhuey said. “We do ability group­
ing early on in childhood. We have advanced reading groups
and advanced math groups. So, early on, if we look at
2 8

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
young kids, in kindergarten and first grade, the teachers
are confusing maturity with ability. And they put the
older kids in the advanced stream, where they learn bet­
ter skills; and the next year, because they are in the higher
groups, they do even better; and the next year, the same
things happens, and they do even better again. The only
country we don’t see this going on is Denmark. They
have a national policy where they have no ability group­
ing until the age of ten.” Denmark waits to make selec­
tion decisions until maturity differences by age have
evened out.
Dhuey and Bedard subsequently did the same analy­
sis, only this time looking at college. What did they find?
At four-year colleges in the United States—the highest
stream of postsecondary education—students belonging
to the relatively youngest group in their class are under-
represented by about 11.6 percent. That initial difference
in maturity doesn’t go away with time. It persists. And for
thousands of students, that initial disadvantage is the dif­
ference between going to college—and having a real shot
at the middle class—and not.*
“I mean, it’s ridiculous,” Dhuey says. “It’s outland­
ish that our arbitrary choice of cutoff dates is causing
* Even more social phenomena can be linked to relative age. Barns­
ley and two colleagues, for instance, once found that students who
attempt suicide are also more likely to be born in the second half of
the school year. Their explanation is that poorer school performance
can lead to depression. The connection between relative age and sui­
cide, however, isn’t nearly as pronounced as the correlation between
birth date and athletic success.
2 9

O U T L I E R S
these long-lasting effects, and no one seems to care about
them.”
5.
Think for a moment about what the story of hockey and
early birthdays says about success.
It tells us that our notion that it is the best and the
brightest who effortlessly rise to the top is much too sim­
plistic. Yes, the hockey players who make it to the profes­
sional level are more talented than you or me. But they
also got a big head start, an opportunity that they neither
deserved nor earned. And that opportunity played a criti­
cal role in their success.
The sociologist Robert Merton famously called this
phenomenon the “Matthew Effect” after the New Testa­
ment verse in the Gospel of Matthew: “For unto every­
one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance.
But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
which he hath.” It is those who are successful, in other
words, who are most likely to be given the kinds of spe­
cial opportunities that lead to further success. It’s the rich
who get the biggest tax breaks. It’s the best students who
get the best teaching and most attention. And it’s the big­
gest nine- and ten-year-olds who get the most coaching
and practice. Success is the result of what sociologists like
to call “accumulative advantage.” The professional hockey
player starts out a little bit better than his peers. And
that little difference leads to an opportunity that makes
that difference a bit bigger, and that edge in turn leads
3 °

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
to another opportunity, which makes the initially small
difference bigger still—and on and on until the hockey
player is a genuine outlier. But he didn’t start out an out­
lier. He started out just a little bit better.
The second implication of the hockey example is
that the systems we set up to determine who gets ahead
aren’t particularly efficient. We think that starting all-star
leagues and gifted programs as early as possible is the best
way of ensuring that no talent slips through the cracks.
But take a look again at that roster for the Czech Republic
soccer team. There are no players born in July, October,
November, or December, and only one each in August
and September. Those born in the last half of the year have
all been discouraged, or overlooked, or pushed out of the
sport. The talent of essentially half of the Czech athletic
population has been squandered.
So what do you do if you’re an athletic young Czech
with the misfortune to have been born in the last part of the
year? You can’t play soccer. The deck is stacked against you.
So maybe you could play the other sport that Czechs are
obsessed with—hockey. But wait. (I think you know what’s
coming.) Here’s the roster of the 2007 Czech junior hockey
team that finished fifth at the world championships.
N o . Player Birth Date Position
1 David Kveton Jan .3 ,1988 Forward
2 Jiri Suchy Jan .3 ,1988 Defense
3 Michael Kolarz Jan .12 ,1987 Defense
4 Jakub Vojta Feb. 8,1987 Defense
3 1

O U T L I E R S
N o . Player Birth Date Position
5 Jakub Kindl Feb.10,1987 Defense
6 Michael Frolik Feb. 17,1989 Forward
7 Martin Hanzal Feb.20 ,1987 Forward
8 Tomas Svoboda Feb.24,1987 Forward
9 Jakub Cerny Mar. 5,1987 Forward
10 Tomas Kudelka Mar. 10,1987 Defense
11 Jaroslav Barton Mar. 26 ,1987 Defense
12 H. O. Pozivil Apr. 22, 1987 Defense
13 Daniel Rakos May 25 ,1987 Forward
14 David Kuchejda Jun. 12,1987 Forward
15 Vladimir Sobotka Jul. 2 ,1987 Forward
16 Jakub Kovar Jul. 19,1988 Goalie
17 Lukas Vantuch Jul. 20 ,1987 Forward
18 Jakub Voracek Aug. 15,1989 Forward
19 Tomas Pospisil Aug. 25 ,1987 Forward
20 Ondrej Pavelec Aug. 31,1987 Goalie
21 Tomas Kana Nov. 29,1987 Forward
22 Michal Repik Dec. 31,1988 Forward
Those born in the last quarter of the year might as well
give up on hockey too.
Do you see the consequences of the way we have cho­
sen to think about success? Because we so profoundly
personalize success, we miss opportunities to lift others
onto the top rung. We make rules that frustrate achieve­
ment. We prematurely write off people as failures. We
are too much in awe of those who succeed and far too
3 2

T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
dismissive of those who fail. And, most of all, we become
much too passive. We overlook just how large a role we all
play—and by “we” I mean society—in determining who
makes it and who doesn’t.
If we chose to, we could acknowledge that cutoff
dates matter. We could set up two or even three hockey
leagues, divided up by month of birth. Let the players
develop on separate tracks and then pick all-star teams. If
all the Czech and Canadian athletes born at the end of the
year had a fair chance, then the Czech and the Canadian
national teams suddenly would have twice as many ath­
letes to choose from.
Schools could do the same thing. Elementary and
middle schools could put the January through April-born
students in one class, the May through August in another
class, and those born in September through Decem­
ber in the third class. They could let students learn with
and compete against other students of the same maturity
level. It would be a little bit more complicated adminis­
tratively. But it wouldn’t necessarily cost that much more
money, and it would level the playing field for those
who—through no fault of their own—have been dealt a
big disadvantage by the educational system. We could eas­
ily take control of the machinery of achievement, in other
words—not just in sports but, as we will see, in other
more consequential areas as well. But we don’t. And why?
Because we cling to the idea that success is a simple func­
tion of individual merit and that the world in which we
all grow up and the rules we choose to write as a society
don’t matter at all.
3 3

O U T L I E R S
6.
Before the Memorial Cup final, Gord Wasden—the father
of one of the Medicine Hat Tigers—stood by the side
of the ice, talking about his son Scott. He was wearing
a Medicine Hat baseball cap and a black Medicine Hat
T-shirt. “When he was four and five years old,” Wasden
remembered, “his little brother was in a walker, and he
would shove a hockey stick in his hand and they would
play hockey on the floor in the kitchen, morning till night.
Scott always had a passion for it. He played rep hockey
throughout his minor-league hockey career. He always
made the Triple A teams. As a first-year peewee or a first-
year bantam, he always played on the [top] rep team.”
Wasden was clearly nervous: his son was about to play in
the biggest game of his life. “He’s had to work very hard
for whatever he’s got. I’m very proud of him.”
Those were the ingredients of success at the high­
est level: passion, talent, and hard work. But there was
another element. When did Wasden first get the sense that
his son was something special? “You know, he was always
a bigger kid for his age. He was strong, and he had a knack
for scoring goals at an early age. And he was always kind
of a standout for his age, a captain of his team ”
Bigger kid for his age? Of course he was. Scott Wasden
was born on January 4, within three days of the absolute
perfect birthday for an elite hockey player. He was one of
the lucky ones. If the eligibility date for Canadian hockey
were later in the year, he might have been watching the
Memorial Cup championship from the stands instead of
playing on the ice.
3 4

C H A P T E R T W O
The 10,000-Hour Rule
” I N H A M B U R G , W E H A D T O P L A Y
F O R E I G H T H O U R S . ”
1.
The University of Michigan opened its new Computer
Center in 1971 , in a brand-new building on Beal Ave­
nue in Ann Arbor, with beige-brick exterior walls and a
dark-glass front. The university’s enormous mainframe
computers stood in the middle of a vast white room,
looking, as one faculty member remembers, “like one of
the last scenes in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey” Off
to the side were dozens of keypunch machines—what
passed in those days for computer terminals. In 1971 ,
this was state of the art. The University of Michigan had
one of the most advanced computer science programs in
the world, and over the course of the Computer Center’s
life, thousands of students passed through that white
room, the most famous of whom was a gawky teenager
named Bill Joy.
Joy came to the University of Michigan the year the
3 5

O U T L I E R S
Computer Center opened. He was sixteen. He was tall
and very thin, with a mop of unruly hair. Fie had been
voted “Most Studious Student” by his graduating class at
North Farmington High School, outside Detroit, which,
as he puts it, meant that he was a “no-date nerd.” He had
thought he might end up as biologist or a mathemati­
cian. But late in his freshman year, he stumbled across the
Computer Center—and he was hooked.
From that point on, the Computer Center was his life.
He programmed whenever he could. Joy got a job with
a computer science professor so he could program over
the summer. In 1975, he enrolled in graduate school at
the University of California at Berkeley. There, he buried
himself even deeper in the world of computer software.
During the oral exams for his PhD, he made up a particu­
larly complicated algorithm on the fly that, as one of his
many admirers has written, “so stunned his examiners
[that] one of them later compared the experience to ‘Jesus
confounding his elders/ ”
Working in collaboration with a small group of pro­
grammers, Joy took on the task of rewriting U N I X , which
was a software system developed by AT&T for mainframe
computers. Joy’s version was very good. It was so good, in
fact, that it became—and remains—the operating system
on which literally millions of computers around the world
run. ” I f you put your Mac in that funny mode where you
can see the code,” Joy says, “I see things that I remember
typing in twenty-five years ago.” And do you know who
wrote much of the software that allows you to access the
Internet? Bill Joy.
After graduating from Berkeley, Joy cofounded the
3 6

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
Silicon Valley firm Sun Microsystems, which was one of
the most critical players in the computer revolution. There
he rewrote another computer language—Java—and his
legend grew still further. Among Silicon Valley insiders,
Joy is spoken of with as much awe as someone like Bill
Gates of Microsoft. He is sometimes called the Edison of
the Internet. As the Yale computer scientist David Gel-
ernter says, “Bill Joy is one of the most influential people
in the modern history of computing/’
The story of Bill Joy’s genius has been told many times,
and the lesson is always the same. Here was a world that
was the purest of meritocracies. Computer programming
didn’t operate as an old-boy network, where you got ahead
because of money or connections. It was a wide-open field
in which all participants were judged solely on their talent
and their accomplishments. It was a world where the best
men won, and Joy was clearly one of those best men.
It would be easier to accept that version of events, how­
ever, if we hadn’t just looked at hockey and soccer players.
Theirs was supposed to be a pure meritocracy as well. Only
it wasn’t. It was a story of how the outliers in a particular
field reached their lofty status through a combination of
ability, opportunity, and utterly arbitrary advantage.
Is it possible the same pattern of special opportunities
operate in the real world as well? Let’s go back over the
story of Bill Joy and find out.
2.
For almost a generation, psychologists around the world
have been engaged in a spirited debate over a question that
3 7

O U T L I E R S
most of us would consider to have been settled years ago.
The question is this: is there such a thing as innate talent?
The obvious answer is yes. Not every hockey player born
in January ends up playing at the professional level. Only
some do—the innately talented ones. Achievement is tal­
ent plus preparation. The problem with this view is that
the closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted,
the smaller the role innate talent seems to play and the
bigger the role preparation seems to play.
Exhibit A in the talent argument is a study done in
the early 1990s by the psychologist K. Anders Ericsson
and two colleagues at Berlin’s elite Academy of Music.
With the help of the Academy’s professors, they divided
the school’s violinists into three groups. In the first group
were the stars, the students with the potential to become
world-class soloists. In the second were those judged to
be merely “good.” In the third were students who were
unlikely to ever play professionally and who intended
to be music teachers in the public school system. All of
the violinists were then asked the same question: over the
course of your entire career, ever since you first picked up
the violin, how many hours have you practiced?
Everyone from all three groups started playing at
roughly the same age, around five years old. In those first
few years, everyone practiced roughly the same amount,
about two or three hours a week. But when the students
were around the age of eight, real differences started to
emerge. The students who would end up the best in their
class began to practice more than everyone else: six hours
a week by age nine, eight hours a week by age twelve, six­
teen hours a week by age fourteen, and up and up, until by
3 8

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
the age of twenty they were practicing—that is, purpose­
fully and single-mindedly playing their instruments with
the intent to get better—well over thirty hours a week. In
fact, by the age of twenty, the elite performers had each
totaled ten thousand hours of practice. By contrast, the
merely good students had totaled eight thousand hours,
and the future music teachers had totaled just over four
thousand hours.
Ericsson and his colleagues then compared amateur
pianists with professional pianists. The same pattern
emerged. The amateurs never practiced more than about
three hours a week over the course of their childhood, and
by the age of twenty they had totaled two thousand hours
of practice. The professionals, on the other hand, steadily
increased their practice time every year, until by the age of
twenty they, like the violinists, had reached ten thousand
hours.
The striking thing about Ericsson’s study is that he
and his colleagues couldn’t find any “naturals,” musicians
who floated effortlessly to the top while practicing a frac­
tion of the time their peers did. Nor could they find any
“grinds,” people who worked harder than everyone else, yet
just didn’t have what it takes to break the top ranks. Their
research suggestes that once a musician has enough ability
to get into a top music school, the thing that distinguishes
one performer from another is how hard he or she works.
That’s it. And what’s more, the people at the very top don’t
work just harder or even much harder than everyone else.
They work much, much harder.
The idea that excellence at performing a complex task
requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again
3 9

O U T L I E R S
and again in studies of expertise. In fact, researchers have
settled on what they believe is the magic number for true
expertise: ten thousand hours.
“The emerging picture from such studies is that ten
thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level
of mastery associated with being a world-class expert—in
anything,” writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin. “In
study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction
writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, mas­
ter criminals, and what have you, this number comes up
again and again. Of course, this doesn’t address why some
people get more out of their practice sessions than others
do. But no one has yet found a case in which true world-
class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that
it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to
know to achieve true mastery.”
This is true even of people we think of as prodigies.
Mozart, for example, famously started writing music
at six. But, writes the psychologist Michael Howe in his
book Genius Explained,
by the standards of mature composers, Mozart’s early
works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were
all probably written down by his father, and perhaps
improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang’s childhood
compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for
piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works
by other composers. Of those concertos that only con­
tain music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now
regarded as a masterwork (No. 9, K. 271) was not com-
4 0

T H E I O , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
posed until he was twenty-one: by that time Mozart had
already been composing concertos for ten years.
The music critic Harold Schonberg goes further: Mozart,
he argues, actually “developed late,” since he didn’t pro­
duce his greatest work until he had been composing for
more than twenty years.
To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take
about ten years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fischer got to
that elite level in less than that amount of time: it took him
nine years.) And what’s ten years? Well, it’s roughly how
long it takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice.
Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.
Here is the explanation for what was so puzzling about
the rosters of the Czech and Canadian national sports
teams. There was practically no one on those teams born
after September 1, which doesn’t seem to make any sense.
You’d think that there should be a fair number of Czech
hockey or soccer prodigies born late in the year who are so
talented that they eventually make their way into the top
tier as young adults, despite their birth dates.
But to Ericsson and those who argue against the pri­
macy of talent, that isn’t surprising at all. That late-born
prodigy doesn’t get chosen for the all-star team as an
eight-year-old because he’s too small. So he doesn’t get
the extra practice. And without that extra practice, he
has no chance at hitting ten thousand hours by the time
the professional hockey teams start looking for players.
And without ten thousand hours under his belt, there is
no way he can ever master the skills necessary to play at
4 1

O U T L I E R S
the top level. Even Mozart—the greatest musical prod­
igy of all time — couldn’t hit his stride until he had his
ten thousand hours in. Practice isn’t the thing you do once
you’re good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good.
The other interesting thing about that ten thousand
hours, of course, is that ten thousand hours is an enor­
mous amount of time. It’s all but impossible to reach
that number all by yourself by the time you’re a young
adult. You have to have parents who encourage and sup­
port you. You can’t be poor, because if you have to hold
down a part-time job on the side to help make ends meet,
there won’t be time left in the day to practice enough. In
fact, most people can reach that number only if they get
into some kind of special program—like a hockey all-star
squad—or if they get some kind of extraordinary oppor­
tunity that gives them a chance to put in those hours.
3.
So, back to Bill Joy. It’s 1971 . He’s tall and gawky and six­
teen years old. He’s the math whiz, the kind of student
that schools like MIT and Caltech and the University of
Waterloo attract by the hundreds. “When Bill was a little
kid, he wanted to know everything about everything way
before he should’ve even known he wanted to know,” his
father, William, says. “We answered him when we could.
And when we couldn’t, we would just give him a book.”
When it came time to apply to college, Joy got a perfect
score on the math portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test.
“It wasn’t particularly hard,” he says matter-of-factly.
“There was plenty of time to check it twice.”
4 2

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
He has talent by the truckload. But that’s not the only
consideration. It never is. The key to his development is
that he stumbled across that nondescript building on Beal
Avenue.
In the early 1970s, when Joy was learning about pro­
gramming, computers were the size of rooms. A single
machine (which might have less power and memory than
your microwave now has) could cost upwards of a mil­
lion dollars—and that’s in 1970s dollars. Computers were
rare. If you found one, if was hard to get access to it; if you
managed to get access, renting time on it cost a fortune.
What’s more, programming itself was extraordinarily
tedious. This was the era when computer programs were
created using cardboard punch cards. Each line of code
was imprinted on the card using a keypunch machine. A
complex program might include hundreds, if not thou­
sands, of these cards in tall stacks. Once a program was
ready, you walked over to whatever mainframe computer
you had access to and gave the stack of cards to an opera­
tor. Since computers could handle only one task at a time,
the operator made an appointment for your program, and
depending on how many people were ahead of you in
line, you might not get your cards back for a few hours or
even a day. And if you made even a single error—even a
typographical error—in your program, you had to take
the cards back, track down the error, and begin the whole
process again.
Under those circumstances, it was exceedingly dif­
ficult for anyone to become a programming expert. Cer­
tainly becoming an expert by your early twenties was all
but impossible. When you can “program” for only a few
4 3

O U T L I E R S
minutes out of every hour you spend in the computer
room, how can you ever get in ten thousand hours of prac­
tice? “Programming with cards,” one computer scientist
from that era remembers, “did not teach you program­
ming. It taught you patience and proofreading.”
It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that a solution to the
programming problem emerged. Computers were finally
powerful enough that they could handle more than one
“appointment” at once. If the computer’s operating system
was rewritten, computer scientists realized, the machine’s
time could be shared; the computer could be trained to
handle hundreds of tasks at the same time. That, in turn,
meant that programmers didn’t have to physically hand
their stacks of computer cards to the operator anymore.
Dozens of terminals could be built, all linked to the
mainframe by a telephone line, and everyone could be
working—online—all at once.
Here is how one history of the period describes the
advent of time-sharing:
This was not just a revolution. It was a revelation. Forget
the operator, the card decks, the wait. With time-sharing,
you could sit at your Teletype, bang in a couple of com­
mands, and get an answer then and there. Time-sharing
was interactive: A program could ask for a response,
wait for you to type it in, act on it while you waited, and
show you the result, all in “real time.”
This is where Michigan came in, because Michigan
was one of the first universities in the world to switch
over to time-sharing. By 1967, a prototype of the system
4 4

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
was up and running. By the early 1970s, Michigan had
enough computing power that a hundred people could be
programming simultaneously in the Computer Center.
“In the late sixties, early seventies, I don’t think there was
anyplace else that was exactly like Michigan,” Mike Alex­
ander, one of the pioneers of Michigan’s computing sys­
tem, said. “Maybe MIT. Maybe Carnegie Mellon. Maybe
Dartmouth. I don’t think there were any others.”
This was the opportunity that greeted Bill Joy when he
arrived on the Ann Arbor campus in the fall of 1971. He hadn’t
chosen Michigan because of its computers. He had never
done anything with computers in high school. He was inter­
ested in math and engineering. But when the programming
bug hit him in his freshman year, he found himself—by the
happiest of accidents—in one of the few places in the world
where a seventeen-year-old could program all he wanted.
“Do you know what the difference is between the
computing cards and time-sharing?” Joy says. “It’s the dif­
ference between playing chess by mail and speed chess.”
Programming wasn’t an exercise in frustration anymore.
It was fun.
“I lived in the north campus, and the Computer Center
was in the north campus,” Joy went on. “How much time
did I spend there? Oh, a phenomenal amount of time. It
was open twenty-four hours. I would stay there all night,
and just walk home in the morning. In an average week in
those years, I was spending more time in the Computer
Center than on my classes. All of us down there had this
recurring nightmare of forgetting to show up for class at
all, of not even realizing we were enrolled.
“The challenge was that they gave all the students
4 5

O U T L I E R S
an account with a fixed amount of money, so your time
would run out. When you signed on, you would put in
how long you wanted to spend on the computer. They
gave you, like, an hour of time. That’s all you’d get. But
someone figured out that if you put in ‘time equals’ and
then a letter, like t equals k, they wouldn’t charge you,”
he said, laughing at the memory. “It was a bug in the soft­
ware. You could put in t equals k and sit there forever.”
Just look at the stream of opportunities that came Bill
Joy’s way. Because he happened to go to a farsighted school
like the University of Michigan, he was able to practice on
a time-sharing system instead of with punch cards; because
the Michigan system happened to have a bug in it, he could
program all he wanted; because the university was willing
to spend the money to keep the Computer Center open
twenty-four hours, he could stay up all night; and because
he was able to put in so many hours, by the time he happened
to be presented with the opportunity to rewrite UNIX,
he was up to the task. Bill Joy was brilliant. He wanted to
learn. That was a big part of it. But before he could become
an expert, someone had to give him the opportunity to
learn how to be an expert.
“At Michigan, I was probably programming eight or
ten hours a day,” he went on. “By the time I was at Berke­
ley I was doing it day and night. I had a terminal at home.
I’d stay up until two or three o’clock in the morning,
watching old movies and programming. Sometimes I’d
fall asleep at the keyboard”—he mimed his head falling
on the keyboard—”and you know how the key repeats
until the end, and it starts to go beep, beep, beep? After
4 6

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
that happens three times, you have to go to bed. I was
still relatively incompetent even when I got to Berkeley. I
was proficient by my second year there. That’s when I
wrote programs that are still in use today, thirty years
later.” He paused for a moment to do the math in his
head—which for someone like Bill Joy doesn’t take very
long. Michigan in 1971 . Programming in earnest by soph­
omore year. Add in the summers, then the days and nights
in his first year at Berkeley. “So, so maybe… ten thousand
hours?” he said, finally. “That’s about right.”
4.
Is the ten-thousand-hour rule a general rule of success? If
we scratch below the surface of every great achiever, do
we always find the equivalent of the Michigan Computer
Center or the hockey all-star team—some sort of special
opportunity for practice?
Let’s test the idea with two examples, and for the sake
of simplicity, let’s make them as familiar as possible: the
Beatles, one of the most famous rock bands ever; and Bill
Gates, one of the world’s richest men.
The Beatles—John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George
Harrison, and Ringo Starr—came to the United States in
February of 1964, starting the so-called British Invasion
of the American music scene and putting out a string of
hit records that transformed the face of popular music.
The first interesting thing about the Beatles for our
purposes is how long they had already been together
by the time they reached the United States. Lennon and
4 7

O U T L I E R S
McCartney first started playing together in 1957, seven
years prior to landing in America. (Incidentally, the time
that elapsed between their founding and their arguably
greatest artistic achievements—Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts
Club Band and The Beatles [White Album]—is ten years.)
And if you look even more closely at those long years of
preparation, you’ll find an experience that, in the context
of hockey players and Bill Joy and world-class violinists,
sounds awfully familiar. In i960, while they were still just
a struggling high school rock band, they were invited to
play in Hamburg, Germany.
“Hamburg in those days did not have rock-and-roll
music clubs. It had strip clubs,” says Philip Norman, who
wrote the Beatles biography Shout! “There was one particu­
lar club owner called Bruno, who was originally a fairground
showman. He had the idea of bringing in rock groups to
play in various clubs. They had this formula. It was a huge
nonstop show, hour after hour, with a lot of people lurching
in and the other lot lurching out. And the bands would play
all the time to catch the passing traffic. In an American red-
light district, they would call it nonstop striptease.
“Many of the bands that played in Hamburg were from
Liverpool,” Norman went on. “It was an accident. Bruno
went to London to look for bands. But he happened to meet
an entrepreneur from Liverpool in Soho who was down
in London by pure chance. And he arranged to send some
bands over. That’s how the connection was established.
And eventually the Beatles made a connection not just with
Bruno but with other club owners as well. They kept going
back because they got a lot of alcohol and a lot of sex.”
4 8

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
And what was so special about Hamburg? It wasn’t
that it paid well. It didn’t. Or that the acoustics were fan­
tastic. They weren’t. Or that the audiences were savvy and
appreciative. They were anything but. It was the sheer
amount of time the band was forced to play.
Here is John Lennon, in an interview after the Beatles
disbanded, talking about the band’s performances at a
Hamburg strip club called the Indra:
We got better and got more confidence. We couldn’t help
it with all the experience playing all night long. It was
handy them being foreign. We had to try even harder,
put our heart and soul into it, to get ourselves over.
In Liverpool, we’d only ever done one-hour ses­
sions, and we just used to do our best numbers, the same
ones, at every one. In Hamburg, we had to play for eight
hours, so we really had to find a new way of playing.
Eight hours?
Here is Pete Best, the Beatles’ drummer at the time:
“Once the news got out about that we were making a show,
the club started packing them in. We played seven nights a
week. At first we played almost nonstop till twelve-thirty,
when it closed, but as we got better the crowds stayed till
two most mornings.”
Seven days a week?
The Beatles ended up traveling to Hamburg five times
between i960 and the end of 1962. On the first trip, they
played 106 nights, five or more hours a night. On their
second trip, they played 92 times. On their third trip, they
4 9

O U T L I E R S
played 48 times, for a total of 172 hours on stage. The last
two Hamburg gigs, in November and December of 1962,
involved another 90 hours of performing. All told, they
performed for 270 nights in just over a year and a half. By
the time they had their first burst of success in 1964, in
fact, they had performed live an estimated twelve hundred
times. Do you know how extraordinary that is? Most
bands today don’t perform twelve hundred times in their
entire careers. The Hamburg crucible is one of the things
that set the Beatles apart.
“They were no good onstage when they went there
and they were very good when they came back,” Norman
went on. “They learned not only stamina. They had to
learn an enormous amount of numbers—cover versions
of everything you can think of, not just rock and roll, a bit
of jazz too. They weren’t disciplined onstage at all before
that. But when they came back, they sounded like no one
else. It was the making of them.”
5.
Let’s now turn to the history of Bill Gates. His story is
almost as well known as the Beatles’. Brilliant, young math
whiz discovers computer programming. Drops out of Har­
vard. Starts a little computer company called Microsoft
with his friends. Through sheer brilliance and ambition
and guts builds it into the giant of the software world.
That’s the broad outline. Let’s dig a little bit deeper.
Gates’s father was a wealthy lawyer in Seattle, and
his mother was the daughter of a well-to-do banker. As
5 0

T H E I O . O O O – H O U R R U L E
a child Bill was precocious and easily bored by his stud­
ies. So his parents took him out of public school and, at
the beginning of seventh grade, sent him to Lakeside, a
private school that catered to Seattle’s elite families. Mid­
way through Gates’s second year at Lakeside, the school
started a computer club.
“The Mothers’ Club at school did a rummage sale
every year, and there was always the question of what the
money would go to,” Gates remembers. “Some went to
the summer program, where inner-city kids would come
up to the campus. Some of it would go for teachers. That
year, they put three thousand dollars into a computer ter­
minal down in this funny little room that we subsequently
took control of. It was kind of an amazing thing.”
It was an “amazing thing,” of course, because this
was 1968. Most colleges didn’t have computer clubs in the
1960s. Even more remarkable was the kind of computer
Lakeside bought. The school didn’t have its students learn
programming by the laborious computer-card system, like
virtually everyone else was doing in the 1960s. Instead,
Lakeside installed what was called an ASR-33 Teletype,
which was a time-sharing terminal with a direct link to
a mainframe computer in downtown Seattle. “The whole
idea of time-sharing only got invented in nineteen sixty-
five,” Gates continued. “Someone was pretty forward-
looking.” Bill Joy got an extraordinary, early opportunity
to learn programming on a time-share system as a fresh­
man in college, in 1971 . Bill Gates got to do real-time pro­
gramming as an eighth grader in 1968.
From that moment forward, Gates lived in the computer
5 1

O U T L I E R S
room. He and a number of others began to teach them­
selves how to use this strange new device. Buying time
on the mainframe computer the ASR was hooked up to
was, of course, expensive—even for a wealthy institution
like Lakeside—and it wasn’t long before the $3,000 put
up by the Mothers’ Club ran out. The parents raised more
money. The students spent it. Then a group of program­
mers at the University of Washington formed an out­
fit called Computer Center Corporation (or C-Cubed),
which leased computer time to local companies. As luck
would have it, one of the founders of the firm—Monique
Rona—had a son at Lakeside, a year ahead of Gates.
Would the Lakeside computer club, Rona wondered, like
to test out the company’s software programs on the week­
ends in exchange for free programming time? Absolutely!
After school, Gates took the bus to the C-Cubed offices
and programmed long into the evening.
C-Cubed eventually went bankrupt, so Gates and his
friends began hanging around the computer center at the
University of Washington. Before long, they latched onto
an outfit called ISI (Information Sciences Inc.), which
agreed to let them have free computer time in exchange
for working on a piece of software that could be used to
automate company payrolls. In one seven-month period
in 1971 , Gates and his cohorts ran up 1,575 hours of com­
puter time on the ISI mainframe, which averages out to
eight hours a day, seven days a week.
“It was my obsession,” Gates says of his early high
school years. “I skipped athletics. I went up there at night.
We were programming on weekends. It would be a rare week
that we wouldn’t get twenty or thirty hours in. There was
5 2

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
a period where Paul Allen and I got in trouble for steal­
ing a bunch of passwords and crashing the system. We
got kicked out. I didn’t get to use the computer the whole
summer. This is when I was fifteen and sixteen. Then I
found out Paul had found a computer that was free at the
University of Washington. They had these machines in
the medical center and the physics department. They were
on a twenty-four-hour schedule, but with this big slack
period, so that between three and six in the morning they
never scheduled anything.” Gates laughed. “I’d leave at
night, after my bedtime. I could walk up to the University
of Washington from my house. Or Fd take the bus. That’s
why I’m always so generous to the University of Wash­
ington, because they let me steal so much computer time.”
(Years later, Gates’s mother said, “We always wondered
why it was so hard for him to get up in the morning.”)
One of the founders of ISI, Bud Pembroke, then got a
call from the technology company TRW, which had just
signed a contract to set up a computer system at the huge
Bonneville Power station in southern Washington State.
TRW desperately needed programmers familiar with
the particular software the power station used. In these
early days of the computer revolution, programmers with
that kind of specialized experience were hard to find. But
Pembroke knew exactly whom to call: those high school
kids from Lakeside who had been running up thousands
of hours of computer time on the ISI mainframe. Gates
was now in his senior year, and somehow he managed to
convince his teachers to let him decamp for Bonneville
under the guise of an independent study project. There he
spent the spring writing code, supervised by a man named
5 3

O U T L I E R S
John Norton, who Gates says taught him as much about
programming as almost anyone he’d ever met.
Those five years, from eighth grade through the end of
high school, were Bill Gates’s Hamburg, and by any mea­
sure, he was presented with an even more extraordinary
series of opportunities than Bill Joy.
Opportunity number one was that Gates got sent to
Lakeside. How many high schools in the world had access to
a time-sharing terminal in 1968? Opportunity number two
was that the mothers of Lakeside had enough money to pay
for the school’s computer fees. Number three was that, when
that money ran out, one of the parents happened to work
at C-Cubed, which happened to need someone to check
its code on the weekends, and which also happened not to
care if weekends turned into weeknights. Number four was
that Gates just happened to find out about ISI, and ISI just
happened to need someone to work on its payroll software.
Number five was that Gates happened to live within walk­
ing distance of the University of Washington. Number six
was that the university happened to have free computer time
between three and six in the morning. Number seven was
that TRW happened to call Bud Pembroke. Number eight
was that the best programmers Pembroke knew for that par­
ticular problem happened to be two high school kids. And
number nine was that Lakeside was willing to let those kids
spend their spring term miles away, writing code.
And what did virtually all of those opportunities have
in common? They gave Bill Gates extra time to practice.
By the time Gates dropped out of Harvard after his soph­
omore year to try his hand at his own software company,
5 4

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
he’d been programming practically nonstop for seven con­
secutive years. He was way past ten thousand hours. How
many teenagers in the world had the kind of experience
Gates had? “I f there were fifty in the world, I’d be
stunned,” he says. “There was C-Cubed and the payroll
stuff we did, then TRW—all those things came together.
I had a better exposure to software development at a young
age than I think anyone did in that period of time, and all
because of an incredibly lucky series of events.”
6.
If we put the stories of hockey players and the Beatles and
Bill Joy and Bill Gates together, I think we get a more com­
plete picture of the path to success. Joy and Gates and the
Beatles are all undeniably talented. Lennon and McCart­
ney had a musical gift of the sort that comes along once in
a generation, and Bill Joy, let us not forget, had a mind so
quick that he was able to make up a complicated algorithm
on the fly that left his professors in awe. That much is
obvious.
But what truly distinguishes their histories is not
their extraordinary talent but their extraordinary oppor­
tunities. The Beatles, for the most random of reasons, got
invited to go to Hamburg. Without Hamburg, the Beatles
might well have taken a different path. “I was very lucky,”
Bill Gates said at the beginning of our interview. That
doesn’t mean he isn’t brilliant or an extraordinary entre­
preneur. It just means that he understands what incredible
good fortune it was to be at Lakeside in 1968.
5 5

O U T L I E R S
All the outliers we’ve looked at so far were the ben­
eficiaries of some kind of unusual opportunity. Lucky
breaks don’t seem like the exception with software bil­
lionaires and rock bands and star athletes. They seem like
the rule.
Let me give you one final example of the hidden oppor­
tunities that outliers benefit from. Suppose we do another
version of the calendar analysis we did in the previous
chapter with hockey players, only this time looking at
birth years, not birth months. To start with, take a close
look at the following list of the seventy-five richest people
in human history. The net worth of each person is cal­
culated in current US dollars. As you can see, it includes
queens and kings and pharaohs from centuries past, as
well as contemporary billionaires, such as Warren Buffett
and Carlos Slim.
N o . N a m e Wealth in
Billions
(USD)
Origin Company or
Source of
Wealth
1 John D.
Rockefeller
318.3 United States Standard Oil
2 Andrew
Carnegie
298.3 Scotland Carnegie Steel
Company
3 Nicholas
II of Russia
253.5 Russia House of
Romanov
4 William Henry 231.6
Vanderbilt
United
States
Chicago,
Burlington and
Quincy Railroad
5 Osman Ali
Khan, Asaf Jah
210.8 Hyderabad Monarchy
VII
5 *

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
N o . Name Wealth in
Billions
(USD)
Origin Company or
Source of
Wealth
6 Andrew W.
Mellon
188.8 United States Gulf Oil
7 Henry Ford 188.1 United States Ford Motor
Company
8 Marcus
Licinius
Crassus
169.8 Roman
Republic
Roman Senate
9 Basil II 169.4 Byzantine Empire Monarchy
10 Cornelius
Vanderbilt
167.4 United States New York and
Harlem Railroad
11 Alanus Rufus 166.9 England Investments
12 Amenophis III 155.2 Ancient Egypt Pharaoh
13 William de
Warenne, 1st
Earl of Surrey
153.6 England Earl of Surrey
14 William II of
England
151.7 England Monarchy
15 Elizabeth I 142.9 England House of Tudor
16 JohnD.
Rockefeller Jr.
141.4 United States Standard Oil
17 Sam Walton 128.0 United States Wal-Mart
18 John Jacob
Astor
115.0 Germany American Fur
Company
19 Odo of Bayeux 110.2 England Monarchy
20 Stephen Girard 99.5 France First Bank of the
United States
21 Cleopatra 95.8 Ancient Egypt Ptolemaic
Inheritance
22 Stephen Van
Rensselaer III
88.8 United States Rensselaerswyck
Estate
5 7

O U T L I E R S
N o . N a m e Wealth in
Billions
(USD)
Origin Company or
Source of
Wealth
23 Richard B.
Mellon
86.3 United States Gulf Oil
24 Alexander
Turney Stewart
84.7 Ireland Long Island Rail
Road
25 William
Backhouse
Astor Jr.
84.7 United States Inheritance
26 Don Simon
Iturbi Patifio
8 1 . 2 Bolivia Huanuni tin mine
27 Sultan
Hassanal
Bolkiah
80.7 Brunei Krai
28 Frederick
Weyerhaeuser
80.4 Germany Weyerhaeuser
Corporation
29 Moses Taylor 79-3 United States Citibank
30 Vincent Astor 73-9 United States Inheritance
31 Carlos Slim
Held
7 2 . 4 Mexico Telmex
32 T. V. Soong 67.8 China Central Bank of
China
33 Jay Gould 67.1 United States Union Pacific
34 Marshall Field 66.3 United States Marshall Field and
Company
35 George F.
Baker
63 .6 United States Central Railroad
of New Jersey
36 Hetty Green 58.8 United States Seaboard National
Bank
37 Bill Gates 58.0 United States Microsoft
38 Lawrence
Joseph Ellison
58.0 United States Oracle
Corporation
39 Richard
Arkwright
56.2 England Derwent Valley
Mills
58

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
N o . Name Wealth in
Billions
(USD)
Origin Company or
Source of
Wealth
40 Mukesh
Ambani
55.8 India Reliance
Industries
41 Warren Buffett 52 .4 United States Berkshire
Hathaway
42 Lakshmi Mittal 1 5 1 . 0 India Mittal Steel
Company
43 J . Paul Getty 50.1 United States Getty Oil
Company
44 James G. Fair 47 .2 United States Consolidated
Virginia Mining
Company
45 William
Weightman
46 .1 United States Merck &
Company
46 Russell Sage 4 5 . 1 United States Western Union
47 John Blair 45 .1 United States Union Pacific
48 Anil Ambani 45 .0 India Reliance
Communications
49 Leland
Stanford
44.9 United States Central Pacific
Railroad
50 Howard
Hughes Jr.
43-4 United States Hughes Tool
Company,
Hughes Aircraft
Company, Summa
Corporation,
TWA
51 Cyrus Curtis 4 3 . 2 United States Curtis Publishing
Company
52 John Insley
Blair
4 2 . 4 United States Delaware,
Lackawanna and
Western Railroad
53 Edward Henry 40.9
Harriman
United States Union Pacific
Railroad
5 9

O U T L I E R S
N o . N a m e Wealth in
Billions
( U S D )
Origin Company or
Source of
Wealth
54 Henry H.
Rogers
40.9 United States Standard Oil
Company
55 Paul Allen 40.0 United States Microsoft, Vulcan
Inc.
56 John Kluge 40.0 Germany Metropolitan
Broadcasting
Company
57 J . P. Morgan 39.8 United States General Electric,
US Steel
58 Oliver H.
Payne
38.8 United States Standard Oil
Company
59 Yoshiaki
Tsutsumi
38.1 Japan Seibu Corporation
60 Henry Clay
Frick
37.7 United States Carnegie Steel
Company
61 JohnJacob
Astor IV
37.0 United States Inheritance
62 George
Pullman
35.6 United States Pullman Company
63 Collis Potter
Huntington
34.6 United States Central Pacific
Railroad
64 Peter Arrell
Brown
Widener
33.4 United States American Tobacco
Company
65 Philip
Danforth
Armour
33.4 United States Armour
Refrigerator Line
66 WilliamS.
O’Brien
33.3 United States Consolidated
Virginia Mining
Company
67 Ingvar 33.0 Sweden IKEA
Kamprad
6 o

T H E 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R R U L E
N o . Name Wealth in
Billions
(USD)
Origin Company or
Source of
Wealth
68 K. P. Singh 32.9 India D L F Universal
Limited
69 James C. Flood 32.5 United States Consolidated
Virginia Mining
Company
70 Li Ka-shing 32.0 China Hutchison
Whampoa
Limited
71 Anthony N.
Brady
31.7 United States Brooklyn Rapid
Transit
72 Elias Hasket
Derby
31.4 United States Shipping
73 Mark Hopkins 30.9 United States Central Pacific
Railroad
74 Edward Clark 30.2 United States Singer Sewing
Machine
75 Prince
Al-Waleed
bin Talal
29.5 Saudi Arabia Kingdom Holding
Company
Do you know what’s interesting about that list? Of the
seventy-five names, an astonishing fourteen are Ameri­
cans born within nine years of one another in the mid-
nineteenth century. Think about that for a moment.
Historians start with Cleopatra and the pharaohs and comb
through every year in human history every since, look­
ing in every corner of the world for evidence of extraordi­
nary wealth, and almost 20 percent of the names they end
up with come from a single generation in a single country.
6 1

O U T L I E R S
Here’s the list of those Americans and their birth years:
1. John D. Rockefeller, 1839
2. Andrew Carnegie, 1835
28. Frederick Weyerhaeuser, 1834
33. Jay Gould, 1836
34. Marshall Field, 1834
35. George F. Baker, 1840
36. Hetty Green, 1834
44. James G. Fair, 1831
54. Henry H. Rogers, 1840
57. J . P. Morgan, 1837
58. Oliver H. Payne, 1839
62. George Pullman, 1831
64. Peter Arrell Brown Widener, 1834
65. Philip Danforth Armour, 1832
What’s going on here? The answer becomes obvi­
ous if you think about it. In the 1860s and 1870s, the
American economy went through perhaps the greatest
transformation in its history. This was when the rail­
roads were being built and when Wall Street emerged. It
was when industrial manufacturing started in earnest. It
was when all the rules by which the traditional economy
had functioned were broken and remade. What this list
says is that it really matters how old you were when that
transformation happened.
If you were born in the late 1840s you missed it. You
were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you
were born in the 1820s you were too old: your mind-set
was shaped by the pre-Civil War paradigm. But there was
a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just per-
6 2

THE 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R RULE
feet for seeing the potential that the future held. All of the
fourteen men and women on the list above had vision and
talent. But they also were given an extraordinary opportu­
nity, in the same way that hockey and soccer players born
in January, February, and March are given an extraordi­
nary opportunity.’1″
Now let’s do the same kind of analysis for people like
Bill Joy and Bill Gates.
If you talk to veterans of Silicon Valley, they’ll tell
you that the most important date in the history of the
personal computer revolution was January 1975. That was
when the magazine Popular Electronics ran a cover story
on an extraordinary machine called the Altair 8800. The
Altair cost $397. It was a do-it-yourself contraption that
you could assemble at home. The headline on the story
read: “PROJECT BREAKTHROUGH! World’s First
Minicomputer Kit to Rival Commercial Models.”
To the readers of Popular Electronics, in those days the
bible of the fledgling software and computer world, that
headline was a revelation. Computers up to that point had
* The sociologist C . Wright Mills made an additional observation
about that special cohort from the 1830s. H e looked at the back­
grounds of the American business elite from the Colonial E r a to the
twentieth century. In most cases, not surprisingly, he found that busi­
ness leaders tended to come from privileged backgrounds. The one
exception? The 1830s group. That shows how big the advantage was
of being born in that decade. It was the only time in American his­
tory when those born in modest circumstances had a realistic shot at
real riches. He writes: “The best time during the history of the United
States for the poor boy ambitious for high business success to have
been born was around the year 1835 .”
6 3

OUTLIERS
been the massive, expensive mainframes of the sort sitting
in the white expanse of the Michigan Computer Center.
For years, every hacker and electronics whiz had dreamt
of the day when a computer would come along that was
small and inexpensive enough for an ordinary person to
use and own. That day had finally arrived.
If January 1975 was the dawn of the personal computer
age, then who would be in the best position to take advan­
tage of it? The same principles apply here that applied to
the era of John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
” I f you’re too old in nineteen seventy-five, then you’d
already have a job at IBM out of college, and once people
started at IBM, they had a real hard time making the tran­
sition to the new world,” says Nathan Myhrvold, who was
a top executive at Microsoft for many years. “You had this
multibillion-dollar company making mainframes, and if
you were part of that, you’d think, Why screw around
with these little pathetic computers? That was the com­
puter industry to those people, and it had nothing to do
with this new revolution. They were blinded by that being
the only vision of computing. They made a nice living. It’s
just that there was no opportunity to become a zillionaire
and make an impact on the world.”
If you were more than a few years out of college in
1975, then you belonged to the old paradigm. You had
just bought a house. You’re married. A baby is on the way.
You’re in no position to give up a good job and pension for
some pie-in-the-sky $397 computer kit. So let’s rule out all
those born before, say, 1952.
At the same time, though, you don’t want to be too
6 4

THE 1 0 , 0 0 0 – H O U R RULE
young. You really want to get in on the ground floor, right
in 1975, and you can’t do that if you’re still in high school.
So let’s also rule out anyone born after, say, 1958. The per­
fect age to be in 1975, in other words, is old enough to be
a part of the coming revolution but not so old that you
missed it. Ideally, you want to be twenty or twenty-one,
which is to say, born in 1954 or 1955.
There is an easy way to test this theory. When was Bill
Gates born?
Bill Gates: October 28,1955
That’s the perfect birth date! Gates is the hockey player
born on January 1. Gates’s best friend at Lakeside was
Paul Allen. He also hung out in the computer room with
Gates and shared those long evenings at ISI and C-Cubed.
Allen went on to found Microsoft with Bill Gates. When
was Paul Allen born?
Paul Allen: January 21, 1953
The third-richest man at Microsoft is the one who has
been running the company on a day-to-day basis since
2000, one of the most respected executives in the software
world, Steve Ballmer. Ballmer’s birth date?
Steve Ballmer: March 24,1956
Let’s not forget a man every bit as famous as Gates: Steve
Jobs, the cofounder of Apple Computer. Unlike Gates,
6 5

OUTLIERS
Jobs wasn’t from a rich family and he didn’t go to Michi­
gan, like Joy. But it doesn’t take much investigation of
his upbringing to realize that he had his Hamburg too.
He grew up in Mountain View, California, just south of
San Francisco, which is the absolute epicenter of Silicon
Valley. His neighborhood was filled with engineers from
Hewlett-Packard, then as now one of the most important
electronics firms in the world. As a teenager he prowled
the flea markets of Mountain View, where electronics
hobbyists and tinkerers sold spare parts. Jobs came of
age breathing the air of the very business he would later
dominate.
This paragraph horn Accidental Millionaire, one of the
many Jobs biographies, gives us a sense of how extraordi­
nary his childhood experiences were. Jobs
attended evening talks by Hewlett-Packard scientists.
The talks were about the latest advances in electronics
and Jobs, exercising a style that was a trademark of his
personality, collared Hewlett-Packard engineers and
drew additional information from them. Once he even
called Bill Hewlett, one of the company’s founders, to
request parts. Jobs not only received the parts he asked
for, he managed to wrangle a summer job. Jobs worked
on an assembly line to build computers and was so fasci­
nated that he tried to design his own…
Wait. Bill Hewlett gave him spare parts? That’s on a par
with Bill Gates getting unlimited access to a time-share ter­
minal at age thirteen. It’s as if you were interested in fashion
and your neighbor when you were growing up happened to
be Giorgio Armani. And when was Jobs born?
66

THE IO.OOO-HOUR RULE
Steve Jobs: February 24, 1955
Another of the pioneers of the software revolution was
Eric Schmidt. He ran Novell, one of Silicon Valley’s most
important software firms, and in 2001, he became the
chief executive officer of Google. Birth date?
Eric Schmidt: April 27, 1955
I don’t mean to suggest, of course, that every software
tycoon in Silicon Valley was born in 1955. Some weren’t,
just as not every business titan in the United States
was born in the mid-i830s. But there are very clearly pat­
terns here, and what’s striking is how little we seem to
want to acknowledge them. We pretend that success is
exclusively a matter of individual merit. But there’s noth­
ing in any of the histories we’ve looked at so far to suggest
things are that simple. These are stories, instead, about
people who were given a special opportunity to work
really hard and seized it, and who happened to come of
age at a time when that extraordinary effort was rewarded
by the rest of society. Their success was not just of their
own making. It was a product of the world in which they
grew up.
By the way, let’s not forget Bill Joy. Had he been just
a little bit older and had he had to face the drudgery of
programming with computer cards, he says, he would
have studied science. Bill Joy the computer legend would
have been Bill Joy the biologist. And had he come along a
few years later, the little window that gave him the chance
to write the supporting code for the Internet would have
6 7

OUTLIERS
closed. Again, Bill Joy the computer legend might well
have been Bill Joy the biologist. When was Bill Joy born?
Bill Joy: November 8, 1954
Joy would go on, after his stint at Berkeley, to become one
of the four founders of Sun Microsystems, one of the old­
est and most important of Silicon Valley’s software compa­
nies. And if you still think that accidents of time and place
and birth don’t matter all that much, here are the birth­
days of the three other founders of Sun Microsystems:
Scott McNealy: November 13,1954
Vinod Khosla: January 28,1955
Andy Bechtolsheim: September 30, 1955
6 8

C H A P T E R T H R E E
The Trouble with
Geniuses, Part 1
“KNOWLEDGE OF A BOY’S IQ IS OF
L I T T L E HELP IF YOU ARE FACED WITH
A FORMFUL OF CLEVER BOYS.”
1.
In the fifth episode of the 2008 season, the American tele­
vision quiz show / vs. 100 had as its special guest a man
named Christopher Langan.
The television show 1 vs. 100 is one of many that
sprang up in the wake of the phenomenal success of Who
Wants to Be a Millionaire. It features a permanent gallery
of one hundred ordinary people who serve as what is called
the “mob.” Each week they match wits with a special
invited guest. At stake is a million dollars. The guest has
to be smart enough to answer more questions correctly
than his or her one hundred adversaries—and by that
standard, few have ever seemed as superbly qualified as
Christopher Langan.
“Tonight the mob takes on their fiercest competition
yet,” the voice-over began. “Meet Chris Langan, who many
6 9

OUTLIERS
call the smartest man in America.” The camera did a slow
pan of a stocky, muscular man in his fifties. “The aver­
age person has an IQ of one hundred,” the voice-over
continued. “Einstein one fifty. Chris has an IQ of one
ninety-five. He’s currently wrapping his big brain around
a theory of the universe. But will his king-size cranium
be enough to take down the mob for one million dollars?
Find out right now on One versus One Hundred”
Out strode Langan onto the stage amid wild applause.
“You don’t think you need to have a high intellect to
do well on One versus One Hundred, do you?” the show’s
host, Bob Saget, asked him. Saget looked at Langan oddly,
as if he were some kind of laboratory specimen.
“Actually, I think it could be a hindrance,” Langan
replied. He had a deep, certain voice. “To have a high
IQ, you tend to specialize, think deep thoughts. You
avoid trivia. But now that I see these people”—he glanced
at the mob, the amusement in his eyes betraying just how
ridiculous he found the proceedings — “I think I’ll do
okay.”
Over the past decade, Chris Langan has achieved a
strange kind of fame. He has become the public face of
genius in American life, a celebrity outlier. He gets invited
on news shows and profiled in magazines, and he has been
the subject of a documentary by the filmmaker Errol Mor­
ris, all because of a brain that appears to defy description.
The television news show 20/20 once hired a neuro­
psychologist to give Langan an IQ test, and Langan’s score
was literally off the charts—too high to be accurately
measured. Another time, Langan took an IQ test specially
designed for people too smart for ordinary IQ tests. He
7 °

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
got all the questions right except one.”” He was speaking
at six months of age. When he was three, he would listen
to the radio on Sundays as the announcer read the comics
aloud, and he would follow along on his own until he had
taught himself to read. At five, he began questioning his
grandfather about the existence of God—and remembers
being disappointed in the answers he got.
In school, Langan could walk into a test in a foreign-
language class, not having studied at all, and if there
were two or three minutes before the instructor arrived,
he could skim through the textbook and ace the test. In
his early teenage years, while working as a farmhand, he
started to read widely in the area of theoretical physics. At
sixteen, he made his way through Bertrand Russell and
Alfred North Whitehead’s famously abstruse masterpiece
Principia Mathematica. He got a perfect score on his SAT,
even though he fell asleep at one point during the test.
“He did math for an hour,” his brother Mark says of
Langan’s summer routine in high school. “Then he did
French for an hour. Then he studied Russian. Then he
would read philosophy. He did that religiously, every day.”
Another of his brothers, Jeff, says, “You know, when
Christopher was fourteen or fifteen, he would draw things
just as a joke, and it would be like a photograph. When he
was fifteen, he could match Jimi Hendrix lick for lick on
a guitar. Boom. Boom. Boom. Half the time, Christopher
didn’t attend school at all. He would just show up for tests
* The super I Q test was created by Ronald K . Hoeflin, who is himself
someone with an unusually high I Q . Here’s a sample question, from
the verbal analogies section. “Teeth is to Hen as Nes t is to ?” If you
want to know the answer, I’m afraid I have no idea.
7 i

OUTLIERS
and there was nothing they could do about it. To us, it was
hilarious. He could brief a semester’s worth of textbooks
in two days, and take care of whatever he had to take care
of, and then get back to whatever he was doing in the first
place.”*
On the set of / vs. zoo, Langan was poised and confi­
dent. His voice was deep. His eyes were small and fiercely
bright. He did not circle about topics, searching for the
right phrase, or double back to restate a previous sentence.
* To get a sense of what Chris Langan must have been like growing
up, consider the following description of a child named ” L , ” who had
an I Q in the same 200 range as Langan’s. It’s from a study by Leta
Stetter Hol l ingworth, who was one of the first psychologists to study
exceptionally gifted children. A s the description makes obvious, an
I Q of 200 is really, really high: “Young L’s erudition was astonishing.
His passion for scholarly accuracy and thoroughness set a high stand­
ard for accomplishment. H e was relatively large, robust and impres­
sive, and was fondly dubbed ‘Professor.’ His attitudes and abilities
were appreciated by both pupils and teachers. H e was often allowed
to lecture (for as long as an hour) on some special topic, such as the
history of timepieces, ancient theories of engine construction, math­
ematics, and history. H e constructed out of odds and ends (typewriter
ribbon spools, for example) a homemade clock of the pendular type to
illustrate some of the principles of chronometry, and this clock was
set up before the class during the enrichment unit on ‘Time and Time
Keeping’ to demonstrate some of the principles of chronometry. His
notebooks were marvels of scholarly exposition.
“Being discontented with what he considered the inadequate
treatment of land travel in a class unit on ‘Transportation,’ he agreed
that time was too limited to do justice to everything. But he insisted
that ‘at least they should have covered ancient theory.’ A s an extra and
voluntary project, ‘he brought in elaborate drawings and accounts
of the ancient theories of engines, locomotives e t c ‘ . . . H e was at that
time 10 years of age.”
7 2

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
For that matter, he did not say um, or ah, or use any form
of conversational mitigation: his sentences came marching
out, one after another, polished and crisp, like soldiers on
a parade ground. Every question Saget threw at him, he
tossed aside, as if it were a triviality. When his winnings
reached $250,000, he appeared to make a mental calcula­
tion that the risks of losing everything were at that point
greater than the potential benefits of staying in. Abruptly,
he stopped. “I’ll take the cash/’ he said. He shook Saget’s
hand firmly and was finished—exiting on top as, we like
to think, geniuses invariably do.
2 .
Just after the First World War, Lewis Terman, a young
professor of psychology at Stanford University, met a
remarkable boy named Henry Cowell. Cowell had been
raised in poverty and chaos. Because he did not get along
with other children, he had been unschooled since the age
of seven. He worked as a janitor at a one-room school-
house not far from the Stanford campus, and throughout
the day, Cowell would sneak away from his job and play
the school piano. And the music he made was beautiful.
Terman’s specialty was intelligence testing; the stan­
dard IQ test that millions of people around the world
would take during the following fifty years, the Stanford-
Binet, was his creation. So he decided to test CowelPs IQ.
The boy must be intelligent, he reasoned, and sure enough,
he was. He had an IQ of above 140, which is near genius
level. Terman was fascinated. How many other diamonds
in the rough were there? he wondered.
7 3

OUTLIERS
He began to look for others. He found a girl who
knew the alphabet at nineteen months, and another who
was reading Dickens and Shakespeare by the time she was
four. He found a young man who had been kicked out
of law school because his professors did not believe that
it was possible for a human being to precisely reproduce
long passages of legal opinions from memory.
In 1921 , Terman decided to make the study of the
gifted his life work. Armed with a large grant from the
Commonwealth Foundation, he put together a team of
fieldworkers and sent them out into California’s elemen­
tary schools. Teachers were asked to nominate the bright­
est students in their classes. Those children were given an
intelligence test. The students who scored in the top 10
percent were then given a second IQ test, and those who
scored above 130 on that test were given a third IQ test, and
from that set of results Terman selected the best and the
brightest. By the time Terman was finished, he had sorted
through the records of some 250,000 elementary and high
school students, and identified 1,470 children whose IQs
averaged over 140 and ranged as high as 200. That group
of young geniuses came to be known as the “Termites,”
and they were the subjects of what would become one of
the most famous psychological studies in history.
For the rest of his life, Terman watched over his charges
like a mother hen. They were tracked and tested, measured
and analyzed. Their educational attainments were noted,
marriages followed, illnesses tabulated, psychological health
charted, and every promotion and job change dutifully
recorded. Terman wrote his recruits letters of recommen-
7 4

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
dation for jobs and graduate school applications. He doled
out a constant stream of advice and counsel, all the time
recording his findings in thick red volumes entitled Genetic
Studies of Genius.
“There is nothing about an individual as important as
his IQ, except possibly his morals,” Terman once said. And
it was to those with a very high IQ, he believed, that “we
must look for production of leaders who advance science,
art, government, education and social welfare generally.”
As his subjects grew older, Terman issued updates on their
progress, chronicling their extraordinary achievements.
“It is almost impossible,” Terman wrote giddily, when his
charges were in high school, “to read a newspaper account
of any sort of competition or activity in which California
boys and girls participate without finding among the win­
ners the names of one or more… members of our gifted
group.” He took writing samples from some of his most
artistically minded subjects and had literary critics com­
pare them to the early writings of famous authors. They
could find no difference. All the signs pointed, he said, to
a group with the potential for “heroic stature.” Terman
believed that his Termites were destined to be the future
elite of the United States.
Today, many of Terman’s ideas remain central to the
way we think about success. Schools have programs for
the “gifted.” Elite universities often require that students
take an intelligence test (such as the American Scholastic
Aptitude Test) for admission. High-tech companies like
Google or Microsoft carefully measure the cognitive abili­
ties of prospective employees out of the same belief: they
7 5

OUTLIERS
are convinced that those at the very top of the IQ scale
have the greatest potential. (At Microsoft, famously, job
applicants are asked a battery of questions designed to test
their smarts, including the classic “Why are manhole cov­
ers round?” If you don’t know the answer to that ques­
tion, you’re not smart enough to work at Microsoft.*)
If I had magical powers and offered to raise your IQ
by 30 points, you’d say yes—right? You’d assume that
would help you get further ahead in the world. And when
we hear about someone like Chris Langan, our instinc­
tive response is the same as Terman’s instinctive response
when he met Henry Cowell almost a century ago. We feel
awe. Geniuses are the ultimate outliers. Surely there is noth­
ing that can hold someone like that back.
But is that true?
So far in Outliers, we’ve seen that extraordinary
achievement is less about talent than it is about opportu­
nity. In this chapter, I want to try to dig deeper into why
that’s the case by looking at the outlier in its purest and
most distilled form—the genius. For years, we’ve taken
our cues from people like Terman when it comes to under­
standing the significance of high intelligence. But, as we
shall see, Terman made an error. He was wrong about his
Termites, and had he happened on the young Chris Lan­
gan working his way through Principia Mathematica at
the age of sixteen, he would have been wrong about him
* The answer is that a round manhole cover can’t fall into the man­
hole, no matter how much you twist and turn it. A rectangular cover
can: All you have to do is tilt it sideways. There: now you can get a job
at Microsoft.
7 6

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
for the same reason. Terman didn’t understand what a real
outlier was, and that’s a mistake we continue to make to
this day.
3.
One of the most widely used intelligence tests is some­
thing called Raven’s Progressive Matrices. It requires no
language skills or spécifie body of acquired knowledge. It’s
a measure of abstract reasoning skills. A typical Raven’s
test consists of forty-eight items, each one harder than
the one before it, and IQ is calculated based on how many
items are answered correctly.
Here’s a question, typical of the sort that is asked on
the Raven’s.
7 7

OUTLIERS
Did you get that? I’m guessing most of you did. The cor­
rect answer is C. But now try this one. It’s the kind of
really hard question that comes at the end of the Raven’s.
The correct answer is A. I have to confess I couldn’t figure
this one out, and I’m guessing most of you couldn’t either.
Chris Langan almost certainly could, however. When we
say that people like Langan are really brilliant, what we
mean is that they have the kind of mind that can figure out
puzzles like that last question.
Over the years, an enormous amount of research has
been done in an attempt to determine how a person’s per­
formance on an IQ test like the Raven’s translates to real-
life success. People at the bottom of the scale—with an
IQ below 70—are considered mentally disabled. A score
7 8

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
of ioo is average; you probably need to be just above that
mark to be able to handle college. To get into and succeed
in a reasonably competitive graduate program, meanwhile,
you probably need an IQ of at least 115 . In general, the
higher your score, the more education you’ll get, the more
money you’re likely to make, and—believe it or not—the
longer you’ll live.
But there’s a catch. The relationship between suc­
cess and IQ works only up to a point. Once someone has
reached an IQ of somewhere around 120, having addi­
tional IQ points doesn’t seem to translate into any mea­
surable real-world advantage.*
“It is amply proved that someone with an IQ of 170 is
more likely to think well than someone whose IQ is 70,” the
* The “IQ fundamentalist” A r t h u r Jensen put it thusly in his 1980
book Bias in Mental Testing (p. 1 1 3 ) : “The four socially and person­
ally most important threshold regions on the I Q scale are those that
differentiate with high probability between persons who, because
of their level of general mental ability, can or cannot attend a regu­
lar school (about I Q 50), can or cannot master the traditional subject
matter of elementary school (about I Q 75), can or cannot succeed in
the academic or college preparatory curriculum through high school
(about I Q 105), can or cannot graduate from an accredited four-year
college with grades that would qualify for admission to a professional
or graduate school (about I Q 115) . Beyond this, the I Q level becomes
relatively unimportant in terms of ordinary occupational aspirations
and criteria of success. That is not to say that there are not real differ­
ences between the intellectual capabilities represented by IQs of 1 1 5
and 150 or even between IQs of 150 and 180. But I Q differences in
this upper part of the scale have far less personal implications than the
thresholds just described and are generally of lesser importance for
success in the popular sense than are certain traits of personality and
character.”
7 9

OUTLIERS
British psychologist Liam Hudson has written, “and this
holds true where the comparison is much closer—between
IQs of, say, 100 and 130. But the relation seems to break
down when one is making comparisons between two people
both of whom have IQs which are relatively high….A
mature scientist with an adult IQ of 130 is as likely to win a
Nobel Prize as is one whose IQ is 180.”
What Hudson is saying is that IQ is a lot like height
in basketball. Does someone who is five foot six have a
realistic chance of playing professional basketball? Not
really. You need to be at least six foot or six one to play at
that level, and, all things being equal, it’s probably better
to be six two than six one, and better to be six three than
six two. But past a certain point, height stops mattering so
much. A player who is six foot eight is not automatically
better than someone two inches shorter. (Michael Jordan,
the greatest player ever, was six six after all.) A basketball
player only has to be tall enough—and the same is true of
intelligence. Intelligence has a threshold.
The introduction to the / vs. 100 episode pointed
out that Einstein had an IQ of 150 and Langan has an IQ
of 195. Langan’s IQ is 30 percent higher than Einstein’s.
But that doesn’t mean Langan is 30 percent smarter than
Einstein. That’s ridiculous. All we can say is that when it
comes to thinking about really hard things like physics,
they are both clearly smart enough.
The idea that IQ has a threshold, I realize, goes against
our intuition. We think that, say, Nobel Prize winners in
science must have the highest IQ scores imaginable; that
they must be the kinds of people who got perfect scores on
their entrance examinations to college, won every scholar-
8 0

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
ship available, and had such stellar academic records in high
school that they were scooped up by the top universities in
the country.
But take a look at the following list of where the last
twenty-five Americans to win the Nobel Prize in Medi­
cine got their undergraduate degrees, starting in 2007.
Antioch College
Brown University
UC Berkeley
University of Washington
Columbia University
Case Institute of Technology
MIT
Caltech
Harvard University
Hamilton College
Columbia University
University of North Carolina
DePauw University
University of Pennsylvania
University of Minnesota
University of Notre Dame
Johns Hopkins University
Yale University
Union College, Kentucky
University of Illinois
University of Texas
Holy Cross
Amherst College
Gettysburg College
Hunter College
8 1

OUTLIERS
No one would say that this list represents the college
choices of the absolute best high school students in America.
Yale and Columbia and MIT are on the list, but so are
DePauw, Holy Cross, and Gettysburg College. It’s a list
of good schools.
Along the same lines, here are the colleges of the last
twenty-five American Nobel laureates in Chemistry:
City College of New York
City College of New York
Stanford University
University of Dayton, Ohio
Rollins College, Florida
MIT
Grinnell College
MIT
McGill University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ohio Wesleyan University
Rice University
Hope College
Brigham Young University
University of Toronto
University of Nebraska
Dartmouth College
Harvard University
Berea College
Augsburg College
University of Massachusetts
Washington State University
University of Florida
8 2

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
University of California, Riverside
Harvard University
To be a Nobel Prize winner, apparently, you have to
be smart enough to get into a college at least as good as
Notre Dame or the University of Illinois. That’s all.*
This is a radical idea, isn’t it? Suppose that your teen­
age daughter found out that she had been accepted at two
universities — Harvard University and Georgetown Uni­
versity, in Washington, DC. Where would you want her to
go? I’m guessing Harvard, because Harvard is a “better”
school. Its students score a good 10 to 15 percent higher
on their entrance exams.
But given what we are learning about intelligence, the
idea that schools can be ranked, like runners in a race,
makes no sense. Georgetown’s students may not be as
smart on an absolute scale as the students of Harvard. But
they are all, clearly, smart enough, and future Nobel Prize
winners come from schools like Georgetown as well as
from schools like Harvard.
The psychologist Barry Schwartz recently proposed
that elite schools give up their complex admissions pro­
cess and simply hold a lottery for everyone above the
* Just to be clear: it is still the case that Harvard produces more Nobel
Prize winners than any other school. Just look at those lists. Harvard
appears on both of them, a total of three times. A school like Ho ly
Cross appears just once. But wouldn’t you expect schools like Harvard
to win more Nobels than they do? Harvard is, after all, the richest,
most prestigious school in history and has its pick of the most brilliant
undergraduates the world over.
8 3

OUTLIERS
threshold. “Put people into two categories,” Schwartz
says. “Good enough and not good enough. The ones who
are good enough get put into a hat. And those who are not
good enough get rejected.” Schwartz concedes that his idea
has virtually no chance of being accepted. But he’s abso­
lutely right. As Hudson writes (and keep in mind that he
did his research at elite all-male English boarding schools
in the 1950s and 1960s), “Knowledge of a boy’s IQ is of
little help if you are faced with aformful of clever boys.””
Let me give you an example of the threshold effect in
action. The University of Michigan law school, like many
elite US educational institutions, uses a policy of affirma­
tive action when it comes to applicants from disadvantaged
backgrounds. Around 10 percent of the students Michigan
enrolls each fall are members of racial minorities, and if
the law school did not significantly relax its entry require­
ments for those students—admitting them with lower
undergraduate grades and lower standardized-test scores
than everyone else—it estimates that percentage would
be less than 3 percent. Furthermore, if we compare the
grades that the minority and nonminority students get in
* To get a sense of how absurd the selection process at elite Ivy League
schools has become, consider the following statistics. In 2008, 27,462
of the most highly qualified high school seniors in the world applied to
Harvard University. Of these students, 2,500 of them scored a perfect
800 on the SAT critical reading test and 3,300 had a perfect score on the
SAT math exam. More than 3 ,300 were ranked first in their high school
class. How many did Harvard accept? About 1,600, which is to say
they rejected 93 out of every 100 applicants. Is it really possible to say
that one student is Harvard material and another isn’t, when both have
identical—and perfect—academic records? Of course not. Harvard is
being dishonest. Schwartz is right. They should just have a lottery.
8 4

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
law school, we see that the white students do better. That’s
not surprising: if one group has higher undergraduate
grades and test scores than the other, it’s almost certainly
going to have higher grades in law school as well. This is
one reason that affirmative action programs are so contro­
versial. In fact, an attack on the University of Michigan’s
affirmative action program recently went all the way to
the US Supreme Court. For many people it is troubling
that an elite educational institution lets in students who
are less qualified than their peers.
A few years ago, however, the University of Michigan
decided to look closely at how the law school’s minority
students had fared after they graduated. How much money
did they make? How far up in the profession did they go?
How satisfied were they with their careers? What kind of
social and community contributions did they make? What
kind of honors had they won? They looked at everything
that could conceivably be an indication of real-world suc­
cess. And what they found surprised them.
“We knew that our minority students, a lot of them,
were doing well,” says Richard Lempert, one of the authors
of the Michigan study. “I think our expectation was that
we would find a half- or two-thirds-full glass, that they
had not done as well as the white students but nonetheless
a lot were quite successful. But we were completely sur­
prised. We found that they were doing every bit as well.
There was no place we saw any serious discrepancy.”
What Lempert is saying is that by the only measure
that a law school really ought to care about—how well its
graduates do in the real world—minority students aren’t
less qualified. They’re just as successful as white students.
85

OUTLIERS
And why? Because even though the academic credentials
of minority students at Michigan aren’t as good as those
of white students, the quality of students at the law school
is high enough that they’re still above the threshold. They
are smart enough. Knowledge of a law student’s test scores
is of little help if you are faced with a classroom of clever
law students.
4.
Let’s take the threshold idea one step further. If intel­
ligence matters only up to a point, then past that point,
other things—things that have nothing to do with
intelligence—must start to matter more. It’s like basket­
ball again: once someone is tall enough, then we start to
care about speed and court sense and agility and ball-
handling skills and shooting touch.
So, what might some of those other things be? Well,
suppose that instead of measuring your IQ, I gave you a
totally different kind of test.
Write down as many different uses that you can think
of for the following objects:
1. a brick
2. a blanket
This is an example of what’s called a “divergence test”
(as opposed to a test like the Raven’s, which asks you to
sort through a list of possibilities and converge on the
right answer). It requires you to use your imagination and
8 6

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
take your mind in as many different directions as possible.
With a divergence test, obviously there isn’t a single right
answer. What the test giver is looking for are the number
and the uniqueness of your responses. And what the test
is measuring isn’t analytical intelligence but something
profoundly different—something much closer to creativ­
ity. Divergence tests are every bit as challenging as con­
vergence tests, and if you don’t believe that, I encourage
you to pause and try the brick-and-blanket test right now.
Here, for example, are answers to the “uses of objects”
test collected by Liam Hudson from a student named
Poole at a top British high school:
(Brick). To use in smash-and-grab raids. To help hold a
house together. To use in a game of Russian roulette if
you want to keep fit at the same time (bricks at ten paces,
turn and throw—no evasive action allowed). To hold
the eiderdown on a bed tie a brick at each corner. As a
breaker of empty Coca-Cola bottles.
(Blanket). To use on a bed. As a cover for illicit sex in the
woods. As a tent. To make smoke signals with. As a sail for
a boat, cart or sled. As a substitute for a towel. As a target
for shooting practice for short-sighted people. As a thing
to catch people jumping out of burning skyscrapers.
It’s not hard to read Poole’s answers and get some sense
of how his mind works. He’s funny. He’s a little subversive
and libidinous. He has the flair for the dramatic. His mind
leaps from violent imagery to sex to people jumping out of
burning skyscrapers to very practical issues, such as how
8 7

OUTLIERS
to get a duvet to stay on a bed. He gives us the impression
that if we gave him another ten minutes, he’d come up
with another twenty uses.*
Now, for the sake of comparison, consider the answers
of another student from Hudson’s sample. His name is
Florence. Hudson tells us that Florence is a prodigy, with
one of the highest IQs in his school.
(Brick). Building things, throwing.
(Blanket). Keeping warm, smothering fire, tying to trees
and sleeping in (as a hammock), improvised stretcher.
Where is Florence’s imagination? He identified the
most common and most functional uses for bricks and
blankets and simply stopped. Florence’s IQ is higher
than Poole’s. But that means little, since both students
are above the threshold. What is more interesting is that
Poole’s mind can leap from violent imagery to sex to peo­
ple jumping out of buildings without missing a beat, and
Florence’s mind can’t. Now which of these two students
do you think is better suited to do the kind of brilliant,
imaginative work that wins Nobel Prizes?
* Here’s another student’s answers. These might be even better than
Poole’s: “(Brick). To break windows for robbery, to determine depth
of wells, to use as ammunition, as pendulum, to practice carving, wall
building, to demonstrate Archimedes’ Principle, as part of abstract
sculpture, costh, ballast, weight for dropping things in river, etc., as
a hammer, keep door open, footwiper, use as rubble for path filling,
chock, weight on scale, to prop up wobbly table, paperweight, as fire-
hearth, to block up rabbit hole.”
8 8

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART I
That’s the second reason Nobel Prize winners come
from Holy Cross as well as Harvard, because Harvard
isn’t selecting its students on the basis of how well they do
on the “uses of a brick” test—and maybe “uses of a brick”
is a better predictor of Nobel Prize ability. It’s also the
second reason Michigan Law School couldn’t find a dif­
ference between its affirmative action graduates and the
rest of its alumni. Being a successful lawyer is about a lot
more than IQ. It involves having the kind of fertile mind
that Poole had. And just because Michigan’s minority stu­
dents have lower scores on convergence tests doesn’t mean
they don’t have that other critical trait in abundance.
5 .
This was Terman’s error. He fell in love with the fact
that his Termites were at the absolute pinnacle of the
intellectual scale—at the ninety-ninth percentile of the
ninety-ninth percentile—without realizing how little that
seemingly extraordinary fact meant.
By the time the Termites reached adulthood, Terman’s
error was plain to see. Some of his child geniuses had grown
up to publish books and scholarly articles and thrive in busi­
ness. Several ran for public office, and there were two supe­
rior court justices, one municipal court judge, two members
of the California state legislature, and one prominent state
official. But few of his geniuses were nationally known fig­
ures. They tended to earn good incomes—but not that good.
The majority had careers that could only be considered ordi­
nary, and a surprising number ended up with careers that
even Terman considered failures. Nor were there any Nobel
8 9

OUTLIERS
Prize winners in his exhaustively selected group of geniuses.
His fieldworkers actually tested two elementary students
who went on to be Nobel laureates—William Shockley
and Luis Alvarez—and rejected them both. Their IQs
weren’t high enough.
In a devastating critique, the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin
once showed that if Terman had simply put together a
randomly selected group of children from the same kinds
of family backgrounds as the Termites—and dispensed
with IQs altogether—he would have ended up with a
group doing almost as many impressive things as his
painstakingly selected group of geniuses. “By no stretch of
the imagination or of standards of genius,” Sorokin con­
cluded, “is the ‘gifted group’ as a whole ‘gifted.’ ” By the
time Terman came out with his fourth volume of Genetic
Studies of Genius, the word “genius” had all but vanished.
“We have seen,” Terman concluded, with more than a
touch of disappointment, “that intellect and achievement
are far from perfectly correlated.”
What I told you at the beginning of this chapter about
the extraordinary intelligence of Chris Langan, in other
words, is of little use if we want to understand his chances
of being a success in the world. Yes, he is a man with a
one-in-a-million mind and the ability to get through
Principia Mathematica at sixteen. And yes, his sentences
come marching out one after another, polished and crisp
like soldiers on a parade ground. But so what? If we want
to understand the likelihood of his becoming a true out­
lier, we have to know a lot more about him than that.
9 0

C H A P T E R F O U R
The Trouble with
Geniuses, Part 2
“AFTER PROTRACTED NEGOTIATIONS,
IT WAS AGREED THAT ROBERT WOULD BE
PUT ON PROBATION.”
1.
Chris Langan’s mother was from San Francisco and was
estranged from her family. She had four sons, each with
a different father. Chris was the eldest. His father disap­
peared before Chris was born; he was said to have died in
Mexico. His mother’s second husband was murdered. Her
third committed suicide. Her fourth was a failed journal­
ist named Jack Langan.
“To this day I haven’t met anybody who was as poor
when they were kids as our family was,” Chris Langan
says. “We didn’t have a pair of matched socks. Our shoes
had holes in them. Our pants had holes in them. We only
had one set of clothes. I remember my brothers and I going
into the bathroom and using the bathtub to wash our only
set of clothes and we were bare-assed naked when we were
doing that because we didn’t have anything to wear.”
Jack Langan would go on drinking sprees and disappear.
9 1

OUTLIERS
He would lock the kitchen cabinets so the boys couldn’t get
to the food. He used a bullwhip to keep the boys in line.
He would get jobs and then lose them, moving the family
on to the next town. One summer the family lived on an
Indian reservation in a teepee, subsisting on government-
surplus peanut butter and cornmeal. For a time, they lived
in Virginia City, Nevada. “There was only one law offi­
cer in town, and when the Hell’s Angels came to town, he
would crouch down in the back of his office,” Mark Langan
remembers. “There was a bar there, I’ll always remember. It
was called the Bucket of Blood Saloon.”
When the boys were in grade school, the family moved
to Bozeman, Montana. One of Chris’s brothers spent time
in a foster home. Another was sent to reform school.
“I don’t think the school ever understood just how
gifted Christopher was,” his brother Jeff says. “He sure as
hell didn’t play it up. This was Bozeman. It wasn’t like it is
today. It was a small hick town when we were growing up.
We weren’t treated well there. They’d just decided that my
family was a bunch of deadbeats.” To stick up for himself
and his brothers, Chris started to lift weights. One day,
when Chris was fourteen, Jack Langan got rough with the
boys, as he sometimes did, and Chris knocked him out
cold. Jack left, never to return. Upon graduation from
high school, Chris was offered two full scholarships, one
to Reed College in Oregon and the other to the Univer­
sity of Chicago. He chose Reed.
“It was a huge mistake,” Chris recalls. “I had a real
case of culture shock. I was a crew-cut kid who had been
working as a ranch hand in the summers in Montana,
and there I was, with a whole bunch of long-haired city
9 2

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
kids, most of them from New York. And these kids had
a whole different style than I was used to. I couldn’t get
a word in edgewise at class. They were very inquisitive.
Asking questions all the time. I was crammed into a dorm
room. There were four of us, and the other three guys had
a whole different other lifestyle. They were smoking pot.
They would bring their girlfriends into the room. I had
never smoked pot before. So basically I took to hiding in
the library.”
He continued: “Then I lost that scholarship My
mother was supposed to fill out a parents’ financial state­
ment for the renewal of that scholarship. She neglected to
do so. She was confused by the requirements or whatever.
At some point, it came to my attention that my scholar­
ship had not been renewed. So I went to the office to ask
why, and they told me, Well, no one sent us the financial
statement, and we allocated all the scholarship money and
it’s all gone, so I’m afraid that you don’t have a scholar­
ship here anymore. That was the style of the place. They
simply didn’t care. They didn’t give a shit about their stu­
dents. There was no counseling, no mentoring, nothing.”
Chris left Reed before the final set of exams, leaving
him with a row of Fs on his transcript. In the first semes­
ter, he had earned As. He went back to Bozeman and
worked in construction and as a forest services firefighter
for a year and a half. Then he enrolled at Montana State
University.
“I was taking math and philosophy classes,” he recalled.
“And then in the winter quarter, I was living thirteen miles
out of town, out on Beach Hill Road, and the transmis­
sion fell out of my car. My brothers had used it when I was
9 3

OUTLIERS
gone that summer. They were working for the railroad
and had driven it on the railroad tracks. I didn’t have the
money to repair it. So I went to my adviser and the dean in
sequence and said, I have a problem. The transmission fell
out of my car, and you have me in a seven-thirty a.m. and
eight-thirty a.m. class. If you could please just transfer me
to the afternoon sections of these classes, I would appreci­
ate it because of this car problem. There was a neighbor
who was a rancher who was going to take me in at eleven
o’clock. My adviser was this cowboy-looking guy with a
handlebar mustache, dressed in a tweed jacket. He said,
‘Well, son, after looking at your transcript at Reed Col­
lege, I see that you have yet to learn that everyone has to
make sacrifices to get an education. Request denied.’ So
then I went to the dean. Same treatment.”
His voice grew tight. He was describing things that
had happened more than thirty years ago, but the mem­
ory still made him angry. “At that point I realized, here
I was, knocking myself out to make the money to make
my way back to school, and it’s the middle of the Montana
winter. I am willing to hitchhike into town every day, do
whatever I had to do, just to get into school and back, and
they are unwilling to do anything for me. So bananas.
And that was the point I decided I could do without the
higher-education system. Even if I couldn’t do without it,
it was sufficiently repugnant to me that I wouldn’t do it
anymore. So I dropped out of college, simple as that.”
Chris Langan’s experiences at Reed and Montana State
represented a turning point in his life. As a child, he had
dreamt of becoming an academic. He should have gotten a
PhD; universities are institutions structured, in large part,
9 4

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
for people with his kind of deep intellectual interests and
curiosity. “Once he got into the university environment, I
thought he would prosper, I really did/’ his brother Mark
says. “I thought he would somehow find a niche. It made
absolutely no sense to me when he left that.”
Without a degree, Langan floundered. He worked in
construction. One frigid winter he worked on a clam boat
on Long Island. He took factory jobs and minor civil ser­
vice positions and eventually became a bouncer in a bar
on Long Island, which was his principal occupation for
much of his adult years. Through it all, he continued to
read deeply in philosophy, mathematics, and physics as he
worked on a sprawling treatise he calls the “CTMU”—the
“Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe.” But without
academic credentials, he despairs of ever getting published
in a scholarly journal.
“I am a guy who has a year and a half of college,” he
says, with a shrug. “And at some point this will come to
the attention of the editor, as he is going to take the paper
and send it off to the referees, and these referees are going
to try and look me up, and they are not going to find me.
And they are going to say, This guy has a year and a half
of college. How can he know what he’s talking about?”
It is a heartbreaking story. At one point I asked Langan—
hypothetically—whether he would take a job at Harvard
University were it offered to him. “Well, that’s a difficult
question,” he replied. “Obviously, as a full professor at
Harvard I would count. My ideas would have weight and
I could use my position, my affiliation at Harvard, to pro­
mote my ideas. An institution like that is a great source of
intellectual energy, and if I were at a place like that, I could
9 5

OUTLIERS
absorb the vibration in the air.” It was suddenly clear how
lonely his life has been. Here he was, a man with an insa­
tiable appetite for learning, forced for most of his adult life
to live in intellectual isolation. “I even noticed that kind of
intellectual energy in the year and a half I was in college,”
he said, almost wistfully. “Ideas are in the air constantly.
It’s such a stimulating place to be.
“On the other hand,” he went on, “Harvard is basically
a glorified corporation, operating with a profit incentive.
That’s what makes it tick. It has an endowment in the bil­
lions of dollars. The people running it are not necessarily
searching for truth and knowledge. They want to be big
shots, and when you accept a paycheck from these people,
it is going to come down to what you want to do and what
you feel is right versus what the man says you can do to
receive another paycheck. When you’re there, they got a
thumb right on you. They are out to make sure you don’t
step out of line.”
2 .
What does the story of Chris Langan tell us? His explana­
tions, as heartbreaking as they are, are also a little strange.
His mother forgets to sign his financial aid form and—just
like that—no scholarship. He tries to move from a morn­
ing to an afternoon class, something students do every
day, and gets stopped cold. And why were Langan’s teach­
ers at Reed and Montana State so indifferent to his plight?
Teachers typically delight in minds as brilliant as his.
Langan talks about dealing with Reed and Montana State
as if they were some kind of vast and unyielding govern­
e d

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
ment bureaucracy. But colleges, particularly small liberal
arts colleges like Reed, tend not to be rigid bureaucracies.
Making allowances in the name of helping someone stay
in school is what professors do all the time.
Even in his discussion of Harvard, it’s as if Langan has
no conception of the culture and particulars of the institu­
tion he’s talking about. When you accept a paycheck from
these people, it is going to come down to what you want
to do and what you feel is right versus what the man says
you can do to receive another paycheck. What? One of the
main reasons college professors accept a lower paycheck
than they could get in private industry is that university
life gives them the freedom to do what they want to do and
what they feel is right. Langan has Harvard backwards.
When Langan told me his life story, I couldn’t help
thinking of the life of Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist
who famously headed the American effort to develop the
nuclear bomb during World War II. Oppenheimer, by all
accounts, was a child with a mind very much like Chris
Langan’s. His parents considered him a genius. One of
his teachers recalled that “he received every new idea as
perfectly beautiful.” He was doing lab experiments by
the third grade and studying physics and chemistry by
the fifth grade. When he was nine, he once told one of his
cousins, “Ask me a question in Latin and I will answer
you in Greek.”
Oppenheimer went to Harvard and then on to Cam­
bridge University to pursue a doctorate in physics. There,
Oppenheimer, who struggled with depression his entire
life, grew despondent. His gift was for theoretical physics,
and his tutor, a man named Patrick Blackett (who would
97

OUTLIERS
win a Nobel Prize in 1948), was forcing him to attend to
the minutiae of experimental physics, which he hated. He
grew more and more emotionally unstable, and then, in
an act so strange that to this day no one has properly made
sense of it, Oppenheimer took some chemicals from the
laboratory and tried to poison his tutor.
Blackett, luckily, found out that something was amiss.
The university was informed. Oppenheimer was called on
the carpet. And what happened next is every bit as unbe­
lievable as the crime itself. Here is how the incident is
described in American Prometheus, Kai Bird and Martin
Sherwin’s biography of Oppenheimer: “After protracted
negotiations, it was agreed that Robert would be put on pro­
bation and have regular sessions with a prominent Harley
Street psychiatrist in London.”
On probation?
Here we have two very brilliant young students, each of
whom runs into a problem that imperils his college career.
Langan s mother has missed a deadline for his financial aid.
Oppenheimer has tried to poison his tutor. To continue
on, they are required to plead their cases to authority. And
what happens? Langan gets his scholarship taken away, and
Oppenheimer gets sent to a psychiatrist. Oppenheimer and
Langan might both be geniuses, but in other ways, they
could not be more different.
The story of Oppenheimer’s appointment to be scien­
tific director of the Manhattan Project twenty years later is
perhaps an even better example of this difference. The gen­
eral in charge of the Manhattan Project was Leslie Groves,
and he scoured the country, trying to find the right person
to lead the atomic-bomb effort. Oppenheimer, by rights,
9 8

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
was a long shot. He was just thirty-eight, and junior to
many of the people whom he would have to manage. He
was a theorist, and this was a job that called for experi­
menters and engineers. His political affiliations were dodgy:
he had all kinds of friends who were Communists. Perhaps
more striking, he had never had any administrative experi­
ence. “He was a very impractical fellow,” one of Oppen­
heimer’s friends later said. “He walked about with scuffed
shoes and a funny hat, and, more important, he didn’t
know anything about equipment.” As one Berkeley scien­
tist put it, more succinctly: “He couldn’t run a hamburger
stand.”
Oh, and by the way, in graduate school he tried to kill
his tutor. This was the résumé of the man who was trying
out for what might be said to be—without exaggeration—
one of the most important jobs of the twentieth century.
And what happened? The same thing that happened
twenty years earlier at Cambridge: he got the rest of the
world to see things his way.
Here are Bird and Sherwin again: “Oppenheimer under­
stood that Groves guarded the entrance to the Manhattan
Project, and he therefore turned on all his charm and bril­
liance. It was an irresistible performance.” Groves was smit­
ten. ” ‘He’s a genius,’ Groves later told a reporter. ‘A real
genius.’ ” Groves was an engineer by training with a gradu­
ate degree from MIT, and Oppenheimer’s great insight was
to appeal to that side of Groves. Bird and Sherwin go on:
“Oppenheimer was the first scientist Groves had met on
his tour [of potential candidates] who grasped that build­
ing an atomic bomb required finding practical solutions
to a variety of cross-disciplinary problems [Groves]
99

O U T L I E R S
found himself nodding in agreement when Oppenheimer
pitched the notion of a central laboratory devoted to this
purpose, where, as he later testified, ‘we could begin to come
to grips with chemical, metallurgical, engineering and ord­
nance problems that had so far received no consideration/ ”
Would Oppenheimer have lost his scholarship at Reed?
Would he have been unable to convince his professors to
move his classes to the afternoon? Of course not. And
that’s not because he was smarter than Chris Langan. It’s
because he possessed the kind of savvy that allowed him
to get what he wanted from the world.
“They required that everyone take introductory cal­
culus,” Langan said of his brief stay at Montana State.
“And I happened to get a guy who taught it in a very dry,
very trivial way. I didn’t understand why he was teach­
ing it this way. So I asked him questions. I actually had to
chase him down to his office. I asked him, ‘Why are you
teaching this way? Why do you consider this practice to
be relevant to calculus?’ And this guy, this tall, lanky guy,
always had sweat stains under his arms, he turned and
looked at me and said, ‘You know, there is something you
should probably get straight. Some people just don’t have
the intellectual firepower to be mathematicians.’ ”
There they are, the professor and the prodigy, and what
the prodigy clearly wants is to be engaged, at long last,
with a mind that loves mathematics as much as he does.
But he fails. In fact—and this is the most heartbreaking
part of all—he manages to have an entire conversation
with his calculus professor without ever communicating
the one fact most likely to appeal to a calculus professor.
I o o

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
The professor never realizes that Chris Langan is good at
calculus.
3.
The particular skill that allows you to talk your way out
of a murder rap, or convince your professor to move you
from the morning to the afternoon section, is what the psy­
chologist Robert Sternberg calls “practical intelligence. , ,
To Sternberg, practical intelligence includes things like
“knowing what to say to whom, knowing when to say it,
and knowing how to say it for maximum effect.” It is pro­
cedural: it is about knowing how to do something with­
out necessarily knowing why you know it or being able to
explain it. It’s practical in nature: that is, it’s not knowledge
for its own sake. It’s knowledge that helps you read situa­
tions correctly and get what you want. And, critically, it is
a kind of intelligence separate from the sort of analytical
ability measured by IQ. To use the technical term, general
intelligence and practical intelligence are “orthogonal”: the
presence of one doesn’t imply the presence of the other.
You can have lots of analytical intelligence and very little
practical intelligence, or lots of practical intelligence and
not much analytical intelligence, or—as in the lucky case
of someone like Robert Oppenheimer—you can have lots
of both.
So where does something like practical intelligence
come from? We know where analytical intelligence comes
from. It’s something, at least in part, that’s in your genes.
Chris Langan started talking at six months. He taught
i o I

OUTLIERS
himself to read at three years of age. He was born smart.
IQ is a measure, to some degree, of innate ability.* But
social savvy is knowledge. It’s a set of skills that have to
be learned. It has to come from somewhere, and the place
where we seem to get these kinds of attitudes and skills is
from our families.
Perhaps the best explanation we have of this process
comes from the sociologist Annette Lareau, who a few years
ago conducted a fascinating study of a group of third grad­
ers. She picked both blacks and whites and children from
both wealthy homes and poor homes, zeroing in, ultimately,
on twelve families. Lareau and her team visited each family
at least twenty times, for hours at a stretch. She and her assis­
tants told their subjects to treat them like “the family dog,”
and they followed them to church and to soccer games and
to doctor’s appointments, with a tape recorder in one hand
and a notebook in the other.
You might expect that if you spent such an extended
period in twelve different households, what you would
gather is twelve different ideas about how to raise children:
there would be the strict parents and the lax parents and
the hyperinvolved parents and the mellow parents and on
and on. What Lareau found, however, is something much
different. There were only two parenting “philosophies,”
and they divided almost perfectly along class lines. The
wealthier parents raised their kids one way, and the poorer
parents raised their kids another way.
The wealthier parents were heavily involved in their
children’s free time, shuttling them from one activity to
* Most estimates put the heritability of IQ at roughly 50 percent.
1 o 2

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
the next, quizzing them about their teachers and coaches
and teammates. One of the well-off children Lareau fol­
lowed played on a baseball team, two soccer teams, a swim
team, and a basketball team in the summer, as well as play­
ing in an orchestra and taking piano lessons.
That kind of intensive scheduling was almost entirely
absent from the lives of the poor children. Play for them
wasn’t soccer practice twice a week. It was making up games
outside with their siblings and other kids in the neighbor­
hood. What a child did was considered by his or her par­
ents as something separate from the adult world and not
particularly consequential. One girl from a working-class
family—Katie Brindle—sang in a choir after school. But
she signed up for it herself and walked to choir practice on
her own. Lareau writes:
What Mrs. Brindle doesn’t do that is routine for middle-
class mothers is view her daughter’s interest in singing as
a signal to look for other ways to help her develop that
interest into a formal talent. Similarly Mrs. Brindle does
not discuss Katie’s interest in drama or express regret
that she cannot afford to cultivate her daughter’s talent.
Instead she frames Katie’s skills and interests as character
traits—singing and acting are part of what makes Katie
“Katie.” She sees the shows her daughter puts on as “cute”
and as a way for Katie to “get attention.”
The middle-class parents talked things through with
their children, reasoning with them. They didn’t just issue
commands. They expected their children to talk back
to them, to negotiate, to question adults in positions of
authority. If their children were doing poorly at school, the
1 0 3

OUTLIERS
wealthier parents challenged their teachers. They inter­
vened on behalf of their kids. One child Lareau follows
just misses qualifying for a gifted program. Her mother
arranges for her to be retested privately, petitions the
school, and gets her daughter admitted. The poor parents,
by contrast, are intimidated by authority. They react pas­
sively and stay in the background. Lareau writes of one
low-income parent:
At a parent-teacher conference, for example, Ms. McAl­
lister (who is a high school graduate) seems subdued. The
gregarious and outgoing nature she displays at home is
hidden in this setting. She sits hunched over in the chair
and she keeps her jacket zipped up. She is very quiet.
When the teacher reports that Harold has not been turn­
ing in his homework, Ms. McAllister clearly is flabber­
gasted, but all she says is, “He did it at home.” She does
not follow up with the teacher or attempt to intervene
on Harold’s behalf. In her view, it is up to the teachers to
manage her son’s education. That is their job, not hers.
Lareau calls the middle-class parenting style “concerted
cultivation.” It’s an attempt to actively “foster and assess a
child’s talents, opinions and skills.” Poor parents tend to fol­
low, by contrast, a strategy of “accomplishment of natural
growth.” They see as their responsibility to care for their
children but to let them grow and develop on their own.
Lareau stresses that one style isn’t morally better than
the other. The poorer children were, to her mind, often
better behaved, less whiny, more creative in making use
of their own time, and had a well-developed sense of inde­
pendence. But in practical terms, concerted cultivation
1 0 4

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
has enormous advantages. The heavily scheduled middle-
class child is exposed to a constantly shifting set of expe­
riences. She learns teamwork and how to cope in highly
structured settings. She is taught how to interact comfort­
ably with adults, and to speak up when she needs to. In
Lareau’s words, the middle-class children learn a sense of
“entitlement.”
That word, of course, has negative connotations these
days. But Lareau means it in the best sense of the term:
“They acted as though they had a right to pursue their own
individual preferences and to actively manage interactions
in institutional settings. They appeared comfortable in
those settings; they were open to sharing information and
asking for attention It was common practice among
middle-class children to shift interactions to suit their
preferences.” They knew the rules. “Even in fourth grade,
middle-class children appeared to be acting on their own
behalf to gain advantages. They made special requests of
teachers and doctors to adjust procedures to accommo­
date their desires.”
By contrast, the working-class and poor children
were characterized by “an emerging sense of distance, dis­
trust, and constraint.” They didn’t know how to get their
way, or how to “customize”—using Lareau’s wonderful
term—whatever environment they were in, for their best
purposes.
In one telling scene, Lareau describes a visit to the doc­
tor by Alex Williams, a nine-year-old boy, and his mother,
Christina. The Williamses are wealthy professionals.
“Alex, you should be thinking of questions you might
want to ask the doctor,” Christina says in the car on the
1 0 5

OUTLIERS
way to the doctor’s office. “You can ask him anything you
want. Don’t be shy. You can ask anything.”
Alex thinks for a minute, then says, “I have some
bumps under my arms from my deodorant.” Christina:
“Really? You mean from your new deodorant?” Alex:
“Yes.” Christina: “Well, you should ask the doctor.”
Alex’s mother, Lareau writes, “is teaching that he has
the right to speak up”—that even though he’s going to be
in a room with an older person and authority figure, it’s
perfectly all right for him to assert himself. They meet
the doctor, a genial man in his early forties. He tells Alex
that he is in the ninety-fifth percentile in height. Alex then
interrupts:
ALEX: I’m in the what?
DOCTOR: It means that you’re taller than more than
ninety-five out of a hundred young men when they’re,
uh, ten years old.
ALEX: I’m not ten.
DOCTOR: Well, they graphed you at ten. You’re—nine
years and ten months. They—they usually take the
closest year to that graph.
Look at how easily Alex interrupts the doctor—”I’m
not ten.” That’s entitlement: his mother permits that casual
incivility because she wants him to learn to assert himself
with people in positions of authority.
THE DOCTOR TURNS TO ALEX: Well, now the most
important question. Do you have any questions you
want to ask me before I do your physical?
i o 6

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
ALEX: Um…only one. I’ve been getting some bumps
on my arms, right around here (indicates underarm).
DOCTOR: Underneath?
ALEX: Yeah.
DOCTOR: Okay. I’ll have to take a look at those when I
come in closer to do the checkup. And I’ll see what
they are and what I can do. Do they hurt or itch?
ALEX: No, they’re just there.
DOCTOR: Okay, I’ll take a look at those bumps for you.
This kind of interaction simply doesn’t happen with
lower-class children, Lareau says. They would be quiet
and submissive, with eyes turned away. Alex takes charge
of the moment. “In remembering to raise the question he
prepared in advance, he gains the doctor’s full attention
and focuses it on an issue of his choosing,” Lareau writes.
In so doing, he successfully shifts the balance of power
away from the adults and toward himself. The transi­
tion goes smoothly. Alex is used to being treated with
respect. He is seen as special and as a person worthy of
adult attention and interest. These are key characteris­
tics of the strategy of concerted cultivation. Alex is not
showing off during his checkup. He is behaving much
as he does with his parents—he reasons, negotiates, and
jokes with equal ease.
It is important to understand where the particular
mastery of that moment comes from. It’s not genetic. Alex
Williams didn’t inherit the skills to interact with author­
ity figures from his parents and grandparents the way he
inherited the color of his eyes. Nor is it racial: it’s not a
1 0 7

OUTLIERS
practice spécifie to either black or white people. As it turns
out, Alex Williams is black and Katie Brindle is white. It’s
a cultural advantage. Alex has those skills because over the
course of his young life, his mother and father—in the
manner of educated families—have painstakingly taught
them to him, nudging and prodding and encouraging and
showing him the rules of the game, right down to that lit­
tle rehearsal in the car on the way to the doctor’s office.
When we talk about the advantages of class, Lareau
argues, this is in large part what we mean. Alex Williams
is better off than Katie Brindle because he’s wealthier and
because he goes to a better school, but also because—and
perhaps this is even more critical—the sense of entitle­
ment that he has been taught is an attitude perfectly suited
to succeeding in the modern world.
4.
This is the advantage that Oppenheimer had and that Chris
Langan lacked. Oppenheimer was raised in one of the
wealthiest neighborhoods in Manhattan, the son of an art­
ist and a successful garment manufacturer. His childhood
was the embodiment of concerted cultivation. On weekends,
the Oppenheimers would go driving in the countryside in
a chauffeur-driven Packard. Summers he would be taken to
Europe to see his grandfather. He attended the Ethical Cul­
ture School on Central Park West, perhaps the most pro­
gressive school in the nation, where, his biographers write,
students were “infused with the notion that they were being
groomed to reform the world.” When his math teacher real­
ized he was bored, she sent him off to do independent work.
1 0 8

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
As a child, Oppenheimer was passionate about rock
collecting. At the age of twelve, he began corresponding
with local geologists about rock formations he had seen in
Central Park, and he so impressed them that they invited
him to give a lecture before the New York Mineralogical
Club. As Sherwin and Bird write, Oppenheimer’s par­
ents responded to their son’s hobby in an almost textbook
example of concerted cultivation:
Dreading the thought of having to talk to an audience
of adults, Robert begged his father to explain that they
had invited a twelve-year-old. Greatly amused, Julius
encouraged his son to accept this honor. On the des­
ignated evening, Robert showed up at the club with his
parents, who proudly introduced their son as J . Robert
Oppenheimer. The startled audience of geologists and
amateur rock collectors burst out laughing when he
stepped up to the podium: a wooden box had to be found
for him to stand on so that the audience could see more
than the shock of his wiry black hair sticking up above
the lectern. Shy and awkward, Robert nevertheless read
his prepared remarks and was given a hearty round of
applause.
Is it any wonder Oppenheimer handled the challenges
of his life so brilliantly? If you are someone whose father
has made his way up in the business world, then you’ve
seen, firsthand, what it means to negotiate your way out of
a tight spot. If you’re someone who was sent to the Ethical
Culture School, then you aren’t going to be intimidated
by a row of Cambridge dons arrayed in judgment against
you. If you studied physics at Harvard, then you know
i o 9

O U T L I E R S
how to talk to an army general who did engineering just
down the road at MIT.
Chris Langan, by contrast, had only the bleakness of
Bozeman, and a home dominated by an angry, drunken
stepfather. “[Jack] Langan did this to all of us,” said Mark.
“We all have a true resentment of authority.” That was
the lesson Langan learned from his childhood: distrust
authority and be independent. He never had a parent teach
him on the way to the doctor how to speak up for himself,
or how to reason and negotiate with those in positions of
authority. He didn’t learn entitlement. He learned con­
straint. It may seem like a small thing, but it was a crip­
pling handicap in navigating the world beyond Bozeman.
“I couldn’t get any financial aid either,” Mark went on.
“We just had zero knowledge, less than zero knowledge,
of the process. How to apply. The forms. Checkbooks. It
was not our environment.”
” I f Christopher had been born into a wealthy family,
if he was the son of a doctor who was well connected in
some major market, I guarantee you he would have been
one of those guys you read about, knocking back PhDs
at seventeen,” his brother Jeff says. “It’s the culture you
find yourself in that determines that. The issue with Chris
is that he was always too bored to actually sit there and
listen to his teachers. If someone had recognized his intel­
ligence and if he was from a family where there was some
kind of value on education, they would have made sure he
wasn’t bored.”
I I o

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
5.
When the Termites were into their adulthood, Terman
looked at the records of 730 of the men and divided them
into three groups. One hundred and fifty—the top 20
percent—fell into what Terman called the A group. They
were the true success stories, the stars—the lawyers and
physicians and engineers and academics. Ninety percent
of the As graduated from college and among them had
earned 98 graduate degrees. The middle 60 percent were
the B group, those who were doing “satisfactorily.” The
bottom 150 were the Cs, the ones who Terman judged
to have done the least with their superior mental ability.
They were the postal workers and the struggling book­
keepers and the men lying on their couches at home with­
out any job at all.
One third of the Cs were college dropouts. A quarter
only had a high school diploma, and all 150 of the Cs—
each one of whom, at one point in his life, had been
dubbed a genius—had together earned a grand total of
eight graduate degrees.
What was the difference between the As and the Cs?
Terman ran through every conceivable explanation. He
looked at their physical and mental health, their “mas­
culinity-femininity scores,” and their hobbies and voca­
tional interests. He compared the ages when they started
walking and talking and what their precise IQ scores were
in elementary and high school. In the end, only one thing
mattered: family background.
The As overwhelmingly came from the middle and
the upper class. Their homes were filled with books. Half
111

OUTLIERS
the fathers of the A group had a college degree or beyond,
and this at a time when a university education was a rar­
ity. The Cs, on the other hand, were from the other side of
the tracks. Almost a third of them had a parent who had
dropped out of school before the eighth grade.
At one point, Terman had his fleldworkers go and
visit everyone from the A and C groups and rate their
personalities and manner. What they found is everything
you would expect to find if you were comparing children
raised in an atmosphere of concerted cultivation with
children raised in an atmosphere of natural growth. The
As were judged to be much more alert, poised, attrac­
tive, and well dressed. In fact, the scores on those four
dimensions are so different as to make you think you are
looking at two different species of humans. You aren’t, of
course. You’re simply seeing the difference between those
schooled by their families to present their best face to the
world, and those denied that experience.
The Terman results are deeply distressing. Let’s not
forget how highly gifted the C group was. If you had
met them at five or six years of age, you would have been
overwhelmed by their curiosity and mental agility and
sparkle. They were true outliers. The plain truth of the
Terman study, however, is that in the end almost none of
the genius children from the lowest social and economic
class ended up making a name for themselves.
What did the Cs lack, though? Not something expen­
sive or impossible to find; not something encoded in DNA
or hardwired into the circuits of their brains. They lacked
something that could have been given to them if we’d
only known they needed it: a community around them
112

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
that prepared them properly for the world. The Cs were
squandered talent. But they didn’t need to be.
6.
Today, Chris Langan lives in rural Missouri on a horse
farm. He moved there a few years ago, after he got mar­
ried. He is in his fifties but looks many years younger. He
has the build of a linebacker, thick through the chest, with
enormous biceps. His hair is combed straight back from
his forehead. He has a neat, graying moustache and avia­
tor-style glasses. If you look into his eyes, you can see the
intelligence burning behind them.
“A typical day is, I get up and make coffee. I go in and
sit in front of the computer and begin working on what­
ever I was working on the night before,” he told me not
long ago. “I found if I go to bed with a question on my
mind, all I have to do is concentrate on the question before
I go to sleep and I virtually always have the answer in the
morning. Sometimes I realize what the answer is because
I dreamt the answer and I can remember it. Other times
I just feel the answer, and I start typing and the answer
emerges onto the page.”
He had just been reading the work of the linguist
Noam Chomsky. There were piles of books in his study.
He ordered books from the library all the time. “I always
feel that the closer you get to the original sources, the bet­
ter off you are,” he said.
Langan seemed content. He had farm animals to take
care of, and books to read, and a wife he loved. It was a
much better life than being a bouncer.
1 1 3

OUTLIERS
“I don’t think there is anyone smarter than me out
there,” he went on. “I have never met anybody like me or
never seen even an indication that there is somebody who
actually has better powers of comprehension. Never seen it
and I don’t think I am going to. I could—my mind is open
to the possibility. If anyone should challenge me—’Oh, I
think that I am smarter than you are’ — I think I could
have them.”
What he said sounded boastful, but it wasn’t really. It
was the opposite—a touch defensive. He’d been working for
decades now on a project of enormous sophistication—but
almost none of what he had done had ever been published
much less read by the physicists and philosophers and
mathematicians who might be able to judge its value. Here
he was, a man with a one-in-a-million mind, and he had
yet to have any impact on the world. He wasn’t holding
forth at academic conferences. He wasn’t leading a gradu­
ate seminar at some prestigious university. He was living
on a slightly tumbledown horse farm in northern Mis­
souri, sitting on the back porch in jeans and a cutoff T-
shirt. He knew how it looked: it was the great paradox of
Chris Langan’s genius.
“I have not pursued mainstream publishers as hard as I
should have,” he conceded. “Going around, querying pub­
lishers, trying to find an agent. I haven’t done it, and I am
not interested in doing it.”
It was an admission of defeat. Every experience he had
had outside of his own mind had ended in frustration. He
knew he needed to do a better job of navigating the world,
but he didn’t know how. He couldn’t even talk to his cal­
culus teacher, for goodness’ sake. These were things that
1 1 4

THE TROUBLE WITH GENIUSES, PART 2
others, with lesser minds, could master easily. But that’s
because those others had had help along the way, and
Chris Langan never had. It wasn’t an excuse. It was a fact.
He’d had to make his way alone, and no one—not rock
stars, not professional athletes, not software billionaires,
and not even geniuses — ever makes it alone.
1 1 5

C H A P T E R F I V E
The Three Lessons
of Joe Flom
“MARY GOT A QUARTER.”
1.
Joe Flom is the last living “named ” partner of the law firm
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom. He has a corner
office high atop the Condé Nast tower in Manhattan. He
is short and slightly hunched. His head is large, framed by
long prominent ears, and his narrow blue eyes are hidden
by oversize aviator-style glasses. He is slender now, but
during his heyday, Flom was extremely overweight. He
waddles when he walks. He doodles when he thinks. He
mumbles when he talks, and when he makes his way down
the halls of Skadden, Arps, conversations drop to a hush.
Flom grew up in the Depression in Brooklyn’s Borough
Park neighborhood. His parents were Jewish immigrants
from Eastern Europe. His father, Isadore, was a union orga­
nizer in the garment industry who later went to work sew­
ing shoulder pads for ladies’ dresses. His mother worked at
what was called piecework—doing appliqué at home. They
1 1 6

THE THREE LESSONS OF JOE FLOM
were desperately poor. His family moved nearly every year
when he was growing up because the custom in those days
was for landlords to give new tenants a month’s free rent,
and without that, his family could not get by.
In junior high school, Flom took the entrance exam for
the elite Townsend Harris public high school on Lexington
Avenue in Manhattan, a school that in just forty years of
existence produced three Nobel Prize winners, six Pulit­
zer Prize winners, and one Supreme Court Justice, not to
mention George Gershwin and Jonas Salk, the inventor of
the polio vaccine. He got in. His mother would give him a
dime in the morning for breakfast—three donuts, orange
juice, and coffee at Nedick’s. After school, he pushed a hand
truck in the garment district. He did two years of night
school at City College in upper Manhattan—working dur­
ing the days to make ends meet—signed up for the army,
served his time, and applied to Harvard Law School.
“I wanted to get into the law since I was six years old,”
Flom says. He didn’t have a degree from college. Harvard
took him anyway. “Why? I wrote them a letter on why I
was the answer to sliced bread,” is how Flom explains it,
with characteristic brevity. At Harvard, in the late 1940s,
he never took notes. “All of us were going through this first
year idiocy of writing notes carefully in the classroom and
doing an outline of that, then a condensation of that, and
then doing it again on onionskin paper, on top of other
paper,” remembers Charles Haar, who was a classmate of
Flom’s. “It was a routinized way of trying to learn the cases.
Not Joe. He wouldn’t have any of that. But he had that
quality which we always vaguely subsumed under ‘think­
ing like a lawyer.’ He had the great capacity for judgment.”
1 1 7

OUTLIERS
Flom was named to the Law Review—an honor
reserved for the very top students in the class. During
“hiring season,” the Christmas break of his second year,
he went down to New York to interview with the big cor­
porate law firms of the day. “I was ungainly, awkward,
a fat kid. I didn’t feel comfortable,” Flom remembers. “I
was one of two kids in my class at the end of hiring season
who didn’t have a job. Then one day, one of my profes­
sors said that there are these guys starting a firm. I had a
visit with them, and the entire time I met with them, they
were telling me what the risks were of going with a firm
that didn’t have a client. The more they talked, the more
I liked them. So I said, What the hell, I’ll take a chance.
They had to scrape together the thirty-six hundred a year,
which was the starting salary.” In the beginning, it was
just Marshall Skadden, Leslie Arps—both of whom had
just been turned down for partner at a major Wall Street
law firm—and John Slate, who had worked for Pan Am
airlines. Flom was their associate. They had a tiny suite of
offices on the top floor of the Lehman Brothers Building
on Wall Street. “What kind of law did we do?” Flom says,
laughing. “Whatever came in the door!”
In 1954, Flom took over as Skadden’s managing partner,
and the firm began to grow by leaps and bounds. Soon it had
one hundred lawyers. Then two hundred. When it hit three
hundred, one of Flom’s partners—Morris Kramer—came to
him and said that he felt guilty about bringing in young law
school graduates. Skadden was so big, Kramer said, that it
was hard to imagine the firm growing beyond that and being
able to promote any of those hires. Flom told him, “Ahhh,
we’ll go to one thousand.” Flom never lacked for ambition.
1 1 8

THE THREE LESSONS OF JOE FLOM
Today Skadden, Arps has nearly two thousand attor­
neys in twenty-three offices around the world and earns
well over $i billion a year, making it one of the largest and
most powerful law firms in the world. In his office, Flom
has pictures of himself with George Bush Sr. and Bill
Clinton. He lives in a sprawling apartment in a luxurious
building on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. For a period
of almost thirty years, if you were a Fortune 500 com­
pany about to be taken over or trying to take over some­
one else, or merely a big shot in some kind of fix, Joseph
Flom has been your attorney and Skadden, Arps has been
your law firm—and if they weren’t, you probably wished
they were.
2 .
I hope by now that you are skeptical of this kind of story.
Brilliant immigrant kid overcomes poverty and the Depres­
sion, can’t get a job at the stuffy downtown law firms,
makes it on his own through sheer hustle and ability. It’s
a rags-to-riches story, and everything we’ve learned so
far from hockey players and software billionaires and the
Termites suggests that success doesn’t happen that way.
Successful people don’t do it alone. Where they come
from matters. They’re products of particular places and
environments.
Just as we did, then, with Bill Joy and Chris Langan, let’s
start over with Joseph Flom, this time putting to use every­
thing we’ve learned from the first four chapters of this book.
No more talk of Joe Flom’s intelligence, or personality, or
ambition, though he obviously has these three things in
1 1 9

OUTLIERS
abundance. No glowing quotations from his clients, testify­
ing to his genius. No more colorful tales from the meteoric
rise of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom.
Instead, Fm going to tell a series of stories from the
New York immigrant world that Joe Flom grew up in—of
a fellow law student, a father and son named Maurice and
Mort Janklow, and an extraordinary couple by the name
of Louis and Regina Borgenicht—in the hopes of answer­
ing a critical question. What were Joe Flom’s opportuni­
ties? Since we know that outliers always have help along
the way, can we sort through the ecology of Joe Flom and
identify the conditions that helped create him?
We tell rags-to-riches stories because we find some­
thing captivating in the idea of a lone hero battling over­
whelming odds. But the true story of Joe Flom’s life turns
out to be much more intriguing than the mythological
version because all the things in his life that seem to have
been disadvantages—that he was a poor child of gar­
ment workers; that he was Jewish at a time when Jews
were heavily discriminated against; that he grew up in
the Depression—turn out, unexpectedly, to have been
advantages. Joe Flom is an outlier. But he’s not an outlier
for the reasons you might think, and the story of his rise
provides a blueprint for understanding success in his pro­
fession. By the end of the chapter, in fact, we’ll see that it
is possible to take the lessons of Joe Flom, apply them to
the legal world of New York City, and predict the family
background, age, and origin of the city’s most powerful
attorneys, without knowing a single additional fact about
them. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
I 20

THE THREE LESSONS OF JOE FLOM
Lesson Number One: The Importance
of Being Jewish
3.
One of Joe Flom’s classmates at Harvard Law School was
a man named Alexander Bickel. Like Flom, Bickel was the
son of Eastern European Jewish immigrants who lived in
Brooklyn. Like Flom, Bickel had gone to public school in
New York and then to City College. Like Flom, Bickel
was a star in his law school class. In fact, before his career
was cut short by cancer, Bickel would become perhaps the
finest constitutional scholar of his generation. And like
Flom and the rest of their law school classmates, Bickel
went to Manhattan during “hiring season” over Christ­
mas of 1947 to find himself a job.
His first stop was at Mudge Rose, down on Wall
Street, as traditional and stuffy as any firm of that era.
Mudge Rose was founded in 1869. It was where Richard
Nixon practiced in the years before he won the presidency
in 1968. “We re like the lady who only wants her name
in the newspaper twice—when she’s born and when she
dies,” one of the senior partners famously said. Bickel
was taken around the firm and interviewed by one part­
ner after another, until he was led into the library to meet
with the firm’s senior partner. You can imagine the scene:
a dark-paneled room, an artfully frayed Persian carpet,
row upon row of leather-bound legal volumes, oil paint­
ings of Mr. Mudge and Mr. Rose on the wall.
“After they put me through the whole interview and
everything,” Bickel said many years later, “I was brought
1 2 1

OUTLIERS
to [the senior partner], who took it upon himself to tell me
that for a boy of my antecedents” — and you can imagine
how Bickel must have paused before repeating that euphe­
mism for his immigrant background—”I certainly had
come far. But I ought to understand how limited the pos­
sibilities of a firm like his were to hire a boy of my ante­
cedents. And while he congratulated me on my progress,
I should understand he certainly couldn’t offer me a job.
But they all enjoyed seeing me and all that.”
It is clear from the transcript of Bickel’s reminiscences
that his interviewer does not quite know what to do with
that information. Bickel was by the time of the interview
at the height of his reputation. He had argued cases before
the Supreme Court. He had written brilliant books. Mudge
Rose saying no to Bickel because of his “antecedents”
was like the Chicago Bulls turning down Michael Jordan
because they were uncomfortable with black kids from
North Carolina. It didn’t make any sense.
“But for stars?” the interviewer asked, meaning,
Wouldn’t they have made an exception for you ?
BICKEL: “Stars, schmars…”
In the 1940s and 1950s, the old-line law firms of New
York operated like a private club. They were all headquar­
tered in downtown Manhattan, in and around Wall Street,
in somber, granite-faced buildings. The partners at the
top firms graduated from the same Ivy League schools,
attended the same churches, and summered in the same
oceanside towns on Long Island. They wore conservative
gray suits. Their partnerships were known as “white-shoe”
firms—in apparent reference to the white bucks favored
at the country club or a cocktail party, and they were very
1 2 2

THE THREE LESSONS OF JOE FLOM
particular in whom they hired. As Erwin Smigel wrote in
The Wall Street Lawyer, his study of the New York legal
establishment of that era, they were looking for:
lawyers who are Nordic, have pleasing personalities and
“clean-cut” appearances, are graduates of the “right schools,”
have the “right” social background and experience in the
affairs of the world, and are endowed with tremendous
stamina. A former law school dean, in discussing the qual­
ities students need to obtain a job, offers a somewhat more
realistic picture: “To get a job [students] should be long
enough on family connections, long enough on ability or
long enough on personality, or a combination of these.
Something called acceptability is made up of the sum of
its parts. If a man has any of these things, he could get a
job. If he has two of them, he can have a choice of jobs; if
he has three, he could go anywhere.”
Bickel’s hair was not fair. His eyes were not blue. He
spoke with an accent, and his family connections con­
sisted, principally, of being the son of Solomon and Yetta
Bickel of Bucharest, Romania, by way, most recently, of
Brooklyn. Flom’s credentials were no better. He says he felt
“uncomfortable” when he went for his interviews down­
town, and of course he did: he was short and ungainly and
Jewish and talked with the flat, nasal tones of his native
Brooklyn, and you can imagine how he would have been
perceived by some silver-haired patrician in the library.
If you were not of the right background and religion and
social class and you came out of law school in that era, you
joined some smaller, second-rate, upstart law firm on a
rung below the big names downtown, or you simply went
1 2 3

OUTLIERS
into business for yourself and took “whatever came in the
door”—that is, whatever legal work the big downtown
firms did not want for themselves. That seems horribly
unfair, and it was. But as is so often the case with outliers,
buried in that setback was a golden opportunity.
4.
The old-line Wall Street law firms had a very specific idea
about what it was that they did. They were corporate law­
yers. They represented the country’s largest and most pres­
tigious companies, and “represented” meant they handled
the taxes and the legal work behind the issuing of stocks
and bonds and made sure their clients did not run afoul of
federal regulators. They did not do litigation; that is, very
few of them had a division dedicated to defending and fil­
ing lawsuits. As Paul Cravath, one of the founders of Cra-
vath, Swaine and Moore, the very whitest of the white-shoe
firms, once put it, the lawyer’s job was to settle disputes in
the conference room, not in the courtroom. “Among my
classmates at Harvard, the thing that bright young guys
did was securities work or tax,” another white-shoe partner
remembers. “Those were the distinguished fields. Litiga­
tion was for hams, not for serious people. Corporations just
didn’t sue each other in those days.”
What the old-line firms also did not do was involve
themselves in hostile corporate takeovers. It’s hard to
imagine today, when corporate raiders and private-equity
firms are constantly swallowing up one company after
another, but until the 1970s, it was considered scandalous
for one company to buy another company without the
1 2 4

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
target agreeing to be bought. Places like Mudge Rose and
the other establishment firms on Wall Street would not
touch those kinds of deals.
“The problem with hostile takeovers is that they were
hostile/’ says Steven Brill, who founded the trade maga­
zine American Lawyer. “It wasn’t gentlemanly. If your
best buddy from Princeton is the CEO of Company X ,
and he’s been coasting for a long time, and some corporate
raider shows up and says this company sucks, it makes
you uncomfortable. You think, If he goes, then maybe I
go too. It’s this whole notion of not upsetting the basic
calm and stable order of things.”*
The work that “came in the door” to the generation
of Jewish lawyers from the Bronx and Brooklyn in the
1950s and 1960s, then, was the work the white-shoe firms
disdained: litigation and, more important, “proxy fights,”
* The lawyer and novelist Louis Auchincloss, who very much belongs
to the old WASP-y white-shoe legal establishment in New York, has a
scene in his book The Scarlet Letters that perfectly captures the antip­
athy the downtown firms felt toward takeover law. “Face it, my dear,
your husband and I are running a firm of shysters,” a takeover attor­
ney explains to the wife of his law partner.
He continues: “Nowadays when one wishes to acquire a company
that doesn’t wish to be acquired, one’s counsel bring all kinds of nui­
sance suits to induce it to change its mind. We sue for mismanagement
by the directors, for unpaid dividends, for violation of the bylaws, for
improper issuance of stock. We allege criminal misconduct; we shout
about antitrust; we sue for ancient and dubious liabilities. And our
opponent’s counsel will answer with inordinate demands for all our
files and seek endless interrogatories in order to enmesh our client in a
hopeless tangle of red tape— It is simply war, and you know the qual­
ity that applies to that and love.”
1 2 5

O U T L I E R S
which were the legal maneuvers at the center of any hos­
tile-takeover bid. An investor would take an interest in a
company; he would denounce the management as incom­
petent and send letters to shareholders, trying to get them
to give him their “proxy” so he could vote out the firm’s
executives. And to run the proxy fight, the only lawyer
the investor could get was someone like Joe Flom.
In Skadden, the legal historian Lincoln Caplan de­
scribes that early world of takeovers:
The winner of a proxy contest was determined in the
snake pit. (Officially, it was called the counting room.)
Lawyers for each side met with inspectors of elections,
whose job it was to approve or eliminate questionable
proxies. The event was often informal, contentious and
unruly. Adversaries were sometimes in T-shirts, eating
watermelon or sharing a bottle of scotch. In rare cases,
the results of the snake pit could swing the outcome of a
contest and turn on a single ballot.
Lawyers occasionally tried to fix an election by
engineering the appointment of inspectors who were
beholden to them; inspectors commonly smoked cigars
provided by each side. Management’s lawyer would con­
test the proxies of the insurgents (“I challenge this!”)
and vice versa Lawyers who prevailed in the snake
pit excelled at winging it. There were lawyers who knew
more about the rules of proxy contests, but no one was
better in a fight than Joe Flom…
Flom was fat (a hundred pounds overweight then,
one lawyer said…), physically unattractive (to a partner,
he resembled a frog), and indifferent to social niceties
(he would fart in public or jab a cigar close to the face of
1 2 6

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
someone he was talking to, without apology). But in the
judgment of colleagues and of some adversaries, his will
to win was unsurpassed and he was often masterful.
The white-shoe law firms would call in Flom as well
whenever some corporate raider made a run at one of
their establishment clients. They wouldn’t touch the case.
But they were happy to outsource it to Skadden, Arps.
“Flom’s early specialty was proxy fights, and that was not
what we did, just like we don’t do matrimonial work,” said
Robert Rif kind, a longtime partner at Cravath, Swaine and
Moore. “And therefore we purported not to know about it.
I remember once we had an issue involving a proxy fight,
and one of my senior corporate partners said, Well, let’s get
Joe in. And he came to a conference room, and we all sat
around and described the problem and he told us what to
do and he left. And I said, ‘We can do that too, you know.’
And the partner said, ‘No, no, no, you can’t. We’re not
going to do that.’ It was just that we didn’t do it.”
Then came the 1970s. The old aversion to lawsuits fell
by the wayside. It became easier to borrow money. Federal
regulations were relaxed. Markets became international­
ized. Investors became more aggressive, and the result was
a boom in the number and size of corporate takeovers. “In
nineteen eighty, if you went to the Business Roundtable
[the association of major American corporate executives]
and took surveys about whether hostile takeovers should
be allowed, two-thirds would have said no,” Flom said.
“Now, the vote would be almost unanimously yes.” Com­
panies needed to be defended against lawsuits from rivals.
Hostile suitors needed to be beaten back. Investors who
1 2 7

O U T L I E R S
wanted to devour unwilling targets needed help with their
legal strategy, and shareholders needed formal representa­
tion. The dollar figures involved were enormous. From the
mid-1970s to the end of the 1980s, the amount of money
involved in mergers and acquisitions every year on Wall
Street increased 2,000 percent, peaking at almost a quar­
ter of a trillion dollars.
All of a sudden the things that the old-line law firms
didn’t want to do—hostile takeovers and litigation—were
the things that every law firm wanted to do. And who was
the expert in these two suddenly critical areas of law? The
once marginal, second-tier law firms started by the people
who couldn’t get jobs at the downtown firms ten and fif­
teen years earlier.
“[The white-shoe firms] thought hostile takeovers were
beneath contempt until relatively late in the game, and
until they decided that, hey, maybe we ought to be in that
business, they left me alone,” Flom said. “And once you
get the reputation for doing that kind of work, the busi­
ness comes to you first.”
Think of how similar this is to the stories of Bill Joy
and Bill Gates. Both of them toiled away in a relatively
obscure field without any great hopes for worldly success.
But then—boom!—the personal computer revolution
happened, and they had their ten thousand hours in. They
were ready. Flom had the same experience. For twenty
years he perfected his craft at Skadden, Arps. Then the
world changed and he was ready. He didn’t triumph over
adversity. Instead, what started out as adversity ended up
being an opportunity.
“It’s not that those guys were smarter lawyers than
1 2 8

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
anyone else,” Rif kind says. “It’s that they had a skill that
they had been working on for years that was suddenly
very valuable.”*
Lesson Number Two: Demographic Luck
5.
Maurice Janklow enrolled in Brooklyn Law School in
1919. He was the eldest son of Jewish immigrants from
Romania. He had seven brothers and sisters. One ended up
running a small department store in Brooklyn. Two oth­
ers were in the haberdashery business, one had a graphic
design studio, another made feather hats, and another
worked in the finance department at Tishman Realty.
Maurice, however, was the family intellectual, the only
one to go to college. He got his law degree and set up a prac­
tice on Court Street in downtown Brooklyn. He was an ele­
gant man who dressed in a homburg and Brooks Brothers
* The best analysis of how adversity turned into opportunity for Jew­
ish lawyers has been done by the legal scholar Eli Wald. Wald is care­
ful to make the point, however, that Flom and his ilk weren’t merely
lucky. Lucky is winning the lottery. They were given an opportunity,
and they seized it. As Wald says: “Jewish lawyers were lucky and they
helped themselves. That’s the best way to put it. They took advan­
tage of the circumstances that came their way. The lucky part was the
unwillingness of the WASP firms to step into takeover law. But that
word luck fails to capture the work and the efforts and the imagina­
tion and the acting on opportunities that might have been hidden and
not so obvious.”
1 2 9

O U T L I E R S
suits. In the summer, he wore a straw boater. He married
the very beautiful Lillian Levantin, who was the daughter
of a prominent Talmudist. He drove a big car. He moved to
Queens. He and a partner then took over a writing-paper
business that gave every indication of making a fortune.
Here was a man who looked, for all the world, like
the kind of person who should thrive as a lawyer in New
York City. He was intelligent and educated. He came from
a family well schooled in the rules of the system. He was
living in the most economically vibrant city in the world.
But here is the strange thing: it never happened. Maurice
Janklow’s career did not take off the way that he’d hoped.
In his mind, he never really made it beyond Court Street
in Brooklyn. He struggled and floundered.
Maurice Janklow had a son named Mort, however,
who became a lawyer as well, and the son’s story is very
different from that of the father. Mort Janklow built a law
firm from scratch in the 1960s, then put together one of
the very earliest cable television franchises and sold it for a
fortune to Cox Broadcasting. He started a literary agency
in the 1970s, and it is today one of the most prestigious
in the world.* He has his own plane. Every dream that
eluded the father was fulfilled by the son.
Why did Mort Janklow succeed where Maurice Jank­
low did not? There are, of course, a hundred potential
answers to that question. But let’s take a page from the
analysis of the business tycoons born in the 1830s and the
software programmers born in 1955 and look at the differ-
* Janklow and Nesbit, the agency he started, is, in fact, my literary
agency. That is how I heard about Janklow’s family history.
1 3 0

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
ences between the two Janklows in terms of their genera­
tion. Is there a perfect time for a New York Jewish lawyer
to be born? It turns out there is, and this same fact that
helps explain Mort Janklow’s success is the second key to
Joe Flom’s success as well.
6.
Lewis Terman’s genius study, as you will recall from the
chapter about Chris Langan, was an investigation into
how some children with really high IQs who were born
between 1903 and 1917 turned out as adults. And the
study found that there was a group of real successes and
there was a group of real failures, and that the successes
were far more likely to have come from wealthier families.
In that sense, the Terman study underscores the argument
Annette Lareau makes, that what your parents do for a
living, and the assumptions that accompany the class your
parents belong to, matter.
There’s another way to break down the Terman results,
though, and that’s by when the Termites were born. If you
divide the Termites into two groups, with those born be­
tween 1903 and 1911 on one side, and those between 1912
and 1917 on the other, it turns out that the Terman fail­
ures are far more likely to have been born in the earlier
group.
The explanation has to do with two of the great cata­
clysmic events of the twentieth century: the Great Depres­
sion and World War II. If you were born after 1912 — say,
in 1915—you got out of college after the worst of the
Depression was over, and you were drafted at a young
1 3 1

O U T L I E R S
enough age that going away to war for three or four years
was as much an opportunity as it was a disruption (pro­
vided you weren’t killed, of course).
The Termites born before 1 9 1 1 , though, graduated
from college at the height of the Depression, when job
opportunities were scarce, and they were already in their
late thirties when the Second World War hit, meaning that
when they were drafted, they had to disrupt careers and
families and adult lives that were already well under way.
To have been born before 1911 is to have been demograph-
ically unlucky. The most devastating events of the twenti­
eth century hit you at exactly the wrong time.
This same demographic logic applies to Jewish law­
yers in New York like Maurice Janklow. The doors were
closed to them at the big downtown law firms. So they
were overwhelmingly solo practitioners, handling wills
and divorces and contracts and minor disputes, and in
the Depression the work of the solo practitioner all but
disappeared. “Nearly half of the members of the metro­
politan bar earned less than the minimum subsistence
level for American families,” Jerold Auerbach writes of
the Depression years in New York. “One year later 1,500
lawyers were prepared to take the pauper’s oath to qualify
for work relief. Jewish lawyers (approximately one-half of
the metropolitan bar) discovered that their practice had
become a ‘dignified road to starvation.’ ” Regardless of the
number of years they had spent in practice, their income
was “strikingly less” than that of their Christian colleagues.
Maurice Janklow was born in 1902. When the Depression
started, he was newly married and had just bought his big
car, moved to Queens, and made his great gamble on the
1 3 2

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
writing-paper business. His timing could not have been
worse.
“He was going to make a fortune,” Mort Janklow says
of his father. “But the Depression killed him economi­
cally. He didn’t have any reserves, and he had no family
to fall back on. And from then on, he became very much a
scrivener-type lawyer. He didn’t have the courage to take
risks after that. It was too much for him. My father used
to close titles for twenty-five dollars. He had a friend who
worked at the Jamaica Savings Bank who would throw
him some business. He would kill himself for twenty-five
bucks, doing the whole closing, title reports. For twenty-
five bucks!
“I can remember my father and mother in the morn­
ing,” Janklow continued. “He would say to her, ‘I got a
dollar seventy-five. I need ten cents for the bus, ten cents
for the subway, a quarter for a sandwich,’ and he would
give her the rest. They were that close to the edge.”
7-
Now contrast that experience with the experience of
someone who, like Mort Janklow, was born in the 1930s.
Take a look at the following chart, which shows the
birthrates in the United States from 1910 to 1950. In 1915,
there are almost three million babies. In 1935, that number
drops by almost six hundred thousand, and then, within
a decade and a half, the number is back over three million
again. To put it in more precise terms, for every thousand
Americans, there were 29.5 babies born in 1915; 18.7 babies
born in 1935; and 24.1 babies born in 1950. The decade of
1 3 3

O U T L I E R S
the 1930s is what is called a “demographic trough.” In
response to the economic hardship of the Depression,
families simply stopped having children, and as a result,
the generation born during that decade was markedly
smaller than both the generation that preceded it and the
generation that immediately followed it.
Year Total Births Births
per 1,000
1910 2,777,000 30.1
1915 2,965,000 29.5
1920 2,950,000 27.7
1925 2,909,000 25.1
1930 2,618,000 21.3
1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
Here is what the economist H. Scott Gordon once
wrote about the particular benefits of being one of those
people born in a small generation:
When he opens his eyes for the first time, it is in a spa­
cious hospital, well-appointed to serve the wave that
preceded him. The staff is generous with their time,
since they have little to do while they ride out the brief
period of calm until the next wave hits. When he comes
to school age, the magnificent buildings are already there
to receive him; the ample staff of teachers welcomes him
1 3 4

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
with open arms. In high school, the basketball team is not
as good as it was but there is no problem getting time on
the gymnasium floor. The university is a delightful place;
lots of room in the classes and residences, no crowding in
the cafeteria, and the professors are solicitous. Then he
hits the job market. The supply of new entrants is low,
and the demand is high, because there is a large wave
coming behind him providing a strong demand for the
goods and services of his potential employers.
In New York City, the early 1930s cohort was so small
that class sizes were at least half of what they had been
twenty-five years earlier. The schools were new, built for the
big generation that had come before, and the teachers had
what in the Depression was considered a high-status job.
“The New York City public schools of the 1940s were
considered the best schools in the country,” says Diane
Ravitch, a professor at New York University who has
written widely on the city’s educational history. “There
was this generation of educators in the thirties and forties
who would have been in another time and place college
professors. They were brilliant, but they couldn’t get the
jobs they wanted, and public teaching was what they did
because it was security and it had a pension and you didn’t
get laid off.”
The same dynamic benefited the members of that gen­
eration when they went off to college. Here is Ted Fried­
man, one of the top litigators in New York in the 1970s
and 1980s. Like Flom, he grew up poor, the child of strug­
gling Jewish immigrants.
1 3 5

O U T L I E R S
“My options were City College and the University
of Michigan,” Friedman said. City College was free, and
Michigan—then, as now, one of the top universities in the
United States—was $450 a year. “And the thing was, after
the first year, you could get a scholarship if your grades
were high,” Friedman said. “So it was only the first year I
had to pay that, if I did well.” Friedman’s first inclination
was to stay in New York. “Well, I went to City College
for one day, I didn’t like it. I thought, This is going to be
four more years of Bronx Science [the high school he had
attended], and came home, packed my bags, and hitch­
hiked to Ann Arbor.” He went on:
I had a couple of hundred dollars in my pocket from the
summer. I was working the Catskills to make enough
money to pay the four-hundred-fifty-dollar tuition, and
I had some left over. Then there was this fancy restau­
rant in Ann Arbor where I got a job waiting tables. I
also worked the night shift at River Rouge, the big Ford
plant. That was real money. It wasn’t so hard to get that
job. The factories were looking for people. I had another
job too, which paid me the best pay I ever had before
I became a lawyer, which was working in construction.
During the summer, in Ann Arbor, we built the Chrys­
ler proving grounds. I worked there a few summers
during law school. Those jobs were really high paying,
probably because you worked so much overtime.
Think about this story for a moment. The first lesson
is that Friedman was willing to work hard, take respon­
sibility for himself, and put himself through school. But
the second, perhaps more important lesson is that he hap-
1 3 6

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
pened to come along at a time in America when if you
were willing to work hard, you could take responsibility
for yourself and put yourself through school. Friedman
was, at the time, what we would today call “economically
disadvantaged.” He was an inner-city kid from the Bronx,
neither of whose parents went to college. But look at how
easy it was for him to get a good education. He graduated
from his public high school in New York at a time when
New York City public schools were the envy of the world.
His first option, City College, was free, and his second
option, the University of Michigan, cost just $450—and
the admissions process was casual enough, apparently, that
he could try one school one day and the other the next.
And how did he get there? He hitchhiked, with the
money that he made in the summer in his pocket, and
when he arrived, he immediately got a series of really
good jobs to help pay his way, because the factories were
“looking for people.” And of course they were: they had
to feed the needs of the big generation just ahead of those
born in the demographic trough of the 1930s, and the big
generation of baby boomers coming up behind them. The
sense of possibility so necessary for success comes not
just from inside us or from our parents. It comes from our
time: from the particular opportunities that our particu­
lar place in history presents us with. For a young would-
be lawyer, being born in the early 1930s was a magic time,
just as being born in 1955 was for a software programmer,
or being born in 1835 was for an entrepreneur.
Today, Mort Janklow has an office high above Park
Avenue filled with gorgeous works of modern art—a
Dubuffet, an Anselm Kiefer. He tells hilarious stories.
1 3 7

O U T L I E R S
(“My mother had two sisters. One lived to be ninety-
nine and the other died at ninety. The ninety-nine-year-
old was a smart woman. She married my Uncle Al, who
was the chief of sales for Maidenform. Once I said to him,
‘What’s the rest of the country like, Uncle Al?’ And he
said, ‘Kiddo. When you leave New York, every place is
Bridgeport.’ “) He gives the sense that the world is his for
the taking. “I’ve always been a big risk taker,” he says.
“When I built the cable company, in the early stages, I
was making deals where I would have been bankrupt if I
hadn’t pulled it off. I had confidence that I could make it
work.”
Mort Janklow went to New York City public schools
when they were at their best. Maurice Janklow went to
New York City public schools when they were at their
most overcrowded. Mort Janklow went to Columbia Uni­
versity Law School, because demographic trough babies
have their pick of selective schools. Maurice Janklow went
to Brooklyn Law School, which was as good as an immi­
grant child could do in 1919. Mort Janklow sold his cable
business for tens of millions of dollars. Maurice Janklow
closed titles for twenty-five dollars. The story of the Jank-
lows tells us that the meteoric rise of Joe Flom could not
have happened at just any time. Even the most gifted of
lawyers, equipped with the best of family lessons, cannot
escape the limitations of their generation.
“My mother was coherent until the last five or six
months of her life,” Mort Janklow said. “And in her delirium
she talked about things that she’d never talked about before.
She shed tears over her friends dying in the 1918 flu epi­
demic. That generation—my parents’ generation—lived
1 3 8

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
through a lot. They lived through that epidemic, which
took, what? ten percent of the world’s population. Panic
in the streets. Friends dying. And then the First World
War, then the Depression, then the Second World War.
They didn’t have much of a chance. That was a very tough
period. My father would have been much more successful
in a different kind of world.”
Lesson Number Three: The Garment
Industry and Meaningful Work
8.
In 1889, Louis and Regina Borgenicht boarded an ocean
liner in Hamburg bound for America. Louis was from
Galacia, in what was then Poland. Regina was from a small
town in Hungary. They had been married only a few years
and had one small child and a second on the way. For the
thirteen-day journey, they slept on straw mattresses on a
deck above the engine room, hanging tight to their bunk
beds as the ship pitched and rolled. They knew one person
in New York: Borgenicht’s sister, Sallie, who had immi­
grated ten years before. They had enough money to last
a few weeks, at best. Like so many other immigrants to
America in those years, theirs was a leap of faith.
Louis and Regina found a tiny apartment on Eldridge
Street, on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, for $8 a month.
Louis then took to the streets, looking for work. He saw
peddlers and fruit sellers and sidewalks crammed with
pushcarts. The noise and activity and energy dwarfed
1 3 9

O U T L I E R S
what he had known in the Old World. He was first over­
whelmed, then invigorated. He went to his sister’s fish
store on Ludlow Street and persuaded her to give him a
consignment of herring on credit. He set up shop on the
sidewalk with two barrels of fish, hopping back and forth
between them and chanting in German:
For frying
For baking
For cooking
Good also for eating
Herring will do for every meal,
And for every class!
By the end of the week, he had cleared $8. By the sec­
ond week, $ 1 3 . Those were considerable sums. But Louis
and Regina could not see how selling herring on the street
would lead to a constructive business. Louis then decided
to try being a pushcart peddler. He sold towels and table­
cloths, without much luck. He switched to notebooks,
then bananas, then socks and stockings. Was there really
a future in pushcarts? Regina gave birth to a second child,
a daughter, and Louis’s urgency grew. He now had four
mouths to feed.
The answer came to him after five long days of walk­
ing up and down the streets of the Lower East Side, just as
he was about to give up hope. He was sitting on an over­
turned box, eating a late lunch of the sandwiches Regina
had made for him. It was clothes. Everywhere around
him stores were opening—suits, dresses, overalls, shirts,
skirts, blouses, trousers, all made and ready to be worn.
1 4 0

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
Coming from a world where clothing was sewn at home
by hand or made to order by tailors, this was a revelation.
“To me the greatest wonder in this was not the mere
quantity of garments—although that was a miracle in
itself—” Borgenicht would write years later, after he
became a prosperous manufacturer of women’s and chil­
dren’s clothing, “but the fact that in America even poor
people could save all the dreary, time-consuming labor of
making their own clothes simply by going into a store and
walking out with what they needed. There was a field to
go into, a field to thrill to.”
Borgenicht took out a small notebook. Everywhere he
went, he wrote down what people were wearing and what
was for sale—mens wear, women’s wear, children’s wear. He
wanted to find a “novel” item, something that people would
wear that was not being sold in the stores. For four more
days he walked the streets. On the evening of the final day
as he walked toward home, he saw a half dozen girls playing
hopscotch. One of the girls was wearing a tiny embroidered
apron over her dress, cut low in the front with a tie in the
back, and it struck him, suddenly, that in his previous days
of relentlessly inventorying the clothing shops of the Lower
East Side, he had never seen one of those aprons for sale.
He came home and told Regina. She had an ancient
sewing machine that they had bought upon their arrival in
America. The next morning, he went to a dry-goods store
on Hester Street and bought a hundred yards of gingham
and fifty yards of white crossbar. He came back to their
tiny apartment and laid the goods out on the dining room
table. Regina began to cut the gingham—small sizes for
toddlers, larger for small children—until she had forty
1 4 1

O U T L I E R S
aprons. She began to sew. At midnight, she went to bed
and Louis took up where she had left off. At dawn, she rose
and began cutting buttonholes and adding buttons. By ten
in the morning, the aprons were finished. Louis gathered
them up over his arm and ventured out onto Hester Street.
“Children’s aprons! Little girls’ aprons! Colored ones,
ten cents. White ones, fifteen cents! Little girls’ aprons!”
By one o’clock, all forty were gone.
“Ma, we’ve got our business,” he shouted out to Regina,
after running all the way home from Hester Street.
He grabbed her by the waist and began swinging her
around and around.
“You’ve got to help me,” he cried out. “We’ll work
together! Ma, this is our business”
9.
Jewish immigrants like the Floms and the Borgenichts
and the Janklows were not like the other immigrants who
came to America in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. The Irish and the Italians were peasants, tenant
farmers from the impoverished countryside of Europe.
Not so the Jews. For centuries in Europe, they had been
forbidden to own land, so they had clustered in cities and
towns, taking up urban trades and professions. Seventy
percent of the Eastern European Jews who came through
Ellis Island in the thirty years or so before the First World
War had some kind of occupational skill. They had owned
small groceries or jewelry stores. They had been book­
binders or watchmakers. Overwhelmingly, though, their
experience lay in the clothing trade. They were tailors
1 4 2

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
and dressmakers, hat and cap makers, and furriers and
tanners.
Louis Borgenicht, for example, left the impoverished
home of his parents at age twelve to work as a salesclerk
in a general store in the Polish town of Brzesko. When
the opportunity came to work in Schnittwaren Hand-
lung (literally, the handling of cloth and fabrics or “piece
goods,” as they were known), he jumped at it. “In those
days, the piece-goods man was clothier to the world,” he
writes, “and of the three fundamentals required for life in
that simple society, food and shelter were humble. Cloth­
ing was the aristocrat. Practitioners of the clothing art,
dealers in wonderful cloths from every corner of Europe,
traders who visited the centers of industry on their annual
buying tours—these were the merchant princes of my
youth. Their voices were heard, their weight felt.”
Borgenicht worked in piece goods for a man named
Epstein, then moved on to a store in neighboring Jaslow
called Brandstatter’s. It was there that the young Bor­
genicht learned the ins and outs of all the dozens of differ­
ent varieties of cloth, to the point where he could run his
hand over a fabric and tell you the thread count, the name
of the manufacturer, and its place of origin. A few years
later, Borgenicht moved to Hungary and met Regina. She
had been running a dressmaking business since the age
of sixteen. Together they opened a series of small piece-
goods stores, painstakingly learning the details of small-
business entrepreneurship.
Borgenicht’s great brainstorm that day on the upturned
box on Hester Street, then, did not come from nowhere.
He was a veteran of Schnittwaren Handlung, and his wife
1 4 3

O U T L I E R S
was a seasoned dressmaker. This was their field. And at the
same time as the Borgenichts set up shop inside their tiny
apartment, thousands of other Jewish immigrants were
doing the same thing, putting their sewing and dressmak­
ing and tailoring skills to use, to the point where by 1900,
control of the garment industry had passed almost entirely
into the hands of the Eastern European newcomers. As
Borgenicht puts it, the Jews “bit deep into the welcoming
land and worked like madmen at what they knew.30
Today, at a time when New York is at the center of
an enormous and diversified metropolitan area, it is easy
to forget the significance of the set of skills that immi­
grants like the Borgenichts brought to the New World.
From the late nineteenth century through the middle of
the twentieth century, the garment trade was the largest
and most economically vibrant industry in the city. More
people worked making clothes in New York than at any­
thing else, and more clothes were manufactured in New
York than in any other city in the world. The distinctive
buildings that still stand on the lower half of Broadway
in Manhattan—from the big ten- and fifteen-story indus­
trial warehouses in the twenty blocks below Times Square
to the cast-iron lofts of S0H0 and Tribeca—were almost all
built to house coat makers and hatmakers and lingerie man­
ufacturers and huge rooms of men and women hunched
over sewing machines. To come to New York City in the
1890s with a background in dressmaking or sewing or
Schnittwaren Handlung was a stroke of extraordinary
good fortune. It was like showing up in Silicon Valley in
1986 with ten thousand hours of computer programming
already under your belt.
1 4 4

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
“There is no doubt that those Jewish immigrants
arrived at the perfect time, with the perfect skills,” says
the sociologist Stephen Steinberg. “To exploit that oppor­
tunity, you had to have certain virtues, and those immi­
grants worked hard. They sacrificed. They scrimped and
saved and invested wisely. But still, you have to remem­
ber that the garment industry in those years was growing
by leaps and bounds. The economy was desperate for the
skills that they possessed.”
Louis and Regina Borgenicht and the thousands of
others who came over on the boats with them were given
a golden opportunity. And so were their children and
grandchildren, because the lessons those garment workers
brought home with them in the evenings turned out to be
critical for getting ahead in the world.
10.
The day after Louis and Regina Borgenicht sold out their
first lot of forty aprons, Louis made his way to H. B. Claf-
lin and Company. Claflin was a dry-goods “commission”
house, the equivalent of Brandstatter’s back in Poland.
There, Borgenicht asked for a salesman who spoke Ger­
man, since his English was almost nonexistent. He had in
his hand his and Regina’s life savings—$125—and with
that money, he bought enough cloth to make ten dozen
aprons. Day and night, he and Regina cut and sewed. He
sold all ten dozen in two days. Back he went to Claflin for
another round. They sold those too. Before long, he and
Regina hired another immigrant just off the boat to help
with the children so Regina could sew full-time, and then
1 4 5

O U T L I E R S
another to serve as an apprentice. Louis ventured uptown
as far as Harlem, selling to the mothers in the tenements.
He rented a storefront on Sheriff Street, with living quar­
ters in the back. He hired three more girls, and bought
sewing machines for all of them. He became known as
“the apron man.” He and Regina were selling aprons as
fast as they could make them.
Before long, the Borgenichts decided to branch out.
They started making adult aprons, then petticoats, then
women’s dresses. By January of 1892, the Borgenichts had
twenty people working for them, mostly immigrant Jews
like themselves. They had their own factory on the Lower
East Side of Manhattan and a growing list of customers,
including a store uptown owned by another Jewish immi­
grant family, the Bloomingdale brothers. Keep in mind
the Borgenichts had been in the country for only three
years at this point. They barely spoke English. And they
weren’t rich yet by any stretch of the imagination. What­
ever profit they made got plowed back into their business,
and Borgenicht says he had only $200 in the bank. But
already he was in charge of his own destiny.
This was the second great advantage of the garment
industry. It wasn’t just that it was growing by leaps and
bounds. It was also explicitly entrepreneurial. Clothes
weren’t made in a single big factory. Instead, a number
of established firms designed patterns and prepared the
fabric, and then the complicated stitching and pressing
and button attaching were all sent out to small contrac­
tors. And if a contractor got big enough, or ambitious
enough, he started designing his own patterns and pre­
paring his own fabric. By 1913 , there were approximately
1 4 6

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
sixteen thousand separate companies in New York City’s
garment business, many just like the Borgenichts’ shop on
Sheriff Street.
“The threshold for getting involved in the business
was very low. It’s basically a business built on the sew­
ing machine, and sewing machines don’t cost that much,”
says Daniel Soyer, a historian who has written widely on
the garment industry. “So you didn’t need a lot of capital.
At the turn of the twentieth century, it was probably fifty
dollars to buy a machine or two. All you had to do to be
a contractor was to have a couple sewing machines, some
irons, and a couple of workers. The profit margins were
very low but you could make some money.”
Listen to how Borgenicht describes his decision to
expand beyond aprons:
From my study of the market I knew that only three men
were making children’s dresses in 1890. One was an East
Side tailor near me, who made only to order, while the
other two turned out an expensive product with which I
had no desire at all to compete. I wanted to make “popu­
lar price” stuff—wash dresses, silks, and woolens. It was
my goal to produce dresses that the great mass of the peo­
ple could afford, dresses that would—from the business
angle—sell equally well to both large and small, city and
country stores. With Regina’s help—she always had excel­
lent taste, and judgment—I made up a line of samples.
Displaying them to all my “old” customers and friends,
I hammered home every point—my dresses would save
mothers endless work, the materials and sewing were as
good and probably better than anything that could be
done at home, the price was right for quick disposal.
1 4 7

O U T L I E R S
On one occasion, Borgenicht realized that his only
chance to undercut bigger firms was to convince the
wholesalers to sell cloth to him directly, eliminating the
middleman. He went to see a Mr. Bingham at Lawrence
and Company, a “tall, gaunt, white-bearded Yankee with
steel-blue eyes.” There the two of them were, the immi­
grant from rural Poland, his eyes ringed with fatigue, fac­
ing off in his halting English against the imperious Yankee.
Borgenicht said he wanted to buy forty cases of cashmere.
Bingham had never before sold to an individual company,
let alone a shoestring operation on Sheriff Street.
“You have a hell of a cheek coming in here and asking
me for favors!” Bingham thundered. But he ended up say­
ing yes.
What Borgenicht was getting in his eighteen-hour
days was a lesson in the modern economy. He was learn­
ing market research. He was learning manufacturing. He
was learning how to negotiate with imperious Yankees.
He was learning how to plug himself into popular culture
in order to understand new fashion trends.
The Irish and Italian immigrants who came to New
York in the same period didn’t have that advantage. They
didn’t have a skill spécifie to the urban economy. They went
to work as day laborers and domestics and construction
workers—jobs where you could show up for work every
day for thirty years and never learn market research and
manufacturing and how to navigate the popular culture and
how to negotiate with the Yankees, who ran the world.
Or consider the fate of the Mexicans who immigrated to
California between 1900 and the end of the 1920s to work in
the fields of the big fruit and vegetable growers. They simply
1 4 8

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
exchanged the life of a feudal peasant in Mexico for the life
of a feudal peasant in California. “The conditions in the gar­
ment industry were every bit as bad,” Soyer goes on. “But as a
garment worker, you were closer to the center of the industry.
If you are working in a field in California, you have no clue
what’s happening to the produce when it gets on the truck. If
you are working in a small garment shop, your wages are low,
and your conditions are terrible, and your hours are long, but
you can see exactly what the successful people are doing, and
you can see how you can set up your own job.”””
When Borgenicht came home at night to his children,
he may have been tired and poor and overwhelmed, but
he was alive. He was his own boss. He was responsible for
his own decisions and direction. His work was complex: it
engaged his mind and imagination. And in his work, there
was a relationship between effort and reward: the longer
he and Regina stayed up at night sewing aprons, the more
money they made the next day on the streets.
Those three things — autonomy, complexity, and a
connection between effort and reward—are, most peo­
ple agree, the three qualities that work has to have if it
is to be satisfying. It is not how much money we make
* I realize that it seems strange to refer to American Jewish immigrants
as lucky when the families and relatives they left behind in Europe
were on the verge of extermination at the hands of the Nazis. Borge­
nicht, in fact, unwittingly captures this poignancy in his memoir,
which was published in 1942 . He called it The Happiest Man. After
numerous chapters brimming with optimism and cheer, the book ends
with the sobering reality of Nazi-dominated Europe. Had The Happi­
est Man been published in 1945, when the full story of the Holocaust
was known, one imagines it would have had a very different title.
1 4 9

O U T L I E R S
that ultimately makes us happy between nine and five.
It’s whether our work fulfills us. If I offered you a choice
between being an architect for $75,000 a year and work­
ing in a tollbooth every day for the rest of your life for
$100,000 a year, which would you take? Fm guessing
the former, because there is complexity, autonomy, and a
relationship between effort and reward in doing creative
work, and that’s worth more to most of us than money.
Work that fulfills those three criteria is meaningful.
Being a teacher is meaningful. Being a physician is mean­
ingful. So is being an entrepreneur, and the miracle of the
garment industry—as cutthroat and grim as it was—was
that it allowed people like the Borgenichts, just off the boat,
to find something meaningful to do as well.”” When Louis
Borgenicht came home after first seeing that child’s apron,
he danced a jig. He hadn’t sold anything yet. He was still
penniless and desperate, and he knew that to make some­
thing of his idea was going to require years of backbreak-
ing labor. But he was ecstatic, because the prospect of those
endless years of hard labor did not seem like a burden to
him. Bill Gates had that same feeling when he first sat down
at the keyboard at Lakeside. And the Beatles didn’t recoil in
horror when they were told they had to play eight hours a
night, seven days a week. They jumped at the chance. Hard
work is a prison sentence only if it does not have meaning.
Once it does, it becomes the kind of thing that makes you
grab your wife around the waist and dance a jig.
* Just to be clear: to say that garment work was meaningful is not to
romanticize it. It was incredibly hard and often miserable labor. The
1 5 0

THE THREE LESSONS OF JOE FLOM
The most important consequence of the miracle of the
garment industry, though, was what happened to the chil­
dren growing up in those homes where meaningful work
was practiced. Imagine what it must have been like to watch
the meteoric rise of Regina and Louis Borgenicht through
the eyes of one of their offspring. They learned the same les­
son that little Alex Williams would learn nearly a century
later—a lesson crucial to those who wanted to tackle the
upper reaches of a profession like law or medicine: if you
work hard enough and assert yourself, and use your mind
and imagination, you can shape the world to your desires.
11.
In 1982, a sociology graduate student named Louise Far-
kas went to visit a number of nursing homes and residen­
tial hotels in New York City and Miami Beach. She was
looking for people like the Borgenichts, or, more precisely,
the children of people like the Borgenichts, who had come
to New York in the great wave of Jewish immigration at
the turn of the last century. And for each of the people she
interviewed, she constructed a family tree showing what
conditions were inhuman. One survey in the 1890s put the average
workweek at eighty-four hours, which comes to twelve hours a day. At
times, it was higher. “During the busy season,” David Von Drehle writes
in Triangle: The Fire That Changed Amierca, “it was not unusual to find
workers on stools or broken chairs, bent over their sewing or hot irons,
from 5 A.M. to 9 P.M., a hundred or more hours a week. Indeed, it was
said that during the busy seasons the grinding hum of sewing machines
never entirely ceased on the Lower East Side, day or night.”
M i

O U T L I E R S
a line of parents and children and grandchildren and, in
some cases, great-grandchildren did for a living.
Here is her account of “subject #18”:
A Russian tailor artisan comes to America, takes to the
needle trade, works in a sweat shop for a small salary.
Later takes garments to finish at home with the help of
his wife and older children. In order to increase his sal­
ary he works through the night. Later he makes a gar­
ment and sells it on New York streets. He accumulates
some capital and goes into a business venture with his
sons. They open a shop to create men’s garments. The
Russian tailor and his sons become men’s suit manufac­
turers supplying several men’s stores The sons and the
father become prosperous The sons’ children become
educated professionals.
Tailor/Garment Maker
Garment Maker Garment Maker Garment Maker
Lawyer Lawyer
Here’s another. It’s a tanner who emigrated from Pol­
and in the late nineteenth century.
Leather Tanner
Bag Manufacturer Bag Manufacturer. Bag Manufacturer
Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer
1 5 2

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
Farkas’s Jewish family trees go on for pages, each virtu­
ally identical to the one before, until the conclusion becomes
inescapable: Jewish doctors and lawyers did not become
professionals in spite of their humble origins. They became
professionals because of their humble origins.
Ted Friedman, the prominent litigator in the 1970s
and 1980s, remembers as a child going to concerts with
his mother at Carnegie Hall. They were poor and living
in the farthest corners of the Bronx. How did they afford
tickets? “Mary got a quarter,” Friedman says. “There was
a Mary who was a ticket taker, and if you gave Mary a
quarter, she would let you stand in the second balcony,
without a ticket. Carnegie Hall didn’t know about it. It
was just between you and Mary. It was a bit of a journey,
but we would go back once or twice a month.”””
Friedman’s mother was a Russian immigrant. She barely
spoke English. But she had gone to work as a seamstress
at the age of fifteen and had become a prominent garment
union organizer, and what you learn in that world is that
through your own powers of persuasion and initiative,
you can take your kids to Carnegie Hall. There is no bet­
ter lesson for a budding lawyer than that. The garment
industry was boot camp for the professions.
* The conventional explanation for Jewish success, of course, is that
Jews come from a literate, intellectual culture. They are famously “the
people of the book.” There is surely something to that. But it wasn’t
just the children of rabbis who went to law school. It was the chil­
dren of garment workers. And their critical advantage in climbing the
professional ladder wasn’t the intellectual rigor you get from studying
the Talmud. It was the practical intelligence and savvy you get from
watching your father sell aprons on Hester Street.
1 5 3

O U T L I E R S
What did Joe Flom’s father do? He sewed shoulder pads
for women’s dresses. What did Robert Oppenheimer’s
father do? He was a garment manufacturer, like Louis
Borgenicht. One flight up from Flom’s corner office at
Skadden, Arps is the office of Barry Garfinkel, who has
been at Skadden, Arps nearly as long as Flom and who
for many years headed the firm’s litigation department.
What did Garfinkel’s mother do? She was a milliner. She
made hats at home. What did two of Louis and Regina
Borgenicht’s sons do? They went to law school, and no
less than nine of their grandchildren ended up as doctors
and lawyers as well.
Here is the most remarkable of Farkas’s family trees.
It belongs to a Jewish family from Romania who had a
small grocery store in the Old Country and then came to
New York and opened another, on the Lower East Side of
Manhattan. It is the most elegant answer to the question
of where all the Joe Floms came from.
Small Grocer
Supermarket Supermarket Supermarket Supermarket Supermarket
Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Psychologist Doctor Doctor Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Doctor
12.
Ten blocks north of the Skadden, Arps headquarters in
midtown Manhattan are the offices of Joe Flom’s great
rival, the law firm generally regarded as the finest in the
world.
I J 4

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
It is headquartered in the prestigious office building
known as Black Rock. To get hired there takes a small
miracle. Unlike New York’s other major law firms, all of
which have hundreds of attorneys scattered around the
major capitals of the world, it operates only out of that sin­
gle Manhattan building. It turns down much more busi­
ness than it accepts. Unlike every one of its competitors,
it does not bill by the hour. It simply names a fee. Once,
while defending Kmart against a takeover, the firm billed
$20 million for two weeks’ work. Kmart paid—happily.
If its attorneys do not outsmart you, they will outwork
you, and if they can’t outwork you, they’ll win through
sheer intimidation. There is no firm in the world that has
made more money, lawyer for lawyer, over the past two
decades. On Joe Flom’s wall, next to pictures of Flom with
George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, there is a picture of him
with the rival firm’s managing partner.
No one rises to the top of the New York legal pro­
fession unless he or she is smart and ambitious and hard­
working, and clearly the four men who founded the Black
Rock firm fit that description. But we know far more than
that, don’t we? Success is not a random act. It arises out of a
predictable and powerful set of circumstances and oppor­
tunities, and at this point, after examining the lives of Bill
Joy and Bill Gates, pro hockey players and geniuses, and
Joe Flom, the Janklows, and the Borgenichts, it shouldn’t
be hard to figure out where the perfect lawyer comes from.
This person will have been born in a demographic trough,
so as to have had the best of New York’s public schools
and the easiest time in the job market. He will be Jewish,
of course, and so, locked out of the old-line downtown
M 5

O U T L I E R S
law firms on account of his “antecedents.” This person’s
parents will have done meaningful work in the garment
business, passing on to their children autonomy and com­
plexity and the connection between effort and reward.
A good school—although it doesn’t have to be a great
school—will have been attended. He need not have been
the smartest in the class, only smart enough.
In fact, we can be even more precise. Just as there is
a perfect birth date for a nineteenth-century business
tycoon, and a perfect birth date for a software tycoon,
there is a perfect birth date for a New York Jewish law­
yer as well. It’s 1930, because that would give the lawyer
the benefit of a blessedly small generation. It would also
make him forty years of age in 1970, when the revolution
in the legal world first began, which translates to a healthy
fifteen-year Hamburg period in the takeover business
while the white-shoe lawyers lingered, oblivious, over
their two-martini lunches. If you want to be a great New
York lawyer, it is an advantage to be an outsider, and it is
an advantage to have parents who did meaningful work,
and, better still, it is an advantage to have been born in
the early 1930s. But if you have all three advantages—on
top of a good dose of ingenuity and drive—then that’s
an unstoppable combination. That’s like being a hockey
player born on January 1.
The Black Rock law firm is Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen
8t Katz. The firm’s first partner was Herbert Wachtell. He
was born in 1931. He grew up in the Amalgamated Cloth­
ing Workers union housing across from Van Cortlandt
Park, in the Bronx. His parents were Jewish immigrants
1 5 6

T H E T H R E E L E S S O N S O F J O E F L O M
from the Ukraine. His father was in the ladies’ under­
garment business with his brothers, on the sixth floor of
what is now a fancy loft at Broadway and Spring Street in
SoHo. He went to New York City public schools in the
1940s, then to City College in upper Manhattan, and then
to New York University Law School.
The second partner was Martin Lipton. He was born
in 1931. His father was a manager at a factory. He was a
descendant of Jewish immigrants. He attended public
schools in Jersey City, then the University of Pennsylva­
nia, then New York University Law School.
The third partner was Leonard Rosen. He was born in
1930. He grew up poor in the Bronx, near Yankee Stadium.
His parents were Jewish immigrants from the Ukraine.
His father worked in the garment district in Manhattan as
a presser. He went to New York City public schools in the
1940s, then to City College in upper Manhattan, and then
to New York University Law School.
The fourth partner was George Katz. He was born in
1931. He grew up in a one-bedroom first-floor apartment
in the Bronx. His parents were the children of Jewish
immigrants from Eastern Europe. His father sold insur­
ance. His grandfather, who lived a few blocks away, was
a sewer in the garment trade, doing piecework out of his
house. He went to New York City public schools in the
1940s, then to City College in upper Manhattan, and then
to New York University Law School.
Imagine that we had met any one of these four fresh out
of law school, sitting in the elegant waiting room at Mudge
Rose next to a blue-eyed Nordic type from the “right”
1 5 7

O U T L I E R S
background. We’d all have bet on the Nordic type. And we
would have been wrong, because the Katzes and the Rosens
and the Liptons and the Wachtells and the Floms had some­
thing that the Nordic type did not. Their world—their
culture and generation and family history—gave them the
greatest of opportunities.
1 5 8

P A R T TWO
L E G A C Y

C H A P T E R S I X
Harlan, Kentucky
” D I E L I K E A M A N , L I K E Y O U R
B R O T H E R D I D ! ”
1.
In the southeastern corner of Kentucky, in the stretch of
the Appalachian Mountains known as the Cumberland
Plateau, lies a small town called Harlan.
The Cumberland Plateau is a wild and mountainous
region of flat-topped ridges, mountain walls five hundred
to a thousand feet high, and narrow valleys, some wide
enough only for a one-lane road and a creek. When the
area was first settled, the plateau was covered with a dense
primeval forest. Giant tulip poplars grew in the coves and
at the foot of the hills, some with trunks as wide as seven
or eight feet in diameter. Alongside them were white oaks,
beeches, maples, walnuts, sycamores, birches, willows,
cedars, pines, and hemlocks, all enmeshed in a lattice of
wild grapevine, comprising one of the greatest assortment
of forest trees in the Northern Hemisphere. On the ground
1 6 1

O U T L I E R S
were bears and mountain lions and rattlesnakes; in the
treetops, an astonishing array of squirrels; and beneath
the soil, one thick seam after another of coal.
Harlan County was founded in 1819 by eight immi­
grant families from the northern regions of the British
Isles. They had come to Virginia in the eighteenth cen­
tury and then moved west into the Appalachians in search
of land. The county was never wealthy. For its first one
hundred years, it was thinly populated, rarely number­
ing more than ten thousand people. The first settlers kept
pigs and herded sheep on the hillsides, scratching out a
living on small farms in the valleys. They made whiskey
in backyard stills and felled trees, floating them down
the Cumberland River in the spring, when the water was
high. Until well into the twentieth century, getting to
the nearest train station was a two-day wagon trip. The
only way out of town was up Pine Mountain, which was
nine steep miles on a road that turned on occasion into
no more than a muddy, rocky trail. Harlan was a remote
and strange place, unknown by the larger society around
it, and it might well have remained so but for the fact that
two of the town’s founding families—the Howards and
the Turners—did not get along.
The patriarch of the Howard clan was Samuel How­
ard. He built the town courthouse and the jail. His coun­
terpart was William Turner, who owned a tavern and
two general stores. Once a storm blew down the fence
to the Turner property, and a neighbor’s cow wandered
onto their land. William Turner’s grandson, “Devil Jim,”
shot the cow dead. The neighbor was too terrified to press
charges and fled the county. Another time, a man tried to
1 6 2

H A R L A N , K E N T U C K Y
open a competitor to the Turners’ general store. The Turn­
ers had a word with him. He closed the store and moved
to Indiana. These were not pleasant people.
One night Wix Howard and “Little Bob” Turner—the
grandsons of Samuel and William, respectively—played
against each other in a game of poker. Each accused the
other of cheating. They fought. The following day they
met in the street, and after a flurry of gunshots, Little Bob
Turner lay dead with a shotgun blast to the chest. A group
of Turners went to the Howards’ general store and spoke
roughly to Mrs. Howard. She was insulted and told her
son Wilse Howard, and the following week he exchanged
gunfire with another of Turner’s grandsons, young Will
Turner, on the road to Hagan, Virginia. That night one
of the Turners and a friend attacked the Howard home.
The two families then clashed outside the Harlan court­
house. In the gunfire, Will Turner was shot and killed. A
contingent of Howards then went to see Mrs. Turner, the
mother of Will Turner and Little Bob, to ask for a truce.
She declined: “You can’t wipe out that blood,” she said,
pointing to the dirt where her son had died.
Things quickly went from bad to worse. Wilse How­
ard ran into “Little George” Turner near Sulphur Springs
and shot him dead. The Howards ambushed three friends
of the Turners—the Cawoods—killing all of them. A posse
was sent out in search of the Howards. In the resulting
gunfight, six more were killed or wounded. Wilse Howard
heard the Turners were after him, and he and a friend rode
into Harlan and attacked the Turner home. Riding back,
the Howards were ambushed. In the fighting, another per­
son died. Wilse Howard rode to Little George Turner’s
1 6 3

O U T L I E R S
house and fired at him but missed and killed another man.
A posse surrounded the Howard home. There was another
gunfight. More dead. The county was in an uproar. I think
you get the picture. There were places in nineteenth-
century America where people lived in harmony. Harlan,
Kentucky, was not one of them.
“Stop that!” Will Turner’s mother snapped at him
when he staggered home, howling in pain after being shot
in the courthouse gun battle with the Howards. “Die like
a man, like your brother did!” She belonged to a world so
well acquainted with fatal gunshots that she had certain
expectations about how they ought to be endured. Will
shut his mouth, and he died.
2 .
Suppose you were sent to Harlan in the late nineteenth
century to investigate the causes of the Howard-Turner
feud. You lined up every surviving participant and inter­
viewed them as carefully as you could. You subpoenaed
documents and took depositions and pored over court
records until you had put together a detailed and precise
accounting of each stage in the deadly quarrel.
How much would you know? The answer is, not much.
You’d learn that there were two families in Harlan who
didn’t much like each other, and you’d confirm that Wilse
Howard, who was responsible for an awful lot of the vio­
lence, probably belonged behind bars. What happened in
Harlan wouldn’t become clear until you looked at the vio­
lence from a much broader perspective.
The first critical fact about Harlan is that at the same
164

H A R L A N , K E N T U C K Y
time that the Howards and the Turners were killing one
another, there were almost identical clashes in other small
towns up and down the Appalachians. In the famous
Hatfield-McCoy feud on the West Virginia-Kentucky bor­
der not far from Harlan, several dozen people were killed in
a cycle of violence that stretched over twenty years. In the
French-Eversole feud in Perry County, Kentucky, twelve
died, six of them killed by “Bad Tom” Smith (a man, John
Ed Pearce writes in Days of Darkness, who was “just dumb
enough to be fearless, just bright enough to be dangerous,
and a dead shot”). The Martin-Tolliver feud, in Rowan
County, Kentucky, in the mid-1880s featured three gun-
fights, three ambushes, and two house attacks, and ended
in a two-hour gun battle involving one hundred armed
men. The Baker-Howard feud in Clay County, Kentucky,
began in 1806, with an elk-hunting party gone bad, and
didn’t end until the 1930s, when a couple of Howards
killed three Bakers in an ambush.
And these were just the well-known feuds. The Ken­
tucky legislator Harry Caudill once looked in a circuit
court clerk’s office in one Cumberland Plateau town and
found one thousand murder indictments stretching from
the end of the Civil War, in the 1860s, to the beginning
of the twentieth century—and this for a region that never
numbered more than fifteen thousand people and where
many violent acts never even made it to the indictment stage.
Caudill writes of a murder trial in Breathitt County—or
“Bloody Breathitt,” as it came to be known—that ended
abruptly when the defendant’s father, “a man of about fifty
with huge handlebar whiskers and two immense pistols,”
walked up to the judge and grabbed his gavel:
1 6 5

O U T L I E R S
The feudist rapped the bench and announced, “Court’s over
and ever’body can go. We ain’t agoin’ to have any court here
this term, folks.” The red-faced judge hastily acquiesced in
this extraordinary order and promptly left town. When
court convened at the next term the court and sheriff were
bolstered by sixty militiamen, but by then the defendant
was not available for trial. He had been slain from ambush.
When one family fights with another, it’s a feud. When
lots of families fight with one another in identical little
towns up and down the same mountain range, it’s ^pattern.
What was the cause of the Appalachian pattern? Over
the years, many potential explanations have been exam­
ined and debated, and the consensus appears to be that
that region was plagued by a particularly virulent strain
of what sociologists call a “culture of honor.”
Cultures of honor tend to take root in highlands and
other marginally fertile areas, such as Sicily or the mountain­
ous Basque regions of Spain. If you live on some rocky moun­
tainside, the explanation goes, you can’t farm. You probably
raise goats or sheep, and the kind of culture that grows up
around being a herdsman is very different from the culture
that grows up around growing crops. The survival of a farmer
depends on the cooperation of others in the community.
But a herdsman is off by himself. Farmers also don’t have to
worry that their livelihood will be stolen in the night, because
crops can’t easily be stolen unless, of course, a thief wants to
go to the trouble of harvesting an entire field on his own. But
a herdsman does have to worry. He’s under constant threat of
ruin through the loss of his animals. So he has to be aggres­
sive: he has to make it clear, through his words and deeds,
166

H A R L A N , K E N T U C K Y
that he is not weak. He has to be willing to fight in response
to even the slightest challenge to his reputation—and that’s
what a “culture of honor” means. It’s a world where a man’s
reputation is at the center of his livelihood and self-worth.
“The critical moment in the development of the young
shepherd’s reputation is his first quarrel,” the ethnog­
rapher J . K. Campbell writes of one herding culture in
Greece. “Quarrels are necessarily public. They may occur
in the coffee shop, the village square, or most frequently
on a grazing boundary where a curse or a stone aimed at
one of his straying sheep by another shepherd is an insult
which inevitably requires a violent response.”
So why was Appalachia the way it was? It was because of
where the original inhabitants of the region came from. The
so-called American backcountry states—from the Pennsylva­
nia border south and west through Virginia and West Virginia,
Kentucky and Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina,
and the northern end of Alabama and Georgia—were settled
overwhelmingly by immigrants from one of the world’s most
ferocious cultures of honor. They were “Scotch-Irish”—that
is, from the lowlands of Scotland, the northern counties of
England, and Ulster in Northern Ireland.
The borderlands—as this region was known—were
remote and lawless territories that had been fought over for
hundreds of years. The people of the region were steeped in
violence. They were herdsmen, scraping out a living on
rocky and infertile land. They were clannish, responding
to the harshness and turmoil of their environment by
forming tight family bonds and placing loyalty to blood
above all else. And when they immigrated to North America,
they moved into the American interior, to remote, lawless,
1 6 7

O U T L I E R S
rocky, and marginally fertile places like Harlan that
allowed them to reproduce in the New World the culture
of honor they had created in the Old World.
“To the first settlers, the American backcountry was
a dangerous environment, just as the British borderlands
had been,” the historian David Hackett Fischer writes in
Albion’s Seed.
Much of the southern highlands were “debatable lands” in
the border sense of a contested territory without established
government or the rule of law. The borderers were more
at home than others in this anarchic environment, which
was well suited to their family system, their warrior ethic,
their farming and herding economy, their attitudes toward
land and wealth and their ideas of work and power. So well
adapted was the border culture to this environment that
other ethnic groups tended to copy it. The ethos of the North
British borders came to dominate this “dark and bloody
ground,” partly by force of numbers, but mainly because it
was a means of survival in a raw and dangerous world*
The triumph of a culture of honor helps to explain why
the pattern of criminality in the American South has always
been so distinctive. Murder rates are higher there than in the
* David Hackett Fischer’s book Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways
in America is the most definitive and convincing treatment of the idea
that cultural legacies cast a long historical shadow. (If you read my
first book, The Tipping Point, you’ll remember that the discussion of
Paul Revere was drawn from Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride.) In Albion’s
Seed, Fischer argues that there were four distinct British migrations to
America in its first 150 years: first the Puritans, in the 1630s, who came
from East Anglia to Massachusetts; then the Cavaliers and indentured
1 6 8

HARLAN, KENTUCKY
rest of the country. But crimes of property and “stranger”
crimes—like muggings—are lower. As the sociologist
John Shelton Reed has written, “The homicides in which
the South seems to specialize are those in which someone is
being killed by someone he (or often she) knows, for reasons
both killer and victim understand.” Reed adds: “The sta­
tistics show that the Southerner who can avoid arguments
and adultery is as safe as any other American, and probably
safer.” In the backcountry, violence wasn’t for economic
gain. It was personal. You fought over your honor.
Many years ago, the southern newspaperman Hodding
Carter told the story of how as a young man he served on a
jury. As Reed describes it:
The case before the jury involved an irascible gentleman
who lived next door to a filling station. For several months
he had been the butt of various jokes played by the attend­
ants and the miscellaneous loafers who hung around the
station, despite his warnings and his notorious short tem­
per. One morning, he emptied both barrels of his shotgun at
his tormenters, killing one, maiming another permanently,
and wounding a third…. When the jury was polled by the
incredulous judge, Carter was the only juror who recorded
his vote as guilty. As one of the others put it, “He wouldn’t
of been much of a man if he hadn’t shot them fellows.”
servants, who came from southern England to Virginia in the mid-
seventeenth century; then the Quakers, from the North Midlands to
the Delaware Valley between the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries; and finally, the people of the borderlands to the Appala­
chian interior in the eighteenth century. Fischer argues brilliantly that
those four cultures—each profoundly different—characterize those
four regions of the United States even to this day.
1 6 9

O U T L I E R S
Only in a culture of honor would it have occurred
to the irascible gentleman that shooting someone was an
appropriate response to a personal insult. And only in
a culture of honor would it have occurred to a jury that
murder—under those circumstances—was not a crime.
I realize that we are often wary of making these
kinds of broad generalizations about different cultural
groups—and with good reason. This is the form that
racial and ethnic stereotypes take. We want to believe that
we are not prisoners of our ethnic histories.
But the simple truth is that if you want to under­
stand what happened in those small towns in Kentucky
in the nineteenth century, you have to go back into the
past—and not just one or two generations. You have to
go back two or three or four hundred years, to a country
on the other side of the ocean, and look closely at what
exactly the people in a very specific geographic area of that
country did for a living. The “culture of honor” hypoth­
esis says that it matters where you’re from, not just in
terms of where you grew up or where your parents grew
up, but in terms of where your great-grandparents and
great-great-grandparents grew up and even where your
great-great-great-grandparents grew up. That is a strange
and powerful fact. It’s just the beginning, though, because
upon closer examination, cultural legacies turn out to be
even stranger and more powerful than that.
3.
In the early 1990s, two psychologists at the University of
Michigan—Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett—decided
1 7 0

H A R L A N , K E N T U C K Y
to conduct an experiment on the culture of honor. They
knew that what happened in places like Harlan in the
nineteenth century was, in all likelihood, a product of
patterns laid down in the English borderlands centuries
before. But their interest was in the present day. Was it
possible to find remnants of the culture of honor in the
modern era? So they decided to gather together a group
of young men and insult them. “We sat down and tried to
figure out what is the insult that would go to the heart of
an eighteen-to-twenty-year-old’s brain,” Cohen says. “It
didn’t take too long to come up with ‘asshole.’ ”
The experiment went like this. The social sciences
building at the University of Michigan has a long, narrow
hallway in the basement lined with riling cabinets. The
young men were called into a classroom, one by one, and
asked to fill out a questionnaire. Then they were told to
drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and
return to the classroom—a simple, seemingly innocent
academic exercise.
For half the young men, that was it. They were the
control group. For the other half, there was a catch. As
they walked down the hallway with their questionnaire, a
man—a confederate of the experimenters—walked past
them and pulled out a drawer in one of the filing cabinets.
The already narrow hallway now became even narrower.
As the young men tried to squeeze by, the confederate
looked up, annoyed. He slammed the filing cabinet drawer
shut, jostled the young men with his shoulder, and, in a low
but audible voice, said the trigger word: “Asshole.”
Cohen and Nisbett wanted to measure, as precisely as
possible, what being called that word meant. They looked
1 7 1

O U T L I E R S
at the faces of their subjects and rated how much anger
they saw. They shook the young men’s hands to see if
their grip was firmer than usual. They took saliva samples
from the students, both before and after the insult, to see
if being called an asshole caused their levels of testoster­
one and Cortisol—the hormones that drive arousal and
aggression—to go up. Finally they asked the students to
read the following story and supply a conclusion:
It had only been about twenty minutes since they had
arrived at the party when Jill pulled Steve aside, obvi­
ously bothered about something.
“What’s wrong?” asked Steve.
“It’s Larry. I mean, he knows that you and I are
engaged, but he’s already made two passes at me tonight.”
Jill walked back into the crowd, and Steve decided to
keep his eye on Larry. Sure enough, within five minutes,
Larry was reaching over and trying to kiss Jill.
If you’ve been insulted, are you more likely to imagine
Steve doing something violent to Larry?
The results were unequivocal. There were clear dif­
ferences in how the young men responded to being called
a bad name. For some, the insult changed their behavior.
For some it didn’t. The deciding factor in how they reacted
wasn’t how emotionally secure they were, or whether they
were intellectuals or jocks, or whether they were physi­
cally imposing or not. What mattered—and I think you
can guess where this is headed—was where they were
from. Most of the young men from the northern part of
the United States treated the incident with amusement.
1 7 2

H A R L A N , K E N T U C K Y
They laughed it off. Their handshakes were unchanged.
Their levels of Cortisol actually went down, as if they were
unconsciously trying to defuse their own anger. Only a
few of them had Steve get violent with Larry.
But the southerners? Oh, my. They were angry. Their
Cortisol and testosterone jumped. Their handshakes got
firm. Steve was all over Larry.
“We even played this game of chicken/’ Cohen said.
“We sent the students back down the hallways, and around
the corner comes another confederate. The hallway is
blocked, so there’s only room for one of them to pass. The
guy we used was six three, two hundred fifty pounds. He
used to play college football. He was now working as a
bouncer in a college bar. He was walking down the hall in
business mode—the way you walk through a bar when
you are trying to break up a fight. The question was: how
close do they get to the bouncer before they get out of the
way? And believe me, they always get out of the way.”
For the northerners, there was almost no effect. They
got out of the way five or six feet beforehand, whether they
had been insulted or not. The southerners, by contrast,
were downright deferential in normal circumstances, step­
ping aside with more than nine feet to go. But if they had
just been insulted? Less than two feet. Call a southerner an
asshole, and he’s itching for a fight. What Cohen and Nis­
bett were seeing in that long hall was the culture of honor
in action: the southerners were reacting like Wix How­
ard did when Little Bob Turner accused him of cheating
at poker.
1 7 3

O U T L I E R S
4.
That study is strange, isn’t it? It’s one thing to conclude
that groups of people living in circumstances pretty sim­
ilar to their ancestors’ act a lot like their ancestors. But
those southerners in the hallway study weren’t living in
circumstances similar to their British ancestors. They
didn’t even necessarily have British ancestors. They just
happened to have grown up in the South. None of them
were herdsmen. Nor were their parents herdsmen. They
were living in the late twentieth century, not the late nine­
teenth century. They were students at the University of
Michigan, in one of the northernmost states in America,
which meant they were sufficiently cosmopolitan to travel
hundreds of miles from the south to go to college. And
none of that mattered. They still acted like they were liv­
ing in nineteenth-century Harlan, Kentucky.
“Your median student in those studies comes from a
family making over a hundred thousand dollars, and that’s
in nineteen ninety dollars,” Cohen says. “The southern­
ers we see this effect with aren’t kids who come from the
hills of Appalachia. They are more likely to be the sons
of upper-middle management Coca-Cola executives in
Atlanta. And that’s the big question. Why should we get
this effect with them? Why should one get it hundreds of
years later? Why are these suburban-Atlanta kids acting
out the ethos of the frontier?”*
* Cohen has done other experiments looking again for evidence of
“southernness,” and each time he finds the same thing. “Once, we
bothered students with persistent annoyances,” he said. “They come
1 7 4

H A R L A N , K E N T U C K Y
Cultural legacies are powerful forces. They have deep roots
and long lives. They persist, generation after generation,
virtually intact, even as the economic and social and demo­
graphic conditions that spawned them have vanished, and
they play such a role in directing attitudes and behavior that
we cannot make sense of our world without them.””
So far in Outliers we’ve seen that success arises out of
the steady accumulation of advantages: when and where
you are born, what your parents did for a living, and what
into the lab and they are supposed to draw pictures from their child­
hood. They are doing this with the confederate, and he’s being a jerk.
He does all these things to persistently annoy the subject. He’ll wad up
his drawing and throw it at the wastebasket and hit the subject. He’ll
steal the subject’s crayons and not give them back. He keeps on calling
the subject ‘Slick,’ and he says, ‘I’m going to put your name on your
drawing,’ and writes ‘Slick.’ What you find is that northerners tend
to give off displays of anger, up to a certain point, at which point they
level off. Southerners are much less likely to be angry early on. But at
some point they catch up to the northerners and shoot past them. They
are more likely to explode, much more volatile, much more explosive.”
* How are these kinds of attitudes passed down from generation to
generation? Through social heritance. Think of the way accents persist
over time. David Hackett Fischer points out that the original settlers of
Appalachia said: “whar for where, thar for there, hard for hired, crit­
ter for creature, sartin for certain, a-goin for going, hit for it, he-it for
hit, far for fire, deef for deaf, pizen for poison, nekkid for naked, eetch
for itch, boosh for bush, wrassle for wrestle, chaw for chew, poosh for
push, shet for shut, ba-it for bat, be-it for be, narrer for narrow, winder
for window, widder for widow, and young-uns for young one.” Rec­
ognize that? It’s the same way many rural people in the Appalachians
speak today. Whatever mechanism passes on speech patterns probably
passes on behavioral and emotional patterns as well.
1 7 5

O U T L I E R S
the circumstances of your upbringing were all make a sig­
nificant difference in how well you do in the world. The
question for the second part of Outliers is whether the
traditions and attitudes we inherit from our forebears can
play the same role. Can we learn something about why peo­
ple succeed and how to make people better at what they
do by taking cultural legacies seriously? I think we can.
1 7 6

C H A P T E R S E V E N
The Ethnic Theory
of Plane Crashes
“CAPTAIN, THE WEATHER RADAR
HAS HELPED US A LOT.”
On the morning of August 5, 1997, the captain of Korean
Air flight 801 woke at six. His family would later tell inves­
tigators that he went to the gym for an hour, then came
home and studied the flight plan for that evening’s journey
to Guam. He napped and ate lunch. At three in the after­
noon, he left for Seoul, departing early enough, his wife
said, to continue his preparations at Kimpo International
Airport. He had been a pilot with Korean Air for almost
four years after coming over from the Korean Air Force.
He had eighty-nine hundred hours of flight time, including
thirty-two hundred hours of experience in jumbo jets. A
few months earlier, he had been given a flight safety award
by his airline for successfully handling a jumbo-jet engine
failure at low altitude. He was forty-two years old and in
excellent health, with the exception of a bout of bronchitis
that had been diagnosed ten days before.
1 7 7

O U T L I E R S
At seven p.m., the captain, his first officer, and the
flight engineer met and collected the trip’s paperwork.
They would be flying a Boeing 747—the model known in
the aviation world as the “classic.” The aircraft was in per­
fect working order. It had once been the Korean presiden­
tial plane. Flight 801 departed the gate at ten-thirty in the
evening and was airborne twenty minutes later. Takeoff
was without incident. Just before one-thirty in the morn­
ing, the plane broke out of the clouds, and the flight crew
glimpsed lights off in the distance.
“Is it Guam?” the flight engineer asked. Then, after a
pause, he said, “It’s Guam, Guam.”
The captain chuckled. “Good!”
The first officer reported to Air Traffic Control (ATC)
that the airplane was “clear of Charlie Bravo [cumulonim­
bus clouds]” and requested “radar vectors for runway six
left.”
The plane began its descent toward Guam airport.
They would make a visual approach, the captain said. He
had flown into Guam airport from Kimpo eight times
previously, most recently a month ago, and he knew the
airport and the surrounding terrain well. The landing
gear went down. The flaps were extended ten degrees. At
01:41 and 48 seconds, the captain said, “Wiper on,” and the
flight engineer turned them on. It was raining. The first
officer then said, “Not in sight?” He was looking for the
runway. He couldn’t see it. One second later, the Ground
Proximity Warning System called out in its electronic
voice: “Five hundred [feet].” The plane was five hundred
feet off the ground. But how could that be if they couldn’t
1 7 8

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
see the runway? Two seconds passed. The flight engineer
said, “Eh?” in an astonished tone of voice.
At 01:42 and 19 seconds, the first officer said, “Let’s
make a missed approach,” meaning, Let’s pull up and
make a large circle and try the landing again.
One second later, the flight engineer said, “Not in sight.”
The first officer added, “Not in sight, missed approach.”
At 01:42 and 22 seconds, the flight engineer said again,
“Go around.”
At 01:42 and 23 seconds, the captain repeated, “Go
around,” but he was slow to pull the plane out of its descent.
At 01:42 and 26 seconds, the plane hit the side of Nim-
itz Hill, a densely vegetated mountain three miles south­
west of the airport—$60 million and 212,000 kilograms
of steel slamming into rocky ground at one hundred miles
per hour. The plane skidded for two thousand feet, sever­
ing an oil pipeline and snapping pine trees, before falling
into a ravine and bursting into flames. By the time rescue
workers reached the crash site, 228 of the 254 people on
board were dead.
2 .
Twenty years before the crash of KAL 801, a Korean Air
Boeing 707 wandered into Russian airspace and was shot
down by a Soviet military jet over the Barents Sea. It was
an accident, meaning the kind of rare and catastrophic
event that, but for the grace of God, could happen to any
airline. It was investigated and analyzed. Lessons were
learned. Reports were filed.
l79

O U T L I E R S
Then, two years later, a Korean Air Boeing 747 crashed
in Seoul. Two accidents in two years is not a good sign.
Three years after that, the airline lost another 747 near
Sakhalin Island, in Russia, followed by a Boeing 707 that
went down over the Andaman Sea in 1987, two more
crashes in 1989 in Tripoli and Seoul, and then another in
1994 in Cheju, South Korea.*
To put that record in perspective, the “loss” rate for
an airline like the American carrier United Airlines in the
period 1988 to 1998 was .27 per million departures, which
means that they lost a plane in an accident about once in
every four million flights. The loss rate for Korean Air, in
the same period, was 4.79 per million departures — more
than seventeen times higher.
Korean Air’s planes were crashing so often that when
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)—the
US agency responsible for investigating plane crashes
within American jurisdiction—did its report on the Guam
crash, it was forced to include an addendum listing all the
new Korean Air accidents that had happened just since its
investigation began: the Korean Air 747 that crash-landed
at Kimpo in Seoul, almost a year to the day after Guam;
the jetliner that overran a runway at Korea’s Ulsan Air­
port eight weeks after that; the Korean Air McDonnell
Douglas 83 that rammed into an embankment at Pohang
Airport the following March; and then, a month after
* Korean Air was called Korean Airlines before it changed its name
after the Guam accident. And the Barents Sea incident was actually
preceded by two other crashes, in 1 9 7 1 and 1976 .
1 8 0

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
that, the Korean Air passenger jet that crashed in a resi­
dential area of Shanghai. Had the NTSB waited just a few
more months, it could have added another: the Korean Air
cargo plane that crashed just after takeoff from London’s
Stansted airport, despite the fact that a warning bell went
off in the cockpit no fewer than fourteen times.
In April 1999, Delta Air Lines and Air France sus­
pended their flying partnership with Korean Air. In short
order, the US Army, which maintains thousands of troops
in South Korea, forbade its personnel from flying with
the airline. South Korea’s safety rating was downgraded
by the US Federal Aviation Authority, and Canadian offi­
cials informed Korean Air’s management that they were
considering revoking the company’s overflight and land­
ing privileges in Canadian airspace.
In the midst of the controversy, an outside audit of
Korean Air’s operations was leaked to the public. The
forty-page report was quickly denounced by Korean Air
officials as sensationalized and unrepresentative, but by
that point, it was too late to save the company’s reputa­
tion. The audit detailed instances of flight crews smoking
cigarettes on the tarmac during refueling and in the freight
area; and when the plane was in the air. “Crew read news­
papers throughout the flight,” the audit stated, “often with
newspapers held up in such a way that if a warning light
came on, it would not be noticed.” The report detailed bad
morale, numerous procedural violations, and the alarm­
ing conclusion that training standards for the 747 “classic”
were so poor that “there is some concern as to whether
First Officers on the Classic fleet could land the aircraft if
the Captain became totally incapacitated.”
1 8 1

O U T L I E R S
By the time of the Shanghai crash, the Korean presi­
dent, Kim Dae-jung, felt compelled to speak up. “The issue
of Korean Air is not a matter of an individual company but
a matter of the whole country,” he said. “Our country’s
credibility is at stake.” Dae-jung then switched the presi­
dential plane from Korean Air to its newer rival, Asiana.
But then a small miracle happened. Korean Air turned
itself around. Today, the airline is a member in good stand­
ing of the prestigious SkyTeam alliance. Its safety record
since 1999 is spotless. In 2006, Korean Air was given the
Phoenix Award by Air Transport World in recognition
of its transformation. Aviation experts will tell you that
Korean Air is now as safe as any airline in the world.
In this chapter, we’re going to conduct a crash inves­
tigation: listen to the “black box” cockpit recorder; exam­
ine the flight records; look at the weather and the terrain
and the airport conditions; and compare the Guam crash
with other very similar plane crashes, all in an attempt to
understand precisely how the company transformed itself
from the worst kind of outlier into one of the world’s best
airlines. It is a complex and sometimes strange story. But it
turns on a very simple fact, the same fact that runs through
the tangled history of Harlan and the Michigan students.
Korean Air did not succeed—it did not right itself—until
it acknowledged the importance of its cultural legacy.
3.
Planes crashes rarely happen in real life the same way they
happen in the movies. Some engine part does not explode
in a fiery bang. The rudder doesn’t suddenly snap under
1 8 2

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
the force of takeoff. The captain doesn’t gasp, “Dear God,”
as he’s thrown back against his seat. The typical commer­
cial jetliner—at this point in its stage of development—is
about as dependable as a toaster. Plane crashes are much
more likely to be the result of an accumulation of minor
difficulties and seemingly trivial malfunctions.”‘
* This is true not just of plane crashes. It’s true of virtually all indus­
trial accidents. One of the most famous accidents in history, for example,
was the near meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear sta­
tion in 1979. Three Mile Island so traumatized the American public that
it sent the US nuclear power industry into a tailspin from which it has
never fully recovered. But what actually happened at that nuclear reactor
began as something far from dramatic. As the sociologist Charles Per-
row shows in his classic Normal Accidents, there was a relatively routine
blockage in what is called the plant’s “polisher”—a kind of giant water
filter. The blockage caused moisture to leak into the plant’s air system,
inadvertently tripping two valves and shutting down the flow of cold
water into the plant’s steam generator. Like all nuclear reactors, Three
Mile Island had a backup cooling system for precisely this situation. But
on that particular day, for reasons that no one really understands, the
valves for the backup system weren’t open. Someone had closed them,
and an indicator in the control room showing they were closed was
blocked by a repair tag hanging from a switch above it. That left the reac­
tor dependent on another backup system, a special sort of relief valve.
But, as luck would have it, the relief valve wasn’t working properly that
day either. It stuck open when it was supposed to close, and, to make
matters even worse, a gauge in the control room that should have told the
operators that the relief valve wasn’t working was itself not working. By
the time Three Mile Island’s engineers realized what was happening, the
reactor had come dangerously close to a meltdown.
No single big thing went wrong at Three Mile Island. Rather, five
completely unrelated events occurred in sequence, each of which, had
it happened in isolation, would have caused no more than a hiccup in
the plant’s ordinary operation.
1 8 3

O U T L I E R S
In a typical crash, for example, the weather is poor—
not terrible, necessarily, but bad enough that the pilot
feels a little bit more stressed than usual. In an over­
whelming number of crashes, the plane is behind sched­
ule, so the pilots are hurrying. In 52 percent of crashes, the
pilot at the time of the accident has been awake for twelve
hours or more, meaning that he is tired and not thinking
sharply. And 44 percent of the time, the two pilots have
never flown together before, so they’re not comfortable
with each other. Then the errors start—and it’s not just
one error. The typical accident involves seven consecutive
human errors. One of the pilots does something wrong
that by itself is not a problem. Then one of them makes
another error on top of that, which combined with the
first error still does not amount to catastrophe. But then
they make a third error on top of that, and then another
and another and another and another, and it is the combi­
nation of all those errors that leads to disaster.
These seven errors, furthermore, are rarely problems
of knowledge or flying skill. It’s not that the pilot has to
negotiate some critical technical maneuver and fails. The
kinds of errors that cause plane crashes are invariably
errors of teamwork and communication. One pilot knows
something important and somehow doesn’t tell the other
pilot. One pilot does something wrong, and the other
pilot doesn’t catch the error. A tricky situation needs to
be resolved through a complex series of steps—and some­
how the pilots fail to coordinate and miss one of them.
“The whole flight-deck design is intended to be oper­
ated by two people, and that operation works best when
you have one person checking the other, or both people
1 8 4

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
willing to participate,” says Earl Weener, who was for
many years chief engineer for safety at Boeing. “Airplanes
are very unforgiving if you don’t do things right. And
for a long time it’s been clear that if you have two people
operating the airplane cooperatively, you will have a safer
operation than if you have a single pilot flying the plane
and another person who is simply there to take over if the
pilot is incapacitated.”
Consider, for example, the famous (in aviation circles,
anyway) crash of the Colombian airliner Avianca flight
052 in January of 1990. The Avianca accident so per­
fectly illustrates the characteristics of the “modern” plane
crash that it is studied in flight schools. In fact, what hap­
pened to that flight is so similar to what would happen
seven years later in Guam that it’s a good place to start our
investigation into the mystery of Korean Air’s plane crash
problem.
The captain of the plane was Laureano Caviedes. His
first officer was Mauricio Klotz. They were en route from
Medellin, Colombia, to New York City’s Kennedy Air­
port. The weather that evening was poor. There was a
nor’easter up and down the East Coast, bringing with it
dense fog and high winds. Two hundred and three flights
were delayed at Newark Airport. Two hundred flights
were delayed at LaGuardia Airport, 161 at Philadelphia,
53 at Boston’s Logan Airport, and 99 at Kennedy. Because
of the weather, Avianca was held up by Air Traffic Con­
trol three times on its way to New York. The plane circled
over Norfolk, Virginia, for nineteen minutes, above Atlan­
tic City for twenty-nine minutes, and forty miles south of
Kennedy Airport for another twenty-nine minutes.
1 8 5

O U T L I E R S
After an hour and a quarter of delay, Avianca was cleared
for landing. As the plane came in on its final approach, the
pilots encountered severe wind shear. One moment they
were flying into a strong headwind, forcing them to add
extra power to maintain their momentum on the glide
down. The next moment, without warning, the headwind
dropped dramatically, and they were traveling much too
fast to make the runway. Typically, the plane would have
been flying on autopilot in that situation, reacting imme­
diately and appropriately to wind shear. But the autopilot
on the plane was malfunctioning, and it had been switched
off. At the last moment, the pilot pulled up, and executed a
“go-around.” The plane did a wide circle over Long Island,
and reapproached Kennedy Airport. Suddenly, one of the
plane’s engines failed. Seconds later, a second engine failed.
“Show me the runway!” the pilot cried out, hoping des­
perately that he was close enough to Kennedy to somehow
glide his crippled plane to a safe landing. But Kennedy was
sixteen miles away.
The 707 slammed into the estate owned by the father
of the tennis champion John McEnroe, in the posh Long
Island town of Oyster Bay. Seventy-three of the 158 pas­
sengers aboard died. It took less than a day for the cause
of the crash to be determined: “fuel exhaustion.” There
was nothing wrong with the aircraft. There was nothing
wrong with the airport. The pilots weren’t drunk or high.
The plane had run out of gas.
1 8 6

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
4.
” It’s a classic case,” said Suren Ratwatte, a veteran pilot who
has been involved for years in “human factors” research,
which is the analysis of how human beings interact with
complex systems like nuclear power plants and airplanes.
Ratwatte is Sri Lankan, a lively man in his forties who has
been flying commercial jets his entire adult life. We were
sitting in the lobby of the Sheraton Hotel in Manhattan.
He’d just landed a jumbo jet at Kennedy Airport after a
long flight from Dubai. Ratwatte knew the Avianca case
well. He began to tick off the typical crash preconditions.
The nor’easter. The delayed flight. The minor technical
malfunction with the autopilot. The three long holding
patterns—which meant not only eighty minutes of extra
flying time but extra flying at low altitudes, where a plane
burns far more fuel than it does in the thin air high above
the clouds.
“They were flying a seven-oh-seven, which is an older
airplane and is very challenging to fly,” Ratwatte said.
“That thing is a lot of work. The flight controls are not
hydraulically powered. They are connected by a series
of pulleys and pull rods to the physical metal surfaces of
the airplane. You have to be quite strong to fly that air­
plane. You heave it around the sky. It’s as much physical
effort as rowing a boat. My current airplane I fly with
my fingertips. I use a joystick. My instruments are huge.
Theirs were the size of coffee cups. And his autopilot was
gone. So the captain had to keep looking around these
nine instruments, each the size of a coffee cup, while his
1 8 7

O U T L I E R S
right hand was controlling the speed, and his left hand
was flying the airplane. He was maxed out. He had no
resources left to do anything else. That’s what happens
when you’re tired. Your decision-making skills erode. You
start missing things—things that you would pick up on
any other day.”
In the black box recovered from the crash site, Cap­
tain Caviedes in the final hour of the flight is heard to
repeatedly ask for the directions from ATC to be trans­
lated into Spanish, as if he no longer had the energy to
make use of his English. On nine occasions, he also asked
for directions to be repeated. “Tell me things louder,” he
said right near the end. “I’m not hearing them.” When
the plane was circling for forty minutes just southeast of
Kennedy—when everyone on the flight deck clearly knew
they were running out of fuel—the pilot could easily have
asked to land at Philadelphia, which was just sixty-five
miles away. But he didn’t: it was as if he had locked in on
New York. On the aborted landing, the plane’s Ground
Proximity Warning System went off no fewer than fifteen
times, telling the captain that he was bringing in the plane
too low. He seemed oblivious. When he aborted the land­
ing, he should have circled back around immediately, and
he didn’t. He was exhausted.
Through it all, the cockpit was filled with a heavy
silence. Sitting next to Caviedes was his first officer, Mauri-
cio Klotz, and in the flight recorder, there are long stretches
of nothing but rustling and engine noise. It was Klotz’s
responsibility to conduct all communication with ATC,
which meant that his role that night was absolutely criti­
cal. But his behavior was oddly passive. It wasn’t until the
18 8

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
third holding pattern southwest of Kennedy Airport that
Klotz told ATC that he didn’t think the plane had enough
fuel to reach an alternative airport. The next thing the
crew heard from ATC was “Just stand by” and, follow­
ing that, “Cleared to the Kennedy airport.” Investigators
later surmised that the Avianca pilots must have assumed
that ATC was jumping them to the head of the queue, in
front of the dozens of other planes circling Kennedy. In
fact, they weren’t. They were just being added to the end
of the line. It was a crucial misunderstanding, upon which
the fate of the plane would ultimately rest. But did the
pilots raise the issue again, looking for clarification? No.
Nor did they bring up the issue of fuel again for another
thirty-eight minutes.
5.
To Ratwatte, the silence in the cockpit made no sense.
And as a way of explaining why, Ratwatte began to talk
about what had happened to him that morning on the way
over from Dubai. “We had this lady in the back,” he said.
“We reckon she was having a stroke. Seizing. Vomiting. In
bad shape. She was an Indian lady whose daughter lives
in the States. Her husband spoke no English, no Hindi,
only Punjabi. No one could communicate with him. He
looked like he had just walked off a village in the Pun­
jab, and they had absolutely no money. I was actually over
Moscow when it happened, but I knew we couldn’t go to
Moscow. I didn’t know what would happen to these peo­
ple if we did. I said to the first officer, ‘You fly the plane.
We have to go to Helsinki.’ ”
1 8 9

O U T L I E R S
The immediate problem Ratwatte faced was that they
were less than halfway through a very long flight, which
meant that they had far more fuel in their tanks than they
usually do when it comes time to land. “We were sixty tons
over maximum landing weight,” he said. “So now I had to
make a choice. I could dump the fuel. But countries hate it
when you dump fuel. It’s messy stuff and they would have
routed me somewhere over the Baltic Sea, and it would
have taken me forty minutes and the lady probably would
have died. So I decided to land anyway. My choice.”
That meant the plane was “landing heavy.” They couldn’t
use the automated landing system because it wasn’t set up
to handle a plane with that much weight.
“At that stage, I took over the controls,” he went on. “I
had to ensure that the airplane touched down very softly;
otherwise, there would have been the risk of structural
damage. It could have been a real mess. There are also per­
formance issues with being heavy. If you clear the runway
and have to go around, you may not have enough thrust to
climb back up.
“It was a lot of work. You’re juggling a lot of balls. You’ve
got to get it right. Because it was a long flight, there were
two other pilots. So I got them up, and they got involved
in doing everything as well. We had four people up there,
which really helped in coordinating everything. I’d never
been to Helsinki before. I had no idea how the airport was,
no idea whether the runways were long enough. I had to
find an approach, figure out if we could land there, figure
out the performance parameters, and tell the company what
we were doing. At one point I was talking to three different
people—talking to Dubai, talking to MedLink, which is
19 o

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
a service in Arizona where they put a doctor on call, and I
was talking to the two doctors who were attending to the
lady in the back. It was nonstop for forty minutes.
“We were lucky the weather was very good in Hel­
sinki,” he said. “Trying to do an approach in bad weather,
plus a heavy plane, plus an unfamiliar airport, that’s not
good. Because it was Finland, a first-world country, they
were well set up, very flexible. I said to them, ‘I’m heavy. I
would like to land into the wind/ You want to slow your­
self down in that situation. They said, No problem. They
landed us in the opposite direction than they normally
use. We came in over the city, which they usually avoid for
noise reasons.”
Think about what was required of Ratwatte. He had
to be a good pilot. That much goes without saying: he had
to have the technical skill to land heavy. But almost every­
thing else Ratwatte did that made that emergency landing
a success fell outside the strict definition of piloting skills.
He had to weigh the risk of damaging his plane against
the risk to the woman’s life, and then, once that choice was
made, he had to think through the implications of Hel­
sinki versus Moscow for the sick passenger in the back.
He had to educate himself, quickly, on the parameters of
an airport he had never seen before: could it handle one
of the biggest jets in the sky, at sixty tons over its normal
landing weight? But most of all, he had to talk—to the
passengers, to the doctors, to his copilot, to the second
crew he woke up from their nap, to his superiors back
home in Dubai, to ATC at Helsinki. It is safe to say that
in the forty minutes that passed between the passenger’s
stroke and the landing in Helsinki, there were no more
1 9 1

O U T L I E R S
than a handful of seconds of silence in the cockpit. What
was required of Ratwatte was that he communicate, and
communicate not just in the sense of issuing commands
but also in the sense of encouraging and cajoling and
calming and negotiating and sharing information in the
clearest and most transparent manner possible.
6.
Here, by contrast, is the transcript from Avianca 052, as
the plane is going in for its abortive first landing. The issue
is the weather. The fog is so thick that Klotz and Cavie­
des cannot figure out where they are. Pay close attention,
though, not to the content of their conversation but to the
form. In particular, note the length of the silences between
utterances and to the tone of Klotz’s remarks.
CAVIEDES: The runway, where is it? I don’t see it. I
don’t see it.
They take up the landing gear. The captain tells Klotz
to ask for another traffic pattern. Ten seconds pass.
CAVIEDES [SEEMINGLY TO HIMSELF] : We don’t have fuel…
Seventeen seconds pass as the pilots give technical
instructions to each other.
CAVIEDES: I don’t know what happened with the run­
way. I didn’t see it.
KLOTZ: I didn’t see it.
1 9 2

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
Air Traffic Control comes in and tells them to make a
left turn.
CAVIEDES: Tell them we are in an emergency!
KLOTZ [TO ATC]: That’s right to one-eight-zero on
the heading and, ah, we’ll try once again. We’re run­
ning out of fuel.
Imagine the scene in the cockpit. The plane is danger­
ously low on fuel. They have just blown their first shot at
a landing. They have no idea how much longer the plane is
capable of flying. The captain is desperate: “Tell them we
are in an emergency!” And what does Klotz say? That’s
right to one-eight-zero on the heading and, ah, we’ll try
once again. We’re running out of fuel.
To begin with, the phrase “running out of fuel” has no
meaning in Air Traffic Control terminology. All planes, as
they approach their destination, are by definition running
out of fuel. Did Klotz mean that 052 no longer had enough
fuel to make it to another, alternative airport? Did he mean
that they were beginning to get worried about their fuel?
Next, consider the structure of the critical sentence. Klotz
begins with a routine acknowledgment of the instructions
from ATC and doesn’t mention his concern about fuel
until the second half of the sentence. It’s as if he were to
say in a restaurant, “Yes, I’ll have some more coffee and,
ah, I’m choking on a chicken bone.” How seriously would
the waiter take him? The air traffic controller with whom
Klotz was speaking testified later that he “just took it as a
passing comment.” On stormy nights, air traffic controllers
hear pilots talking about running out of fuel all the time.
! 9 3

O U T L I E R S
Even the “ah” that Klotz inserts between the two halves
of his sentence serves to undercut the importance of what
he is saying. According to another of the controllers who
handled 052 that night, Klotz spoke “in a very nonchalant
manner There was no urgency in the voice.”
7.
The term used by linguists to describe what Klotz was
engaging in in that moment is “mitigated speech,” which
refers to any attempt to downplay or sugarcoat the meaning
of what is being said. We mitigate when we’re being polite,
or when we’re ashamed or embarrassed, or when we’re being
deferential to authority. If you want your boss to do you a
favor, you don’t say, “I’ll need this by Monday.” You miti­
gate. You say, “Don’t bother, if it’s too much trouble, but
if you have a chance to look at this over the weekend, that
would be wonderful.” In a situation like that, mitigation is
entirely appropriate. In other situations, however—like a
cockpit on a stormy night—it’s a problem.
The linguists Ute Fischer and Judith Orasanu once gave
the following hypothetical scenario to a group of captains
and first officers and asked them how they would respond:
You notice on the weather radar an area of heavy precipita­
tion 25 miles ahead. [The pilot] is maintaining his present
course at Mach .73, even though embedded thunder­
storms have been reported in your area and you encoun­
ter moderate turbulence. You want to ensure that your
aircraft will not penetrate this area.
Question: what do you say to the pilot?
1 9 4

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
In Fischer’s and Orasanu’s minds, there were at least six
ways to try to persuade the pilot to change course and avoid
the bad weather, each with a different level of mitigation.
1. Command: “Turn thirty degrees right.” That’s the most
direct and explicit way of making a point imaginable.
It’s zero mitigation.
2. Crew Obligation Statement: “I think we need to devi­
ate right about now.” Notice the use of “we” and the fact
that the request is now much less specific. That’s a little
softer.
3. Crew Suggestion: “Let’s go around the weather.” Implicit
in that statement is “we’re in this together.”
4. Query: “Which direction would you like to deviate?”
That’s even softer than a crew suggestion, because the
speaker is conceding that he’s not in charge.
5. Preference: “I think it would be wise to turn left or right.”
6. Hint: “That return at twenty-five miles looks mean.”
This is the most mitigated statement of all.
Fischer and Orasanu found that captains overwhelm­
ingly said they would issue a command in that situation:
“Turn thirty degrees right.” They were talking to a subor­
dinate. They had no fear of being blunt. The first officers,
on the other hand, were talking to their boss, and so they
overwhelmingly chose the most mitigated alternative.
They hinted.
It’s hard to read Fischer and Orasanu’s study and not
be just a little bit alarmed, because a hint is the hardest
kind of request to decode and the easiest to refuse. In the
1982 Air Florida crash outside Washington, DC, the first
officer tried three times to tell the captain that the plane
1 9 5

O U T L I E R S
had a dangerous amount of ice on its wings. But listen to
how he says it. It’s all hints:
FIRST OFFICER: Look how the ice is just hanging on
his, ah, back, back there, see that?
Then:
FIRST OFFICER: See all those icicles on the back there
and everything?
And then:
FIRST OFFICER: Boy, this is a, this is a losing battle here
on trying to de-ice those things, it [gives] you a false
feeling of security, that’s all that does.
Finally, as they get clearance for takeoff, the first offi­
cer upgrades two notches to a crew suggestion:
FIRST OFFICER: Let’s check those [wing] tops again,
since we’ve been setting here awhile.
CAPTAIN: I think we get to go here in a minute.
The last thing the first officer says to the captain, just
before the plane plunges into the Potomac River, is not a
hint, a suggestion, or a command. It’s a simple statement
of fact—and this time the captain agrees with him.
FIRST OFFICER: Larry, we’re going down, Larry.
CAPTAIN: I know it.
19 6

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
Mitigation explains one of the great anomalies of plane
crashes. In commercial airlines, captains and first officers
split the flying duties equally. But historically, crashes
have been far more likely to happen when the captain is
in the “flying seat.” At first that seems to make no sense,
since the captain is almost always the pilot with the most
experience. But think about the Air Florida crash. If the
first officer had been the captain, would he have hinted
three times? No, he would have commanded—and the
plane wouldn’t have crashed. Planes are safer when the
least experienced pilot is flying, because it means the sec­
ond pilot isn’t going to be afraid to speak up.
Combating mitigation has become one of the great
crusades in commercial aviation in the past fifteen years.
Every major airline now has what is called “Crew Resource
Management” training, which is designed to teach junior
crew members how to communicate clearly and assert­
ively. For example, many airlines teach a standardized
procedure for copilots to challenge the pilot if he or she
thinks something has gone terribly awry. (“Captain, I’m
concerned about…” Then, “Captain, I’m uncomfortable
with…” And if the captain still doesn’t respond, “Cap­
tain, I believe the situation is unsafe.” And if that fails, the
first officer is required to take over the airplane.) Aviation
experts will tell you that it is the success of this war on
mitigation as much as anything else that accounts for the
extraordinary decline in airline accidents in recent years.
“On a very simple level, one of the things we insist upon
at my airline is that the first officer and the captain call each
other by their first names,” Ratwatte said. “We think that
helps. It’s just harder to say, ‘Captain, you’re doing something
1 9 7

O U T L I E R S
wrong,’ than to use a name.” Ratwatte took mitigation very
seriously. You couldn’t be a student of the Avianca crash and
not feel that way. He went on: “One thing I personally try to
do is, I try to put myself a little down. I say to my copilots, T
don’t fly very often. Three or four times a month. You fly a
lot more. If you see me doing something stupid, it’s because
I don’t fly very often. So tell me. Help me out.’ Hopefully,
that helps them speak up.”
8.
Back to the cockpit of Avianca 052. The plane is now turning
away from Kennedy, after the aborted first attempt at landing.
Klotz has just been on the radio with ATC, trying to figure
out when they can try to land again. Caviedes turns to him.
CAVIEDES: What did he say?
KLOTZ: I already advise him that we are going to
attempt again because we now we can’t…”
Four seconds of silence pass.
CAVIEDES: Advise him we are in emergency.
Four more seconds of silence pass. The captain tries
again.
CAVIEDES: Did you tell him?
KLOTZ: Yes, sir. I already advise him.
Klotz starts talking to ATC—going over routine details.
1 9 8

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
KLOTZ: One-five-zero maintaining two thousand Avi­
anca zero-five-two heavy.
The captain is clearly at the edge of panic.
CAVIEDES: Advise him we don’t have fuel.
Klotz gets back on the radio with ATC.
KLOTZ: Climb and maintain three thousand and, ah,
we’re running out of fuel, sir.
There it is again. No mention of the magic word “emer­
gency,” which is what air traffic controllers are trained to
listen for. Just “running out of fuel, sir” at the end of a sen­
tence, preceded by the mitigating “ah.” If you’re counting
errors, the Avianca crew is now in double digits.
CAVIEDES: Did you already advise that we don’t have
fuel?
KLOTZ: Yes, sir. I already advise him…
CAVIEDES: Bueno.
If it were not the prelude to a tragedy, their back-and-forth
would resemble an Abbott and Costello comedy routine.
A little over a minute passes.
ATC: And Avianca zero-five-two heavy, ah, I’m gonna
bring you about fifteen miles northeast and then
turn you back onto the approach. Is that okay with
you and your fuel?
KLOTZ: I guess so. Thank you very much.
1 9 9

O U T L I E R S
/ guess so. Thank you very much. They are about to
crash! One of the flight attendants enters the cockpit to
find out how serious the situation is. The flight engineer
points to the empty fuel gauge, and makes a throat-cutting
gesture with his finger.* But he says nothing. Nor does
anyone else for the next five minutes. There’s radio chat­
ter and routine business, and then the flight engineer cries
out, “Flameout on engine number four!”
Caviedes says, “Show me the runway,” but the run­
way is sixteen miles away.
Thirty-six seconds of silence pass. The plane’s air traf­
fic controller calls out one last time.
ATC: You have, ah, you have enough fuel to make it to
the airport?
The transcript ends.
9.
“The thing you have to understand about that crash,”
Ratwatte said, “is that New York air traffic controllers
are famous for being rude, aggressive, and bullying. They
are also very good. They handle a phenomenal amount
of traffic in a very constrained environment. There is a
famous story about a pilot who got lost trafficking around
J F K . You have no idea how easy that is to do at J F K once
you’re on the ground. It’s a maze. Anyway, a female con-
* We know this because the flight attendant survived the crash and
testified at the inquest.
2 0 0

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
troller got mad at him, and said, ‘Stop. Don’t do anything.
Do not talk to me until I talk to you.’ And she just left
him there. Finally the pilot picks up the microphone and
says, ‘Madam. Was I married to you in a former life?’
“They are unbelievable. The way they look at it, it’s
‘I’m in control. Shut up and do what I say.’ They will snap
at you. And if you don’t like what they tell you to do, you
have to snap back. And then they’ll say, ‘All right, then.’
But if you don’t, they’ll railroad you. I remember a Brit­
ish Airways flight was going into New York. They were
being stuffed around by New York Air Traffic Control.
The British pilots said, ‘You people should go to Heath­
row and learn how to control an airplane.’ It’s all in the
spirit. If you are not used to that sort of give-and-take,
New York ATC can be very, very intimidating. And those
Avianca guys were just intimidated by the rapid fire.”
It is impossible to imagine Ratwatte not making his case
to Kennedy ATC—not because he is obnoxious or pushy
or has an enormous ego, but because he sees the world dif­
ferently. If he needed help in the cockpit, he would wake up
the second crew. If he thought Moscow was wrong, well,
he would just go to Helsinki, and if Helsinki was going
to bring him in with the wind, well, he was going to talk
them into bringing him in against the wind. That morning,
when they were leaving Helsinki, he had lined up the plane
on the wrong runway—and his first officer had quickly
pointed out the error. The memory made Ratwatte laugh.
“Masa is Swiss. He was very happy to correct me. He was
giving me shit the whole way back.”
Ratwatte continued: “All the guys had to do was tell
the controller, ‘We don’t have the fuel to comply with what
2 O I

O U T L I E R S
you are trying to do/ All they had to do was say, ‘We can’t
do that. We have to land in the next ten minutes.’ They
weren’t able to put that across to the controller.”
It was at this point that Ratwatte began to speak care­
fully, because he was about to make the kind of cultural gen­
eralization that often leaves us uncomfortable. But what
happened with Avianca was just so strange—so seemingly
inexplicable—that it demanded a more complete explana­
tion than simply that Klotz was incompetent and the cap­
tain was tired. There was something more profound—more
structural—going on in that cockpit. What if there was
something about the pilots’ being Colombian that led to
that crash? “Look, no American pilot would put up with
that. That’s the thing,” Ratwatte said. “They would say,
‘Listen, buddy. I have to land.’ ”
10.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Dutch psychologist Geert
Hofstede was working for the human resources depart­
ment of IBM’s European headquarters. Hofstede’s job was
to travel the globe and interview employees, asking about
such things as how people solved problems and how they
worked together and what their attitudes were to author­
ity. The questionnaires were long and involved, and over
time Hofstede was able to develop an enormous database
for analyzing the ways in which cultures differ from one
another. Today “Hofstede’s Dimensions” are among the
most widely used paradigms in crosscultural psychology.
Hofstede argued, for example, that cultures can be
usefully distinguished according to how much they expect
2 0 2

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
individuals to look after themselves. He called that mea­
surement the “individualism-collectivism scale.” The coun­
try that scores highest on the individualism end of that
scale is the United States. Not surprisingly, the United
States is also the only industrialized country in the world
that does not provide its citizens with universal health
care. At the opposite end of the scale is Guatemala.
Another of Hofstede’s dimensions is “uncertainty
avoidance.” How well does a culture tolerate ambiguity?
Here are the top five “uncertainty avoidance” countries,
according to Hofstede’s database—that is, the countries
most reliant on rules and plans and most likely to stick to
procedure regardless of circumstances:
1. Greece
2. Portugal
3. Guatemala
4. Uruguay
5. Belgium
The bottom five—that is, the cultures best able to tol­
erate ambiguity—are:
49. Hong Kong
50. Sweden
51. Denmark
52. Jamaica
53. Singapore
It is important to note that Hofstede wasn’t suggest­
ing that there was a right place or a wrong place to be on
any one of these scales. Nor was he saying that a culture’s
2 0 3

O U T L I E R S
position on one of his dimensions was an ironclad predic­
tor of how someone from that country behaves: it’s not
impossible, for example, for someone from Guatemala to
be highly individualistic.
What he was saying, instead, was something very sim­
ilar to what Nisbett and Cohen argued after their hallway
studies at the University of Michigan. Each of us has his
or her own distinct personality. But overlaid on top of that
are tendencies and assumptions and reflexes handed down
to us by the history of the community we grew up in, and
those differences are extraordinarily specific.
Belgium and Denmark are only an hour or so apart by
airplane, for example. Danes look a lot like Belgians, and if
you were dropped on a street corner in Copenhagen, you
wouldn’t find it all that different from a street corner in
Brussels. But when it comes to uncertainty avoidance, the
two nations could not be further apart. In fact, Danes have
more in common with Jamaicans when it comes to tolerat­
ing ambiguity than they do with some of their European
peers. Denmark and Belgium may share in a kind of broad
European liberal-democratic tradition, but they have dif­
ferent histories, different political structures, different
religious traditions, and different languages and food and
architecture and literature—going back hundreds and
hundreds of years. And the sum total of all those differ­
ences is that in certain kinds of situations that require
dealing with risk and uncertainty, Danes tend to react in a
very different way from Belgians.
Of all of Hofstede’s Dimensions, though, perhaps the
most interesting is what he called the “Power Distance
Index” (PDI). Power distance is concerned with attitudes
2 0 4

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
toward hierarchy, specifically with how much a particu­
lar culture values and respects authority. To measure it,
Hofstede asked questions like “How frequently, in your
experience, does the following problem occur: employees
being afraid to express disagreement with their managers?”
To what extent do the “less powerful members of orga­
nizations and institutions accept and expect that power
is distributed unequally?” How much are older people
respected and feared? Are power holders entitled to special
privileges?
“In low-power distance index countries,” Hofstede
wrote in his classic text Culture’s Consequences:
power is something of which power holders are almost
ashamed and they will try to underplay. I once heard a
Swedish (low PDI) university official state that in order
to exercise power he tried not to look powerful. Leaders
may enhance their informal status by renouncing formal
symbols. In (low PDI) Austria, Prime Minister Bruno
Kreisky was known to sometimes take the streetcar to
work. In 1974,1 actually saw the Dutch (low PDI) prime
minister, Joop den Uyl, on vacation with his motor
home at a camping site in Portugal. Such behavior of the
powerful would be very unlikely in high-PDI Belgium
or France.””
* Hofstede, similarly, references a study done a few years ago that
compared German and French manufacturing plants that were in the
same industry and were roughly the same size. The French plants had,
on average, 26 percent of their employees in management and special­
ist positions; the Germans, 16 percent. The French, furthermore, paid
their top management substantially more than the Germans did. What
2 0 5

O U T L I E R S
You can imagine the effect that Hofstede’s find­
ings had on people in the aviation industry. What was
their great battle over mitigated speech and teamwork all
about, after all? It was an attempt to reduce power dis­
tance in the cockpit. Hofstede’s question about power
distance—”How frequently, in your experience, does
the following problem occur: employees being afraid to
express disagreement with their managers?”—was the
very question aviation experts were asking first officers
in their dealings with captains. And Hofstede’s work sug­
gested something that had not occurred to anyone in the
aviation world: that the task of convincing first officers
to assert themselves was going to depend an awful lot on
their culture’s power distance rating.
That’s what Ratwatte meant when he said that no Amer­
ican would have been so fatally intimidated by the control­
lers at Kennedy Airport. America is a classic low-power
distance culture. When push comes to shove, Americans
fall back on their American-ness, and that American-ness
means that the air traffic controller is thought of as an equal.
But what country is at the other end of the power distance
scale? Colombia.
In the wake of the Avianca crash, the psychologist Rob­
ert Helmreich, who has done more than anyone to argue
for the role of culture in explaining pilot behavior, wrote
a brilliant analysis of the accident in which he argued that
we are seeing in that comparison, Hofstede argued, is a difference in
cultural attitudes toward hierarchy. The French have a power distance
index twice that of the Germans. They require and support hierarchy
in a way the Germans simply don’t.
2 0 6

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
you couldn’t understand Klotz’s behavior without taking
into account his nationality, that his predicament that day
was uniquely the predicament of someone who had a deep
and abiding respect for authority. Helmreich wrote:
The high-power distance of Colombians could have cre­
ated frustration on the part of the first officer because the
captain failed to show the kind of clear (if not autocratic)
decision making expected in high-power distance cul­
tures. The first and second officers may have been wait­
ing for the captain to make decisions, but still may have
been unwilling to pose alternatives.
Klotz sees himself as a subordinate. It’s not his job
to solve the crisis. It’s the captain’s—and the captain
is exhausted and isn’t saying anything. Then there’s the
domineering Kennedy Airport air traffic controllers
ordering the planes around. Klotz is trying to tell them
he’s in trouble. But he’s using his own cultural language,
speaking as a subordinate would to a superior. The con­
trollers, though, aren’t Colombian. They’re low-power
distance New Yorkers. They don’t see any hierarchical gap
between themselves and the pilots in the air, and to them,
mitigated speech from a pilot doesn’t mean the speaker is
being appropriately deferential to a superior. It means the
pilot doesn’t have a problem.
There is a point in the transcript where the cultural
miscommunication between the controllers and Klotz
becomes so evident that it is almost painful to read. It’s
the last exchange between Avianca and the control tower,
just minutes before the crash. Klotz has just said, “I guess
2 0 7

O U T L I E R S
so. Thank you very much” in response to the controller’s
question about their fuel state. Captain Caviedes then
turns to Klotz.
CAVIEDES: What did he say?
KLOTZ: The guy is angry.
Angry! Klotz’s feelings are hurt! His plane is moments
from disaster. But he cannot escape the dynamic dictated
to him by his culture in which subordinates must respect
the dictates of their superiors. In his mind, he has tried
and failed to communicate his plight, and his only conclu­
sion is that he must have somehow offended his superiors
in the control tower.
In the aftermath of the Kennedy crash, the manage­
ment of Avianca airlines held a postmortem. Avianca had
just had four accidents in quick succession—Barranquilla,
Cucuta, Madrid, and New York—and all four cases, the
airline concluded, “had to do with airplanes in perfect
flight condition, aircrew without physical limitations and
considered of average or above-average flight ability, and
still the accidents happened.” (italics mine)
In the company’s Madrid crash, the report went on,
the copilot tried to warn the captain about how dangerous
the situation was:
The copilot was right. But they died because… when the
copilot asked questions, his implied suggestions were very
weak. The captain’s reply was to ignore him totally. Per­
haps the copilot did not want to appear rebellious, ques­
tioning the judgment of the captain, or he did not want
2 0 8

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
to play the fool because he knew that the pilot had a great
deal of experience flying in that area. The copilot should
have advocated for his own opinions in a stronger way…
Our ability to succeed at what we do is powerfully
bound up with where we re from, and being a good pilot
and coming from a high-power distance culture is a dif­
ficult mix. Colombia by no means has the highest PDI,
by the way. Helmreich and a colleague, Ashleigh Merritt,
once measured the PDI of pilots from around the world.
Number one was Brazil. Number two was South Korea.””
11.
The National Transportation Safety Board, the US agency
responsible for investigating plane crashes, is headquar­
tered in a squat, seventies-era office building on the banks
* Here are the top five pilot PDIs by country. If you compare this list
to the ranking of plane crashes by country, they match up very closely.
1. Brazil
2. South Korea
3. Morocco
4. Mexico
5. Philippines
The five lowest pilot PDIs by country are:
15 . United States
16. Ireland
17. South Africa
18. Australia
19. New Zealand
2 0 9

O U T L I E R S
of the Potomac River in Washington, DC. Off the agen­
cy’s long hallways are laboratories filled with airplane
wreckage: a mangled piece of an engine turbine, a prob­
lematic piece of a helicopter rotor. On a shelf in one of the
laboratories is the cockpit voice and data recorder—the
so-called black box—from the devastating Valujet crash
in Florida in 1996, in which n o people were killed. The
recorder is encased in a shoe box-size housing made out of
thick hardened steel, and on one end of the box is a jagged
hole, as if someone—or, rather, something—had driven
a stake into it with tremendous force. Some of the NTSB
investigators are engineers, who reconstruct crashes from
the material evidence. Others are pilots. A surprising
number of them, however, are psychologists, whose job
it is to listen to the cockpit recorder and reconstruct what
was said and done by the flight crew in the final minutes
before a crash. One of the NTSB’s leading black-box spe­
cialists is a gangly fiftyish PhD psychologist named Mal­
colm Brenner, and Brenner was one of the investigators
into the Korean Air crash in Guam.
“Normally that approach into Guam is not difficult,”
Brenner began. Guam airport has what is called a glide
scope, which is like a giant beam of light stretching up
into the sky from the airport, and the pilot simply follows
the beam all the way down to the runway. But on this par­
ticular night, the glide scope was down. “It was out of ser­
vice,” Brenner said. “It had been sent to another island to
be repaired. So there was a notice to airmen that the glide
scope was not operating.”
In the grand scheme of things, this should not have
been a big problem. In the month the glide scope had been
2 I o

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
under repair, there had been about fifteen hundred safe
landings at Guam airport. It was just a small thing—an
inconvenience, really—that made the task of landing a
plane just a little bit more difficult.
“The second complication was the weather,” Brenner
continued. “Normally in the South Pacific, you’ve got
these brief weather situations. But they go by quickly. You
don’t have storms. It’s a tropical paradise. But that night,
there were some little cells, and it just happens that that
evening, they were going to be flying into one of those
little cells, a few miles from the airport. So the captain
has to decide, What exactly is my procedure for landing?
Well, they were cleared for what’s called a V O R / D M E
approach. It’s complicated. It’s a pain in the ass. It takes a
lot of coordination to set it up. You have to come down in
steps. But then, as it happens, from miles out, the captain
sees the lights of Guam. So he relaxes. And he says, ‘We’re
doing a visual approach.’ ”
The VOR is a beacon that sends out a signal that allows
pilots to calculate their altitude as they approach an air­
port. It’s what pilots relied on before the invention of the
glide scope. The captain’s strategy was to use the VOR to
get the plane close and then, once he could see the lights of
the runway, to land the plane visually. It seemed to make
sense. Pilots do visual landings all the time. But every time
a pilot chooses a plan, he is supposed to prepare a backup
in case things go awry. And this captain didn’t.
“They should have been coordinating. He should have
been briefing for the [DME] step-downs,” Brenner went
on. “But he doesn’t talk about that. The storm cells are all
around them, and what the captain seems to be doing is
2 I I

O U T L I E R S
assuming that at some point he’s going to break out of the
clouds and see the airport, and if he doesn’t see it by five
hundred sixty feet, he’ll just go around. Now, that would
work, except for one more thing. The VOR on which he’s
basing this strategy is not at the airport. It’s two-point-five
miles away on Nimitz Hill. There’s a number of airports
in the world where this is true. Sometimes you can follow
the VOR down and it takes you straight to the airport.
Here if you follow the VOR down, it takes you straight to
Nimitz Hill.”
The pilot knew about the VOR. It was clearly stated in
the airport’s navigational charts. He’d flown into Guam
eight times before, and in fact, he had specifically men­
tioned it in the briefing he gave before takeoff. But then
again, it was one in the morning, and he’d been up since
six a.m. the previous day.
“We believe that fatigue was involved,” Brenner went
on. “It’s a back-of-the-clock flight. You fly in and arrive at
one in the morning, Korean time. Then you spend a few
hours on the ground, and you fly back as the sun is com­
ing up. The captain has flown it a month before. In that
case, he slept on the first-class seat. Now he’s flying in and
says he’s really tired.”
So there they are, three classic preconditions of a plane
crash, the same three that set the stage for Avianca 052:
a minor technical malfunction; bad weather; and a tired
pilot. By itself, none of these would be sufficient for an
accident. But all three in combination require the com­
bined efforts of everyone in the cockpit. And that’s where
Korean Air 801 ran into trouble.
2 1 2

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
12.
Here is the flight recorder transcript of the final thirty
minutes of KAL flight 801: It begins with the captain
complaining of exhaustion.
0120:01. CAPTAIN: If this round-trip is more than a
nine-hour trip, we might get a little something. With
eight hours, we get nothing. Eight hours do not help
us at all…. They make us work to maximum, up to
maximum. Probably this way… hotel expenses will
be saved for cabin crews, and maximize the flight
hours. Anyway, they make us… work to maximum.
There is the sound of a man shifting in his seat. A minute
passes.
0121:13. CAPTAIN: Eh… really… sleepy, [unintelligible
words]
FIRST OFFICER: Of course.
Then comes one of the most critical moments in the flight.
The first officer decides to speak up:
FIRST OFFICER: Don’t you think it rains more? In this
area, here?
The first officer must have thought long and hard before
making that comment. He was not flying in the easy col-
legiality of Suren Ratwatte’s cockpit. Among Korean Air
2 1 3

O U T L I E R S
flight crews, the expectation on layovers used to be that
the junior officers would attend to the captain to the point
of making him dinner or purchasing him gifts. As one for­
mer Korean Air pilot puts it, the sensibility in many of the
airline’s cockpits was that “the captain is in charge and does
what he wants, when he likes, how he likes, and everyone
else sits quietly and does nothing.” In the Delta report on
Korean Air that was posted anonymously on the Internet,
one of the auditors tells a story of sitting in on a Korean
Air flight where the first officer got confused while listen­
ing to Air Traffic Control and mistakenly put the plane on
a course intended for another plane. “The Flight Engineer
picked up something was wrong but said nothing. First
Officer was also not happy but said nothing Despite
[good] visual conditions, crew did not look out and see
that current heading would not bring them to the airfield.”
Finally the plane’s radar picks up the mistake, and then
comes the key sentence: “Captain hit First Officer with the
back of his hand for making the error.”
Hit him with the hack of his hand?
When the three pilots all met that evening at Kimpo
for their preflight preparation, the first officer and the
engineer would have bowed to the captain. They would
all have then shaken hands. “Cheo eom hoeh seom ni da,”
the copilot might have said, respectfully. “It is first time
to meet you.” The Korean language has no fewer than six
different levels of conversational address, depending on
the relationship between the addressee and the addresser:
formal deference, informal deference, blunt, familiar, inti­
mate, and plain. The first officer would not have dared
to use one of the more intimate or familiar forms when
2 1 4

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
he addressed the captain. This is a culture in which enor­
mous attention is paid to the relative standing of any two
people in a conversation.
The Korean linguist Ho-min Sohn writes:
At a dinner table, a lower-ranking person must wait until
a higher-ranking person sits down and starts eating,
while the reverse does not hold true; one does not smoke
in the presence of a social superior; when drinking with a
social superior, the subordinate hides his glass and turns
away from the superior;… in greeting a social superior
(though not an inferior) a Korean must bow; a Korean
must rise when an obvious social superior appears on the
scene, and he cannot pass in front of an obvious social
superior. All social behavior and actions are conducted
in the order of seniority or ranking; as the saying goes,
chanmul to wi alay ka issta, there is order even to drink­
ing cold water.
So, when the first officer says, “Don’t you think it rains
more? In this area, here?” we know what he means by that:
Captain. You have committed us to visual approach, with
no backup plan, and the weather outside is terrible. You
think that we will break out of the clouds in time to see the
runway. But what if we don’t? It’s pitch-black outside and
pouring rain and the glide scope is down.
But he can’t say that. He hints, and in his mind he’s
said as much as he can to a superior. The first officer will
not mention the weather again.
It is just after that moment that the plane, briefly,
breaks out of the clouds, and off in the distance the pilots
see lights.
2 1 5

O U T L I E R S
“Is it Guam?” the flight engineer asks. Then, after a
pause, he says, “It’s Guam, Guam.”
The captain chuckles. “Good!”
But it isn’t good. It’s an illusion. They’ve come out of
the clouds for a moment. But they are still twenty miles
from the airport, and there is an enormous amount of bad
weather still ahead of them. The flight engineer knows
this, because it is his responsibility to track the weather,
so now he decides to speak up.
“Captain, the weather radar has helped us a lot,” he says.
The weather radar has helped us a lot? A second hint
from the flight deck. What the engineer means is just what
the first officer meant. This isn’t a night where you can
rely on just your eyes to land the plane. Look at what the
weather radar is telling us: there’s trouble ahead.
To Western ears, it seems strange that the flight engineer
would bring up this subject just once. Western communica­
tion has what linguists call a “transmitter orientation”—that
is, it is considered the responsibility of the speaker to com­
municate ideas clearly and unambiguously. Even in the tragic
case of the Air Florida crash, where the first officer never
does more than hint about the danger posed by the ice, he
still hints four times, phrasing his comments four different
ways, in an attempt to make his meaning clear. He may have
been constrained by the power distance between himself
and the captain, but he was still operating within a Western
cultural context, which holds that if there is confusion, it is
the fault of the speaker.
But Korea, like many Asian countries, is receiver ori­
ented. It is up to the listener to make sense of what is being
said. In the engineer’s mind, he has said a lot.
2 1 6

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
Sohn gives the following conversation as an illustra­
tion, an exchange between an employee (Mr. Kim) and his
boss, a division chief (kwacang).
KWACANG: It’s cold and I’m kind of hungry.
[MEANING: Why don’t you buy a drink or something
to eat?]
MR. KIM: How about having a glass of liquor?
[MEANING: I will buy liquor for you.]
KWACANG: It’s okay. Don’t bother.
[MEANING: I will accept your offer if you repeat it.]
MR. KIM: You must be hungry. How about going out?
[MEANING: I insist upon treating you.]
KWACANG: Shall I do so?
[MEANING: I accept.]
There is something beautiful in the subtlety of that
exchange, in the attention that each party must pay to the
motivations and desires of the other. It is civilized, in the
truest sense of that word: it does not permit insensitivity
or indifference.
But high-power distance communication works only
when the listener is capable of paying close attention, and
it works only if the two parties in a conversation have the
luxury of time, in order to unwind each other’s meanings.
It doesn’t work in an airplane cockpit on a stormy night
with an exhausted pilot trying to land at an airport with a
broken glide scope.
2 1 7

O U T L I E R S
13.
In 2000, Korean Air finally acted, bringing in an outsider
from Delta Air Lines, David Greenberg, to run their flight
operations.
Greenberg’s first step was something that would make
no sense if you did not understand the true roots of Korean
Air’s problems. He evaluated the English language skills
of all of the airline’s flight crews. “Some of them were fine
and some of them weren’t,” he remembers. “So we set up
a program to assist and improve the proficiency of avia­
tion English.” His second step was to bring in a Western
firm—a subsidiary of Boeing called Alteon—to take over
the company’s training and instruction programs. “Alteon
conducted their training in English,” Greenberg says. “They
didn’t speak Korean.” Greenberg’s rule was simple. The new
language of Korean Air was English, and if you wanted to
remain a pilot at the company, you had to be fluent in that
language. “This was not a purge,” he says. “Everyone had
the same opportunity, and those who found the language
issue challenging were allowed to go out and study on their
own nickel. But language was the filter. I can’t recall that
anyone was fired for flying proficiency shortcomings.”
Greenberg’s rationale was that English was the lan­
guage of the aviation world. When the pilots sat in the
cockpit and worked their way through the written check­
lists that flight crews follow on every significant point of
procedure, those checklists were in English. When they
talked to Air Traffic Control anywhere in the world, those
conversations would be in English.
” I f you are trying to land at J F K at rush hour, there is
2 1 8

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
no nonverbal communication,” Greenberg says. “It’s people
talking to people, so you need to be darn sure you under­
stand what’s going on. You can say that two Koreans side
by side don’t need to speak English. But if they are arguing
about what the guys outside said in English, then language
is important.”
Greenberg wanted to give his pilots an alternate iden­
tity. Their problem was that they were trapped in roles
dictated by the heavy weight of their country’s cultural
legacy. They needed an opportunity to step outside those
roles when they sat in the cockpit, and language was the
key to that transformation. In English, they would be
free of the sharply denned gradients of Korean hierarchy:
formal deference, informal deference, blunt, familiar, inti­
mate, and plain. Instead, the pilots could participate in a
culture and language with a very different legacy.
The crucial part of Greenberg’s reform, however, is
what he didn’t do. He didn’t throw up his hands in despair.
He didn’t fire all of his Korean pilots and start again with
pilots from a low-power distance culture. He knew that
cultural legacies matter—that they are powerful and per­
vasive and that they persist, long after their original use­
fulness has passed. But he didn’t assume that legacies are
an indelible part of who we are. He believed that if the
Koreans were honest about where they came from and
were willing to confront those aspects of their heritage
that did not suit the aviation world, they could change.
He offered his pilots what everyone from hockey players
to software tycoons to takeover lawyers has been offered
on the way to success: an opportunity to transform their
relationship to their work.
2 1 9

O U T L I E R S
After leaving Korean Air, Greenberg helped start up a
freight airline called Cargo 360, and he took a number of
Korean pilots with him. They were all flight engineers, who
had been number three, after the captain and first officer,
in the strict hierarchy of the original Korean Air. “These
were guys who had performed in the old environment at
Korean Air for as much as fifteen to eighteen years,” he
said. “They had accepted that subservient role. They had
been at the bottom of the ladder. We retrained them and
put them with Western crew. They’ve been a great success.
They all changed their style. They take initiative. They
pull their share of the load. They don’t wait for someone to
direct them. These are senior people, in their fifties, with a
long history in one context, who have been retrained and
are now successful doing their job in a Western cockpit.
We took them out of their culture and re-normed them.”
That is an extraordinarily liberating example. When we
understand what it really means to be a good pilot—when
we understand how much culture and history and the
world outside of the individual matter to professional
success—then we don’t have to throw up our hands in
despair at an airline where pilots crash planes into the
sides of mountains. We have a way to make successes out
of the unsuccessful.
But first we have to be frank about a subject that we
would all too often rather ignore. In 1994, when Boeing
first published safety data showing a clear correlation
between a country’s plane crashes and its score on Hof­
stede’s Dimensions, the company’s researchers practi­
cally tied themselves in knots trying not to cause offense.
“We’re not saying there’s anything here, but we think
2 2 0

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
there’s something there” is how Boeing’s chief engineer for
airplane safety put it. Why are we so squeamish? Why is
the fact that each of us comes from a culture with its own
distinctive mix of strengths and weaknesses, tendencies
and predispositions, so difficult to acknowledge? Who
we are cannot be separated from where we’re from—and
when we ignore that fact, planes crash.
14.
Back to the cockpit.
“Captain, the weather radar has helped us a lot.” No
pilot would say that now. But this was in 1997, before
Korean Air took its power distance issues seriously. The
captain was tired, and the engineer’s true meaning sailed
over the captain’s head.
“Yes,” the captain says in response. “They are very
useful.” He isn’t listening.
The plane is flying toward the VOR beacon and the
VOR is on the side of a mountain. The weather hasn’t bro­
ken. So the pilots can’t see anything. The captain puts the
landing gear down and extends the flaps.
At 1:41:48, the captain says, “Wiper on,” and the flight
engineer turns the wipers on. It’s raining now.
At 1:41:59, the first officer asks, “Not in sight?” He’s
looking for the runway. He can’t see it. He’s had a sink­
ing feeling in his stomach for some time now. One sec­
ond later, the Ground Proximity Warning System calls
out in its toneless electronic voice, “Five hundred [feet].”
The plane is five hundred feet off the ground. The ground
in this case is the side of Nimitz Hill. But the crew is
2 2 1

O U T L I E R S
confused because they think that the ground means the
runway, and how can that be if they can’t see the runway?
The flight engineer says, “Eh?” in an astonished tone of
voice. You can imagine them all thinking furiously, trying
to square their assumption of where the plane is with what
their instruments are telling them.
At 1:42:19, the first officer says, “Let’s make a missed
approach.” He has finally upgraded from a hint to a crew
obligation: he wants to abort the landing. Later, in the
crash investigation, it was determined that if he had seized
control of the plane in that moment, there would have
been enough time to pull up the nose and clear Nimitz
Hill. That is what first officers are trained to do when they
believe a captain is clearly in the wrong. But it is one thing
to learn that in a classroom, and quite another to actually
do it in the air, with someone who might rap you with the
back of his hand if you make a mistake.
1 : 4 2 : 2 0 . FLIGHT ENGINEER: Not in sight.
With disaster staring them in the face, both the first
officer and the engineer have finally spoken up. They want
the captain to go around, to pull up and start the landing
over again. But it’s too late.
1:42:21. FIRST OFFICER: Not in sight, missed approach.
1:42:22. FLIGHT ENGINEER: GO around.
1:42:23. CAPTAIN: Go around.
1:42:24:05. GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEM
(GPWS): One hundred.
2 2 2

T H E E T H N I C T H E O R Y O F P L A N E C R A S H E S
1:42:24:84. GPWS: Fifty.
1:42:25:19. GPWS: Forty.
1:42:25:50. GPWS: Thirty.
1:42:25:78. GPWS: Twenty.
1:42:25:78. [sound of initial impact]
1:42:28:65. [sound of tone]
1:42:28:91. [sound of groans]
1:42:30:54. [sound of tone]
END OF RECORDING
2 2 3

C H A P T E R E I G H T
Rice Paddies and
Math Tests
“NO ONE W H O CAN R I S E B E F O R E DAWN
T H R E E H U N D R E D S I X T Y DAYS A Y E A R F A I L S
TO M A K E H I S F A M I L Y R I C H . ”
1.
The gateway to the industrial heartland of Southern
China runs up through the wide, verdant swath of the Pearl
River Delta. The land is covered by a thick, smoggy haze.
The freeways are crammed with tractor trailers. Power
lines crisscross the landscape. Factories making cameras,
computers, watches, umbrellas, and T-shirts stand cheek
by jowl with densely packed blocks of apartment buildings
and fields of banana and mango trees, sugarcane, papaya,
and pineapple destined for the export market. Few land­
scapes in the world have changed so much in so short a time.
A generation ago, the skies would have been clear and the
road would have been a two-lane highway. And a genera­
tion before that, all you would have seen were rice paddies.
Two hours in, at the headwaters of the Pearl River, lies
the city of Guangzhou, and past Guangzhou, remnants of
2 2 4

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
the old China are easier to find. The countryside becomes
breathtakingly beautiful, rolling hills dotted with out-
croppings of limestone rock against the backdrop of the
Nan Ling Mountains. Here and there are the traditional
khaki-colored mud-brick huts of the Chinese peasantry.
In the small towns, there are open-air markets: chickens
and geese in elaborate bamboo baskets, vegetables laid out
in rows on the ground, slabs of pork on tables, tobacco
being sold in big clumps. And everywhere, there is rice,
miles upon miles of it. In the winter season, the paddies
are dry and dotted with the stubble of the previous year’s
crop. After the crops are planted in early spring, as the
humid winds begin to blow, they turn a magical green,
and by the time of the first harvest, as the grains emerge
on the ends of the rice shoots, the land becomes an unend­
ing sea of yellow.
Rice has been cultivated in China for thousands of
years. It was from China that the techniques of rice culti­
vation spread throughout East Asia—Japan, Korea, Singa­
pore, and Taiwan. Year in, year out, as far back as history
is recorded, farmers from across Asia have engaged in the
same relentless, intricate pattern of agriculture.
Rice paddies are “built,” not “opened up” the way a
wheat field is. You don’t just clear the trees, underbrush,
and stones and then plow. Rice fields are carved into
mountainsides in an elaborate series of terraces, or pains­
takingly constructed from marshland and river plains.
A rice paddy has to be irrigated, so a complex system of
dikes has to be built around the field. Channels must be
dug from the nearest water source, and gates built into the
2 2 5

O U T L I E R S
dikes so the water flow can be adjusted precisely to cover
the right amount of the plant.
The paddy itself, meanwhile, has to have a hard
clay floor; otherwise the water will simply seep into the
ground. But of course, rice seedlings can’t be planted in
hard clay, so on top of the clay, there has to be a thick,
soft layer of mud. And the claypan, as it’s called, has to
be carefully engineered so that it will drain properly and
also keep the plants submerged at the optimum level. Rice
has to be fertilized repeatedly, which is another art. Tra­
ditionally, farmers used “night soil” (human manure) and
a combination of burned compost, river mud, bean cake,
and hemp — and they had to be careful, because too much
fertilizer, or the right amount applied at the wrong time,
could be as bad as too little.
When the time came to plant, a Chinese farmer would
have hundreds of different varieties of rice from which
to choose, each one of which offered a slightly different
trade-off, say, between yield and how quickly it grew, or
how well it did in times of drought, or how it fared in poor
soil. A farmer might plant a dozen or more different vari­
eties at one time, adjusting the mix from season to season
in order to manage the risk of a crop failure.
He or she (or, more accurately, the whole family, since
rice agriculture was a family affair) would plant the seed
in a specially prepared seedbed. After a few weeks, the
seedlings would be transplanted into the field, in care­
fully spaced rows six inches apart, and then painstakingly
nurtured.
Weeding was done by hand, diligently and unceas-
2 2 6

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
ingly, because the seedlings could easily be choked by
other plant life. Sometimes each rice shoot would be indi­
vidually groomed with a bamboo comb to clear away insects.
All the while, farmers had to check and recheck water
levels and make sure the water didn’t get too hot in the
summer sun. And when the rice ripened, farmers gathered
all of their friends and relatives and, in one coordinated
burst, harvested it as quickly as possible so they could get
a second crop in before the winter dry season began.
Breakfast in South China, at least for those who could
afford it, was congee—white rice porridge with lettuce
and dace paste and bamboo shoots. Lunch was more con­
gee. Dinner was rice with “toppings.” Rice was what you
sold at the market to buy the other necessities of life. It was
how wealth and status were measured. It dictated almost
every working moment of every day. “Rice is life,” says the
anthropologist Gonçalo Santos, who has studied a tradi­
tional South Chinese village. “Without rice, you don’t sur­
vive. If you want to be anyone in this part of China, you
would have to have rice. It made the world go around.”
2 .
Take a look at the following list of numbers: 4 , 8, 5, 3, 9, 7,
6. Read them out loud. Now look away and spend twenty
seconds memorizing that sequence before saying them out
loud again.
If you speak English, you have about a 50 percent
chance of remembering that sequence perfectly. If you’re
Chinese, though, you’re almost certain to get it right every
2 2 7

O U T L I E R S
time. Why is that? Because as human beings we store dig­
its in a memory loop that runs for about two seconds. We
most easily memorize whatever we can say or read within
that two-second span. And Chinese speakers get that list
of numbers—4, 8, 5, 3, 9, 7, 6—right almost every time
because, unlike English, their language allows them to fit
all those seven numbers into two seconds.
That example comes from Stanislas Dehaene’s book
The Number Sense. As Dehaene explains:
Chinese number words are remarkably brief. Most of
them can be uttered in less than one-quarter of a sec­
ond (for instance, 4 is “si” and 7 “qi”). Their English
equivalents — “four,” “seven” — are longer: pronounc­
ing them takes about one-third of a second. The memory
gap between English and Chinese apparently is entirely
due to this difference in length. In languages as diverse
as Welsh, Arabic, Chinese, English and Hebrew, there is
a reproducible correlation between the time required to
pronounce numbers in a given language and the memory
span of its speakers. In this domain, the prize for efficacy
goes to the Cantonese dialect of Chinese, whose brevity
grants residents of Hong Kong a rocketing memory span
of about 10 digits.
It turns out that there is also a big difference in how
number-naming systems in Western and Asian languages
are constructed. In English, we say fourteen, sixteen, sev­
enteen, eighteen, and nineteen, so one might expect that
we would also say oneteen, twoteen, threeteen, and five-
teen. But we don’t. We use a different form: eleven, twelve,
thirteen, and fifteen. Similarly, we have forty and sixty,
2 2 8

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
which sound like the words they are related to (four and
six). But we also say fifty and thirty and twenty, which
sort of sound like five and three and two, but not really.
And, for that matter, for numbers above twenty, we put
the “decade” first and the unit number second (twenty-
one, twenty-two), whereas for the teens, we do it the other
way around (fourteen, seventeen, eighteen). The number
system in English is highly irregular. Not so in China,
Japan, and Korea. They have a logical counting system.
Eleven is ten-one. Twelve is ten-two. Twenty-four is two-
tens-four and so on.
That difference means that Asian children learn to
count much faster than American children. Four-year-old
Chinese children can count, on average, to forty. Ameri­
can children at that age can count only to fifteen, and most
don’t reach forty until they’re five. By the age of five, in
other words, American children are already a year behind
their Asian counterparts in the most fundamental of math
skills.
The regularity of their number system also means that
Asian children can perform basic functions, such as addi­
tion, far more easily. Ask an English-speaking seven-year-
old to add thirty-seven plus twenty-two in her head, and
she has to convert the words to numbers (37 + 22). Only
then can she do the math: 2 plus 7 is 9 and 30 and 20 is
50, which makes 59. Ask an Asian child to add three-tens-
seven and two-tens-two, and then the necessary equa­
tion is right there, embedded in the sentence. No number
translation is necessary: It’s five-tens-nine.
“The Asian system is transparent,” says Karen Fuson,
a Northwestern University psychologist who has closely
2 2 9

O U T L I E R S
studied Asian-Western differences. “I think that it
makes the whole attitude toward math different. Instead
of being a rote learning thing, there’s a pattern I can fig­
ure out. There is an expectation that I can do this. There
is an expectation that it’s sensible. For fractions, we say
three-fifths. The Chinese is literally ‘out of five parts,
take three.’ That’s telling you conceptually what a frac­
tion is. It’s differentiating the denominator and the
numerator.”
The much-storied disenchantment with mathemat­
ics among Western children starts in the third and fourth
grades, and Fuson argues that perhaps a part of that dis­
enchantment is due to the fact that math doesn’t seem to
make sense; its linguistic structure is clumsy; its basic
rules seem arbitrary and complicated.
Asian children, by contrast, don’t feel nearly that same
bafflement. They can hold more numbers in their heads
and do calculations faster, and the way fractions are
expressed in their languages corresponds exactly to the
way a fraction actually is—and maybe that makes them a
little more likely to enjoy math, and maybe because they
enjoy math a little more, they try a little harder and take
more math classes and are more willing to do their home­
work, and on and on, in a kind of virtuous circle.
When it comes to math, in other words, Asians have
a built-in advantage. But it’s an unusual kind of advan­
tage. For years, students from China, South Korea, and
Japan—and the children of recent immigrants who are
from those countries—have substantially outperformed
their Western counterparts at mathematics, and the typi­
cal assumption is that it has something to do with a kind
2 3 0

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
of innate Asian proclivity for math.* The psychologist
Richard Lynn has even gone so far as to propose an elabo­
rate evolutionary theory involving the Himalayas, really
cold weather, premodern hunting practices, brain size,
and specialized vowel sounds to explain why Asians have
higher IQs.1″ That’s how we think about math. We assume
that being good at things like calculus and algebra is a
simple function of how smart someone is. But the differ­
ences between the number systems in the East and the
West suggest something very different—that being good
at math may also be rooted in a group’s culture.
In the case of the Koreans, one kind of deeply rooted
legacy stood in the way of the very modern task of flying
an airplane. Here we have another kind of legacy, one that
turns out to be perfectly suited for twenty-first-century
tasks. Cultural legacies matter, and once we’ve seen the
* On international comparison tests, students from Japan, South Korea,
Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan all score roughly the same in
math, around the ninety-eighth percentile. The United States, France,
England, Germany, and the other Western industrialized nations
cluster at somewhere between the twenty-six and thirty-sixth percen­
tile. That’s a big difference.
“I” Lynn’s claim that Asians have higher IQs has been refuted, con­
vincingly, by a number of other experts, who showed that he based
his argument on IQ samples drawn disproportionately from urban,
upper-income homes. James Flynn, perhaps the world’s leading expert
on IQ, has subsequently made a fascinating counterclaim. Asians’
IQs, he says, have historically been slightly lower than whites’ IQs,
meaning that their dominance in math has been in spite of their IQ,
not because of it. Flynn’s argument was outlined in his book Asian
Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ (1991) .
2 3 1

O U T L I E R S
surprising effects of such things as power distance and
numbers that can be said in a quarter as opposed to a third
of a second, it’s hard not to wonder how many other cul­
tural legacies have an impact on our twenty-first-century
intellectual tasks. What if coming from a culture shaped by
the demands of growing rice also makes you better at math?
Could the rice paddy make a difference in the classroom?
3.
The most striking fact about a rice paddy—which can
never quite be grasped until you actually stand in the
middle of one—is its size. It’s tiny. The typical rice paddy
is about as big as a hotel room. A typical Asian rice farm
might be composed of two or three paddies. A village
in China of fifteen hundred people might support itself
entirely with 450 acres of land, which in the American
Midwest would be the size of a typical family farm. At
that scale, with families of five and six people living off
a farm the size of two hotel rooms, agriculture changes
dramatically.
Historically, Western agriculture is “mechanically”
oriented. In the West, if a farmer wanted to become more
efficient or increase his yield, he introduced more and
more sophisticated equipment, which allowed him to
replace human labor with mechanical labor: a threshing
machine, a hay baler, a combine harvester, a tractor. He
cleared another field and increased his acreage, because
now his machinery allowed him to work more land with
the same amount of effort. But in Japan or China, farm-
2 3 2

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
ers didn’t have the money to buy equipment—and, in any
case, there certainly wasn’t any extra land that could eas­
ily be converted into new fields. So rice farmers improved
their yields by becoming smarter, by being better manag­
ers of their own time, and by making better choices. As
the anthropologist Francesca Bray puts it, rice agriculture
is “skill oriented”: if you’re willing to weed a bit more dili­
gently, and become more adept at fertilizing, and spend
a bit more time monitoring water levels, and do a better
job keeping the claypan absolutely level, and make use of
every square inch of your rice paddy, you’ll harvest a big­
ger crop. Throughout history, not surprisingly, the people
who grow rice have always worked harder than almost
any other kind of farmer.
That last statement may seem a little odd, because
most of us have a sense that everyone in the premodern
world worked really hard. But that simply isn’t true. All of
us, for example, are descended at some point from hunter-
gatherers, and many hunter-gatherers, by all accounts, had
a pretty leisurely life. The !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari
Desert, in Botswana, who are one of the last remaining
practitioners of that way of life, subsist on a rich assort­
ment of fruits, berries, roots, and nuts—in particular the
mongongo nut, an incredibly plentiful and protein-rich
source of food that lies thick on the ground. They don’t
grow anything, and it is growing things—preparing,
planting, weeding, harvesting, storing—that takes time.
Nor do they raise any animals. Occasionally, the male
!Kung hunt, but chiefly for sport. All told, !Kung men and
women work no more than about twelve to nineteen hours
2 3 3

O U T L I E R S
a week, with the balance of the time spent dancing, enter-
taining, and visiting family and friends. That’s, at most,
one thousand hours of work a year. (When a bushman
was asked once why his people hadn’t taken to agricul-
ture, he looked puzzled and said, “Why should we plant,
when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?”)
Or consider the life of a peasant in eighteenth-century
Europe. Men and women in those days probably worked
from dawn to noon two hundred days a year, which works
out to about twelve hundred hours of work annually. Dur-
ing harvest or spring planting, the day might be longer.
In the winter, much less. In The Discovery of France, the
historian Graham Robb argues that peasant life in a coun-
try like France, even well into the nineteenth century, was
essentially brief episodes of work followed by long peri-
ods of idleness.
“Ninety-nine percent of all human activity described
in this and other accounts [of French country life],” he
writes, “took place between late spring and early autumn.”
In the Pyrenees and the Alps, entire villages would essen-
tially hibernate from the time of the first snow in Novem-
ber until March or April. In more temperate regions of
France, where temperatures in the winter rarely fell below
freezing, the same pattern held. Robb continues:
The fields of Flanders were deserted for much of the year.
An official report on the Nièvre in 1844 described the
strange mutation of the Burgundian day-laborer once
the harvest was in and the vine stocks had been burned:
“After making the necessary repairs to their tools, these
vigorous men will now spend their days in bed, packing
2 3 4

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
their bodies tightly together in order to stay warm and
eat less food. They weaken themselves deliberately.”
Human hibernation was a physical and economic
necessity. Lowering the metabolic rate prevented hunger
from exhausting supplies People trudged and daw­
dled, even in summer After the revolution, in Alsace
and the Pas-de-Calais, officials complained that wine
growers and independent farmers, instead of undertak­
ing “some peaceful and sedentary industry” in the qui­
eter season, “abandon themselves to dumb idleness.”
If you were a peasant farmer in Southern China, by
contrast, you didn’t sleep through the winter. In the short
break marked by the dry season, from November through
February, you busied yourself with side tasks. You made
bamboo baskets or hats and sold them in the market. You
repaired the dikes in your rice paddy, and rebuilt your mud
hut. You sent one of your sons to work in a nearby vil­
lage for a relative. You made tofu and dried bean curd and
caught snakes (they were a delicacy) and trapped insects.
By the time lahp cheun (the “turning of the spring”) came,
you were back in the fields at dawn. Working in a rice field
is ten to twenty times more labor-intensive than working
on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field. Some estimates
put the annual workload of a wet-rice farmer in Asia at
three thousand hours a year.
4.
Think, for a moment, about what the life of a rice farmer
in the Pearl River Delta must have been like. Three thousand
2 3 5

O U T L I E R S
hours a year is a staggering amount of time to spend work­
ing, particularly if many of those hours involve being
bent over in the hot sun, planting and weeding in a rice
paddy.
What redeemed the life of a rice farmer, however,
was the nature of that work. It was a lot like the garment
work done by the Jewish immigrants to New York. It was
meaningful. First of all, there is a clear relationship in rice
farming between effort and reward. The harder you work
a rice field, the more it yields. Second, it’s complex work.
The rice farmer isn’t simply planting in the spring and har­
vesting in the fall. He or she effectively runs a small busi­
ness, juggling a family workforce, hedging uncertainty
through seed selection, building and managing a sophisti­
cated irrigation system, and coordinating the complicated
process of harvesting the first crop while simultaneously
preparing the second crop.
And, most of all, it’s autonomous. The peasants of
Europe worked essentially as low-paid slaves of an aristo­
cratic landlord, with little control over their own destinies.
But China and Japan never developed that kind of oppres­
sive feudal system, because feudalism simply can’t work
in a rice economy. Growing rice is too complicated and
intricate for a system that requires farmers to be coerced
and bullied into going out into the fields each morning. By
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, landlords in central
and Southern China had an almost completely hands-off
relationship with their tenants: they would collect a fixed
rent and let farmers go about their business.
“The thing about wet-rice farming is, not only do you
2 3 6

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
need phenomenal amounts of labor, but it’s very exact­
ing,” says the historian Kenneth Pomerantz. “You have
to care. It really matters that the field is perfectly lev­
eled before you flood it. Getting it close to level but not
quite right makes a big difference in terms of your yield.
It really matters that the water is in the fields for just the
right amount of time. There’s a big difference between lin­
ing up the seedlings at exactly the right distance and doing
it sloppily. It’s not like you put the corn in the ground in
mid-March and as long as rain comes by the end of the
month, you’re okay. You’re controlling all the inputs in
a very direct way. And when you have something that
requires that much care, the overlord has to have a system
that gives the actual laborer some set of incentives, where
if the harvest comes out well, the farmer gets a bigger
share. That’s why you get fixed rents, where the landlord
says, I get twenty bushels, regardless of the harvest, and if
it’s really good, you get the extra. It’s a crop that doesn’t
do very well with something like slavery or wage labor.
It would just be too easy to leave the gate that controls
the irrigation water open a few seconds too long and there
goes your field.”
The historian David Arkush once compared Russian
and Chinese peasant proverbs, and the differences are
striking. “If God does not bring it, the earth will not give
it” is a typical Russian proverb. That’s the kind of fatal­
ism and pessimism typical of a repressive feudal system,
where peasants have no reason to believe in the efficacy of
their own work. On the other hand, Arkush writes, Chi­
nese proverbs are striking in their belief that “hard work,
2 3 7

O U T L I E R S
shrewd planning and self-reliance or cooperation with a
small group will in time bring recompense.”
Here are some of the things that penniless peasants
would say to one another as they worked three thou­
sand hours a year in the baking heat and humidity of
Chinese rice paddies (which, by the way, are filled with
leeches):
“No food without blood and sweat.”
“Farmers are busy; farmers are busy; if farmers weren’t
busy, where would grain to get through the winter
come from?”
“In winter, the lazy man freezes to death.”
“Don’t depend on heaven for food, but on your own
two hands carrying the load.”
“Useless to ask about the crops, it all depends on hard
work and fertilizer.”
“If a man works hard, the land will not be lazy.”
And, most telling of all: “No one who can rise before
dawn three hundred sixty days a year fails to make his
family rich.” Rise before dawn? 360 days a year? For the
!Kung leisurely gathering mongongo nuts, or the French
peasant sleeping away the winter, or anyone else living in
something other than the world of rice cultivation, that
proverb would be unthinkable.
This is not, of course, an unfamiliar observation about
Asian culture. Go to any Western college campus and
you’ll find that Asian students have a reputation for being
in the library long after everyone else has left. Sometimes
2 3 8

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
people of Asian background get offended when their cul­
ture is described this way, because they think that the
stereotype is being used as a form of disparagement. But
a belief in work ought to be a thing of beauty. Virtually
every success story we’ve seen in this book so far involves
someone or some group working harder than their peers.
Bill Gates was addicted to his computer as a child. So was
Bill Joy. The Beatles put in thousands of hours of practice
in Hamburg. Joe Flom ground away for years, perfecting
the art of takeovers, before he got his chance. Working
really hard is what successful people do, and the genius
of the culture formed in the rice paddies is that hard work
gave those in the fields a way to find meaning in the midst
of great uncertainty and poverty. That lesson has served
Asians well in many endeavors but rarely so perfectly as
in the case of mathematics.
5 .
A few years ago, Alan Schoenfeld, a math professor at
Berkeley, made a videotape of a woman named Renee
as she was trying to solve a math problem. Renee was
in her mid-twenties, with long black hair and round
silver glasses. In the tape, she’s playing with a software
program designed to teach algebra. On the screen are a
y and an x axis. The program asks the user to punch in
a set of coordinates and then draws the line from those
coordinates on the screen. For example, when she typed
in 5 on the y axis and 5 on the x axis, the computer did
this:
2 3 9

O U T L I E R S
At this point, I’m sure, some vague memory of your
middle-school algebra is coming back to you. But rest
assured, you don’t need to remember any of it to under­
stand the significance of Renee’s example. In fact, as you
listen to Renee talking in the next few paragraphs, focus
not on what she’s saying but rather on how she’s talking
and why she’s talking the way she is.
The point of the computer program, which Schoen-
feld created, was to teach students about how to calculate
the slope of a line. Slope, as I’m sure you remember (or,
more accurately, as I’ll bet you don’t remember; I cer­
tainly didn’t), is rise over run. The slope of the line in our
example is i, since the rise is 5 and the run is 5.
So there is Renee. She’s sitting at the keyboard, and
she’s trying to figure out what numbers to enter in order
to get the computer to draw a line that is absolutely verti­
cal, that is directly superimposed over the y axis. Now,
those of you who remember your high school math will
know that this is, in fact, impossible. A vertical line has
an undefined slope. Its rise is infinite: any number on the
2 4 0

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
y axis starting at zero and going on forever. It’s run on the
x axis, meanwhile, is zero. Infinity divided by zero is not
a number.
But Renee doesn’t realize that what she’s trying to do
can’t be done. She is, rather, in the grip of what Schoenfeld
calls a “glorious misconception,” and the reason Schoen­
feld likes to show this particular tape is that it is a per­
fect demonstration of how this misconception came to be
resolved.
Renee was a nurse. She wasn’t someone who had been
particularly interested in mathematics in the past. But
she had somehow gotten hold of the software and was
hooked.
“Now, what I want to do is make a straight line with
this formula, parallel to the y axis,” she begins. Schoenfeld
is sitting next to her. She looks over at him anxiously. “It’s
been five years since I did any of this.”
She starts to fiddle with the program, typing in differ­
ent numbers.
“Now if I change the slope that way…minus i . . .
now what I mean to do is make the line go straight.”
As she types in numbers, the line on the screen
changes.
“Oops. That’s not going to do it.”
She looks puzzled.
“What are you trying to do?” Schoenfeld asks.
“What I’m trying to do is make a straight line par­
allel to the y axis. What do I need to do here? I think
what I need to do is change this a little bit.” She points at
the place where the number for the y axis is. “That was
something I discovered. That when you go from i to 2,
2 4 1

O U T L I E R S
there was a rather big change. But now if you get way up
there you have to keep changing.”
This is Renee’s glorious misconception. She’s noticed
the higher she makes the y axis coordinate, the steeper the
line gets. So she thinks the key to making a vertical line is
just making the y axis coordinate large enough.
“I guess 12 or even 13 could do it. Maybe even as much
as 15.”
She frowns. She and Schoenfeld go back and forth. She
asks him questions. He prods her gently in the right direction.
She keeps trying and trying, one approach after another.
At one point, she types in 20. The line gets a little bit
steeper.

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
She types in 40. The line gets steeper still.
y
“I see that there is a relationship there. But as to why,
it doesn’t seem to make sense to me What if I do 80? If
40 gets me halfway, then 80 should get me all the way to
the y axis. So let’s just see what happens.”
She types in 80. The line is steeper. But it’s still not
totally vertical.
“Ohhh. It’s infinity, isn’t it? It’s never going to get
there.” Renee is close. But then she reverts to her original
misconception.
“So what do I need? 100? Every time you double the num­
ber, you get halfway to the y axis. But it never gets there…”
M 3

O U T L I E R S
She types in 100.
y
X
“It’s closer. But not quite there yet.”
She starts to think out loud. It’s obvious she’s on
the verge of figuring something out. “Well, I knew this,
though… but… I knew that. For each one up, it goes that
many over. I’m still somewhat confused as to why…”
She pauses, squinting at the screen.
“I’m getting confused. It’s a tenth of the way to the
one. But I don’t want it to be. . .”
And then she sees it.
“Oh! It’s any number up, and zero over. It’s any num­
ber divided by zero!” Her face lights up. “A vertical line is
anything divided by zero — and that’s an undefined num­
ber. Ohhh. Okay. Now I see. The slope of a vertical line is
undefined. Ahhhh. That means something now. I won’t
forget that!”
2 4 4

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
6.
Over the course of his career, Schoenfeld has videotaped
countless students as they worked on math problems. But
the Renee tape is one of his favorites because of how beau­
tifully it illustrates what he considers to be the secret to
learning mathematics. Twenty-two minutes pass from the
moment Renee begins playing with the computer program
to the moment she says, “Ahhhh. That means something
now.” That’s a long time. “This is eighth-grade mathemat­
ics,” Schoenfeld said. ” I f I put the average eighth grader in
the same position as Renee, I’m guessing that after the first
few attempts, they would have said, T don’t get it. I need
you to explain it.’ ” Schoenfeld once asked a group of high
school students how long they would work on a homework
question before they concluded it was too hard for them
ever to solve. Their answers ranged from thirty seconds to
five minutes, with the average answer two minutes.
But Renee persists. She experiments. She goes back
over the same issues time and again. She thinks out loud.
She keeps going and going. She simply won’t give up. She
knows on some vague level that there is something wrong
with her theory about how to draw a vertical line, and she
won’t stop until she’s absolutely sure she has it right.
Renee wasn’t a math natural. Abstract concepts like
“slope” and “undefined” clearly didn’t come easily to her.
But Schoenfeld could not have found her more impressive.
“There’s a will to make sense that drives what she
does,” Schoenfeld says. “She wouldn’t accept a superficial
‘Yeah, you’re right’ and walk away. That’s not who she
is. And that’s really unusual.” He rewound the tape and
2 4 5

O U T L I E R S
pointed to a moment when Renee reacted with genuine
surprise to something on the screen.
“Look,” he said. “She does a double take. Many stu­
dents would just let that fly by. Instead, she thought,
‘That doesn’t jibe with whatever I’m thinking. I don’t get
it. That’s important. I want an explanation.’ And when she
finally gets the explanation, she says, ‘Yeah, that fits.’ ”
At Berkeley, Schoenfeld teaches a course on problem
solving, the entire point of which, he says, is to get his stu­
dents to unlearn the mathematical habits they picked up
on the way to university. “I pick a problem that I don’t
know how to solve,” he says. “I tell my students, ‘You’re
going to have a two-week take-home exam. I know your
habits. You’re going to do nothing for the first week and
start it next week, and I want to warn you now: If you
only spend one week on this, you’re not going to solve it.
If, on the other hand, you start working the day I give you
the midterm, you’ll be frustrated. You’ll come to me and
say, ‘It’s impossible.’ I’ll tell you, Keep working, and by
week two, you’ll find you’ll make significant progress.”
We sometimes think of being good at mathematics as
an innate ability. You either have “it” or you don’t. But to
Schoenfeld, it’s not so much ability as attitude. You master
mathematics if you are willing to try. That’s what Schoen­
feld attempts to teach his students. Success is a function of
persistence and doggedness and the willingness to work
hard for twenty-two minutes to make sense of something
that most people would give up on after thirty seconds.
Put a bunch of Renées in a classroom, and give them the
space and time to explore mathematics for themselves,
and you could go a long way. Or imagine a country where
2 4 6

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
Renee’s doggedness is not the exception, but a cultural
trait, embedded as deeply as the culture of honor in the
Cumberland Plateau. Now that would be a country good
at math.
7.
Every four years, an international group of educators
administers a comprehensive mathematics and science test
to elementary and junior high students around the world.
It’s the TIMSS (the same test you read about earlier, in the
discussion of differences between fourth graders born
near the beginning of a school cutoff date and those born
near the end of the date), and the point of the TIMSS is to
compare the educational achievement of one country with
another’s.
When students sit down to take the TIMSS exam, they
also have to fill out a questionnaire. It asks them all kinds of
things, such as what their parents’ level of education is, and
what their views about math are, and what their friends are
like. It’s not a trivial exercise. It’s about 120 questions long.
In fact, it is so tedious and demanding that many students
leave as many as ten or twenty questions blank.
Now, here’s the interesting part. As it turns out, the
average number of items answered on that questionnaire
varies from country to country. It is possible, in fact, to rank
all the participating countries according to how many items
their students answer on the questionnaire. Now, what
do you think happens if you compare the questionnaire
rankings with the math rankings on the TIMSS? They are
exactly the same. In other words, countries whose students
2 4 7

O U T L I E R S
are willing to concentrate and sit still long enough and focus
on answering every single question in an endless question­
naire are the same countries whose students do the best job
of solving math problems.
The person who discovered this fact is an educational
researcher at the University of Pennsylvania named Erling
Boe, and he stumbled across it by accident. “It came out of
the blue,” he says. Boe hasn’t even been able to publish his
findings in a scientific journal, because, he says, it’s just a
bit too weird. Remember, he’s not saying that the ability
to finish the questionnaire and the ability to excel on the
math test are related. He’s saying that they are the same: if
you compare the two rankings, they are identical.
Think about this another way. Imagine that every
year, there was a Math Olympics in some fabulous city in
the world. And every country in the world sent its own
team of one thousand eighth graders. Boe’s point is that
we could predict precisely the order in which every coun­
try would finish in the Math Olympics without asking
a single math question. All we would have to do is give
them some task measuring how hard they were willing to
work. In fact, we wouldn’t even have to give them a task.
We should be able to predict which countries are best at
math simply by looking at which national cultures place
the highest emphasis on effort and hard work.
So, which places are at the top of both lists? The answer
shouldn’t surprise you: Singapore, South Korea, China
(Taiwan), Hong Kong, and Japan. What those five have
in common, of course, is that they are all cultures shaped
by the tradition of wet-rice agriculture and meaningful
2 4 8

R I C E P A D D I E S A N D M A T H T E S T S
work.* They are the kinds of places where, for hundreds of
years, penniless peasants, slaving away in the rice paddies
three thousand hours a year, said things to one another
like “No one who can rise before dawn three hundred
sixty days a year fails to make his family rich.”1′
* Two small points. Mainland China isn’t on this list because China
doesn’t yet take part in the TIMSS study. But the fact that Taiwan and
Hong Kong rank so highly suggests that the mainland would prob­
ably also do really well.
Second, and perhaps more important, what happens in the north
of China, which isn’t a wet-rice agriculture society but historically a
wheat-growing culture, much like Western Europe? Are they good at
math too? The short answer is that we don’t know. The psychologist
James Flynn points out, though, that the overwhelming majority of
Chinese immigrants to the West—the people who have done so well
in math here—are from South China. The Chinese students gradu­
ating at the top of their class at MIT are the descendants, chiefly, of
people from the Pearl River Delta. He also points out that the lowest-
achieving Chinese Americans are the so-called Sze Yap people, who
come from the edges of the Delta, “where soil was less fertile and agri­
culture less intense.”
+ There is actually a significant scientific literature measuring Asian
“persistence.” In a typical study, Priscilla Blinco gave large groups of
Japanese and American first graders a very difficult puzzle and mea­
sured how long they worked at it before they gave up. The American
children lasted, on average, 9.47 minutes. The Japanese children lasted
13.93 minutes, roughly 40 percent longer.
2 4 9

C H A P T E R N I N E
Marita’s Bargain
” A L L MY F R I E N D S NOW A R E F R O M K I P P . ”
1.
In the mid-1990s, an experimental public school called the
KIPP Academy opened on the fourth floor of Lou Gehrig
Junior High School in New York City.”” Lou Gehrig is in
the seventh school district, otherwise known as the South
Bronx, one of the poorest neighborhoods in New York
City. It is a squat, gray i96os-era building across the street
from a bleak-looking group of high-rises. A few blocks
over is Grand Concourse, the borough’s main thorough­
fare. These are not streets that you’d happily walk down,
alone, after dark.
KIPP is a middle school. Classes are large: the fifth grade
has two sections of thirty-five students each. There are no
entrance exams or admissions requirements. Students are
* KIPP stands for “Knowledge Is Power Program.”
2 5 0

MARITA’S BARGAIN
chosen by lottery, with any fourth grader living in the
Bronx eligible to apply. Roughly half of the students are
African American; the rest are Hispanic. Three-quarters of
the children come from single-parent homes. Ninety per­
cent qualify for “free or reduced lunch,” which is to say that
their families earn so little that the federal government chips
in so the children can eat properly at lunchtime.
KIPP Academy seems like the kind of school in the
kind of neighborhood with the kind of student that would
make educators despair—except that the minute you
enter the building, it’s clear that something is different.
The students walk quietly down the hallways in single file.
In the classroom, they are taught to turn and address any­
one talking to them in a protocol known as “SSLANT”:
smile, sit up, listen, ask questions, nod when being spoken
to, and track with your eyes. On the walls of the school’s
corridors are hundreds of pennants from the colleges that
KIPP graduates have gone on to attend. Last year, hun­
dreds of families from across the Bronx entered the lottery
for KIPP’s two fifth-grade classes. It is no exaggeration to
say that just over ten years into its existence, KIPP has
become one of the most desirable public schools in New
York City.
What KIPP is most famous for is mathematics. In the
South Bronx, only about 16 percent of all middle school stu­
dents are performing at or above their grade level in math.
But at KIPP, by the end of fifth grade, many of the students
call math their favorite subject. In seventh grade, KIPP stu­
dents start high school algebra. By the end of eighth grade,
84 percent of the students are performing at or above their
grade level, which is to say that this motley group of ran-
2 5 1

O U T L I E R S
domly chosen lower-income kids from dingy apartments
in one of the country’s worst neighborhoods—whose
parents, in an overwhelming number of cases, never set
foot in a college—do as well in mathematics as the privi­
leged eighth graders of American’s wealthy suburbs. “Our
kids’ reading is on point,” said David Levin, who founded
KIPP with a fellow teacher, Michael Feinberg, in 1994.
“They struggle a little bit with writing skills. But when
they leave here, they rock in math.”
There are now more than fifty KIPP schools across the
United States, with more on the way. The KIPP program
represents one of the most promising new educational
philosophies in the United States. But its success is best
understood not in terms of its curriculum, its teachers, its
resources, or some kind of institutional innovation. KIPP
is, rather, an organization that has succeeded by taking
the idea of cultural legacies seriously.
2 .
In the early nineteenth century, a group of reformers set
out to establish a system of public education in the United
States. What passed for public school at the time was a hap­
hazard assortment of locally run one-room schoolhouses
and overcrowded urban classrooms scattered around the
country. In rural areas, schools closed in the spring and fall
and ran all summer long, so that children could help out in
the busy planting and harvesting seasons. In the city, many
schools mirrored the long and chaotic schedules of the
children’s working-class parents. The reformers wanted to
make sure that all children went to school and that public
2 5 2

MARITA’S BARGAIN
school was comprehensive, meaning that all children got
enough schooling to learn how to read and write and do
basic arithmetic and function as productive citizens.
But as the historian Kenneth Gold has pointed out, the
early educational reformers were also tremendously con­
cerned that children not get too much schooling. In 1871 ,
for example, the US commissioner of education published
a report by Edward Jarvis on the “Relation of Education
to Insanity.” Jarvis had studied 1,741 cases of insanity and
concluded that “over-study” was responsible for 205 of
them. “Education lays the foundation of a large portion
of the causes of mental disorder,” Jarvis wrote. Similarly,
the pioneer of public education in Massachusetts, Horace
Mann, believed that working students too hard would
create a “most pernicious influence upon character and
habits Not infrequently is health itself destroyed by
over-stimulating the mind.” In the education journals of
the day, there were constant worries about overtaxing stu­
dents or blunting their natural abilities through too much
school work.
The reformers, Gold writes:
strove for ways to reduce time spent studying, because
long periods of respite could save the mind from injury.
Hence the elimination of Saturday classes, the shortening
of the school day, and the lengthening of vacation—all
of which occurred over the course of the nineteenth cen­
tury. Teachers were cautioned that “when [students] are
required to study, their bodies should not be exhausted
by long confinement, nor their minds bewildered by
prolonged application.” Rest also presented particular
2 5 3

O U T L I E R S
opportunities for strengthening cognitive and analytical
skills. As one contributor to the Massachusetts Teacher
suggested, “it is when thus relieved from the state of ten­
sion belonging to actual study that boys and girls, as
well as men and women, acquire the habit of thought
and reflection, and of forming their own conclusions,
independently of what they are taught and the authority
of others.”
This idea—that effort must be balanced by rest—
could not be more different from Asian notions about study
and work, of course. But then again, the Asian worldview
was shaped by the rice paddy. In the Pearl River Delta,
the rice farmer planted two and sometimes three crops a
year. The land was fallow only briefly. In fact, one of the
singular features of rice cultivation is that because of the
nutrients carried by the water used in irrigation, the more
a plot of land is cultivated, the more fertile it gets.
But in Western agriculture, the opposite is true. Unless
a wheat- or cornfield is left fallow every few years, the soil
becomes exhausted. Every winter, fields are empty. The
hard labor of spring planting and fall harvesting is fol­
lowed, like clockwork, by the slower pace of summer and
winter. This is the logic the reformers applied to the culti­
vation of young minds. We formulate new ideas by anal­
ogy, working from what we know toward what we don’t
know, and what the reformers knew were the rhythms
of the agricultural seasons. A mind must be cultivated.
But not too much, lest it be exhausted. And what was the
remedy for the dangers of exhaustion? The long summer
vacation—a peculiar and distinctive American legacy that
2 5 4

MARITA’S BARGAIN
has had profound consequences for the learning patterns
of the students of the present day.
3.
Summer vacation is a topic seldom mentioned in Ameri­
can educational debates. It is considered a permanent and
inviolate feature of school life, like high school football or
the senior prom. But take a look at the following sets of
elementary school test-score results, and see if your faith
in the value of long summer holidays isn’t profoundly
shaken.
These numbers come from research led by the Johns
Hopkins University sociologist Karl Alexander. Alexan­
der tracked the progress of 650 first graders from the Bal­
timore public school system, looking at how they scored
on a widely used math- and reading-skills exam called the
California Achievement Test. These are reading scores for
the first five years of elementary school, broken down by
socioeconomic class — low, middle, and high.
Class 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
Low 329 375 397 433 461
Middle 348 388 425 467 497
High 361 418 460 506 534
Look at the first column. The students start in first
grade with meaningful, but not overwhelming, differences
in their knowledge and ability. The first graders from the
wealthiest homes have a 32-point advantage over the first
2 5 5

O U T L I E R S
graders from the poorest homes—and by the way, first
graders from poor homes in Baltimore are really poor.
Now look at the fifth-grade column. By that point, four
years later, the initially modest gap between rich and poor
has more than doubled.
This “achievement gap” is a phenomenon that has been
observed over and over again, and it typically provokes
one of two responses. The first response is that disadvan­
taged kids simply don’t have the same inherent ability
to learn as children from more privileged backgrounds.
They’re not as smart. The second, slightly more optimis­
tic conclusion is that, in some way, our schools are fail­
ing poor children: we simply aren’t doing a good enough
job of teaching them the skills they need. But here’s where
Alexander’s study gets interesting, because it turns out
that neither of those explanations rings true.
The city of Baltimore didn’t give its kids the Califor­
nia Achievement Test just at the end of every school year,
in June. It gave them the test in September too, just after
summer vacation ended. What Alexander realized is that
the second set of test results allowed him to do a slightly
different analysis. If he looked at the difference between
the score a student got at the beginning of the school year,
in September, and the score he or she got the following
June, he could measure—precisely—how much that stu­
dent learned over the school year. And if he looked at the
difference between a student’s score in June and then in
the following September, he could see how much that
student learned over the course of the summer. In other
words, he could figure out—at least in part—how much
of the achievement gap is the result of things that happen
2 5 6

MARITA’S BARGAIN
during the school year, and how much it has to do with
what happens during summer vacation.
Let’s start with the school-year gains. This table shows
how many points students’ test scores rose from the time
they started classes in September to the time they stopped in
June. The “Total” column represents their cumulative class­
room learning from all five years of elementary school.
Class 1st
Grade
2nd
Grade
3rd
Grade
4th
Grade
5th
Grade
Total
Low 55 46 30 33 25 189
Middle 69 43 34 41 27 214
High 60 39 34 28 23 184
Here is a completely different story from the one sug­
gested by the first table. The first set of test results made it
look like lower-income kids were somehow failing in the
classroom. But here we see plainly that isn’t true. Look at
the “Total” column. Over the course of five years of elemen­
tary school, poor kids “out-learn” the wealthiest kids 189
points to 184 points. They lag behind the middle-class kids
by only a modest amount, and, in fact, in one year, second
grade, they learn more than the middle- or upper-class kids.
Next, let’s see what happens if we look just at how
reading scores change during summer vacation.
Class After 1st After 2nd After 3rd After 4th Total
Low -3.67 -1.70 2.74 2.89 0.26
Middle -3.11 4.18 3.68 2.34 7.09
High 15.38 9.22 14.51 13.38 52.49
2 5 7

O U T L I E R S
Do you see the difference? Look at the first column,
which measures what happens over the summer after first
grade. The wealthiest kids come back in September and
their reading scores have jumped more than 15 points. The
poorest kids come back from the holidays and their read­
ing scores have dropped almost 4 points. Poor kids may
out-learn rich kids during the school year. But during the
summer, they fall far behind.
Now take a look at the last column, which totals up
all the summer gains from first grade to fifth grade. The
reading scores of the poor kids go up by .26 points. When
it comes to reading skills, poor kids learn nothing when
school is not in session. The reading scores of the rich kids,
by contrast, go up by a whopping 52.49 points. Virtually
all of the advantage that wealthy students have over poor
students is the result of differences in the way privileged
kids learn while they are not in school.
What are we seeing here? One very real possibility
is that these are the educational consequences of the dif­
ferences in parenting styles that we talked about in the
Chris Langan chapter. Think back to Alex Williams, the
nine-year-old whom Annette Lareau studied. His parents
believe in concerted cultivation. He gets taken to muse­
ums and gets enrolled in special programs and goes to
summer camp, where he takes classes. When he’s bored at
home, there are plenty of books to read, and his parents
see it as their responsibility to keep him actively engaged
in the world around him. It’s not hard to see how Alex
would get better at reading and math over the summer.
But not Katie Brindle, the little girl from the other side
of the tracks. There’s no money to send her to summer
2 5 8

MARITA’S BARGAIN
camp. She’s not getting driven by her mom to special
classes, and there aren’t books lying around her house that
she can read if she gets bored. There’s probably just a tele­
vision. She may still have a wonderful vacation, making
new friends, playing outside, going to the movies, having
the kind of carefree summer days that we all dream about.
None of those things, though, will improve her math and
reading skills, and every carefree summer day she spends
puts her further and further behind Alex. Alex isn’t neces­
sarily smarter than Katie. He’s just out-learning her: he’s
putting in a few solid months of learning during the sum­
mer while she watches television and plays outside.
What Alexander’s work suggests is that the way in
which education has been discussed in the United States
is backwards. An enormous amount of time is spent talk­
ing about reducing class size, rewriting curricula, buying
every student a shiny new laptop, and increasing school
funding—all of which assumes that there is something
fundamentally wrong with the job schools are doing. But
look back at the second table, which shows what happens
between September and June. Schools work. The only
problem with school, for the kids who aren’t achieving, is
that there isn’t enough of it.
Alexander, in fact, has done a very simple calcula­
tion to demonstrate what would happen if the children of
Baltimore went to school year-round. The answer is that
poor kids and wealthy kids would, by the end of elemen­
tary school, be doing math and reading at almost the same
level.
Suddenly the causes of Asian math superiority become
even more obvious. Students in Asian schools don’t have
2 5 9

O U T L I E R S
long summer vacations. Why would they? Cultures that
believe that the route to success lies in rising before dawn
360 days a year are scarcely going to give their children
three straight months off in the summer. The school year
in the United States is, on average, 180 days long. The
South Korean school year is 220 days long. The Japanese
school year is 243 days long.
One of the questions asked of test takers on a recent
math test given to students around the world was how
many of the algebra, calculus, and geometry questions
covered subject matter that they had previously learned
in class. For Japanese twelfth graders, the answer was
92 percent. That’s the value of going to school 243 days
a year. You have the time to learn everything that needs
to be learned—and you have less time to unlearn it. For
American twelfth graders, the comparable figure was 54
percent. For its poorest students, America doesn’t have a
school problem. It has a summer vacation problem, and
that’s the problem the KIPP schools set out to solve. They
decided to bring the lessons of the rice paddy to the Amer­
ican inner city.
4.
“They start school at seven twenty-five,” says David Levin
of the students at the Bronx KIPP Academy. “They all do
a course called thinking skills until seven fifty-five. They
do ninety minutes of English, ninety minutes of math
every day, except in fifth grade, where they do two hours
of math a day. An hour of science, an hour of social sci­
ence, an hour of music at least twice a week, and then you
2 6 0

MARITA’S BARGAIN
have an hour and fifteen minutes of orchestra on top of
that. Everyone does orchestra. The day goes from seven
twenty-five until five p.m. After five, there are homework
clubs, detention, sports teams. There are kids here from
seven twenty-five until seven p.m. If you take an aver­
age day, and you take out lunch and recess, our kids are
spending fifty to sixty percent more time learning than
the traditional public school student/’
Levin was standing in the school’s main hallway. It
was lunchtime and the students were trooping by qui­
etly in orderly lines, all of them in their KIPP Academy
shirts. Levin stopped a girl whose shirttail was out. “Do
me a favor, when you get a chance,” he called out, miming
a tucking-in movement. He continued: “Saturdays they
come in nine to one. In the summer, it’s eight to two.” By
summer, Levin was referring to the fact that KIPP stu­
dents do three extra weeks of school, in July. These are,
after all, precisely the kind of lower-income kids who
Alexander identified as losing ground over the long sum­
mer vacation, so KIPP’s response is simply to not have a
long summer vacation.
“The beginning is hard,” he went on. “By the end of
the day they’re restless. Part of it is endurance, part of
it is motivation. Part of it is incentives and rewards and
fun stuff. Part of it is good old-fashioned discipline. You
throw all of that into the stew. We talk a lot here about grit
and self-control. The kids know what those words mean.”
Levin walked down the hall to an eighth-grade math
class and stood quietly in the back. A student named Aaron
was at the front of the class, working his way through a prob­
lem from the page of thinking-skills exercises that all KIPP
2 6 1

O U T L I E R S
students are required to do each morning. The teacher, a
ponytailed man in his thirties named Frank Corcoran, sat
in a chair to the side, only occasionally jumping in to guide
the discussion. It was the kind of scene repeated every day
in American classrooms—with one difference. Aaron was
up at the front, working on that single problem, for twenty
minutes—methodically, carefully, with the participation
of the class, working his way through not just the answer
but also the question of whether there was more than one
way to get the answer. It was Renee painstakingly figuring
out the concept of undefined slope all over again.
“What that extra time does is allow for a more relaxed
atmosphère,” Corcoran said, after the class was over. “I
find that the problem with math education is the sink-or-
swim approach. Everything is rapid fire, and the kids who
get it first are the ones who are rewarded. So there comes
to be a feeling that there are people who can do math and
there are people who aren’t math people. I think that
extended amount of time gives you the chance as a teacher
to explain things, and more time for the kids to sit and
digest everything that’s going on—to review, to do things
at a much slower pace. It seems counterintuitive but we
do things at a slower pace and as a result we get through a
lot more. There’s a lot more retention, better understand-
ing of the material. It lets me be a little bit more relaxed.
We have time to have games. Kids can ask any questions
they want, and if I’m explaining something, I don’t feel
pressed for time. I can go back over material and not feel
time pressure.” The extra time gave Corcoran the chance
to make mathematics meaningful: to let his students see
the clear relationship between effort and reward.
2 6 2

MARITA’S BARGAIN
On the walls of the classroom were dozens of certifi­
cates from the New York State Regents exam, testifying
to first-class honors for Corcoran’s students. “We had a
girl in this class,” Corcoran said. “She was a horrible math
student in fifth grade. She cried every Saturday when we
did remedial stuff. Huge tears and tears.” At the memory,
Corcoran got a little emotional himself. He looked down.
“She just e-mailed us a couple weeks ago. She’s in college
now. She’s an accounting major.”
5 .
The story of the miracle school that transforms losers
into winners is, of course, all too familiar. It’s the stuff
of inspirational books and sentimental Hollywood mov­
ies. But the reality of places like KIPP is a good deal less
glamorous than that. To get a sense of what 50 to 60 per­
cent more learning time means, listen to the typical day in
the life of a KIPP student.
The student’s name is Marita. She’s an only child who
lives in a single-parent home. Her mother never went to
college. The two of them share a one-bedroom apart­
ment in the Bronx. Marita used to go to a parochial school
down the street from her home, until her mother heard
of KIPP. “When I was in fourth grade, me and one of my
other friends, Tanya, we both applied to KIPP,” Marita
said. “I remember Miss Owens. She interviewed me, and
the way she was saying made it sound so hard I thought I
was going to prison. I almost started crying. And she was
like, If you don’t want to sign this, you don’t have to sign
this. But then my mom was right there, so I signed it.”
2 6 3

O U T L I E R S
With that, her life changed. (Keep in mind, while read­
ing what follows, that Marita is twelve years old.)
“I wake up at five-forty-five a.m. to get a head start,”
she says. “I brush my teeth, shower. I get some breakfast at
school, if I am running late. Usually get yelled at because I
am taking too long. I meet my friends Diana and Steven at
the bus stop, and we get the number one bus.”
A 5:45 wakeup is fairly typical of KIPP students,
especially given the long bus and subway commutes that
many have to get to school. Levin, at one point, went into
a seventh-grade music class with seventy kids in it and
asked for a show of hands on when the students woke up.
A handful said they woke up after six. Three quarters said
they woke up before six. And almost half said they woke
up before 5:30. One classmate of Marital, a boy named
José, said he sometimes wakes up at three or four a.m., fin­
ishes his homework from the night before, and then “goes
back to sleep for a bit.”
Marita went on:
I leave school at five p.m., and if I don’t lollygag around,
then I will get home around five-thirty. Then I say hi to
my mom really quickly and start my homework. And if
it’s not a lot of homework that day, it will take me two
to three hours, and I’ll be done around nine p.m. Or if
we have essays, then I will be done like ten p.m., or ten-
thirty p.m.
Sometimes my mom makes me break for dinner. I
tell her I want to go straight through, but she says I have
to eat. So around eight, she makes me break for dinner
for, like, a half hour, and then I get back to work. Then,
usually after that, my mom wants to hear about school,
2 6 4

MARITA’S BARGAIN
but I have to make it quick because I have to get in bed by
eleven p.m. So I get all my stuff ready, and then I get into
bed. I tell her all about the day and what happened, and
by the time we are finished, she is on the brink of sleep­
ing, so that’s probably around eleven-fifteen. Then I go
to sleep, and the next morning we do it all over again. We
are in the same room. But it’s a huge bedroom and you
can split it into two, and we have beds on other sides. Me
and my mom are very close.
She spoke in the matter-of-fact way of children who
have no way of knowing how unusual their situation is.
She had the hours of a lawyer trying to make partner, or
of a medical resident. All that was missing were the dark
circles under her eyes and a steaming cup of coffee, except
that she was too young for either.
“Sometimes I don’t go to sleep when I’m supposed to,”
Marita continued. “I go to sleep at, like, twelve o’clock,
and the next afternoon, it will hit me. And I will doze off
in class. But then I have to wake up because I have to get
the information. I remember I was in one class, and I was
dozing off and the teacher saw me and said, ‘Can I talk to
you after class?’ And he asked me, ‘Why were you dozing
off?’ And I told him I went to sleep late. And he was, like,
‘You need to go to sleep earlier.’ ”
6.
Marita’s life is not the life of a typical twelve-year-old. Nor
is it what we would necessarily wish for a twelve-year-
old. Children, we like to believe, should have time to play
2 6 5

O U T L I E R S
and dream and sleep. Marita has responsibilities. What is
being asked of her is the same thing that was asked of the
Korean pilots. To become a success at what they did, they
had to shed some part of their own identity, because the deep
respect for authority that runs throughout Korean culture
simply does not work in the cockpit. Marita has had to do
the same because the cultural legacy she had been given does
not match her circumstances either—not when middle- and
upper-middle-class families are using weekends and sum­
mer vacation to push their children ahead. Her community
does not give her what she needs. So what does she have to
do? Give up her evenings and weekends and friends—all the
elements of her old world—and replace then with KIPP.
Here is Marita again, in a passage that is little short of
heartbreaking:
Well, when we first started fifth grade, I used to have con­
tact with one of the girls from my old school, and when­
ever I left school on Friday, I would go to her house and
stay there until my mom would get home from work. So
I would be at her house and I would be doing my home­
work. She would never have any homework. And she
would say, “Oh, my God, you stay there late.” Then she
said she wanted to go to KIPP, but then she would say
that KIPP is too hard and she didn’t want to do it. And
I would say, “Everyone says that KIPP is hard, but once
you get the hang of it, it’s not really that hard.” She told
me, “It’s because you are smart.” And I said, “No, every
one of us is smart.” And she was so discouraged because
we stayed until five and we had a lot of homework, and
I told her that us having a lot of homework helps us do
2 6 6

MARITA’S BARGAIN
better in class. And she told me she didn’t want to hear
the whole speech. All my friends now are from KIPP.
Is this a lot to ask of a child? It is. But think of things
from Marita’s perspective. She has made a bargain with
her school. She will get up at five-forty-five in the morn­
ing, go in on Saturdays, and do homework until eleven at
night. In return, KIPP promises that it will take kids like
her who are stuck in poverty and give them a chance to
get out. It will get 84 percent of them up to or above their
grade level in mathematics. On the strength of that per­
formance, 90 percent of KIPP students get scholarships
to private or parochial high schools instead of having to
attend their own desultory high schools in the Bronx.
And on the strength of that high school experience, more
than 80 percent of KIPP graduates will go on to college, in
many cases being the first in their family to do so.
How could that be a bad bargain? Everything we
have learned in Outliers says that success follows a pre­
dictable course. It is not the brightest who succeed. If it
were, Chris Langan would be up there with Einstein. Nor
is success simply the sum of the decisions and efforts we
make on our own behalf. It is, rather, a gift. Outliers are
those who have been given opportunities—and who have
had the strength and presence of mind to seize them. For
hockey and soccer players born in January, it’s a better
shot at making the all-star team. For the Beatles, it was
Hamburg. For Bill Gates, the lucky break was being born
at the right time and getting the gift of a computer termi­
nal in junior high. Joe Flom and the founders of Wachtell,
2 6 7

O U T L I E R S
Lipton, Rosen and Katz got multiple breaks. They were
born at the right time with the right parents and the right
ethnicity, which allowed them to practice takeover law
for twenty years before the rest of the legal world caught
on. And what Korean Air did, when it finally turned its
operations around, was give its pilots the opportunity to
escape the constraints of their cultural legacy.
The lesson here is very simple. But it is striking how
often it is overlooked. We are so caught in the myths of
the best and the brightest and the self-made that we think
outliers spring naturally from the earth. We look at the
young Bill Gates and marvel that our world allowed
that thirteen-year-old to become a fabulously successful
entrepreneur. But that’s the wrong lesson. Our world only
allowed one thirteen-year-old unlimited access to a time­
sharing terminal in 1968. If a million teenagers had been
given the same opportunity, how many more Microsofts
would we have today? To build a better world we need
to replace the patchwork of lucky breaks and arbitrary
advantages that today determine success—the fortunate
birth dates and the happy accidents of history—with a
society that provides opportunities for all. If Canada had
a second hockey league for those children born in the last
half of the year, it would today have twice as many adult
hockey stars. Now multiply that sudden flowering of tal­
ent by every field and profession. The world could be so
much richer than the world we have settled for.
Marita doesn’t need a brand-new school with acres
of playing fields and gleaming facilities. She doesn’t need
a laptop, a smaller class, a teacher with a PhD, or a big­
ger apartment. She doesn’t need a higher IQ or a mind as
2 6 8

MARITA’S BARGAIN
quick as Chris Langan’s. All those things would be nice,
of course. But they miss the point. Marita just needed a
chance. And look at the chance she was given! Someone
brought a little bit of the rice paddy to the South Bronx
and explained to her the miracle of meaningful work.

E P I L O G U E
A Jamaican Story
” I F A P R O G E N Y OF Y O U N G C O L O R E D
C H I L D R E N IS B R O U G H T F O R T H , T H E S E A R E
E M A N C I P A T E D . ”
1.
On September 9, 1931, a young woman named Daisy
Nation gave birth to twin girls. She and her husband,
Donald, were schoolteachers in a tiny village called Hare-
wood, in the central Jamaican parish of Saint Catherine’s.
They named their daughters Faith and Joyce. When Don­
ald was told that he had fathered twins, he sank down on
his knees and surrendered responsibility for their lives
over to God.
The Nations lived in a small cottage on the grounds
of Harewood’s Anglican church. The schoolhouse was
next door, a long, single-room barn of a building raised
on concrete stilts. On some days, there might be as many
as three hundred children in the room, and on others,
less than two dozen. The children would read out loud or
recite their times tables. Writing was done on slates. When­
ever possible, the classes would move outside, under the
2 7 0

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
mango trees. If the children were out of control, Donald
Nation would walk from one end of the room to the other,
waving a strap from left to right as the children scrambled
back to their places.
He was an imposing man, quiet and dignified, and a
great lover of books. In his small library were works of
poetry and philosophy and novels by such writers as Som­
erset Maugham. Every day he would read the newspaper
closely, following the course of the events around the
word. In the evening, his best friend, Archdeacon Hay,
the Anglican pastor who lived on the other side of the
hill, would come over and sit on Donald’s veranda, and
together they would expound on the problems of Jamaica.
Donald’s wife, Daisy, was from the parish of Saint Eliz­
abeth. Her maiden name was Ford, and her father had
owned a small grocery store. She was one of three sisters,
and she was renowned for her beauty.
At the age of eleven, the twins won scholarships to a
boarding school called Saint Hilda’s near the north coast.
It was an old Anglican private school, established for the
daughters of English clergy, property owners, and over­
seers. From Saint Hilda’s they applied and were accepted to
University College, in London. Not long afterward, Joyce
went to a twenty-first-birthday party for a young English
mathematician named Graham. He stood up to recite a
poem and forgot his lines, and Joyce became embarrassed
for him—even though it made no sense for her to feel
embarrassed, because she did not know him at all. Joyce
and Graham fell in love and got married. They moved to
Canada. Graham was a math professor. Joyce became a
successful writer and a family therapist. They had three
2 7 1

O U T L I E R S
sons and built a beautiful house on a hill, off in the coun­
tryside. Graham’s last name is Gladwell. He is my father,
and Joyce Gladwell is my mother.
2 .
That is the story of my mother’s path to success—and
it isn’t true. It’s not a lie in the sense that the facts were
made up. But it is false in the way that telling the story
of Bill Gates without mentioning the computer at Lake­
side is false, or accounting for Asian math prowess with­
out going back to the rice paddies is false. It leaves out my
mother’s many opportunities and the importance of her
cultural legacy.
In 1935, for example, when my mother and her sister
were four, a historian named William M. MacMillan vis­
ited Jamaica. He was a professor at the University of Wit-
watersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. MacMillan was
a man before his time: he was deeply concerned with the
social problems of South Africa’s black population, and he
came to the Caribbean to make the same argument he had
made back home in South Africa.
Chief among MacMillan’s concerns was Jamaica’s edu­
cational system. Formal schooling—if you could call what
happened in the wooden barn next door to my grandpar­
ents’ house “formal schooling”—went only to fourteen
years of age. Jamaica had no public high schools or univer­
sities. Those with academic inclinations took extra classes
with the head teacher in their teenage years and with luck
made it into teachers’ college. Those with broader ambi­
tions had to somehow find their way into a private school,
2 7 2

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
and from there to a university in the United States or
England.
But scholarships were few and far between, and the
cost of private schooling was prohibitive for all but a priv­
ileged few. The “bridge from the primary schools” to high
school, MacMillan later wrote, in a blistering critique of
England’s treatment of its colonies entitled Warning from
the West Indies, “is narrow and insecure.” The school
system did nothing for the “humblest” classes. He went
on: “If anything these schools are a factor deepening and
sharpening social distinctions.” If the government did not
give its people opportunities, he warned, there would be
trouble.
A year after MacMillan published his book, a wave
of riots and unrest swept the Caribbean. Fourteen peo­
ple were killed and fifty-nine injured in Trinidad. Four­
teen were killed and forty-seven injured in Barbados. In
Jamaica, a series of violent strikes shut down the coun­
try, and a state of emergency was declared. Panicked, the
British government took MacMillan’s prescriptions to
heart and, among other reforms, proposed a series of “all-
island” scholarships for academically minded students to
go to private high schools. The scholarships began in 1941.
My mother and her twin sister sat for the exam the fol­
lowing year. That is how they got a high school education;
had they been born two or three or four years earlier, they
might never have gotten a full education. My mother owes
the course her life took to the timing of her birth, to the
rioters of 1937, and to W. M. MacMillan.
I described Daisy Nation, my grandmother, as
“renowned for her beauty.” But the truth is that was a
2 7 3

O U T L I E R S
careless and condescending way to describe her. She was
a force. The fact that my mother and her sister left Hare-
wood for Saint Hilda’s was my grandmother’s doing. My
grandfather may have been an imposing and learned man,
but he was an idealist and a dreamer. He buried himself
in his books. If he had ambitions for his daughters, he did
not have the foresight and energy to make them real. My
grandmother did. Saint Hilda’s was her idea: some of the
wealthier families in the area sent their daughters there,
and she saw what a good school meant. Her daughters did
not play with the other children of the village. They read.
Latin and algebra were necessary for high school, so she
had her daughters tutored by Archdeacon Hay.
“I f you’d asked her about her goals for her children,
she would have said she wanted us out of there,” my
mother recalls. “She didn’t feel that the Jamaican context
offered enough. And if the opportunity was there to go
on, and you were able to take it, then to her the sky was
the limit.”
When the results came back from the scholarship
exam, only my aunt was awarded a scholarship. My
mother was not. That’s another fact that my first history
was careless about. My mother remembers her parents
standing in the doorway, talking to each other. “We have
no more money.” They had paid the tuition for the first
term and bought the uniforms and had exhausted their
savings. What would they do when the second-term fees
for my mother came due? But then again, they couldn’t
send one daughter and not the other. My grandmother was
steadfast. She sent both—and prayed — and at the end of
the first term, it turned out that one of the other girls at
2 7 4

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
the school had won two scholarships, so the second was
given to my mother.
When it came time to go to university, my aunt, the
academic twin, won what was called a Centenary Schol­
arship. The “Centenary” was a reference to the fact that
the scholarship was established one hundred years after
the abolition of slavery in Jamaica. It was reserved for the
graduates of public elementary schools, and, in a measure
of how deeply the British felt about honoring the memory
of abolition, there was a total of one Centenary scholar­
ship awarded every year for the whole island, with the
prize going to the top girl and the top boy in alternat­
ing years. The year my aunt applied was one of the “girl”
years. She was lucky. My mother was not. My mother
was faced with the cost of passage to England, room and
board and living expenses, and tuition at the University of
London. To get a sense of how daunting that figure was,
the value of the Centenary scholarship my aunt won was
probably as much as the sum of my grandparents’ annual
salaries. There were no student loan programs, no banks
with lines of credit for schoolteachers out in the country­
side. ” I f I’d asked my father,” my mother says, “he would
have replied, ‘We have no money/ ”
What did Daisy do? She went to the Chinese shop­
keeper in a neighboring town. Jamaica has a very large
Chinese population that since the nineteenth century has
dominated the commercial life of the island. In Jamaican
parlance, a store is not a store, it is a “Chinee-shop.” Daisy
went to the “Chinee-shop,” to Mr. Chance, and borrowed
the money. No one knows how much she borrowed,
although it must have been an enormous sum. And no one
2 7 5

O U T L I E R S
knows why Mr. Chance lent it to Daisy, except of course
that she was Daisy Nation, and she paid her bills promptly
and had taught the Chance children at Harewood School.
It was not always easy to be a Chinese child in a Jamai­
can schoolyard. The Jamaican children would taunt the
Chinese children. “Chinee nyan [eat] dog.” Daisy was a
kindly and beloved figure, an oasis amid that hostility.
Mr. Chance may have felt in her debt.
“Did she tell me what she was doing? I didn’t even
ask her,” my mother remembers. “It just occurred. I just
applied to university and got in. I acted completely on
faith that I could rely on my mother, without even real­
izing that I was relying on my mother.”
Joyce Gladwell owes her college education first to W.
M. MacMillan, and then to the student at Saint Hilda’s
who gave up her scholarship, and then to Mr. Chance, and
then, most of all, to Daisy Nation.
3.
Daisy Nation was from the northwestern end of Jamaica.
Her great-grandfather was William Ford. He was from
Ireland, and he arrived in Jamaica in 1784 having bought
a coffee plantation. Not long after his arrival, he bought
a slave woman and took her as his concubine. He noticed
her on the docks at Alligator Pond, a fishing village on
the south coast. She was an Igbo tribeswoman from West
Africa. They had a son, whom they named John. He was, in
the language of the day, a “mulatto”; he was colored—and
all of the Fords from that point on fell into Jamaica’s col­
ored class.
2 7 6

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
In the American South during that same period, it
would have been highly unusual for a white landowner to
have such a public relationship with a slave. Sexual rela­
tions between whites and blacks were considered morally
repugnant. Laws were passed prohibiting miscegenation,
the last of which were not struck down by the U S Supreme
Court until 1967. A plantation owner who lived openly
with a slave woman would have been socially ostracized,
and any offspring from the union of black and white
would have been left in slavery.
In Jamaica, attitudes were very different. The Carib­
bean in those years was little more than a massive slave
colony. Blacks outnumbered whites by a ratio of more
than ten to one. There were few, if any, marriageable
white women, and as a result, the overwhelming major­
ity of white men in the West Indies had black or brown
mistresses. One British plantation owner in Jamaica who
famously kept a precise diary of his sexual exploits slept
with 138 different women in his thirty-seven years on the
island, almost all of them slaves and, one suspects, not all
of them willing partners. And whites saw mulattoes—the
children of those relationships — as potential allies, a buf­
fer between them and the enormous numbers of slaves on
the island. Mulatto women were prized as mistresses, and
their children, one shade lighter in turn, moved still fur­
ther up the social and economic ladder. Mulattoes rarely
worked in the fields. They lived the much easier life of
working in the “house.” They were the ones most likely
to be freed. So many mulatto mistresses were left substan­
tial fortunes in the wills of white property owners that the
Jamaica legislature once passed a law capping bequests at
2 7 7

O U T L I E R S
two thousand pounds (which, at the time, was an enor­
mous sum).
“When a European arrives in the West Indies and gets
settled or set down for any length of time, he finds it nec­
essary to provide himself with a housekeeper or mistress,”
one eighteenth-century observer wrote. “The choice he
has an opportunity of making is various, a black, a tawney,
a mulatto or a mestee, one of which can be purchased for
ioo or 150 sterling If a progeny of young colored chil­
dren is brought forth, these are emancipated, and mostly
sent by those fathers who can afford it, at the age of three
or four years, to be educated in England.”
This is the world Daisy’s grandfather John was born
into. He was one generation removed from a slave ship,
living in a country best described as an African penal
colony, and he was a free man, with every benefit of edu­
cation. He married another mulatto, a woman who was
half European and half Arawak, which is the Indian tribe
indigenous to Jamaica, and had seven children.
“These people—the coloreds—had a lot of status,”
the Jamaican sociologist Orlando Patterson says. “By
eighteen twenty-six, they had full civil liberties. In fact,
they achieve full civil liberties at the same time as the Jews
do in Jamaica. They could vote. Do anything a white per­
son could do — and this is within the context of what was
still a slave society.
“Ideally, they would try to be artisans. Remember,
Jamaica has sugar plantations, which are very different
from the cotton plantations you find in the American
South. Cotton is a predominantly agricultural pursuit.
You are picking this stuff, and almost all of the processing
2 7 8

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
was done in Lancashire, or the North. Sugar is an agro-
industrial complex. You have to have the factory right
there, because sugar starts losing sucrose within hours of
being picked. You had no choice but to have the sugar mill
right there, and sugar mills require a wide range of occupa­
tions. The coopers. The boiler men. The carpenters—and
a lot of those jobs were filled by colored people.”
It was also the case that Jamaica’s English elite, unlike
their counterparts in the United States, had little interest
in the grand project of nation building. They wanted to
make their money and go back to England. They had no
desire to stay in what they considered a hostile land. So the
task of building a new society—with the many opportu­
nities it embodied—fell to the coloreds as well.
“By eighteen fifty, the mayor of Kingston [the Jamai­
can capital] was a colored person,” Patterson went on.
“And so was the founder of the Daily Gleaner [Jamaica’s
major newspaper]. These were colored people, and from
very early on, they came to dominate the professional
classes. The whites were involved in business or the plan­
tation. The people who became doctors and lawyers were
these colored people. These were the people running the
schools. The bishop of Kingston was a classic brown man.
They weren’t the economic elite. But they were the cul­
tural elite.”
The chart below shows a breakdown of two catego­
ries of Jamaican professionals—lawyers and members of
parliament—in the early 1950s. The categorization is
by skin tone. “White and light” refers to people who are
either entirely white or, more likely, who have some black
heritage that is no longer readily apparent. “Olive” is one
2 7 9

O U T L I E R S
step below that, and “light brown” one step below olive
(although the difference between those two shades might
not be readily apparent to anyone but a Jamaican). The
fact to keep in mind is that in the 1950s “blacks” made up
about 80 percent of the Jamaican population, outnumber­
ing coloreds five to one.
Ethnicity Lawyers (percentage) Members of Parliament
(percentage)
Chinese 3.1
East Indians —
Jews 7.1
Syrians —
White and light 38.8 10
Olive 10.2 13
Light brown 17.3 19
Dark brown 10.2 39
Black 5.1 10
Unknown 8.2
Look at the extraordinary advantage that their little bit
of whiteness gave the colored minority. Having an ancestor
who worked in the house and not in the fields, who got full
civil rights in 1826, who was valued instead of enslaved,
who got a shot at meaningful work instead of being con­
signed to the sugarcane fields, made all the difference in
occupational success two and three generations later.
Daisy Ford’s ambition for her daughters did not
come from nowhere, in other words. She was the inheri­
tor of a legacy of privilege. Her older brother Rufus,
2 8 0

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
with whom she went to live as a child, was a teacher and
a man of learning. Her brother Carlos went to Cuba and
then came back to Jamaica and opened a garment factory.
Her father, Charles Ford, was a produce wholesaler. Her
mother, Ann, was a Powell, another educated, upwardly
mobile colored family—and the same Powells who would
two generations later produce Colin Powell. Her uncle
Henry owned property. Her grandfather John—the son
of William Ford and his African concubine—became
a preacher. No less than three members of the extended
Ford family ended up winning Rhodes Scholarships. If
my mother owed W. M. MacMillan and the rioters of 1937
and Mr. Chance and her mother, Daisy Ford, then Daisy
owed Rufus and Carlos and Ann and Charles and John.
4.
My grandmother was a remarkable woman. But it is impor­
tant to remember that the steady upward path upon which
the Fords embarked began with a morally complicated
act: William Ford looked upon my great-great-great-
grandmother with desire at a slave market in Alligator
Pond and purchased her.
The slaves who were not so chosen had short and
unhappy lives. In Jamaica, the plantation owners felt it
made the most sense to extract the maximum possible
effort from their human property while the property was
still young—to work their slaves until they were either
useless or dead—and then simply buy another round at
the market. They had no trouble with the philosophical
contradiction of cherishing the children they had with a
2 8 1

O U T L I E R S
slave and simultaneously thinking of slaves as property.
William Thistlewood, the plantation owner who cata­
loged his sexual exploits, had a lifelong relationship with
a slave named Phibbah, whom, by all accounts, he adored,
and who bore him a son. But to his “field” slaves, he was a
monster, whose preferred punishment for those who tried
to run away was what he called “Derby’s dose.” The run­
away would be beaten, and salt pickle, lime juice, and bird
pepper would be rubbed into his or her open wounds.
Another slave would defecate into the mouth of the mis­
creant, who would then be gagged for four to five hours.
It is not surprising, then, that the brown-skinned
classes of Jamaica came to fetishize their lightness. It was
their great advantage. They scrutinized the shade of one
another’s skin and played the color game as ruthlessly in
the end as the whites did. “If, as often happens, children
are of different shades of color in a family,” the Jamaican
sociologist Fernando Henriques once wrote:
the most lightly colored will be favored at the expense of
the others. In adolescence, and until marriage, the darker
members of the family will be kept out of the way when
the friends of the fair or fairer members of the family are
being entertained. The fair child is regarded as raising the
color of the family and nothing must be put in the way of
its success, that is in the way of a marriage which will still
further raise the color status of the family. A fair person
will try to sever social relations he may have with darker
relatives… the darker members of a Negro family will
encourage the efforts of a very fair relative to “pass” for
White. The practices of intra-family relations lay the foun­
dation for the public manifestation of color prejudice.
2 8 2

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
My family was not immune to this. Daisy was inor­
dinately proud of the fact her husband was lighter than
she was. But that same prejudice was then turned on her:
“Daisy’s nice, you know,” her mother-in-law would say,
“but she’s too dark.”
One of my mother’s relatives (I’ll call her Aunt Joan)
was also well up the color totem pole. She was “white and
light.” But her husband was what in Jamaica is called an
“Injun” — a man with a dark complexion and straight,
fine black hair—and their daughters were dark like their
father. One day, after her husband had died, she was trav­
eling on a train to visit her daughter, and she met and took
an interest in a light-skinned man in the same railway car.
What happened next is something that Aunt Joan told
only my mother, years later, with the greatest of shame.
When she got off the train, she walked right by her daugh­
ter, disowning her own flesh and blood, because she did
not want a man so light-skinned and desirable to know
that she had borne a daughter so dark.
In the 1960s, my mother wrote a book about her
experiences. It was entitled Brown Face, Big Master, the
“brown face” referring to herself, and the “big master”
referring, in the Jamaican dialect, to God. At one point,
she describes a time just after my parents were married
when they were living in London and my eldest brother
was still a baby. They were looking for an apartment, and
after a long search, my father found one in a London sub­
urb. On the day after they moved in, however, the land­
lady ordered them out. “You didn’t tell me your wife was
Jamaican,” she told my father in a rage.
In her book, my mother describes her long struggle to
2 8 3

O U T L I E R S
make sense of this humiliation, to reconcile her experience
with her faith. In the end, she was forced to acknowledge
that anger was not an option and that as a colored Jamai­
can whose family had benefited for generations from the
hierarchy of race, she could hardly reproach another for
the impulse to divide people by the shade of their skin:
I complained to God in so many words: “Here I was, the
wounded representative of the negro race in our strug­
gle to be accounted free and equal with the dominating
whites!” And God was amused; my prayer did not ring
true with Him. I would try again. And then God said,
“Have you not done the same thing? Remember this one
and that one, people whom you have slighted or avoided
or treated less considerately than others because they
were different superficially, and you were ashamed to be
identified with them. Have you not been glad that you
are not more colored than you are? Grateful that you
are not black?” My anger and hate against the landlady
melted. I was no better than she was, nor worse for that
matter We were both guilty of the sin of self-regard,
the pride and the exclusiveness by which we cut some
people off from ourselves.
It is not easy to be so honest about where we’re from.
It would be simpler for my mother to portray her success
as a straightforward triumph over victimhood, just as it
would be simpler to look at Joe Flom and call him the
greatest lawyer ever—even though his individual achieve­
ments are so impossibly intertwined with his ethnicity,
his generation, the particulars of the garment industry,
and the peculiar biases of the downtown law firms. Bill
2 8 4

A J A M A I C A N S T O R Y
Gates could accept the title of genius, and leave it at that.
It takes no small degree of humility for him to look back
on his life and say, “I was very lucky.” And he was. The
Mothers’ Club of Lakeside Academy bought him a com­
puter in 1968. It is impossible for a hockey player, or Bill
Joy, or Robert Oppenheimer, or any other outlier for that
matter, to look down from their lofty perch and say with
truthfulness, “I did this, all by myself.” Superstar lawyers
and math whizzes and software entrepreneurs appear at
first blush to lie outside ordinary experience. But they
don’t. They are products of history and community, of
opportunity and legacy. Their success is not exceptional
or mysterious. It is grounded in a web of advantages and
inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some
just plain lucky—but all critical to making them who they
are. The outlier, in the end, is not an outlier at all.
My great-great-great-grandmother was bought at Alli­
gator Pond. That act, in turn, gave her son, John Ford, the
privilege of a skin color that spared him a life of slavery.
The culture of possibility that Daisy Ford embraced and
put to use so brilliantly on behalf of her daughters was
passed on to her by the peculiarities of the West Indian
social structure. And my mother’s education was the
product of the riots of 1937 and the industriousness of Mr.
Chance. These were history’s gifts to my family—and if
the resources of that grocer, the fruits of those riots, the
possibilities of that culture, and the privileges of that skin
tone had been extended to others, how many more would
now live a life of fulfillment, in a beautiful house high on
a hill?
2 8 5

Notes
I N T R O D U C T I O N
John G. Bruhn and Stewart Wolf have published two books on their
work in Roseto: The Roseto Story (Norman: University of Okla­
homa Press, 1979) and The Power of Clan: The Influence of Human
Relationships on Heart Disease (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transac­
tion Publishers, 1993). For a comparison of Roseto Valfortore, Italy,
and Roseto, Pennsylvania, USA, see Carla Bianco, The Two Rose-
tos (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974) . Roseto might be
unique among small Pennsylvania towns in the degree of academic
interest it has attracted.
O N E : T H E M A T T H E W E F F E C T
Jeb Bush’s fantasies about being a self-made man are detailed in S. V.
Date’s Jeb: America’s Next Bush (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Pen-
guin, 2007), esp. pages 8 0 – 8 1 . Date writes: “In both his 1994 and 1998
runs, Jeb made it clear: not only was he not apologizing for his back­
ground, he was proud of where he was financially, and certain that it
was the result of his own pluck and work ethic. ‘I’ve worked real hard
for what I’ve achieved and I’m quite proud of it,’ he told the St. Peters­
burg Times in 1993 . T have no sense of guilt, no sense of wrongdoing.’
“The attitude was much the same as he had expressed on CNN’s
Larry King Live in 1992: (I think, overall, it’s a disadvantage,’ he said
of being the president’s son when it came to his business opportuni­
ties. ‘Because you’re restricted in what you can do.’
“This thinking cannot be described as anything other than
delusional.”
The Lethbridge Broncos, who were playing the day that Paula and
Roger Barnsley first noticed the relative-age effect, were a junior ice
hockey team in the Western Hockey League from 1974 until 1986.
They won the WHL Championship in 1 9 8 2 – 8 3 , and three years later
were brought back to Swift Current in Saskatchewan. See http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethbridge_Broncos.
For an overview of the relative-age effect, see Jochen Musch and
Simon Grondin, “Unequal Competition as an Impediment to Per­
sonal Development: A Review of the Relative Age Effect in Sport,”
published in Developmental Review 2 1 , no. 2 (2001): 1 4 7 – 1 6 7 .

http://

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethbridge_Broncos

N O T E S
Roger Barnsley and A. H. Thompson have put their study on a Web
site, http://www.socialproblemindex.ualberta.ca/relage.htm.
Self-fulfilling prophecies can be traced back to ancient Greek and
Indian literature, but the term itself was coined by Robert K. Merton
in Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1968).
Barnsley and his team branched out into other sports. See R. Barnsley,
A. H. Thompson, and Philipe Legault, “Family Planning: Football
Style. The Relative Age Effect in Football,” published in the Interna­
tional Review for the Sociology of Sport 27, no. 1 (1992): 7 7 – 8 8 .
The statistics for the relative-age effect in baseball come from Greg
Spira, in Slate magazine, http://www.slate.com/id/2188866/.
A. Dudink, at the University of Amsterdam, showed how the cutoff
date for English Premier League soccer creates the same age hierarchy
as is seen in Canadian hockey. See “Birth Date and Sporting Success,”
Nature 368 (1994): 592.
Interestingly, in Belgium, the cutoff date for soccer used to be August
1, and back then, almost a quarter of their top players were born
in August and September. But then the Belgian soccer federation
switched to January 1, and sure enough, within a few years, there were
almost no elite soccer players born in December, and an overwhelm­
ing number born in January. For more, see Werner F. Helsen, Janet
L. Starkes, and Jan van Winckel, “Effects of a Change in Selection
Year on Success in Male Soccer Players,” American Journal of Human
Biology 1 2 , no. 6 (2000): 7 2 9 – 7 3 5 .
Kelly Bedard and Elizabeth Dhuey’s data comes from “The Persis­
tence of Early Childhood Maturity: International Evidence of Long-
Run Age Effects,” published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics
1 2 1 , no. 4 (2006): 1 4 3 7 – 1 4 7 2 .
TWO: THE IO,OOO-HOUR R U L E
Much of the discussion of Bill Joy’s history comes from Andrew
Leonard’s Salon article, “BSD Unix: Power to the People, from the
Code,” May 1 6 , 2000, http://archive.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/05/16/
chapter_2_part_one/index.html.
For a history of the University of Michigan Computer Center, see “A
Career Interview with Bernie Galler,” professor emeritus in the Elec­
trical Engineering and Computer Science department at the school,
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 23 , no. 4 (2001): 1 0 7 – 1 1 2 .
One of (many) wonderful articles by Ericsson and his colleagues about
the ten-thousand-hour rule is K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf Th. Krampe,
and Clemens Tesch-Rômer, “The Role of Deliberate Practice in the
2 8 8

http://www.socialproblemindex.ualberta.ca/relage.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2188866/

http://archive.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/05/16/

N O T E S
Acquisition of Expert Performance,” Psychological Review 100 , no. 3
(1993): 3 6 3 – 4 0 6 .
Daniel J. Levitin talks about the ten thousand hours it takes to get
mastery in This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human
Obsession (New York: Dutton, 2006) , p. 197.
Mozart’s development as a prodigy is discussed in Michael J. A.
Howe’s Genius Explained (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999). P- 3-
Harold Schonberg is quoted in John R. Hayes, Thinking and Learn­
ing Skills. Vol. 2: Research and Open Questions, ed. Susan F. Chip-
man, Judith W. Segal, and Robert Glaser (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1985).
For chess’s exception to the rule, grandmaster Bobby Fischer, see
Neil Charness, Ralf Th. Krampe, and Ulrich Mayr in their essay “The
Role of Practice and Coaching in Entrepreneurial Skill Domains: An
International Comparison of Life-Span Chess Skill Acquisition,”
in The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance
in the Arts and Sciences, Sports and Games, ed. K. Anders Ericsson
(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996) , pp. 5 1 – 1 2 6 ,
esp. p. 7 3 .
To read more about the time-sharing revolution, see Stephen Manes
and Paul Andrews’s Gates: How Microsoft’s Mogul Reinvented an
Industry—And Made Himself the Richest Man in America (New
York: Touchstone, 1994), p. 26.
Philip Norman wrote the Beatles’ biography Shout! (New York: Fire­
side, 2003).
John Lennon and George Harrison’s reminiscences about the band’s
beginning in Hamburg come from Hamburg Days by George Harri­
son, Astrid Kirchherr, and Klaus Voorman (Surrey: Genesis Publica­
tions, 1999). The quotation is from page 1 2 2 .
Robert W. Weisberg discusses the Beatles—and computes the hours
they spent practicing—in “Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge
to Theories” in Handbook of Creativity, ed. Robert J. Sternberg
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 2 2 6 – 2 5 0 .
The complete list of the richest people in history can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthy_historical_figures_2008.
The reference to C. Wright Mills in the footnote comes from The
American Business Elite: A Collective Portrait, published in the Jour­
nal of Economic History 5 (December 1945): 2 0 – 4 4 .
Steve Jobs’s pursuit of Bill Hewlett is described in Lee Butcher’s Acci­
dental Millionaire: The Rise and Fall of Steve Jobs at Apple Computer
(New York: Paragon House, 1987) .
2 8 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthy_historical_figures_2008

N O T E S
T H R E E : T H E T R O U B L E W I T H G E N I U S E S , P A R T I
The episode of / vs. 100 featuring Chris Langan aired January 25 ,2008.
Leta Hollingworth, who is mentioned in the footnote, published her
account of “L” in Children Above 180 IQ (New York: World Books,
1942) .
Among other excellent sources on the life and times of Lewis Terman
are Henry L. Minton, “Charting Life History: Lewis M. Terman’s
Study of the Gifted” in The Rise of Experimentation in American
Psychology, ed. Jill G. Morawski (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1988); Joel N. Shurkin, Terman’s Kids (New York: Little, Brown,
1992); and May Seagoe, Terman and the Gifted (Los Altos: Kauffman,
1975) . The discussion of Henry Cowell comes from Seagoe.
Liam Hudson’s discussion of the limitations of IQ tests can be found
in Contrary Imaginations: A Psychological Study of the English
Schoolboy (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1967) . Hudson is an absolute
delight to read.
The Michigan Law School study “Michigan’s Minority Graduates in
Practice: The River Runs Through Law School,” written by Richard
O. Lempert, David L. Chambers, and Terry K. Adams, appears in
Law and Social Inquiry 25 , no. 2 (2000).
Pitirim Sorokin’s rebuttal to Terman was published in Fads and Foi­
bles in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences (Chicago: Henry Reg-
nery, 1956) .
F O U R : T H E T R O U B L E W I T H G E N I U S E S , P A R T 2
Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, American Prometheus: The Triumph
and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Knopf, 2005).
Robert J. Sternberg has written widely on practical intelligence and
similar subjects. For a good, nonacademic account, see Successful
Intelligence: How Practical and Creative Intelligence Determine Suc­
cess in Life (New York: Plume, 1997) .
As should be obvious, I loved Annette Lareau’s book. It is well worth
reading, as I have only begun to outline her argument from Unequal
Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2003).
Another excellent discussion of the difficulties in focusing solely on
IQ is Stephen J. Ceci’s On Intelligence: A Bioecological Treatise on
Intellectual Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1996) .
2 9 0

NOTES
For a gentle but critical assessment of Terman’s study, see “The Van­
ishing Genius: Lewis Terman and the Stanford Study” by Gretchen
Kreuter. It was published in the History of Education Quarterly 2 , no.
1 (March 1962): 6 – 1 8 .
F I V E : THE T H R E E LESSONS OF J O E FLOM
The definitive history of Skadden, Arps and the takeover culture was
written by Lincoln Caplan, Skadden: Power, Money, and the Rise of a
Legal Empire (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1993) .
Alexander Bickel’s obituary ran in the New York Times on November
8, 1974. The transcript of his interview is from the American Jewish
Committee’s oral history project, which is archived at the New York
Public Library.
Erwin O. Smigel writes about New York’s old white-shoe law firms in
The Wall Street Lawyer: Professional Organization Man? (Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press, 1969). Their particular employee pref­
erences are listed on page 37.
Louis Auchincloss has written more about the changes that took place
in the old-line law firms of Manhattan in the postwar years than any­
one. The quotation is from his book The Scarlet Letters (New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 2003), p. 1 5 3 .
The economic annihilation faced by lawyers at the lower end of the
social spectrum during the Depression is explored in Jerold S. Auer-
bach’s Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern Amer­
ica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976) , p. 159 .
Statistics on the fluctuating birth rate in America during the twentieth
century can be found at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html.
The impact of the “demographic trough” is explored in Richard A.
Easterlin’s Birth and Fortune: The Impact of Numbers on Personal
Welfare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) . H. Scott Gor­
don’s paean to the circumstances of children born during a trough is
from p. 4 of his presidential address to the Western Economic Asso­
ciation at the annual meeting in Anaheim, California, in June of 1977 ,
“On Being Demographically Lucky: The Optimum Time to Be Born.”
It is quoted on page 3 1 .
For a definitive account of the rise of Jewish lawyers, see Eli Wald,
“The Rise and Fall of the WASP and Jewish Law Firms,” Stanford
Law Review 60, no. 6 (2008): 1803 .
The story of the Borgenichts was told by Louis to Harold H. Fried­
man and published as The Happiest Man: The Life of Louis Borgenicht
(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1942) .
2 9 1

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

N O T E S
For more on the various occupations of nineteenth- and twentieth-
century immigrants to America, read Thomas Kessner’s The Golden
Door: Italian and Jewish Immigrant Mobility in New York City
1880-1915 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977) .
Stephen Steinberg’s The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in
America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982) includes a brilliant chapter on
Jewish immigrants to New York, to which I am heavily indebted.
Louise Farkas’s research was part of her master’s thesis at Queen’s col­
lege: Louise Farkas, “Occupational Genealogies of Jews in Eastern
Europe and America, 1 8 8 0 – 1 9 2 4 (New York: Queens College Spring
Thesis, 1982).
S I X : H A R L A N , K E N T U C K Y
Harry M. Caudill wrote about Kentucky, its beauty and its troubles,
in Night Comes to the Cumberlands: A Biography of a Depressed Area
(Boston: Little, Brown, 1962) .
The impact of coal mining on Harlan County is examined in “Social
Disorganization and Reorganization in Harlan County, Kentucky,”
by Paul Frederick Cressey in American Sociological Review 1 4 , no. 3
(June 1949): 3 8 9 – 3 9 4 –
The bloody and complicated Turner-Howard feud is described, along
with other Kentucky feuds, in John Ed Pearce’s marvelously enter­
taining Days of Darkness: The Feuds of Eastern Kentucky (Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky, 1994), p. 1 1 .
The same clashes are assessed from an anthropological perspective by
Keith F. Otterbein in “Five Feuds: An Analysis of Homicides in East­
ern Kentucky in the Late Nineteenth Century,” American Anthro­
pologist 1 0 2 , no. 2 (June 2000): 2 3 1 – 2 4 3 .
J. K. Campbell’s essay “Honour and the Devil” appeared in J. G.
Peristiany (ed.), Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean
Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966) .
The Scotch-Irish ancestry of the southern backcountry, as well as a
phonetic guide to Scotch-Irish speech, can be found in David Hackett
Fischer’s monumental study of early American history, Albion’s Seed:
Four British Folkways in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1989) , p. 652 .
The high murder rate in the South, and the specific nature of these
murders, is discussed by John Shelton Reed in One South: An Ethnic
Approach to Regional Culture (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univer­
sity Press, 1982) . See, particularly, chapter 1 1 , “Below the Smith and
Wesson Line.”
2 9 2

NOTES
For more on the historical causes of the southern temperament and
the insult experiment at the University of Michigan, see Culture of
Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South, by Richard E. Nis-
bett and Dov Cohen (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, Inc., 1996) .
Raymond D. GastiPs study on the correlation between “southern-
ness” and the US murder rate, “Homicide and a Regional Culture
of Violence,” was published in the American Sociological Review 36
(1971): 4 1 2 – 4 2 7 .
Cohen, with Joseph Vandello, Sylvia Puente, and Adrian Rantilla,
worked on another study about the American North-South cultural
divide: “‘When You Call Me That, Smile!’ How Norms for Polite­
ness, Interaction Styles, and Aggression Work Together in Southern
Culture,” Social Psychology Quarterly 62 , no. 3 (1999): 2 5 7 – 2 7 5 .
SEVEN: THE E T H N I C T H E O R Y OF P L A N E CRASHES
The National Transportation Safety Board, the federal agency that
investigates civil aviation accidents, published an Aircraft Accident
Report on the Korean Air 801 crash: NTSB/AAR-oo/01.
The footnote about Three Mile Island draws heavily on the analysis
of Charles Perrow’s classic Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk
Technologies (New York: Basic Books, 1984).
The seven-errors-per-accident statistic was calculated by the National
Transportation Safety Board in a safety study titled “A Review of
Flightcrew-Involved Major Accidents of U.S. Air Carriers, 1978
Through 1990” (Safety Study NTSB/SS-94/01, 1994).
The agonizing dialogue and analysis of the Avianca 052 crash can be
found in the National Transportation Safety Board Accident Report
AAR-91/04.
Ute Fischer and Judith Orasanu’s study of mitigation in the cock­
pit, “Cultural Diversity and Crew Communication,” was presented
at the fiftieth Astronautical Congress in Amsterdam, October 1999.
It was published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
Dialogue between the fated Air Florida captain and first officer is
quoted in a second study by Fischer and Orasanu, “Error-Challenging
Strategies: Their Role in Preventing and Correcting Errors,” produced
as part of the International Ergonomics Association fourteenth Tri­
ennial Congress and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Forty-
second Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, August 2000.
The unconscious impact of nationality on behavior was formally cal­
culated by Geert Hofstede and outlined in Culture’s Consequences:
2 9 3

NOTES
Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across
Nations (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2001) . The study
of French and German manufacturing plants that he quotes on page
102 was done by M. Brossard and M. Maurice, “Existe-t-il un modèle
universel des structures d’organisation?,” Sociologie du Travail 16 , no.
4 (1974): 4 8 2 – 4 9 5 .
The application of Hofstede’s Dimensions to airline pilots was carried
out by Robert L. Helmreich and Ashleigh Merritt in “Culture in the
Cockpit: Do Hofstede’s Dimensions Replicate?,” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology 3 1 , no. 3 (May 2000): 2 8 3 – 3 0 1 .
Robert L. Helmreich’s cultural analysis of the Avianca crash is
called “Anatomy of a System Accident: The Crash of Avianca Flight
052,” International Journal of Aviation Psychology 4, no. 3 (1994):
2 6 5 – 2 8 4 .
The linguistic indirectness of Korean speech as compared with
American was observed by Ho-min Sohn at the University of Hawaii
in his paper “Intercultural Communication in Cognitive Values:
Americans and Koreans,” published in Language and Linguistics 9
(1993): 9 3 – 1 3 6 .
E I G H T : R I C E PADDIES AND MATH TESTS
To read more on the history and intricacies of rice cultivation, see
Francesca Bray’s The Rice Economies: Technology and Development
in Asian Societies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).
The logic of Asian numerals compared with their Western counter-
parts is discussed in Stanislas Dehaene in The Number Sense: How
the Mind Creates Mathematics (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1997)-
Graham Robb, The Discovery of France (New York: W. W. Norton,
2007).
The surprisingly secure and leisurely life of the !Kung is detailed in
chapter 4 of Man the Hunter, ed. Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore,
with help from Jill Nash-Mitchell (New York: Aldine, 1968).
The working year of European peasantry was calculated by Antoine
Lavoisier and quoted by B. H. Slicher van Bath in The Agrarian His-
tory of Western Europe, A.D. 500-1850, trans. Olive Ordish (New
York: St. Martin’s, 1963) .
2 9 4

NOTES
Activities
Ploughing and sowing
Cereal harvest
Haymaking and carting
Threshing
Other work
Total 206
Days Percentage
12 5.8
130
28
24
12
100.0
63.1
13.6
11.7
5.8
The fatalism of Russian peasant proverbs is contrasted with the
self-reliance of Chinese ones by R. David Arkush in “If Man Works
Hard the Land Will Not Be Lazy—Entrepreneurial Values in North
Chinese Peasant Proverbs,” Modern China io, no. 4 (October 1984):
4 6 1 – 4 7 9 .
The correlation between students’ national average scores in TIMSS
and their persistence in answering the student survey attached to
the test has been evaluated in “Predictors of National Differences
in Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth Grade Students:
Data from TIMSS for the Six-Nation Educational Research Program,”
by Erling E. Boe, Henry May, Gema Barkanic, and Robert F. Boruch
at the Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy, Graduate
School of Education, University of Pennsylvania. It was revised Feb­
ruary 28, 2002. The graph showing the results can be seen on page 9.
Results of the TIMSS tests throughout the years can be found on
the National Center for Education Statistics Web site, http://nces
.ed.gov/timss/.
Priscilla Blinco’s study is entitled “Task Persistence in Japanese Ele­
mentary Schools” and can be found in Edward Beauchamp, ed., Win­
dows on Japanese Education (New York: Greenwood Press, 1 9 9 1 ) .
An article in the New York Times Magazine by Paul Tough, “What It
Takes to Make a Student” (November 26, 2006) , examines the impact
of the government’s No Child Left Behind policy, the reasons for the
education gap, and the impact of charter schools such as KIPP.
Kenneth M. Gold, School’s In: The History of Summer Education in
American Public Schools (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), is an unex­
pectedly fascinating account of the roots of the American school year.
N I N E : MARITA’S BARGAIN
2 9 5

http://nces

http://ed.gov/timss/

NOTES
Karl L. Alexander, Doris R. Entwisle, and Linda S. Olson’s study on
the impact of summer vacation is called “Schools, Achievement, and
Inequality: A Seasonal Perspective,” published in Education Evalua­
tion and Policy Analysis 23 , no. 2 (Summer 2001): 1 7 1 – 1 9 1 .
Much of the cross-national data comes from Michael J. Barrett’s “The
Case for More School Days,” published in the Atlantic Monthly in
November 1990 , p. 78.
E P I L O G U E : A JAMAICAN STORY
William M. MacMillan details how his fears came to pass in the
preface to the second edition of Warning from the West Indies: A Tract
for Africa and the Empire (U.K.: Penguin Books, 1938).
The sexual exploits and horrific punishments of Jamaica’s white rul­
ing class are detailed by Trevor Burnard in Mastery, Tyranny and
Desire: Thomas Thistlewood and His Slaves in the Anglo-Jamaican
World (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
The intermediary color class in the West Indies, not seen in the Ameri­
can South, is described by Donald L. Horowitz in “Color Differentia­
tion in the American Systems of Slavery,” Journal of Interdisciplinary
History 3 , no.3 (Winter 1973): 5 0 9 – 5 4 1 .
Population and employment statistics among the different-colored
classes in 1950s Jamaica are taken from Leonard Broom’s essay “The
Social Differentiation of Jamaica,” American Sociological Review 19 ,
no. 2 (April 1954): 1 1 5 – 1 2 5 .
Divisions of color within families are explored by Fernando Hen-
riques in “Colour Values in Jamaican Society,” British Journal of Soci­
ology 2 , no. 2 (June 1951 ) : 1 1 5 – 1 2 1 .
Joyce Gladwell’s experiences as a black woman in the UK are from
Brown Face, Big Master (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969). It is a
wonderful book. I recommend it highly—although, as you can imag­
ine, I could be a bit biased.
2 9 6

Acknowledgments
I’m happy to say that Outliers conforms to its own thesis.
It was very much a collective effort. I was inspired, as I
seem to always be, by the work of Richard Nisbett. It was
reading the Culture of Honor that set in motion a lot of
the thinking that led to this book. Thank you, Professor
Nisbett.
As always, I prevailed upon my friends to critique
various drafts of the manuscript. Happily, they complied,
and Outliers is infinitely better as a result. Many thanks
to Jacob Weisberg, Terry Martin, Robert McCrum, Sarah
Lyall, Charles Randolph, Tali Farhadian, Zoe Rosenfeld,
and Bruce Headlam. Stacey Kalish and Sarah Kessler did
yeoman’s work in research and fact-checking. Suzy Han­
sen performed her usual editorial magic. David Remnick
graciously gave me time off from my duties at The New
Yorker to complete this book. Thank you, as always,
David. Henry Finder, my editor at The New Yorker, saved

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
me from myself and reminded me how to think, as he
always does. I have worked with Henry for so long that I
now have what I like to call the “internal Finder,” which
is a self-correcting voice inside my head that gives me the
benefit of Henry’s wisdom even when he is not there. Both
Finders—internal and external—were invaluable.
Bill Phillips and I have been two for two so far, and
I’m very grateful I was able to enlist his Midas touch
once more. Thank you, Bill. Here’s hoping we go three for
three. Will Goodlad and Stefan McGrath at Penguin in
England, and Michael Pietsch and—especially—Geoff
Shandler at Little, Brown saw this manuscript through,
from start to finish. Thanks to the rest of the team at
Little, Brown as well: Heather Fain and Heather Rizzo
and Junie Dahn. My fellow Canadian Pamela Marshall is
a word wizard. I cannot imagine publishing a book with­
out her.
Two final words of appreciation. Tina Bennett, my
agent, has been with me from the very beginning. She is
insightful and thoughtful and encouraging and unfail­
ingly wise, and when I think of what she has done for me,
I feel as lucky as a hockey player born on January i.
I owe thanks most of all, though, to my parents,
Graham and Joyce. This is a book about the meaning of
work, and I learned that work can be meaningful from
my father. Everything he does—from his most com­
plex academic mathematics to digging in the garden—he
tackles with joy and resolve and enthusiasm. My earliest
memories of my father are of seeing him work at his desk
and realizing that he was happy. I did not know it then,
but that was one of the most precious gifts a father can
2 9 8

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
give his child. My mother, for her part, taught me how to
express myself; she taught me that there is beauty in say­
ing something clearly and simply. She read every word
of this book and tried to hold me to that standard. My
grandmother Daisy, to whom Outliers is dedicated, gave
my mother the gift of opportunity. My mother has done
the same for me.
2 9 9

Index
Accidental Millionaire (Butcher), 66
“accumulative advantage,” 3 0 – 3 1
“achievement gap,” 256
affirmative action, 84, 89
age: relative, and suicide, 2911
See also birth dates
Air Florida crash, 1 9 5 – 9 7 , 2 I ^ –
See also plane crashes
Air France, 181
Albion’s Seed (Fischer), 168
Alexander, Karl, 2 5 5 – 5 6 , 259
Alger, Horatio, 18
Allen, Paul, 5 3 , 65
Altair 8800 (personal computer),
6 3 – 6 4
Alteon training programs, 2 1 8
Alvarez, Luis, 90
ambiguity, toleration of, 2 0 3 , 204
American Lawyer magazine,
1 2 5
American Prometheus (Bird and
Sherwin), 9 8 – 9 9 , 109
Appalachia, 1 6 1 – 6 2 , 1 6 5 – 6 7 , i 69n
speech patterns, i 7 5 n
Apple Computer, 65
Arkush, David, 2 3 7
Arps, Leslie, 1 1 8
Asian Americans: Achievement
Beyond IQ (Flynn), 23 m
Asian “persistence,” 249n. See also
mathematics
ASR-33 Teletype, 5 1 , 52
AT&T (American Telephone and
Telegraph), 36
athletic success, birth date and,
29n, 2 6 7
Auchincloss, Louis, i 2 5 n
Auerbach, Jerold, 1 3 2
Avianca crash, 1 8 5 – 8 9 , 1 9 2 ,
1 9 8 – 2 0 2 , 2 0 6 – 9 , 2 I 2 – See also
plane crashes
baby boomers, 1 3 7 . See also birth
dates
Baker-Howard feud, 165
Ballmer, Steve, 6 5 – 6 6
Bangor, Pennsylvania, 4 – 5 , 8 – 9
Barnsley, Paula, 2 2
Barnsley, Roger, 2 1 – 2 3 , 2 5 > 2 9 n
baseball, 26
basketball, 2 5 – 2 6 , 80
Beatles, the, 4 7 – 5 0 , 55 , 1 5 0 , 2 3 9 , 2 6 7
Bechtolsheim, Andy, 68
Bedard, Kelly, 28 , 29
Belgium, 204 , 2 0 5 , 2 8 8 n
Berlin Academy of Music, 38
Best, Pete, 49
Bias in Mental Testing (Jensen), 79n
Bickel, Alexander, 1 2 1 – 2 3
Bird, Kai, 9 8 , 99 , 109
birth dates: cutoff dates, 2 4 – 3 0 , 3 4 ,
4 1 ; disregard of importance
of. 33
demographic trough, 1 3 4 , 1 3 7 ,
1 3 8 , 1 5 6
and opportunity, 3 0 – 3 2 , 6 2 – 6 8 ,
1 3 7 , 2 7 2 ; “Termites” group,
1 3 1 – 3 2

I N D E X
birth dates (cont.)
perfect, 6 5 – 6 8 , 1 5 6 – 5 7
of richest people, 6 1 – 6 3 , 6 5 – 6 8
of sports figures, 2 2 – 2 6 , 3 0 ,
3 1 – 3 2 ; and athletic success,
2911, 266
and success, 1 3 1 – 3 9 , 1 5 6
birthrates, 1 3 3 – 3 5
Blackett, Patrick, 9 7 – 9 8
Blinco, Priscilla, 2 4 9 n
Bliznak, Mario, 1 6
Bloomingdale brothers, 1 4 6
Boe, Erling, 2 4 8 – 5 0
Boeing Company, 2 1 8 , 2 2 0 – 2 1
Bolivia, wealth in, 58
Bonneville Power station, 53
Borgenicht, Louis and Regina,
1 3 9 – 5 1 , 1 5 4
Brazil, PDI in, 209
Bray, Francesca, 233
Brenner, Malcolm, 2 1 0 – 1 2
Brill, Steven, 1 2 5
Brindle, Katie, 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 , 2 5 8 – 5 9
Brown Face, Big Master (Gladwell),
283
Bruhn, John, 7, 9, 10
Brunei, wealth in, 58
Buffett, Warren, 56
Bush, George H. W., 1 1 9
Bush, Jeb (John Ellis), 18
Business Roundtable, 1 2 7
Byzantine Empire, wealth in, 57
California Achievement Test,
2 5 5 – 5 8
Campbell, Gordon, 15
Campbell, J . K., 1 6 7
Canadian Hockey League, 1 5 – 1 7 ,
4 1 , 268
Caplan, Lincoln, 1 2 6
Carnegie, Andrew, 64
Carnegie Hall concerts, 1 5 3 , 1 5 4
Carter, Hodding, 1 6 9
Caudill, Harry, 165
Cavaliers, the, i68n
Caviedes, Laureano, 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 ,
1 9 2 – 9 3 , 1 9 8 – 2 0 0 , 208
Cawood family, 163
Chance, Mr. (Chinese merchant in
Jamaica), 2 7 5 – 7 6 , 2 8 1 , 285
Chicago Bulls (basketball team),
1 2 2
China: counting system in,
2 2 7 – 3 0
and math scores, 248n , 249n
rice cultivation in, 2 2 4 – 2 7 , 2 3 2 – 3 3 ,
235″39> 254
wealth in, 58, 61
Chomsky, Noam, 1 1 3
City College (New York), 1 1 7 , 1 2 1 ,
1 3 6 , 1 5 7
Claflin, H. B., and Company, 145
Clinton, Bill, 1 1 9
clothing trade. See garment
industry
Cohen, Dov, 1 7 0 – 7 1 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 4 , 204
Colombia, PDI in, 2 0 6 – 7 , 209
color prejudice, 2 8 2 – 8 4
Commonwealth Foundation, 74
communication: cultural
miscommunication, 1 0 0 – 1 0 1 ;
in plane crashes, 1 8 4 , 1 8 8 – 8 9 ,
1 9 2 – 2 0 2 , 2 0 7 – 9 , 2 I 6 > 2 2 1 – 2 2
mitigated speech, 1 9 4 – 2 0 0 , 207,
2 1 3 – 1 6
Power Distance Index (PDI) and,
2 0 4 – 9 , 2 1 6 – 1 7
speech patterns, Appalachian,
i 7 5 n
Western, transmitter orientation
in, 2 1 6
community, sense of. See cultural
legacy
Computer Center Corporation
(C-Cubed), 5 2 , 54, 55, 65
computer programming, 37, 4 3 – 4 7 ,
5 0 – 5 5 , 67, 1 4 4
concerted cultivation, 1 0 4 – 8 , 1 1 2 ,
2 5 7
convergence test, 8 6 – 8 7 , $9
3 0 2

I N D E X
Corcoran, Frank, 2 6 2 – 6 3
Cowell, Henry, 7 3 , 76
Cox Broadcasting Inc., 1 3 0
Cravath, Paul, 1 2 4
Cravath, Swaine and Moore, 1 2 4 ,
1 2 7
criminality, Southern pattern of,
1 6 8 – 7 0
cultural legacy, 1 9 – 2 0
of British immigrants, i 6 8 – 6 9 n
community and, 9 – 1 0 , 1 1 2 – 1 3 ,
2 0 4 , 2 6 6
cultural advantages/disadvantages,
1 0 8 – 1 0 , 1 1 4 – 1 5 , 1 2 0
and cultures of honor, 1 6 6 – 7 5
differences between cultures,
2 0 2 – 9 (see a l s o communication)
and emphasis on hard work,
2 4 7 – 4 8 , 2 6 0
family background, 9 1 – 9 2 ,
1 0 3 – 1 2 , 1 1 6 – 1 7 , 1 3 1 – 3 2 , 2 8 0 – 8 1 ;
color prejudice, 2 8 2 – 8 4 ;
extended family, 9 – 1 0
importance of, 1 0 , 1 9 , 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 ,
2 1 9 , 2 3 1 – 3 2 , 2 5 2 , 2 7 2 ; result of
ignoring, 2 2 1
in Jamaica, 2 7 8 – 8 1
Korean, 266 , 268; and Korean
language, 2 1 4 – 1 9
nationality and behavior,
2 0 0 – 2 0 9
parenting philosophies, 1 0 2 – 8 ,
1 3 1 , 258
peasant culture, 9, 1 4 2 , 2 3 4 – 3 6 ,
249; Russian vs. Chinese,
2 3 7 – 3 8 ; working year, 2 9 3 n
Power Distance Index (PDI),
2 0 4 – 5 ; and pilot behavior,
2 0 6 – 9 , 2 I 6 – i 7 , 266
retraining for success, 2 2 0
Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede),
205
Cumberland Plateau, 1 6 1 – 6 2 ,
1 6 5 , 2 4 7
cutoff dates. See birth dates
Czech junior hockey team, 3 1 – 3 2 , 4 1
Czechoslovakian National Junior
soccer team, 2 6 – 2 7 , 3 1 » 4 1
Dae-jung, Kim, 1 8 2
Daily Gleaner (Jamaican
newspaper), 2 7 9
Days of Darkness (Pearce), 165
Dehaene, Stanislas, 2 2 8
Delta Air Lines, 1 8 1 , 2 1 4 , 2 1 8
demographic trough. See birth
dates
de Nisco, Father Pasquale, 5
Denmark, 29 , 204
den Uyl, Joop, 205
Dhuey, Elizabeth, 2 8 – 3 0
differentiated experience, 25
Discovery of France, The (Robb),
234
divergence test, 8 6 – 8 8
ecology, 1 9 – 2 0
Egypt, ancient, wealth in, 57
Einstein, Albert, 80
England: math scores in, 23 m
wealth and sources of wealth in,
57» S»
English language, 2 1 8 – 1 9
entitlement, 1 0 5 – 6 , 1 0 8 , n o
environment. See cultural legacy
Ericsson, K. Anders, 3 8 – 3 9 , 4 1
Ethical Culture School, 1 0 8 , 109
family background. See cultural
legacy
Farkas, Louise, 1 5 1 – 5 3
Federal Aviation Authority, 1 8 1
Feinberg, Michael, 2 5 2
feuds, 1 6 3 – 6 8
Fire That Changed America, The
(Von Drehle), 15 m
Fischer, Bobby, 4 1
Fischer, David Hackett, 1 6 8 ,
I75n
Fischer, Ute, 1 9 4 – 9 5
3 0 3

I N D E X
Flom, Joe, 1 1 6 – 1 7 , 1 2 1 , 1 4 2 , 239
disadvantages facing, 1 2 0 , 1 2 3
success of, 1 1 8 – 2 0 , 1 2 6 – 2 8 , i 2 9 n ,
1 3 1 , 1 5 4 – 5 5 , 1 5 8 , 284; timing
and, 1 3 8 , 2 6 7
flu epidemic ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 1 3 8 – 3 9
Flynn, James, 23 m, 2 4 9 n
football, 2 5 – 2 6
Forbes magazine, 56
Ford, John and William, and Ford
family, 2 7 6 , 2 7 8 , 2 8 0 – 8 1 , 285
France, 57, 2 0 5 ~ 6 n , 2 3 4 – 3 5
math scores in, 2 3 m , 238
Franklin, Benjamin, 19
French-Eversole feud, 165
Friedman, Ted, 1 3 5 – 3 7 , : 5 3
Fuson, Karen, 2 2 9 – 3 0
Garfinkel, Barry, 1 5 4
garment industry, 1 4 0 – 4 1 , 1 4 2 – 4 9 ,
151» 1 5 3 – 5 4
Gates, Bill, 37 , 6 3 , 1 5 0 , 239
birth date of, 65 , 267 , 268
opportunities for, 5 0 – 5 5 , 66, 1 2 8 ,
2 6 8 , 2 8 4 – 8 5
Gelernter, David, 3 7
Genetic Studies of Genius (Terman),
7 5 , 9 °
genius, 7 6 , 90 . See also “Termites”
Genius Explained (Howe), 40
Germany, 57, 58 , 60 , 2 0 5 ~ 6 n , 2 3 m
Gershwin, George, 1 1 7
gifted group, 2 8 – 2 9 , 3^» 75—76, 90 .
See also IQ; “Termites”
Gladwell, Graham, 2 7 1 – 7 2
Gladwell, Joyce Nation, 2 7 0 – 7 6 ,
glorious misconception, 2 4 1 – 4 2
Gold, Kenneth, 253
Google, 67, 75
Gordon, H. Scott, 1 3 4
Great Depression, the, 1 1 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 0 ,
i 3 * – 3 5 > 1 3 9
Greenberg, David, 2 1 8 – 2 0
“grinds,” 39
Groves, General Leslie, 98 , 9 9 – 1 0 0
Guatemala, 2 0 3 , 204
Haar, Charles, 1 1 7
Happiest Man, The (Borgenicht),
i 49n
Harlan, Kentucky, and Harlan
County, 1 6 1 – 6 4 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 1 ,
1 7 4
impact of coal mining on, 292n
Harrison, George, 47
Harvard Law Review, 1 1 8
Harvard University, 83 , 84n, 89,
9 5 – 9 7
Law School, 1 1 7 , 1 2 1
Hatfield-McCoy feud, 165
Hay, Archdeacon, 2 7 1 , 274
Hay, Don, 1 6
Helm, Darren, 1 6
Helmreich, Robert, 2 0 6 – 7 , 2 0 9
Henriques, Fernando, 282
Hewlett, Bill, and Hewlett-Packard
Company, 66
hockey, 1 5 – 1 7 , 26n
birth dates of players, 2 0 – 2 5 ,
3 0 – 3 2 , 34
Hoeflin, Ronald K., 7 m
Hofstede, Geert, and Hofstede’s
Dimensions, 2 0 2 – 6 , 2 2 0
Hollingworth, Leta Stetter, 7 2 n
Holy Cross, 83n, 89
Hong Kong, math scores in, 23 m,
2 4 8 , 2 4 9
hostile corporate takeovers, 1 2 4 – 2 9 ,
155
Howard-Turner feud, 1 6 2 – 6 4 , 1 6 5 ,
1 7 3
Howe, Gordie, 1 6
Howe, Michael, 40
Hudson, Liam, 80, 84, 8 7 – 8 8
human hibernation, 2 3 5 , 238
hunter-gatherers, 2 3 3 – 3 4
Hyderabad, wealth in, 56
3 0 4

I N D E X
IBM (International Business
Machines), 64
immigrants: British, i 6 8 – 6 9 n
Chinese, math scores of, làjn
Irish, 1 4 2 , 148
Italian, 1 4 2 , 1 4 8 ; from Roseto,
4 – 1 0
Jewish, 1 2 9 , 1 4 2 – 5 4 , 1 5 7
Mexican, 1 4 8 – 4 9
Scotch-Irish, in Kentucky, 1 6 2 , 167
India, wealth in, 59, 61
individualism-collectivism scale, 203
individual merit, 1 7 , 3 3 , 3 7
industrial accidents, i83n . See also
plane crashes
intelligence: analytical, 1 0 1 – 2
practical, see social knowledge
See also IQ
Internet, the, 3 6 – 3 7 , 67
IQ: Asian, 2 3 1
family background vs., 1 1 1 – 1 2
heritability of, I02n
success related to, 7 9 – 8 0
Terman’s study of, see Terman,
Lewis; “Termites”
threshold of, 80, 83 , 88; threshold
effect, 8 4 – 8 6
unimportance of level of, 79n, 89
IQ tests, 7 0 – 8 0 , 84, 90, 101
divergence test vs., 86-88
Raven’s Progressive Matrices,
7 7 – 7 9 , 86
Stanford-Binet, 73
Ireland, 58, 275
Irish immigrants, 1 4 2 , 148
ISI (Information Sciences Inc.), 5 2 ,
53» 54» 65
Italian immigrants, 4 – 1 0 , 1 4 2 , 148
Jamaica, 204 , 2 7 0 – 8 2
Chinese population, 2 7 5 – 7 6
“color game” played in, 2 8 2 – 8 3
educational system, 2 7 2 ;
scholarships, 2 7 3 – 7 5
professional population
categorized, 2 7 9 – 8 0
slavery in, 2 7 6 – 7 8 , 2 8 0 – 8 2 , 285;
abolished, 275
Janklow, Maurice and Mort, 1 2 0 ,
1 2 9 – 3 3 » 1 3 7 – 3 9 » 1 4 2
Janklow and Nesbit (literary
agency), i 3on
Japan: children solving puzzles, 2 4 8 ,
2 4 9 ”
counting system and math, 2 2 9 ,
2 3 0 , 2 4 9 n
length of school year, 260
rice farming, 2 3 2 , 2 3 6
wealth in, 60
Jarvis, Edward, 253
Java (computer language), 3 7
Jensen, Arthur, 79n
Jewish immigrants, 1 1 6 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 ,
1 2 9 , 1 3 5 , 1 4 2 – 5 4 , 1 5 7
Jewish lawyers, 1 2 5 – 2 8 , 1 3 2 – 3 3 ,
1 5 6 – 5 8
Jobs, Steve, 6 5 – 6 7
Jordan, Michael, 80, 1 2 2
Joy, Bill, 3 5 – 3 7 , 4 2 – 4 3 , 6 3 , 1 2 8 , 239
birth date, 6 7 – 6 8
opportunities for, 4 5 – 4 7 , 5 1 , 55, 285
Kalahari Desert, 233
Katz, George, 1 5 7 – 5 8 , 268
Khosla, Vinod, 68
kindergarten, 1 6 , 28 , 29
KIPP schools, 2 5 0 – 5 2 , 2 6 0 – 6 9
Klotz, Mauricio, 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 – 8 9 ,
1 9 2 – 9 4 , 1 9 8 – 9 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 7 – 8
Kmart takeover case, 1 5 5 . See also
hostile corporate takeovers
knowledge, social. See social
knowledge
Korea, 225
counting system in, 2 2 9 , 2 3 0
Korean Airlines (KAL), later
Korean Air, 1 7 7 – 8 2 , 1 8 5 ,
2 1 0 – 2 3 ,
3 0 5

I N D E X
Korean language, 2 1 4 – 1 5 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 9
Kramer, Morris, 1 1 8
Kreisky, Bruno, 205
!Kung bushmen, 2 3 3 – 3 4 , 238
Langan, Christopher, 7 7 , 7 8 , 1 1 3 – 1 5 ,
2 6 7
cultural legacy of, 9 1 – 9 3 ; lack
of social skills, 9 4 – 9 7 , 98 ,
1 0 0 – 1 0 1 , 1 0 8 , n o
intelligence of, 7 0 – 7 2 , 90 , n o ,
1 1 4 ; IQ, 70 , 80; on TV show,
6 9 – 7 3 , 80
Langan, Jeff and Mark, 7 1 , 9 2 , 95 ,
n o
language. See communication
Lareau, Annette, 1 0 2 – 8 , 1 3 1 , 258
Lempert, Richard, 85
Lennon, John, 47, 49 , 55
Lethbridge Broncos (hockey
team), 2 1
Levantin, Lillian, 1 2 9 – 3 0
Levin, David, 2 5 2 , 2 6 0 – 6 1 , 264
Levitin, Daniel, 40
Lipton, Martin, 1 5 7 , 1 5 8 , 268
Lynn, Richard, 2 3 1
McCartney, Paul, 4 7 – 4 8 , 55
MacMillan, William M., 2 7 2 – 7 3 ,
2 7 6 , 2 8 1
McNealy, Scott, 68
Manhattan Project, 9 8 – 1 0 0
Mann, Horace, 253
Martin-Tblliver feud, 165
Massachusetts Teacher (journal), 253
mathematics: Asian advantage in,
2 3 9 , 2 5 9 – 6 0 ; number system,
2 2 7 – 3 1
KIPP Academy and, 2 5 1 – 5 2 ;
meaningful, 2 6 2
problem solving in, 2 4 4 ; attitude
toward, 2 4 5 ; Renee’s math
problem, 2 3 9 – 4 5 , 2 6 2
rankings in, predicted by TIMSS
results, 2 4 6 – 4 7
“Matthew Effect,” 39
maturity confused with ability, 29
Medicine Hat Tigers (hockey team),
1 5 – 1 6 , 2 0 – 2 4 , 34
Memorial Cup hockey
championships, 1 5 – 1 6 , 1 7 , 34
Merritt, Ashleigh, 209
Merton, Robert, 25n, 30
Mexican immigrants, 1 4 8 – 4 9
Mexico, 58
Microsoft, 37 , 50, 64, 65, 7 5 , 268
Mills, C. Wright, 6 3 n
minority students, 8 4 – 8 6 , 89
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), 99 , 2 4 7 n
mitigated speech. See
communication
Montana State University, 9 3 – 9 4 ,
96, 100
Morris, Errol, 70
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus,
4 0 – 4 1 , 42
Mudge Rose (law firm), 1 2 1 – 2 2 ,
1 2 5 , 1 5 7
mulattoes, 2 7 6 – 7 8
murder rate (southern US), 1 6 5 ,
1 6 8 – 7 0
Myhrvold, Nathan, 64
Nation, Donald, 2 7 0 – 7 1 , 2 7 4 – 7 5
Nation, Daisy Ford, 2 7 0 – 7 1 ,
2 7 3 – 7 6 , 2 7 8 , 2 8 0 – 8 1 , 2 8 3 , 285
Nation, Faith, 2 7 0 – 7 1 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 – 7 5
National Hockey League, 22
National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), 1 8 0 – 8 1 , 2 0 9 – 1 0
“naturals,” 39
Nazareth, Pennsylvania, 9
New York City public schools, 1 3 5 ,
1 3 7 , 1 3 8 , 1 5 7 , 158
KIPP Academy, 2 5 0 – 5 2 , 2 6 0 – 6 9
New York State Regents, 263
New York University Law School,
1 5 7
Nisbett, Richard, 1 7 0 – 7 1 , 1 7 3 , 204
3 0 6

I N D E X
Nixon, Richard, 1 2 1
Nobel Prize, 8 0 – 8 3 , 8 9 – 9 0 , 98 , 1 1 7
No Child Left Behind policy, 295n
Normal Accidents (Perrow), i 83n
Norman, Philip, 48 , 50
Norton, John, 54
Novell Inc. (software firm), 67
numbers, Asian-Western differences
in, 2 2 7 – 3 1 . See also mathematics
Number Sense, The (Dehaene), 228
1 vs. 100 (TV show), 6 9 – 7 0 , 7 2 – 7 3 , 80
Ontario Junior Hockey League, 2 2
Oppenheimer, Robert, 9 7 – 1 0 0 , 1 0 1 ,
1 0 8 – 1 0 , 1 5 4 , 285
opportunity, 5 4 – 5 6 , 76 , 279
adversity turns into, 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 , i 29n
birth dates and, see birth dates
and relationship to work, 2 1 9 , 280
and success, 1 5 5 , 1 5 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 6 7 – 6 8
Orasanu, Judith, 1 9 4 – 9 5
outlier(s), 7
definition of, 3
factors producing, 285
genius and, 7 6 , 1 1 2
Joe Flom as, 1 2 0
opportunity and, 56, 7 6 , 1 2 4 (see
also opportunity)
significance overlooked, 7 7
parenting. See cultural legacy
Patterson, Orlando, 2 7 8 – 7 9
Paul Revere’s Ride (Fischer), i68n
PDI (Power Distance Index), 2 0 4 – 9 ,
2 1 6 – 1 7
Pearce, John Ed, 165
peasant culture. See cultural legacy
Pembroke, Bud, 53 , 54
Perrow, Charles, i83n
“persistence,” Asian vs. American,
2 4 9 n
plane crashes, 1 7 9 – 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 1 – 2 3
seven errors per accident, 184
Pomerantz, Kenneth, 2 3 7
Popular Electronics magazine, 63
Powell, Colin, 2 8 1
practice time, 4 7 – 5 0 , 5 4 – 5 5 , 1 2 8 , 239
10,000-hour rule, 3 9 – 4 2 , 4 4 , 47,
55, 1 2 8 , 1 4 4
Principia Mathematica
(Whitehead), 7 1
proxy fights, 1 2 5 – 2 7
Pulitzer Prize, 1 1 7
Puritans, the, i 68n
Quakers, the, i 69n
rags-to-riches stories, 1 1 9 , 1 2 0
Ratwatte, Suren, 1 8 7 , 189-91,
197-98, 201-2, 2 0 6 , 2 1 3
Ravitch, Diane, 135
Reed, John Shelton, 169
Reed College, 9 2 – 9 3 , 94 , 9 6 – 9 7 , 1 0 0
Revere, Paul, i68n
Rhodes Scholarships, 281
Rifkind, Robert, 1 2 7 , 129
riots in the Caribbean ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 2 7 3 ,
281, 285
Robb, Graham, 2 3 4
Rockefeller, John D., 64
Roman Republic, wealth in, 57
Rona, Monique, 52
Rosen, Leonard, 1 5 7 , 1 5 8 , 268
Roseto, Italy, and Roseto,
Pennsylvania, 3-10
Russell, Bertrand, 7 1
Russia, 56, 1 5 3 , 2 3 7
Saget, Bob, 7 0 , 7 3
Saint Hilda’s school (Jamaica), 2 7 1 ,
2 7 4 , 2 7 6
Salk, Jonas, 1 1 7
Santos, Goncalo, 2 2 7
Scarlet Letters, The (Auchincloss),
i 2 5 n
Schmidt, Eric, 67
Schoenfeld, Alan, 2 3 9 – 4 6
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 4 2 ,
7 1 , 7 5 , 8 4 n
Schonberg, Harold, 4 1
3 0 7

I N D E X
school year, length of, 260
summer vacation, 2 5 5 – 6 0 , 266;
achievement gap, 2 5 7
Schwartz, Barry, 8 3 – 8 4
Scotland, 56
selection, 25
maturity differences and, 29
self-fulfilling prophecy, 25n
Sexsmith, Tyson, 1 6
Sherwin, Martin, 98 , 99 , 109
Shockley, William, 90
Shout! (Norman), 48
Silicon Valley, 37 , 6 3 , 66, 67, 68, 1 4 4
Singapore, 2 2 5 , 2 3 m , 248
Skadden, Marshall, 1 1 8
Skadden (Caplan), 1 2 6
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and
Flom (law firm), 1 1 6 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 ,
1 2 7 – 2 8 , 1 5 4 – 5 5
Slate, John, 1 1 8
slavery. See Jamaica
Slim, Carlos, 56
Smigel, Erwin, 1 2 3
Smith, “Bad Tom,” 165
soccer, birth dates and, 2 6 – 2 7 , 3 1 » 4 1
social heritance, I75n
social knowledge, 1 0 1 – 2 , 1 4 8 , i 53n
Langan’s lack of, 9 4 – 9 7 , 98 ,
1 0 0 – 1 0 1 , 1 0 8 , n o
See also communication
social structure (community). See
cultural legacy
Sohn, Ho-min, 2 1 5 , 2 1 7
Sorokin, Pitirim, 90
South Africa, black population in, 272
southern US: murder rate, 1 6 5 ,
1 6 8 – 7 0
and “southernness,” i 7 4 ~ 7 5 n
South Korea, 1 8 0 – 8 2 , 209 , 260
math scores in, 2 3 0 , 248
Soyer, Daniel, 1 4 7 , 1 4 9
speech patterns, i 7 5 n . See also
communication
Stanford-Binet test, 7 3 . See also IQ
tests
Starr, Ringo, 47
Steinberg, Stephen, 145
Sternberg, Robert, 101
streaming, 25
success: “accumulative advantage”
a n d , 3 0 – 3 1
athletic, 29n, 267
disregard of lessons of, 268
factors contributing to, 1 1 9 ,
1 7 5 – 7 6 , 2 4 5 , 285 {see also birth
dates)
individual merit and, 1 7 , 3 3 , 37
IQ and, 7 9 – 8 0
opportunity and, 1 5 5 , 1 5 8 , 2 1 9 ,
2 6 7 – 6 8
predictability of, 1 5 5 – 5 6 , 267
retraining for, 220
suicide, age and, 29n
summer vacation. See school year,
length of
Sun Microsystems, 37 , 68
Supreme Court, US, 85, 1 1 7 , 1 2 2 , 2 7 7
Sweden, 60
Taiwan, 2 2 5 , 2 3 m , 2 4 8 , 249n
talent, innate, 38 , 4 1 , 4 3 , 55, 76 , 268
10,000-hour rule. See practice time
Terman, Lewis, 7 3 – 7 7 , 8 9 – 9 0 ,
1 1 1 – 1 2 , 1 3 1
“Termites,” 7 4 – 7 5 , 76 , 89, 1 1 1 – 1 3 ,
1 1 9 , 1 3 1 – 3 2
Thistlewood, William, 282
Thompson, A. H., 2 2
Three Mile Island, i 83n
threshold effect. See IQ
time. See practice time; work time
time-sharing, 4 4 – 4 6 , 5 1 – 5 5 , 66
TIMSS (Trends in International
Mathematics and Science
Study), 28 , 2 4 7 – 4 9
Tipping Point, The (Gladwell), i68n
Townsend Harris public high
school, 1 1 7
TRW (technology company), 53 ,
54, 55
3 0 8

I N D E X
Turner-Howard feud, 1 6 2 – 6 4 , 165
20/20 (TV news show), 70
uncertainty avoidance, 203
United Airlines, 180
United States: children solving
puzzles, 249n
counting system in, 2 2 9
individualism of, 203
math scores in, 2 3 m
power distance culture of, 2 0 6
public school system in, 2 5 2 – 5 3 ;
and summer vacation, 2 5 4 – 6 0 ,
266
wealth and sources of wealth in,
5 6 – 6 1
University of Michigan, 1 3 6 , 1 7 0 – 7 1
Computer Center, 3 5 – 3 6 , 4 4 – 4 7 ,
64
Law School, 8 4 – 8 6 , 89
University of Washington, 5 2 – 5 3 , 54
U N I X (software system), 36 , 46
Vancouver Giants (hockey team),
1 5 – 1 6 , 2 3 – 2 4
Von Drehle, David, 15 m
VOR beacon, 2 1 1 – 1 2 , 2 2 1
Wachtell, Herbert, 1 5 6 , 1 5 8 , 2 6 7
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
(law firm), 1 5 6 , 2 6 7 – 6 8
Wald, Eli, i 2 9 n
Wall Street Lawyer, The (Smigel),
Warning from the West Indies
(Macmillan), 2 7 3
Wasden, Gord and Scott, 34
wealth and sources of wealth
(worldwide), 5 6 – 6 1
Weener, Earl, 185
Whitehead, Alfred North, 7 1
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (TV
show), 69
Williams, Alex, 1 0 5 – 8 , 1 5 1 , 2 5 8 – 5 9
Winthrop, Robert, 19
Wolf, Stewart, 5 – 1 1
work: belief in, 239
cultural emphasis on, 2 4 8 – 4 9 ,
2 6 0
meaningful, 1 5 0 – 5 1 , 1 5 6 , 2 3 6 – 3 9 ,
2 4 8 – 4 9 , 2 6 9 , 280
satisfying, qualities necessary for,
1 4 9 – 5 0
work time, 2 3 5 – 3 6 , 2 3 9 , 249
garment industry work week, 1 5 m
opportunity to change
relationship to, 2 1 9 , 280
peasants’ working year, 2 9 4 n ~ 9 5 n
school summer vacation, 2 5 4 – 6 0 ,
266
World War I, 1 3 9
World War II, 1 3 1 – 3 2 , 1 3 9
3 0 9

MALCOLM GLADWELL is the author of the #i
international bestsellers The Tipping Point and
Blink. He is a staff writer for The New Yorker and
was formerly a business and science reporter at the
Washington Post.
For more information about Malcolm Gladwell,
visit his Web site at www.gladwell.com.

http://www.gladwell.com

Cover
Title page
Copyright page
Dedication
Contents
Introduction: The Roseto Mystery [3]
1
2
Part One: Opportunity [13]
1 The Matthew Effect [15]
1
2
3
4
5
6
2 The 10,000-Hour Rule [35]
1
2
3
4
5
6
3 The Trouble with Geniuses, Part 1 [69]
1
2
3
4
5
4 The Trouble with Geniuses, Part 2 [91]
1
2
3
4
5
6
5 The Three Lessons of Joe Flom [116]
1
2
3 Lesson Number One: The Importance of Being Jewish
4
5 Lesson Number Two: Demographic Luck
6
7
8 Lesson Number Three: The Garment Industry and Meaningful Work
9
10
11
12

Part Two: Legacy [159]
6 Harlan, Kentucky [161]
1
2
3
4
7 The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes [177]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
8 Rice Paddies and Math Tests [224]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9 Marita’s Bargain [250]
1
2
3
4
5
6

Epilogue: A Jamaican Story [270]
1
2
3
4
Notes [287]
Introduction: The Roseto Mystery
Part One: Opportunity
1 The Matthew Effect
2 The 10,000-Hour Rule
3 The Trouble with Geniuses, Part 1
4 The Trouble with Geniuses, Part 2
5 The Three Lessons of Joe Flom
Part Two: Legacy
6 Harlan, Kentucky
7 The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes
8 Rice Paddies and Math Tests
9 Marita’s Bargain
Epilogue: A Jamaican Story
Acknowledgments [297]
Index [301]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Week 4 Assignment Handout: Statistical Evaluations

Select 2 of the 4 data sets/reports below, evaluate the information, and answer the questions on this worksheet. Note:
After completing this document, save it to your computer. You will submit the completed document for the Unit 4 Application Assignment.

Week 4 Assignment Handout: Statistical Evaluations

Select 2 of the 4 data sets/reports below, evaluate the information, and answer the questions on this worksheet. Note:
After completing this document, save it to your computer. You will submit the completed document for the Unit 4 Application Assignment.

SECTION 1: To complete the questions in this section, download the Death in the United States, 2010 document in the Week 4 resources.

Using basic statistical terms and definitions, explain why a comparison of variance over a 10-year period has more validity than a comparison of a year-to-year basis.

Read the “Data source and methods” section on page 6 of the Death in the United States, 2010 document. Explain how collecting data in the method described may skew the data one way or another—that is, make it less accurate than the real life it purports to reflect.

Their death rates were based on population estimates, 98 percent came from medical files and about 100 percent were from demographic files. It’s inflated to better estimate their final numbers using independent record tallies as control factors.

From the percentage of deaths within an age group indicated in the pie charts on page 4 in the Death in the United States, 2010 document, are you more likely to die from cancer or heart disease if you are in the 45–64 age group or in the 65 or older age group? Explain your answer. Interpret why this is so.

From the chart looks like the age of 65 and over has a higher percentage of heart disease 27 percent whereas the age group 45-64 only had 21 percent. On the flip side age group 45-64 had a higher cancer percentage 32 percents and 65 and older was 22%.

I guess cancer because of how long cigarettes have been violating our environment and most people that at any age I am guessing are smokers or can be a a matter of second hand smoke

.

Is there evidence to support the claim that while the infant mortality rate [IMR] had its single largest drop between 2009 and 2010, the rate of decrease in the IMR is slowing down in the two decades indicated in Figure 5? (See page 5 the Death in the United States, 2010 document.) Explain your answer.

Of course there were less infant deaths and noted a large increase in non Hispanic black males and females and Hispanic females. There were less death causes like heart disease, cancer and stroke to name a few.

Can you support the statement that the older you get the less likely you are to die suddenly or cause your own death? What data would you use to support this?

The older you get you are more likely to die of something, I have never heard of it before.

SECTION 2: To complete the questions in this section, download the Employment Projections and the Education, Job Openings, and Unemployment in Metropolitan America documents in the Week 4 resources. Examine the employment statistical data that show the more education you have the less unemployment occurs:

Which of the following scenarios makes the greatest difference in your yearly income and reducing your likelihood of being unemployed: 1) Going from an associate’s degree to a bachelor’s degree or 2) Going from a bachelor’s degree to a master’s degree? Explain your answer.

From what I read in the examples given it really depends on where you live at. What the demand calls for. For instance the example had given the cities that had a higher demand for a bachelors degree or higher, and the cities you can live where the demand may be different.

In what ways do these two studies support the adage “A rising tide lifts all boats” when it comes to education and unemployment?

When all is good every one will reap the benefits.

Just as the axiom that states, “old is 15 years older than you are,” being rich is a relative term. If you were a 20-year-old without a high school diploma, what academic path might you take to triple your weekly income? Where would be a good place to live once you complete your education? Explain your answers.

I would enroll in day classes at a local business school to assure I have some backening.If this were me, I would choose one of the top cities to live in for a person to launch their own business. My business of choice would be my own cleaning / make ready business. This is the fastest way for quick money, and besides people move everyday.

Using Table 1 on page 8 of Education, Job Openings, and Unemployment in Metropolitan America and the Employment Projections chart, predict a salary of a person who is a “Supervisor of Sales Workers.” Based on the level of education for the group, is it more or less likely for a supervisor of sales workers to be unemployed compared with a “Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioner”?

Less likely or more openings for Health Diagnosing than Supervisor, whom is more likely to be unemployed.

SECTION 3: The Economics of Sports

To answer the questions in this section, visit the Walden Library to read the following article:

· Baade, R. A., Baumann, R. W., & Matheson, V. A. (2011). Big men on campus: Estimating the economic impact of college sports on local economies. Regional Studies, 45(3), 371–380.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

In the article introduction, the authors give figures on the University of Minnesota’s new stadium that was built for the football team. “Although the precise line between what constitutes state and university funds is admittedly unclear when dealing with a public university, at least 55% of the new stadium was paid for with designated state funds (Baade, Baumann, & Matheson, 2011, p. 372). What is meant by the underlined phrase? Why can this not be determined precisely?

Explain why the authors used a non-sports–related event such as Hurricane Andrew to include in the comparisons of tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. Is this necessary? Is this an appropriate use of the data when focusing on the economic impact of sports in an area?

After analyzing tax revenues throughout the state in comparison with the local area during football and basketball games, the authors state the following in the conclusion:

The present regression analysis of taxable sales in Florida between 1980 to early 2007 fails to support these claims. Men’s basketball games at Florida State University and University of Florida were found to have no statistically significant impact on taxable sales in Tallahassee and Gainesville, respectively, and indeed, the coefficient on the variable was even negative in two of the four models (Baade et al., 2011, p. 372).

What is meant by “statistically significant impact?” Is there money to be made on sports teams in these college towns? Who makes the money?

You sit on a task force created to deal with an unemployment problem in these cities. Should the local community encourage the universities in these two towns to have more major sporting events as a strategy for growing the city economy? Why or why not?

SECTION 4: Prisoner Incarceration in the United States

To complete the questions in this section, download the Correctional Populations in the United States, 2011 document in the Week 4 resources.

Figure 1 on page 1 of the document indicates that the span of the data is an 11-year period, yet only 7 years are represented in the vertical column. Does this have an impact on the validity, accuracy, or ability to compare the data? Why or why not?

Based on appropriate use of statistical data, evaluate the following statements:

Based on incarceration rates, Guam is the safest U.S. Territory or commonwealth in which to reside. [Appendix Table 2, p. 8]

Based on the number of prisoners held by that branch of the service and those sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration, the Marine Corps has made significant strides in more lawful behavior while the Coast Guard has doubled the rate of serious criminal activity.

Using Table 3 and the narrative on page 4, evaluate the following statement:
Between 2010 and 2011, the judicial system moved closer to reducing the total expenditures on incarceration in this country.

Provide some interpretation of the following data. The US Census Bureau states the population in the United States in 1980 was ~228 million and in 2008 was ~304 million. Using the Table 1 graph, it is estimated that the “Total population under the supervision of adult correctional systems” was ~2 million in 1980 and ~7.3 million in 2008.

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc.
Page 1 of 4

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ July 2012

Death in the United States, 20

10

Arialdi M. Miniño, M.P.H., and Sherry L. Murphy, B.S.

Figure 1. Life expectancy at birth, by Hispanic origin, race for non-Hispanic, and sex:
United States, preliminary

2010

NOTE: Life expectancies for Hispanic origin are adjusted for underreporting of Hispanic ethnicity, but are not adjusted to account

All races and origins
Non-Hispanic white
Non-Hispanic black
Hispanic

Female
83.8

77.7
81.

1

81.1

Male
78.8

71.4
76.4
76.2

Both
sexes

81.

3

74.7

78.8
78.7

0 50 55 60 6

5

Years

70 75 80 85

Key findings

Data from the National
Vital Statistics System
(Mortality)

• Life expectancy at birth is
78.7 years. Hispanic females
have the longest life expectancy
(83.8 years) followed by non-
Hispanic white females (81.1
years).

• The largest decrease in
mortality between the years
2000 and 2010 occurred in the
age group under age 25 years
(15.8 percent), followed by
those aged 65 years and over
(13.3 percent).

• States in the southeast region
generally have higher death
rates than those in other regions
of the country.

• In 2010, the five leading
causes of death were: heart
disease, cancer, chronic lower
respiratory diseases, stroke,
and accidents. The ranking of
conditions varies according to
demographics such as age, sex,
and race.

• The infant mortality rate
reached a record-low level of
6.14 infant deaths per 1,000
live births in 2010.

U.S. DEP

Mortality in the United States is best summarized by the age-adjusted death
rate—a measure that accounts for changes in the age distribution of the
population. In 2010, the age-adjusted death rate for the United States was 746.2
per 100,000 population (1). This represents a 0.5 percent drop from the rate in
2009 (749.6). The highest mortality was observed for the non-Hispanic black
population (918.1) followed by the non-Hispanic white population (754.1).
Still, death rates for all race and ethnic groups have generally been decreasing
since 1950 (2). Much of the recent improvements in death rates and life
expectancy for all population groups can be attributed to ongoing reductions
in death rates from major causes of death such as heart disease, cancer, stroke,
and chronic lower respiratory diseases (3). The figures presented in this report
are based on preliminary mortality data for 2010 and final data for 2000–2009.

Keywords: mortality • National Vital Statistics System • life expectancy

How long can we expect to live?

U.S. life expectancy in 2010 was 78.7 years (or about 78 years and 8 months).
From 2009 to 2010, life expectancy increased 0.1 year (or slightly more than

ARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

for the potential effects of reverse migration.
SOURCE: National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ June 2012

1 month) for the general population (78.6 to 78.7 years), 0.2 year for males, and 0.2 year for
females (1).

Hispanic females have the longest life expectancy (83.8 years), followed by non-Hispanic white
females (81.1 years), Hispanic males (78.8 years), non-Hispanic black females (77.7 years),
non-Hispanic white males (76.4 years), and non-Hispanic black males (71.4 years) (Figure 1).
The life expectancy gap between the non-Hispanic white population and the non-Hispanic black
population declined 6.8 percent from 2009 to 2010 to 4.1 years. The difference in life expectancy
between the Hispanic population and the non-Hispanic white population was 2.5 years in 2010.
The difference between the Hispanic population and the non-Hispanic black population is 6.6
years (1).

Life expectancies for the Hispanic population shown in this report are adjusted for underreporting
of Hispanic ethnicity (4).

Which age groups experienced the greatest reductions in mortality over the
last decade?

Death rates for 2010 show decreases in mortality across virtually every age group when compared
with death rates for the year 2000. The largest reduction in mortality between 2000 and 2010
occurred in the age group under age 25 years (15.8 percent). The second largest decrease in
mortality occurred for those aged 65 years and over (13.3 percent) followed by the age group
25–44 years (10.8 percent). The smallest decrease in the death rate occurred for the age group
45–64 years (6.5 percent) (Figure 2).

■  2  ■

Figure 2. Age-specific death rates: United States, 2000 final and 2010 preliminary

1
10

100

10,000

72.1 60.7
153.2 136.6

647.6 605.7

5,143.60 4,461.10

2000

Under 25 25–44 45–64 65 and over

R
at

e
pe

r
10

0,
00

0
po

pu
la

tio
n

SOURCE: National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

Age in years

1,000

2010

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ June 2012

Do death rates vary by state?

States experience different risks of mortality. Hawaii has the lowest age-adjusted death rate
(589.6 deaths per 100,000 population) of all the states, 21.0 percent lower than the rate for the
United States (746.2). Mississippi had the highest age-adjusted death rate in 2010 (961.9), 28.9
percent higher than the U.S. rate.

In general, states in the southeast region have higher rates than those in other regions of the
country. Louisiana, for example, is typical of the region and has an age-adjusted death rate of
903.8 deaths per 100,000 population (1). States in other regions of the country, such as Illinois
in the Midwest (736.3 deaths per 100,000 population) and Oregon in the West (723.0 deaths per
100,000 population), have rates that are more comparable with the U.S. rate (Figure 3).

■  3  ■

Figure 3. Age-adjusted death rates per state and the District of Columbia: United States, preliminary 2010

SOURCE: National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

CA

AK

HI

766.9–835.9
840.0–

961.9

722.9–766.8
692.7–722.8
589.6–692.6

ID

WA

OR

NV

AZ

ND

SD

NE

TX

KS MO

IA

MN

IL IN

MS

FL

OH

MI

PA

MD

DE
NJ

CT RI
MA

ME

VT
NH

MT

WY

UT
CO

NM

WI

DC

NY

SC

NC

GA

VA

Overall rate in
the United States
is 746.2 deaths
per 100,000.

692.3

771.3

589.6

693.1

682.7

731.6

762.2

754.7

717.8795.4

74

9.0

704.6

723.0

715.1

703.2

778.8

646.8

772.3

701.0

736.3 820.6

721.7

661.4

961.9

81

9.5

665.4

804.7

815.7
76

6.0

854.6

741.5

719.0

846.1

764.2 722.0
653.5

769.9
691.2

792.4

749.8

72

8.5

690.4

718.7

675.0

AL
939.4

KY
914.9

WV
933.5

TN
890.8OK

914.6 AR
892.6

LA
903.8

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ June 2012

What are the leading causes of death?

In 2010, five major causes of death (heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases,
stroke, and accidents) accounted for 63 percent of all deaths in the United States (1). However,
this general profile of leading causes changes substantially based on a decedent’s age.

The five leading causes of death for those aged 1–24 years include external causes (i.e., accidents,
homicide, and suicide) followed by cancer and heart disease. This pattern (of external causes
accounting for more deaths than chronic conditions) shifts noticeably as age increases. In older
age groups, chronic conditions account for more deaths than do external causes of injury.

Accidents, for example, accounted for 38 percent of all deaths among persons aged 1–24 years.
Heart disease, on the other hand, accounted for only 3 percent of all deaths in this same age
group. For persons aged 65 years and over, heart disease is the leading cause of death, accounting
for 27 percent of all deaths in this age group, whereas accidents are not among the five leading
causes of death for those aged 65 years and over (Figure 4).

■  4  ■

Figure 4. Percent distribution of five leading causes of death, by age group: United States, preliminary 2010

SOURCE: National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

Aged 1–24 years
Number of deaths = 39,086

Aged 25–44 years
Number of deaths = 112,117

Unintentional
injuries (38%)
Homicide (13%)
Suicide (12%)
Cancer (7%)
Heart disease (3%)
All other causes
(25%)

All other causes (32%)

Unintentional
injuries (25%)

Homicide (6%)
Suicide (11%)

Cancer (14%)
Heart disease (12%)

All other causes
(32%)

Aged 45–64 years
Number of deaths = 493,376

Cancer (32%)
Heart disease (21%)
Unintentional
injuries (7%)
Chronic lower respi-
ratory diseases (4%)
Chronic liver disease
and cirrhosis (4%)

Aged 65 and over
Number of deaths = 1,796,620

Heart disease (27%)
Cancer (22%)

Alzheimer’s disease
(5%)
All other causes (

34

%)

Stroke (6%)

Chronic lower respi-
ratory diseases (7%)

38

1312
7

3

25 25

14

1211
6

32

32

2174
4

32 27

22
76

5
34

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ June 2012

What are the most recent trends in infant mortality?

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the ratio of infant deaths to live births in a given year. The IMR
is generally regarded as a good indicator of the overall health of a population. The preliminary
IMR for 2010 is 6.14 infant deaths per 1,000 live births (1). This is a historically low figure for
the United States. The IMR decreased 33.4 percent from 1990 to 2010 (Figure 5).

The decrease in infant mortality from 2009 to 2010 (1,3)—both in terms of the actual number
of infant deaths (1,864 fewer deaths) and in the rate (3.9 percent lower)—represents the largest
single-year drop since 1995 (Figure 5).

■  5  ■

Figure 5. Infant mortality rates: United States, 1990–2009 final and preliminary 2010

SOURCE: National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

2002 2004 2006 2008 20101990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

In
fa

nt
d

ea
th

s
pe

r
1,

00
0

liv
e

bi
rt

hs

0.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5
9.0
9.5

10.0

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ June 2012

Summary

Mortality in 2010 continued to decline among most groups defined by sex, age, and race and
Hispanic ethnicity (1,3,5). In 2010, the trend is one of increases in life expectancy at birth for
the population as a whole from 2009. The larger increases in life expectancy were observed for
non-Hispanic black males and females and for Hispanic females (1,3,5). Much of these increases
in life expectancy are attributed to reductions in the rates of death from the major causes of
death, namely heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases (1). Although
continuing declines in mortality have slowly reduced longstanding gaps in life expectancy,
differences in mortality across ethnic and racial groups persist (1,3,5). The 2010 infant mortality
rate of 6.14 infant deaths per 1,000 live births is a historically low figure for the United States,
and represents the largest single-year decrease in infant mortality in more than a decade.

Definitions

Cause-of-death classification: Medical information—including injury diagnoses and external
causes of injury—entered on death certificates filed in the United States is classified and coded
in accordance with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health
Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD–10) (6).

Death rates: Death rates are based on population estimates consistent with the April 1, 2010,
census. Death rates for 2009—whenever shown or discussed in this report—are also based
on populations revised to be consistent with the 2010 census. These population estimates are
available on the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) website (7). Age-adjusted death
rates are useful when comparing different populations because they remove the potential bias that
can occur when the populations being compared have different age structures. NCHS uses the
“direct” method of standardization. See the “Technical Notes” section of “Deaths: Preliminary
Data for 2010” (1) for more discussion.

Life expectancy: Data showing life expectancy for years 2008–2010 are based on a newly revised
methodology and may differ from figures previously published. Life expectancies for Hispanic
groups shown in this report are adjusted for underreporting of Hispanic ethnicity. See the
“Technical Notes” section of “Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2010” (1) for more discussion.

Infant mortality rate (IMR): This rate is computed by dividing the number of infant deaths in a
calendar year by the number of live births registered for that same period of time. The IMR is the
most widely used index for measuring the risk of dying during the first year of life.

Data source and methods

The figures shown in this report reflect information that is collected on death certificates
filed in each of the independent registration areas throughout the United States. Data in this
report (preliminary mortality data for 2010) are based on a large portion (almost 100 percent
of the demographic file and 98.7 percent of the medical file) of the statistical records that are
continuously received by NCHS from states’ vital registration systems. This portion of records is
inflated to better estimate final numbers using independent record tallies as control factors. Tallies
are provided by the states and registration areas.

■  6  ■

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ June 2012

Death rates are based on population estimates consistent with the April 1, 2010, census. Death
rates for 2009—whenever shown in this report—are also based on populations revised to be
consistent with the 2010 census and, thus, they may differ from rates previously published.

About the authors

Arialdi M. Miniño and Sherry L. Murphy are statisticians with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics.

References

1. Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD. Deaths: Preliminary data for 2010. National vital
statistics reports; vol 60 no 4. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2012.
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04 .

2. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2010. Table 24. Hyattsville, MD.
2011. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2010.htm.

3. Kochanek KD, Xu JQ, Murphy SL, Miniño AM. Deaths: Final data for 2009. National vital
statistics reports; vol 60 no 3. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2012.
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03 .

4. Arias E. United States life tables by Hispanic origin. National Center for Health Statistics.
Vital Health Stat 2(152). 2010. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/
sr02_152 .

5. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2010. Table 22. Hyattsville, MD.
2011. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2010.htm.

6. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related
Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Geneva: World Health Organization. 1992.

7. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System. U.S. census
populations with bridged race categories. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_
race.htm.

■  7  ■

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_152

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_152

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 99 ■ June 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Health Statistics
3311 Toledo Road
Hyattsville, MD 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

FIRST CLASS MAIL
POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CDC/NCHS
PERMIT NO. G-284

Suggested citation
Miniño AM, Murphy SL. Death in the
United States, 2010. NCHS data brief, no
99. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for
Health Statistics. 2012.

Copyright information
All material appearing in this report is in
the public domain and may be reproduced
or copied without permission; citation as to
source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health
Statistics
Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D., Director
Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate

Director for Science

Division of Vital Statistics
Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., Director

For e-mail updates on NCHS publication
releases, subscribe online at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm.

For questions or general information
about NCHS:
Tel: 1–800–232–4636
E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov
Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs

ISSN 1941–4927 (Print ed.)
ISSN 1941–4935 (Online ed.)

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2012–1209
CS232927

Key findings
How long can we expect to live?
• Which age groups experienced the greatest reductions in mortality over the last decade?

Do death rates vary by state?
What are the leading causes of death?
What are the most recent trends in infant mortality?
Summary
Definitions
Data source and methods
About the authors
References

Week 4 Assignment Handout: Statistical Evaluations

Select 2 of the 4 data sets/reports below, evaluate the information, and answer the questions on this worksheet. Note:
After completing this document, save it to your computer. You will submit the completed document for the Unit 4 Application Assignment.

SECTION 1: To complete the questions in this section, download the Death in the United States, 2010 document in the Week 4 resources.

Using basic statistical terms and definitions, explain why a comparison of variance over a 10-year period has more validity than a comparison of a year-to-year basis.

Read the “Data source and methods” section on page 6 of the Death in the United States, 2010 document. Explain how collecting data in the method described may skew the data one way or another—that is, make it less accurate than the real life it purports to reflect.

From the percentage of deaths within an age group indicated in the pie charts on page 4 in the Death in the United States, 2010 document, are you more likely to die from cancer or heart disease if you are in the 45–64 age group or in the 65 or older age group? Explain your answer. Interpret why this is so.

Is there evidence to support the claim that while the infant mortality rate [IMR] had its single largest drop between 2009 and 2010, the rate of decrease in the IMR is slowing down in the two decades indicated in Figure 5? (See page 5 the Death in the United States, 2010 document.) Explain your answer.

Can you support the statement that the older you get the less likely you are to die suddenly or cause your own death? What data would you use to support this?

SECTION 2: To complete the questions in this section, download the Employment Projections and the Education, Job Openings, and Unemployment in Metropolitan America documents in the Week 4 resources. Examine the employment statistical data that show the more education you have the less unemployment occurs:

Which of the following scenarios makes the greatest difference in your yearly income and reducing your likelihood of being unemployed: 1) Going from an associate’s degree to a bachelor’s degree or 2) Going from a bachelor’s degree to a master’s degree? Explain your answer.

In what ways do these two studies support the adage “A rising tide lifts all boats” when it comes to education and unemployment?

Just as the axiom that states, “old is 15 years older than you are,” being rich is a relative term. If you were a 20-year-old without a high school diploma, what academic path might you take to triple your weekly income? Where would be a good place to live once you complete your education? Explain your answers.

Using Table 1 on page 8 of Education, Job Openings, and Unemployment in Metropolitan America and the Employment Projections chart, predict a salary of a person who is a “Supervisor of Sales Workers.” Based on the level of education for the group, is it more or less likely for a supervisor of sales workers to be unemployed compared with a “Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioner”?

SECTION 3: The Economics of Sports

To answer the questions in this section, visit the Walden Library to read the following article:

· Baade, R. A., Baumann, R. W., & Matheson, V. A. (2011). Big men on campus: Estimating the economic impact of college sports on local economies. Regional Studies, 45(3), 371–380.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

In the article introduction, the authors give figures on the University of Minnesota’s new stadium that was built for the football team. “Although the precise line between what constitutes state and university funds is admittedly unclear when dealing with a public university, at least 55% of the new stadium was paid for with designated state funds (Baade, Baumann, & Matheson, 2011, p. 372). What is meant by the underlined phrase? Why can this not be determined precisely?

Explain why the authors used a non-sports–related event such as Hurricane Andrew to include in the comparisons of tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. Is this necessary? Is this an appropriate use of the data when focusing on the economic impact of sports in an area?

After analyzing tax revenues throughout the state in comparison with the local area during football and basketball games, the authors state the following in the conclusion:

The present regression analysis of taxable sales in Florida between 1980 to early 2007 fails to support these claims. Men’s basketball games at Florida State University and University of Florida were found to have no statistically significant impact on taxable sales in Tallahassee and Gainesville, respectively, and indeed, the coefficient on the variable was even negative in two of the four models (Baade et al., 2011, p. 372).

What is meant by “statistically significant impact?” Is there money to be made on sports teams in these college towns? Who makes the money?

You sit on a task force created to deal with an unemployment problem in these cities. Should the local community encourage the universities in these two towns to have more major sporting events as a strategy for growing the city economy? Why or why not?

SECTION 4: Prisoner Incarceration in the United States

To complete the questions in this section, download the Correctional Populations in the United States, 2011 document in the Week 4 resources.

Figure 1 on page 1 of the document indicates that the span of the data is an 11-year period, yet only 7 years are represented in the vertical column. Does this have an impact on the validity, accuracy, or ability to compare the data? Why or why not?

Based on appropriate use of statistical data, evaluate the following statements:

Based on incarceration rates, Guam is the safest U.S. Territory or commonwealth in which to reside. [Appendix Table 2, p. 8]

Based on the number of prisoners held by that branch of the service and those sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration, the Marine Corps has made significant strides in more lawful behavior while the Coast Guard has doubled the rate of serious criminal activity.

Using Table 3 and the narrative on page 4, evaluate the following statement:
Between 2010 and 2011, the judicial system moved closer to reducing the total expenditures on incarceration in this country.

Provide some interpretation of the following data. The US Census Bureau states the population in the United States in 1980 was ~228 million and in 2008 was ~304 million. Using the Table 1 graph, it is estimated that the “Total population under the supervision of adult correctional systems” was ~2 million in 1980 and ~7.3 million in 2008.

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc.
Page 1 of 4