Outliers: Chapter 4 Summary & Analysis

This chapter delves more deeply into the rather tragic life of Chris Langan. He grew up very poor; his father was an alcoholic and for the most part absent. He was a highly gifted student, and ended up going on full scholarship to Reed University. He found the adjustment very difficult, and struggled to speak up in class even though he knew the material well. Then, because his mother failed to fill out a financial aid form correctly, he lost his scholarship and had to drop out. He worked as a construction worker for a year and a half before enrolling in Montana State University. He faired well there until one day his car broke down on the way to class, and he asked to be transferred to a different section so that he could avoid having an absence. His teacher was dismissive, as was the administration, and didn’t grant his request. He dropped out, deciding that he was done with the higher education system

Without a degree, Langan found he couldn’t make it in the academic world. He’s written several papers on the origins of the universe, but no one will take him seriously since he is not educated. He insists that to apply for professorships or to go back to school would be compromising his ideals: he sees institutions of higher learning as depraved corporate entities interested in profit alone.

2. Gladwell points out that, though heartbreaking, Langan’s account of his life story is a little strange. He lost a scholarship because of one missed deadline on a financial aid form, and it seems every teacher or administrator he met was completely indifferent to him and all of his problems. Are educators really like this? Reed is a small liberal arts college, the kind that’s known for going out of its way to accommodate individual students needs. And, as a general rule, educational institutions are seen as places where intellectual disagreements and opposing viewpoints are cherished and cultivated. It is true that universities are wealthy, and it is true that they are profit-driven (to an extent)—but are they really as hard-hearted and corporate as Langan makes them sound?

Gladwell tells us that Langan’s story makes him think of Robert Oppenheimer, a physicist who famously led the American effort to develop a nuclear bomb in WWII. Oppenheimer was, like Langan, an extraordinary mind even as a child. He went to Harvard and then to Cambridge to get his doctorate in Physics. His tutor at Cambridge forced him to study experimental physics, even though he preferred theoretical physics and believed everything else was below his intellect. He became unstable, and tried to poison this tutor with chemicals from the lab. The university found out, and Oppenheimer was put on probation. Then later in life, though he was still young, widely thought to be a Communist, and utterly hopeless with lab equipment, he was hired to lead the atomic bomb effort.

Langan was kicked out of school for forgetting to file a form, where Oppenheimer received probation for attempting to poison his tutor. Langan believes he is too controversial a figure to be accepted by the academy, where Oppenheimer was appointed to lead the development of a nuclear bomb in America during World War II when he had affiliations with the Communist Party. We must conclude that Oppenheimer wouldn’t have lost his scholarship at Reed. He wouldn’t have taken no for an answer from professors or administrators. Oppenheimer knew how to get what he wanted from the world. Chris Langan isn’t necessarily any less intelligent than Oppenheimer, but he lacked the kind of savvy that would have allowed him to succeed.

3. The kind of skill that allows a person to talk their way out of trouble or secure a job for which they are unqualified is called “practical intelligence” by many psychologists. Unlike IQ intelligence, which we believe people are born with, practical intelligence is something a person must learn and practice.

Sociologists have studied differences in parenting across racial, geographic, and economic lines. One such study involves following certain children and parents around in their day-to-day lives and observing interactions. It was discovered that there are essentially only one major dividing line with respect to parenting style: class. Wealthier kids are encouraged, praised, and taught “entitlement.” They learn to speak up if they are unhappy; they learn to “customize” their environment so that they can thrive. Poorer children are better at being independent than wealthier children, but they receive less attention and praise. They learn to accept and cope with hardships instead of trying to change them. They learn from a young age that they are constrained, and they learn to accept this. It just so happens that, in today’s world, a sense of entitlement makes you more suited to success than a sense of constraint.

4. This is perhaps where we can locate the most important difference between Oppenheimer and Langan. Oppenheimer’s parents (an artist and a successful businessman) fostered his passions, made him join clubs, taught him skills like public speaking and negotiation, and introduced him to high-powered people and insisted that he not be intimidated. Langan grew up in a bleak environment, with parents who were absent or too busy to help cultivate such skills. When he entered a world where filling out complicated forms correctly and negotiating with busy administrators became necessary, he floundered. He hadn’t learned this; he had only learned constraint. This seemingly small fact crippled him—one imagines that, with a different childhood, Langan could have achieved much more.

5. This is supported by Terman’s final observations about his Termites. Some of them were quite successful: they obtained advanced degrees, had families, and made a good income. Some, however, dropped out of college or didn’t attend college at all. The difference between the most successful group and the least successful group was (as Gladwell’s reader has probably guessed): class. Kids brought up in lower class families, even if they are geniuses, generally lack the necessary skills to make a name for themselves. The children in Terman’s study who failed to put their intelligence to work for them were, in Gladwell’s words, “squandered talent. But they didn’t need to be.”