Compare And Contrast Oppenheimer And Malcolm Gladwell

396 Words1 Page

Michiko Kakutani is correct in her argument that Malcolm Gladwell’s writing is baseless because he attempts to extrapolate selective studies and anecdotes into broad hypotheses to support his irrational claims. This is seen when Gladwell cites what Robert Merton called the “Matthew Effect” and suggests that, “Children from wealthy or middle-class backgrounds are much more likely to succeed than those from impoverished ones.” To support this claim, Gladwell chooses two isolated cases of Chris Langan’s failure and J. Robert Oppenheimer’s success in life. The only similarities between these two men are their high intelligence and genius-level IQs, but Gladwell attributes Oppenheimer’s success to his “wealthy, privileged childhood [...] that allowed him to get what he wanted from the world.” Kakutani criticizes that Gladwell only chose these two men as …show more content…

Furthermore, Gladwell’s use of broad and lacking hypotheses appear once again when he “‘draws a connection between national cultures that ‘place the highest emphasis on effort and work’ and ‘the tradition of wet-rice agriculture,’” in countries such as Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. Gladwell made this connection after speaking to Alan Schoenfeld, a math professor who argues, “Being good at mathematics is less an innate ability than a function of persistence and doggedness.” Gladwell’s connection from Schoenfeld’s statement may seem plausible when he compares math to wet-rice agriculture because both require rigorous time and effort. However, he does not consider that Schoenfeld’s statement was simply an opinion made from his own personal

Open Document