1. In Chapter 2 Gladwell claims that success is equal to one’s talents and the preparations. But the effect of talent is quite less than the preparation. With the most important thing in success is preparation. Our question is how long will this period take. Our answer leads us to 10,000 hours. The world’s professional athletes, scholars, composers are the proof of this 10,000 hours theory. Examples are as follows, hockey player that born early, Bill Gates, Bill Joy, The Beatles etc. Gladwell believes that those people are the ones who used the opportunities that has given to them. In the third chapter, Gladwell says that, IQ works only up to a point. If someone has an IQ of somewhere around 120, having additional IQ points doesn't seem to translate into any measurable real-world advantage. Let’s take, for example, Jacob Barnett and autistic fourteen-year-old from Indiana. His IQ rounds out about 170 and Einstein's IQ is 150 but that does not mean that Jacob Barnett is smarter than Einstein even though he is working on his own theory of relativity. …show more content…
In chapter 2 Gladwell rebuttal is saying that the superficial interpretation of the rule that practicing 10,000 hours guarantees success is a misunderstanding. He writes There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000-hour rule that he talks about in the book Outliers. It doesn't apply to sports. And practice isn't alone isn’t a sufficient enough condition for success. Someone for example could play chess for 100 years and will never become a grandmaster. The point is simply stated that natural ability does require a huge investment of time to be made unmistakable. Sometimes even complex ideas get oversimplified in translation. We might want to argue that Gladwell is the guy responsible for the cause of oversimplification, it's helpful that he debunks his debunkers. He doesn't address why exactly the 10,000-hour rule doesn't particularly stick to sports, but we can relate that may have something to do with