Arguing Ethically and Thinking Logically
“Hidden advantage and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies” (Gladwell, 2011, p.19). This is one way that Gladwell introduces us to the idea of the “Mathew Effect.” He argues that being among the best at something, is not a result of innate talent but rather it is having the good fortune of being in a skill-learning environment at the right time and in the right place.
In some cases, the conducive environment is simply being the right age with the right resources available. When age and resources line up at the on-set of learning a skill, this initial advantage accumulates; it exponentially increases over time. The result of successive advantages leads to what is mistaken as natural ability. …show more content…
But is that always true? It makes sense that the “Mathew Effect” could be true most of the time but what about outliers to the outliers?
In A Rulebook for Argument, we are asked to consider “counter examples” (Weston, 2009, p.16) to arguments. I have one in my son, Tim, whom many consider an outlier. Coaches have said of Tim that, as a baseball player, he has natural talent. Gladwell writes that major league baseball players have more August birthdays versus July and that this is significant because, July is typically a cutoff age for non-school baseball leagues (Gladwell, 2011, p.26). Interestingly, my son was born in very early September.
When young, my son outshined all of his six-year old teammates. He wasn’t a kid playing with a bat and a ball, he was deemed a “natural” baseball player. Yet, his story diverges from the “Mathew Effect.” His September birth month in a July cut-off league corresponds to examples used by Gladwell but Tim was not an older six-year old, he was only four years old and the youngest on his