Book Review: The Talent Code

This book is like “The Best of Malcolm Gladwell” – but it’s not by Gladwell.

Daniel Coyle is the author, and he’s even better.

Gladwell is a great writer, and he is good at seeing things in a different perspective. But his greatest talent is in telling stories. Gladwells’ books are fun and easy to read.

Coyle is better at putting it all together. Coyle has taken ideas I remember reading in Tipping Point and Outliers and David and Goliath – and he puts it all together with the neurological study of myelin.

Yes, Myelin. The thing that get’s destroyed by the disease MS (Multiple Sclerosis). It’s the little layers of fat that wrap around every nerve in your body to make the signals travel faster.

Coyle explains how myelin is the basis of all talent, all great ability. There are no “natural born talents” or “geniuses.” It’s all about practice.  There are people born in the right place at the right time, with access to the right people and the right materials - but that happens to lots of people.  It's about the practice.

You need something to get a kid excited, otherwise they'll never practice hard enough or long enough. Then you need them to practice on the edge of failure, all the time. Always moving forward, always correcting, and always trying again.

He shows that all the best coaches, whether they know it or not, are helping develop myelin on the right nerves, in the right order.

Soccer coaches need to let the players try all sorts of different moves to be able to change tasks and maneuver new ways at any second. They need a web of myelinated nerves doing a thousand things at once.

A violinist needs precisely the correct movement every single time. The notes must be perfect. The violinist doesn’t need a web, but a direct myelin nerve for each note. Exact precision.

They all need to practice, correctly, for 10,000 hours to build up the myelin needed to become a star.

Coyle has visited the talent hotbeds of the world. From a shabby Russian tennis club that has produced more top twenty women than the entire United States, to a small poor British family that turned out three world class writers. From the small island of the Dominican Republic and all it’s baseball stars to Brazil and it’s soccer geniuses, to Korea and it’s female golfers. He has studied the great coaches, the great players – and he has found the secret.

It is not money, or equipment, or genes, or “natural ability.” It’s about Myelin. How do you grow myelin?

Practice.

Book Review: Blink

The book that makes you think by telling you not to.

Malcom Gladwell is an expert at his trade.  He takes everyday things we all know but can't explain - then he finds a news story as an example and a research study to back up his findings, and then writes a brilliant narrative weaving it all together.

His point in this book?  Our minds judge things instantly, without our input, and without telling us how or why.

He starts off by talking about a statue called a "kouros."  They are thousands of years ago, and only about 200 still exist.

A new one came on the market, and it was the most complete, best preserved one ever found.  The buyer had it tested, had the stone x-rayed and examined and chemically analyzed and proved it was real.  Then he bought it for $10 million.
When a "kouros" expert was brought to see it and the sheet was taken off to unveil the masterpiece - the expert immediately felt uncomfortable.  Something was wrong.  "Have you paid for this?" asked the expert.  "If you have, try to get your money back."

He knew it was a fake.  He couldn't say why, he just knew.  The stone was old, the carving appeared accurate for the period - but SOMETHING was wrong. 

Of course - he turned out to be right.  His mind - due to his experience and expertise could instantly tell that it was fake, even though he couldn't tell the owner why.  He couldn't point out at first WHAT was wrong, he just knew.

Another example from the book is a study about people asked to try a new gambling game.  They could draw cards from 2 decks - red or blue.  The blue cards were slightly better than the red cards.  You'd win more often drawing from the blue deck.

After drawing an average of 40 cards the gamblers would tell the examiners that they thought the blue deck was better.  When the researchers looked at the gambler's card drawing tendencies during the experiment, they found it took only 8 cards before the gamblers "preferred" the blue deck and drew more often from it.

The gambler's minds had already figured out which deck was better, even though their "conscious" mind wouldn't know it for another 32 cards.  Our minds figure things out in the "blink" of an eye.

He gives many more examples, and they are equally compelling.

Then Gladwell does something you don't expect - he shows the ugly side.  He shows us that our minds make instant judgments and determinations, but we can be horribly wrong.  He gives the example of police officers who's minds instantly determined someone to be a threat.  The undercover police saw a gun, fired on and killed the suspect, only to later discover that the person had done nothing wrong.  The suspect thought they were trying to mug him, and he was holding out his black wallet to give it to them to avoid being shot.

This book shows us the power (for good and bad) of our instantaneous subconscious.  It talks about why women are still paid less, and why they are still "thought of" as less capable, even though their employers will swear they have no prejudice against women.

It shows that there is a group that is oppressed in the workplace even more than women... short people.  I wrote an entire blog post about Gladwell's findings Here."

There is good news.  You can train your subconscious.  You can make your snap decisions better, more accurate, more reliable.  Gladwell shows you how.

Gladwell succeeded with this book.  His book "Outliers" is still better, but this one is VERY good.

Book Review: David and Goliath

Genius.

This book shows you why the things we all THINK are advantages - often aren't. Goliath never had a chance against David. The result should have been known by everyone long before the "battle" took place. But everyone was looking at what they THOUGHT was an advantage - size.

Put a big slow soldier in full armor against a slinger - and who do you think is going to win? The guy who can only stab someone within 6 feet, or the guy who has been killing wolves at 100 paces his whole life and has a completely empty field to fight one guy.

The slinger is going to win every time. If they were in the middle of a battle field, people all around, no room to run or move - then Goliath would have a huge advantage. But the circumstances of the battle dictated the result. They put them one-on-one in an empty field. It is an underdog story - but Goliath was the underdog.

Is going to Harvard better than going to a state school?

Maybe not. Yet no one accepted to Harvard is going to say "no thanks" and go to a state school instead - because they THINK Harvard gives them an advantage. Gladwell provides studies, stats, and real stories that would make everyone reconsider.

You want your kid to succeed in school, so you look for a school with smaller class sizes. Are smaller class sizes always better??? Think again.

Gladwell makes you rethink what you've always assumed, and sheds REAL light into our shadowlands.

Book Review: The Tipping Point

This was Malcolm Gladwell's first book - but it was not his finest.

Gladwell is a journalist.  He collects interesting stories and interesting research, and tries to find links between the two.

This book is an interesting look at epidemics - in disease, in social ideas, in popular products, in school shootings, etc...

What is "The Tipping Point?" - the point where something goes from slow growth to rapid exponential growth.

Can we cause it on purpose?  Can we make and idea or a product spread like wildfire?  Certainly every advertiser, every political candidate, every business owner has hoped to find the answer.

Gladwell presents very intriguing cases - starting with the shoes called Hush Puppies.  The brand was founded in 1958.  In 1994 the company sold 30,000 pairs.  In 1995 they sold 430,000.  That's 14X more shoes in one year.  How did they do it?

Gladwell says it's because a group of kids in New York City started wearing them (to be different, because no one else was).  A few key designers noticed them wearing these shoes a the coolest clubs, and decided that was "the new fashion."  They started buying them up and using them in their fashion designs.  Then it hit mainstream, and the epidemic had started.

The tipping point was when those few kids were noticed by those with widespread influence.  The kids weren't trying to start a new trend, they just wanted to be different.

There are those who try new things, then there are those who can make that new thing a trend.  Hush Puppies now had both.

Gladwell's book builds on it's own momentum until about 2/3rds of the way through the book.  Then he starts reaching - making comparisons and conclusions that just don't pan out or make any sense. 
It's like he had 5 or 6 great ideas, but was told by the publisher he needed 8 or 9. 

His first great point is about what makes something grow epidemically.  It needs to be "sticky," something that makes a real impact, it needs those few right people to get it going, and it needs the right environment to grow in.

Environment: Sometimes it's not about the people involved, it's about the circumstance. (see this blog post about circumstances determining behavior rather than personality or character)

If the environment is right (like the American colonies on the brink of war) and message is right (the British are Coming!) - you still have to have the right messenger.

The night of Paul Revere's Midnight ride - there were actually two messengers: Paul Revere and William Dawes. 

Revere and Dawes both rode hard, telling people all night along about the impending attack - but only one is remembered, because only one was able to rouse the troops and get people to listen.

Revere knew the towns, he knew the people - he knew who to talk to, and he knew how to spread the message to people who were already in bed.

Dawes tried - but he had no such connections.  He'd knock on doors, give warnings - and everyone would just go back to bed.  He didn't have the influence, the social network, the reputation with the people. 

It's not just about the message, or the environment, it's also about the messenger.

Throughout this book Gladwell gives some great advice - about how to gain real power, how to find the "connectors" (those people who know everyone, and can spread ideas quickly).

He also teaches us about "Mavens" - Those people who are ridiculously passionate about something.  The people who actually call the 1-800 number on the back of Ivory Soap to tell the company about their experience with the product - because they really know all about every kind of soap, have tried them all, and care enough to give feedback.

"Just as there are people we rely upon to connect us to other people, there are also people we rely upon to connect us with new information. There are people specialists, and there are information specialists." - p. 59

There are people like that.  People who care. They aren't doing it to make money, or to sell their information or advice.  They want to share it with everyone - because they've researched it deeply, and they know.

Who do you go to to ask about cars?  or computers?  or investing?  or which school to send your kids to?  Do you know an expert, that person who knows every detail about something that no one else in the world could possibly care that much about?  These are the people that companies want to find and please.  If you can influence the person who everyone else goes to for advice, you'll have the best word-of-mouth advertising in the world.  Money can't buy that.  We all see ads, we all hear about products from friends, but who do we listen to.  Who could make something into an epidemic?

Do we want new information - better information?  Then we need contacts outside our close friends.

"When it comes to finding out about new jobs -- or, for that matter, new information, or new ideas -- "weak ties" are always more important than strong ties. Your friends, after all, occupy the same world that you do. They might work with you, or live near you, and go to the same same churches, schools, or parties. How much, then, would they know that you wouldn't know? Your acquaintances, on the other hand, by definition occupy a very different world than you. They are much more likely to know something that you don't... Acquaintances, in short, represent a source of social power, and the more acquaintances you have the more powerful you are." - p. 54

Overall - This book gets a B+.  It is creative, original, and makes you think.  But it is too long, tried too hard, and should have been 60 pages shorter.

Character or Context - Why do we do what we do?

 

Are people evil or good?  Are there really people who are always honest, and people who always lie?

Does one’s character mean you can predict their behavior in most situations?

In the 1980’s and 90’s – Crime in New York City plummeted.  The authors of Freakonomics would tell you this is because there were less low income teenagers on the streets because abortion had been legalized about 15 years prior.

Malcolm Gladwell would say it’s because the environment changed. 

In 1984 Bernhard Goetz boarded the Subway like he did most mornings.  He was white, and sat down next to four young black men, with most other people sitting at the other end of the subway car.  The four young men were being rowdy, and soon asked Mr. Goetz for $5.  Then they demanded it.  Then one of them pointed at the suspicious bulge in his jacket pocket and smiled.  Mr. Goetz reached into his own pocket, pulled out his .38, and shot all four young men. 

He turned himself into police a week later, and was acquitted of all charges other than carrying a concealed weapon.  Some called him a hero, others called him a monster.  Was he a criminal?  Was he a vigilante?  Was he a murderer?  He had no criminal background while all four of the young men had criminal backgrounds.

So why did he do it?  Some say it was because he had been bullied as a kid, and mugged a few months earlier.  Some say it’s because he was a concerned citizen and someone had to stand up against the thugs.  After all -NYC had 2,000 murders and over 600,000 felonies in the past year.  The subways were a prime location for crime.  They weren’t respected, or patrolled, they weren’t even clean.  The subways were covered in graffiti, the token machines were broken and the tracks were cracked so the subway could only go 15 mph in some spots.

So – was it the character of this man and the four young men, who made this incident occur?  If they had been getting on a bus on a city street at 2 p.m. - would the same thing have happened?

The New York Transit Authority decided they were going to reduce crime by first cleaning up all the graffiti on the subway cars, and in the stations.  If things looked better, people would treat the Sunway better.  Graffiti was covered up, and crime dropped.  They decided to arrest anyone who didn’t pay a subway token. They did, and crime dropped.  They decided to arrest anyone who was drunk in public, who urinated on the street or broke a window, etc.  They did, and crime dropped.  Not only did those crime rates drop, but felonies and murders dropped too.  All crime decreased.

The environment changed.  Sure you could say people changed, more criminals were being arrested so there were less on the street – but not by much.  The rate in crime dropped FAR MORE than the number of criminals being locked up.  SO WHAT HAPPENED? 

The people who were committing crimes instead did other things.  The environment had changed, so they changed.

The same is true of people doing good. 

Princeton University conducted a “Good Samaritan” experiment.

Give the Seminary students a task, then on their way have them run into a man slumped over in the alleyway, coughing and groaning – and see if they stop to help him.

It wasn’t just about seeing who would stop and who wouldn’t, but if they could make people react differently if the situation changed.

They asked students from the Seminary to prepare a short sermon, and then walk to a nearby building and present it.  Some were given the topic of “The Good Samaritan” while other s prepared sermons on other biblical themes.  They also asked each student why they chose to go into Theology. Was it for prestige, to help people, for money, for God’s glory, etc?

Then right before they went to give their sermon, they told them one of two things. 

1.   “Oh, you’re late.  They were expecting you a few minutes ago.  You’d better get moving.”

2.   “It’ll be a few minutes before their ready for you, but you might as well head over now.”

You can guess the result.  Who stopped and who didn’t?  It didn’t matter why they went to school, or what their sermon was on – what mattered was whether or not they were in a hurry.

Of those in a rush – 10% stopped to help.  Of those who thought they had a few minutes – 63% stopped.

They all had the same convictions in their hearts.  They knew what was “right” and that they should help those in need.  They all had helped many people before, and will likely help many more.  But it isn’t always about the character of the person, it’s about the context.  It isn’t the person, but the place.

If I grew up with the same parents, in the same religion, but in South Central Los Angeles instead of the West side of Idaho Falls, Idaho – would I have a criminal record?  Would I have gone to college?  Would I have tried drugs?  I’d like to say “I’d be essentially the same person I am today, regardless.” – but I doubt it.

In my church there is a famous quote by a church leader that states:

“The devil knows how to destroy our young girls and boys. He may not be able to tempt a person to murder or to commit adultery immediately, but he knows that if he can get a boy and a girl to sit in the car late enough after the dance, or to park long enough in the dark at the end of the lane, the best boy and the best girl will finally succumb and fall. He knows that all have a limit to their resistance”

This year in church we are focused on the phrase “Stand ye in Holy places, and be not moved.”

I have been taught my whole life to be honest, ALWAYS.  The goal is to be perfectly honest in all situations, live your standards no matter what.

I am coming to see that this doesn’t just mean developing strong moral fiber, standing for truth and right, reading scriptures, praying, helping your fellowman, etc.

It’s about being in the right places, building the right environments.  Giving yourself time.  Not being in a hurry.

What if instead of working harder to find criminals and lock them up, we tired harder to build environments where crime was less likely?  A place where people were more likely to help, to be honest, etc.

It isn’t just about “being a good person.”  It’s about being in the right place, and making your environment the “right place.”

Context is just as important as character.  Stand Ye in Holy Places - and maybe it’s just as important to make where ever you are, a holy place.

Book Review: Outliers

WOW – talk about a book that makes you stop and think.  This is a book about the best of the best, the people or groups that are so good - they are “outliers.”  They are so much better or different than the rest of us - that they are almost impossible to ignore.

Why were the Beatles arguably the most successful band in history?

Why did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have so much success?

Why are Asians so good at math?

Why are most Canadian hockey players born in the first half of the year?

If you are like me – you read that last question and went, “huh?”  Exactly. 

Shouldn’t the most talented players who work the hardest also be the best hockey players?  Why should the month they were born matter?

Well  - in Canada you can play competitive hockey starting at age 10.  The cutoff date is Jan 1^st.  So if you were born in December, you will be the youngest and likely smallest on your team.  If you were born in January, you will likely be the biggest with more physical maturity than the rest of the kids.

So – starting at age 10 – guess which kids look the most talented?  Which kids look like the best players, get the most playing time, the most coaching, the most practice?  The kids who are naturally bigger and better because of their age.  So what happens after 5-10 years of this?  They become the best players, the most advance with the best skills.

Hence, most Canadian Hockey players were born in the first half of the year.  The country has inadvertently decided to ignore the talent in the last half of the year by only having one league, with one cut-off date.

Oops.

Why are Asians so good at math?  Is it IQ?  Is it upbringing?  Is it school?  Is it genetic?

Nope – it’s language.  It’s how you say the numbers.

Why in English do we call 11 “eleven?”  Shouldn’t it be “one-teen?”  Why do we call 15 “fifteen” instead of “fiveteen?”  Why do we make up new words and change the spelling.  Why do our kids have to memorize 28 different words to count to 100? Guess how many words you need in Chinese dialects, Korean, and Japanese?  11.  The words are 1 through 10, and 100.

What would we call 11?  Ten-one.

25? Two-ten-five

67? Six-ten-seven

Then when we did math we could say the numbers and the math would be self explanatory.  What is two-ten-three plus five-ten-four.

Add 2 and 5, then 3 and 4.  You get 77, (seven-ten-seven)

Asian children are better at math because they spend their time doing math, not translating 28 words into numbers… and then doing math.

The book is good.  It gives many great examples.  I think the last 2 or 3 are a stretch, like the author needed another 50 pages and really came up with some off the wall ideas.  But other than that it is a worthwhile book.

I recommend it.

(Here is the article from ESPN about the book and the Hockey Players.)

My Journey of Talent, Luck and 10,000 Hours

Recently I have done well in a few speaking engagements / competitions.

1. A competition to see who could present a medical research article the best. You had to choose an article, then give a 10 minute PowerPoint presentation about it, and answer questions from a panel of judges.
 - I earned 2nd place.

2. "Resident Research Day." Participants had to prepare a poster to present their original research or a case study. Each presenter would have 7 minutes to present, and 3 minutes to answer questions.
 - I earned 1st place.

3. I gave a short funny speech at Graduation to honor/roast  the outgoing program director.
 - it was well received.

Since then I have had professors, colleagues and others tell me what a great job I do.  Residents from other programs mention it to me as well.  Some are even telling me "well, we kind of expected you to win that," "you're a natural," and things like that.

I appreciate the compliments but I try not to think about it too much because I get prideful pretty easily. (my wife can verify that fact)

THEN - a few days ago I started reading the book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. He makes a few very good points

1: There are many talented people. Talent rarely makes the difference between those who are good and those who are great.

2: Becoming great at something takes more than talent, it takes 10,000 hours.  He says masters and experts have spent 10,000 hours practicing and preparing their craft.
 (If you practiced 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, it would take you 10 years to reach 10,000 hours.)

3. Becoming the best at something takes luck.  You have to born in the right place, have the right opportunities and the right people helping you along the way.

This made me think - I haven't been presenting medical literature anywhere close to that long, but have I been practicing? What opportunities was I lucky enough to get?

Practice Presenting:

I'm a Mormon; born and raised in a Mormon family. That means that at age four I started standing up in front of 100 kids every few months and reading a scripture or short talk my parents helped me write. By age twelve I was speaking in front of the entire congregation of kids and adults to give a seven minute talk I'd written myself. From age fourteen on I was asked to go visit three families every single month, and help present a short spiritual lesson from the church's magazine. Then I was asked to give longer talks, longer presentations. When I went to college I was asked to teach a class of fifty of my classmates every Sunday for an hour. When I was nineteen I went as a missionary to Brazil. For two years I was asked to walk the streets and teach strangers ten hours a day, six days a week. I was knocking doors, trying to engage people in religious conversation and convince them to listen to me, let me in their home, read my materials, and invite me back.
I've since been asked to teach more lessons in church, visit church members weekly in their homes and teach them short lessons as well. My religion has been vital to my ability to present.

Yes I decided to stay in the religion and believe it - but being born into the religion was pure chance.

When I was eight I started performing in small theater productions. By High School I was acting and singing in two full length musicals per year.

At age fourteen I joined the debate team. I presented arguments and debated information every day in class, and every month in debate competitions throughout the state.

I didn't love debate, but along with it came speech competitions. So I signed up for "Oratory" and "Impromptu" competitions. Oratory meant I had to prepare and present from memory a ten minute persuasive speech. I usually earned 1st or 2nd place. Impromptu was a five minute speech with only two minutes prep time. I wasn't very good, I never won, but I sure liked trying.
(I dropped debate because I was starting to argue about absolutely everything with my family, and I was really quite annoying.)

I joined choir. I was lucky in that my junior high and high school had amazing music programs. I got used to performing in front of huge groups, important people, and in important and famous places. In high school I performed in the State Capitol, in multiple chapels, synagogues and cathedrals; and the most famous concert hall of all - Carnegie Hall.

I continued singing in College. I went to a church sponsored school (BYU-Idaho). I sang in concerts of course, but every year I also went to church head quarters in Salt Lake City and sang for the president and other leaders of my church at a dinner. (It's like a Catholic singing for the Pope and the top Cardinals) - It was a very big deal.

I sang with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir during a worldwide broadcast, and sang at the worldwide church conference three different times.

In short - I've had practiced singing in from of very large audiences, and for very important people.

I have also had a lot of practice talking to people who really don't want to talk to me.  Besides being a proselytizing missionary,  I was later a door-to-door salesman. I sold security systems from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. six days a week for three months. I learned how to get people's attention quickly, how to smile and use body language that would put people at ease. I knew I had about ten seconds to remove all animosity and make them feel like they were chatting with a friend on their doorstep - or the door would be slammed in my face.

In short - I have spent a LONG time learning how to present information to large groups, to strangers and to important leaders.

Practice Researching:
(I'll make this section more succinct)

In debate class in high school I learned how to research topics - and really dig deep to find important information.

In my genetics class in college I learned how to read a scientific journal article (and I was graded on my analysis of a new article every month)

After my junior year of College I had a paid internship at Idaho State University.  I worked hard to understand a project and sector of research I knew nothing about.  I learned how to study voltage gated sodium channels, their mutations, and temperature dependence. (sounds fun I know)
I then made a poster and a powerpoint presentation and presented the research at multiple research conferences and for all the biology students at my university.

In medical school I was asked time and again to read reseach articles and present them the next day to the treatment team.  I usually had twelve hours to prepare.

MY CURRENT SITUATION:

I enjoy presenting.  I volunteered to do a case conference for my residency.  I volunteered to present a Grand Rounds for all mental health workers in the State of Nevada (which I completed in January)
I volunteered to compete in the two competitions mentioned at the beginning.

After I spoke at graduation a fellow resident remarked: "That was really good, did you practice that?"

I was surprised for a moment.  I thought  "are you kidding me? I practiced this thing five times on my own and rehearsed it with my wife and later with a friend."
I responded "yeah, I ran through it a few times."

I realized then that maybe everyone else doesn't practice.  When I write a talk for church - I use a stopwatch a time myself at least twice.  I time each section so I know how long each section will take - then if I am short on time I have sections I can cut and I know exactly how long I have left.
I practice everything.  I practice lectures, I practice speeches, I even practice jokes.  My wife listened to my 65 minute long Grand Rounds presentation at least 5 times (she is a very patient woman).
The two competitions I mentioned at the beginning - I rehearsed them with other faculty, my wife, my friends, and by myself - multiple times.
My wife often catches me talking to myself, running over past speeches and conversations in my head.  I review what I didn't say quite right, and how to correct it next time.

My Point:  I still practice... a lot.

I've reached the point where I enjoy it; it doesn't make me nervous.  I don't know if I'm an expert.  I don't know how many hours I've practiced (maybe 10,000?),  but I know it is much more than natural talent.  It is also much more than hard work.  It's also luck - I have been in the right situation, with the right mentors, at the right moments.