Saturday, August 28, 2010

Genius - what is it and why does it matter?

Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book (2009), Outliers: The Story of Success, raises a fundamental question about why some people are successful and others not. A belief that many of us hold is that genius (whether it is intellect, creativity, or other) is at the center of success. The only problem is that review of studies on genius, especially examples among children, indicates that IQ has very little if anything to do with success.

A broad summary of Gladwell’s perspective is that “Outliers are those who have been given opportunities – and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them.” (p. 313) The book is peppered with examples of great success – the Jewish immigrant piece good workers who became the moguls of New York fashion, the scruffy lawyers who started corporate take-over maneuvers when other more gentile lawyers wouldn’t touch it, the Beatles, Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, and others. These cases are popularly portrayed as heroic, yet, when we look closer we find that these success stories had special circumstances that prepared the heroes for a moment in time when the accident of their preparation met a unique opportunity. In some cases it was the accident of a birthday in the early part of the year that allowed an aspiring Canadian boy to emerge as the best player on his hockey team. For the business tycoons born in the 1830s (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Mellon, Ford, Astor, Vanderbilt) who became the quintessential examples of “making it in America,” it was simply a matter of hard-working immigrant aspirations coupled with explosive business opportunity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Besides the accidents of time and place that birthed success, two other things stood out as shaping the experience of those who would otherwise have been “normal” like the rest of us. One was the importance of having a nurturing community that recognized and encouraged their gifts. The second was finding and locking into work that was fulfilling.

In relation to community, a study of children with high IQ from various socio-economic backgrounds revealed that those children who were nurtured by their parents or by significant teachers excelled while the others were destined to mediocrity, regardless of their extraordinary IQs. One of Gladwell’s observations about nurturing reinforced a skepticism I’ve had about the contemporary idea of “helicopter parents” in the U.S.A. A study by Annette Lareau (pp. 116-117) concluded, “The wealthier parents were heavily involved in their children’s free time, shuttling them from one activity to the next, quizzing them about their teachers and coaches and teammates.” Is it any surprise that the children with potential who had wealthy and involved parents were more successful? Could it also be that the “helicopter parents” about whom some administrators now complain are only those middle class parents who finally figured out how privileged parents behaved all along?

In relation to finding meaningful work, Gladwell analyzed several cases to identify three essential factors of success: 1) the opportunity for autonomous action, 2) the challenge of complexity, and 3) an obvious connection between effort and reward. When these three variables are present, we see ourselves as more efficacious in our action – we strive, we push, and we ultimately accomplish. In addition to efficacy, another variable related to hard work is the role of culture, particularly where cultural groups’ admonition for hard work leads to perfection over time. Gladwell shared several examples of his 10,000 hour rule. These examples demonstrated that the people who emerged as the best always gave at least 10,000 hours to developing the capacity for their work. In these cases, it was obvious that all those who were successful believed that “work ought to be a thing of beauty.” (p. 279) The work didn’t need to be glamorous as was demonstrated by the culture of rice paddy farmers in Asia. All it took was dedicated effort, the likes of which is reflected in the Chinese peasant adages of, “No food without blood and sweat,” “In winter, the lazy man freezes to death,” and “If a man works hard, the land will not be lazy.” (pp. 278-279) While Asian culture isn’t the only one recognized for its encouragement of industry, it is one of the cultures that established a legacy supportive for those who seek to find meaningful work and then give their entire being to it.

The bottom line of all Gladwell’s stories is that “To build a better world we need to replace the patchwork of lucky breaks and arbitrary advantages that today determine success – the fortunate birth dates and the happy accidents of history – with a society that provides opportunities for all.” (p. 314) Does genius matter? Of course it does. But genius is not sufficient for success. As Gladwell proposed, genius can simply be average ability coupled with preparation, opportunity, and hard work. What a freeing realization for those of us who have yet to realize our full potential?

Monday, August 09, 2010

Future of Freedom - Zakaria

My latest read was The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria. It is an incredibly interesting book that critiques pretty much the entire globe for forms of democracy that are not working. And, Zakaria provides lots of evidence for why each is flawed and how it might be improved.

The first point that Zakaria challenges is the belief that democracy is the entry point to prosperity. This belief is where many advocates of democratic reform begin - stir the people to elections, democracy will follow, and then prosperity and peace. The evidence tells a very different story - that moderate economic improvement (i.e. the creation of a middle class) results in a critical mass of empowered citizens who will eventually demand an accountable and effective government. Countries with too low a GDP can't muster the hope and possibility. Countries with too high a GDP are "trustfund" states where wealth creates a lethargy about asserting citizens' needs. So, economic improvement is the door to democracy when the GDP is modest, but not exorbitant.

Zakaria's second assertion is that democracy doesn't go from nothing to full-force without cultivation. For example, the British Empire invested in infrastructure among some of its colonies which then were able to sustain democracy after the British left. In those colonies where the Brits (and other colonial powers) left the public bereft of political will and means, governments slid precariously into their own monarchies or dictatorships. Had there been an investment in community building, and had colonial powers not saddled the new nations with borders fraught with ethnic and religious problems, perhaps the future of democracy in the post-colonial years would have been different.

And, "perhaps the future of democracy would have been different" brought the question of the future of freedom very close to home - to the Middle East. Many references are made throughout Zakaria's book to the challenges of the Middle East, and particularly of the Arabian Gulf oil-rich monarchies. The point he made was that little nation building took place after the colonial/protectorate governments left, leaving monarchs to rule in an environment of extreme wealth where the government could take care of pretty much anything the public might want. The Arabian Gulf has a number of benevolent monarchs who work hard to make their citizens comfortable and happy and the lack of need in luxury discourages democratic aspirations.

Not only is the Middle East critiqued. Asia, South America, Russia, and elsewhere are equally placed under the microscope. One of the most interesting warnings about the future of freedom is levied at the U.S.A. Zakaria warns of democracy gone wild in the U.S.A. as a result of leveling the playing field to the degree that only lobbyists and interest groups can impact public policy. The legislation by referendum that showered down on government after California's Proposition 13 resulted in heightened levels of direct influence by citizens. Professional politicians, rather than public servants, fill the conference rooms and voting chambers and every vote is public. "What has changed in Washington is not that politicians have closed themselves off from the American people and are unwilling to hear their pleas. It is that they do scarcely anything but listen to the American people." (p. 166) And to money, lobbyists, and special interests.

So, for the U.S.A., Zakaria recommends a period of reflection on legislative process, with attention to the inordinate power of special interest referenda, and getting back to building economic opportunity through education. By fostering prosperity that citizens themselves own, government would then be able to focus on the issues that are truly in the broader public's best interest rather than creating safety nets that reinforce dependency on the state.

In the chapter titled "The Way Out" Zakaria proposes that government in developing countries "must demonstrate deep commitment and discipline in their policies" and "must focus on the long-term with regard to urban development, education, and health care." Finally, a welcome sigh of relief came over me. Qatar is mentioned in several places as an example of a monarchy dedicated to developing capacity that will result in a growing middle class able to articulate its own needs and work with its government on the things that have the greatest potential to improve the quality of their lives. The form of government that will work best for Qatar has some elements that are democratic, and overtime these will likely increase, but Qatar's brand of democracy may not be the same that western countries expect.

Zakaria has far too many ideas to summarize in a post such as this. Suffice it to say that all areas of the world have their turn to face criticism. By doing so, the opportunities to confront illiberal democracy are enhanced to a level that we might even be able to make the core purposes of freedom and democracy work.