
The genius of late bloomers - Gladwell - robg
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
======
mechanical_fish
This is just great.

I remember reading one of Gladwell's earlier versions of this argument -- I
think it was a transcript of a talk, and it was all about Fleetwood Mac. I
recommend trying to find that, too, because the Fleetwood Mac angle is really
hilarious.

I don't exactly buy this dichotomy of his, actually. I think that trying to
force all creative people into two categories is a futile exercise if you take
it too seriously -- there are more than just _two_ kinds of creative people.
And, yet, I appreciate the explanatory value of the dichotomy approach, even
if it isn't particularly accurate -- it's dramatic, it's easy for people to
understand (folks like dichotomies -- would "Hot or Not" have been as popular
if it had included "Hottish" and "Maybe" options?) and it serves the main
goal: To throw a big, dramatic spotlight on the late bloomers, who otherwise
tend to be entirely ignored. In other words, two isn't the right number of
categories, but I do think it is better than one.

~~~
nihilocrat
Non-dichotomous abstractions that fail to get a deep personal response from
the reader don't make good reading (or at least publishable reading).

On a positive note, like you said, at least it's suggesting there's more than
one group: thanks to Mr. Zuckerberg and other Silicon Valley poster children,
we assume that everyone peaks in their 18-25 range, so it's actually
refreshing to be reminded of cases in the past where this wasn't true.

Actually seriously addressing the issue and trying to find a complicated
system of abstractions to describe it would be far to... academic. In my mind,
that means "refreshingly deep", but I bet in most minds it means
"booooooooooooooooring".

------
nazgulnarsil
couldn't the difference be more to do with the documented 10 years of practice
needed before truly mastering something?

the early bloomers could simply be the ones who started when they were 10,
while the late bloomers simply the ones who switched careers.

~~~
jcl
I'd guess Gladwell would disagree. In his example, Cezanne and Picasso were
both painting in earnest by age 20. If it only took 10 years of practice,
Cezanne would have been at his peak by 30, not 60. Likewise, Fountain was
writing for at least 20 years before he had his breakthrough.

It also doesn't explain why (in the anecdotal evidence in the article) late
bloomers start weak and improve over a long time, while early bloomers peak
early and decline.

~~~
zach
To avoid seeming to beg the question, I'll call late bloomers experimentalists
and the early bloomers (pure) conceptualists. Okay.

It may be that conceptualists have a very natural peak in their early years
because of two factors: a learning peak and a neural peak. For conceptualists,
concepts are grasped, mastered and built on quickly, but are explored in their
learning. Once they absorb a subject, they get tenaciously attached to
worthless novelty, they find new things, or they're just not able to think
about things in the same creative way. That's what I mean by a learning peak.

Second, to go further out on a limb, could there be a neural peak? There are
many late-blooming artists, but how many late-blooming mathematicians? Not
many. Since theirs is the epitome of conceptual work, there might be something
natural to it. One suspects that the, let's say, spark of creativity in
conceptualists may actually consume neural connections which cannot be
regained.

It's interesting to think of and compare some notables in these terms. Edison,
Fuller, Kubrick, Lucas, etc. It would be instructive to see examples of late-
blooming non-experimentalists, for example. I also think that there are many
fields where artists are encouraged make the transition from one approach to
another, such as the actor that becomes a director. Perhaps this subject
encompasses much of the difficulty of the artist at mid-life, maybe even that
of Malcolm Gladwell.

~~~
drawkbox
I agree that this could be the case, but I don't think it is limited to the
two factors that the author states. Timing is missing. If the same genius were
born today would they perform and excel the same? Timing in business and being
a staple of time is one in the same. Maybe genius knows what to be at the
right time.

------
maxklein
Ach, I wish a subscription to the New Yorker from outside the U.S were not so
expensive. Such articles would be perfect for reading in the train, I can't
read it now with so many shiny things on the internet.

~~~
fallentimes
I feel the same way about the Economist.

~~~
eru
But the Economist is affordable all the world over. At least the subscription
is.

I read that in a book ([http://www.amazon.com/Everyday-Ingenuity-Solve-
Problems-Smal...](http://www.amazon.com/Everyday-Ingenuity-Solve-Problems-
Small/dp/1591391539)) that the usual TV station makes less than a dollar for
an hours advertisement per viewer. The Economist makes more than five dollars
in advertisements per issue.

Most people would rather spend a dollar to get rid of one hour advertising on
TV, but not many would spend more than five dollars to get rid of the relative
unobstrusive ads in the Economist.

~~~
fallentimes
I love that book. And I love Honest Tea.

It's still significantly more expensive than the average magazine in the
States.

[http://www.micro-gems.net/servlet/the-386/The-
Economist-1yr-...](http://www.micro-gems.net/servlet/the-386/The-
Economist-1yr-subscription/Detail)

Now certainly $80 is affordable (if you have a job), but most of the magazines
I used to subscribe to, I paid $5-$20 per year.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
economist is weekly. 4x20 = 80. it is exactly on par with most magazines. and
considering the quality you're getting a bargain.

~~~
fallentimes
Subscribing to the economist is on par if you buy all your other magazines
from a news stand - yes.

I agree it's well worth it. My original argument was that it's expensive
compared to most magazines, which it is.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
I'm still not getting this. 51 issues a year for $80 equates to $1.57 an
issue. this does not seem expensive at all.

------
unalone
I wonder what Gladwell thinks of Joyce, who published relatively young
(Dubliners) and who then spent decades piecing together his final two
masterpieces. Is it possible for people to be both ways at once?

------
ssanders82
Anyone else notice that the date on this article is 6 days into the future?
And the url as well.

~~~
icey
This is common practice when the URL is meant to correlate with a printed
version of a magazine, sometimes one that either hasn't been released yet, or
releases a month earlier than the posted dates.

------
louislouis
I need to find a lady like Sharie!

~~~
ericwaller
Seriously, I can't decide which is more impressive, his years of dedication to
his writing or hers.

~~~
brandnewlow
I was a bit less impressed as I found out more about his situation. She wasn't
just paying for his writing, she was paying for him to be a stay at home dad
and take care of all the mundane stuff that kept their family operating. It's
impressive that she never questioned him or gave him a hard time, but it
sounds like he was holding up his end of the bargain.

~~~
migpwr
I actually wasn't impressed at all because I don't think we can ever know if
she questioned him or gave him a hard time.

It could have been an unbelievably painful number of years for both of them
and she could have given up on him years before but was stuck supporting him.
It doesn't sound as nice but it is probably closer to reality...

~~~
dgabriel
She's a senior partner at a law firm, so I can't imagine their financial
situation was all that precarious.

------
sabat
As a 45-year-old with an interest in startups that borders on the unhealthy
:-) I am more than happy to see this kind of validation in print.

~~~
ojbyrne
Ok, obligatory chime-in. 44 years old when I (built|co-founded|whatever the PR
people want to call it today) digg.com. Younger partners decided I was too old
(or something) ... Working hard to prove them wrong (though within a larger
corporation).

Meanwhile they flail around, getting more pathetic by the day...

Maybe it's my love for parenthetical phrases. ;-)

~~~
wheels
I do sympathize with what happened, but the Digg digs are a little tired at
this point. Just on your most recent page of comments I count three.

~~~
ojbyrne
I agree actually. I was a little hesitant to put this one in, but it was on
topic (late bloomers), and once I get started its hard to stop.

