Outliers and Perfectionists

I seriously did sit down to write this earlier. I swear, I'm not that much of a slacker. I finished The Case Against Perfection by Michael J. Sandel on September 3rd, but then got sidetracked by Ned Vizzini's book (see, y'know, my last entry). After finishing that blog, I finally started to write this one. THEN, I started Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and realized that the books complimented each other too much to be written about in separate blogs. SO I waited. I'm sorry, blog-o-sphere.

Perfection was pretty underwhelming. The back cover completely hypes it up as an intellectually stimulating, extremely impressive tome. It has this gem of a quote: "Sandel explores the paramount question of our era: how to extend the power and promise of biomedical sciences to overcome debility without compromising humanity."
That quote (from Jerome Groopman of Harvard Medical School) makes Perfection seem like a Scientific American or New York Times -ish book. But it's Highlights magazine at best. The research is simplistic, the language is far from highbrow, and the conclusions drawn are biased and based almost completely off of the authors opinion. Sandel clearly does not favor genetic engineering or "designer babies". His obvious bias came through in his writing and generally made the book less enjoyable to read. I think that biomedical engineering and genetic engineering are going to be extremely prevalent in future society. It is unavoidable. To some degree, this scares me. Obviously, it will be a way for the wealthy to elevate their children even more in addition to sending them to good private schools and providing them with ample resources. Also the whole everybody-turning-into-vampire-robot-Nazis-who-are-also-zombies (ten points if you get that reference) is a bit unsettling. Genetic engineering implies that certain traits (like blond hair, blue eyes, and dimples- the most popular sperm bank request) are inherently better than other traits. Also, the implications of having a society of people who are highly manipulated by technology is sort of robot-y. However, I don't think that genetic engineering will ultimately make that much of a difference, which brings me to Outliers.

Yes, Outliers preaches that one's success is largely based off of ones circumstances, but those circumstances are not limited to genetically alterable factors like IQ (which, let it be noted, is only about 50% genetic) and physical strength. For example, while those with IQ of 115 tend to do be more successful that those with IQs of 100, the difference in success between a person with an IQ of 125 and and IQ of 160 is nonexistent (which is good new for me. Hey you! Genius! I'm just as likely to succeed as you are!). A lot of other things can be important factors in success, like opportunities in life and birth month (because those who are old for their grade tend to be more successful... bad news for me... July birthday).

Also, other slight notes about each book:

Perfection:
*I also didn't mention, this book was mad boring in parts. Sandel is not a good writer.

*The book had a lot of philosophy, which I loved. There was a lot about Kant, since he specialized in ethics and seeing people as beings who deserve respect, not things.

*There was a story about a couple who put up advertisements in a Harvard newspaper for sperm from a guy who was at least 6 feet tall, had brown hair and brown eyes, and had gotten above a 1500 on his SATs. I get that you want a specific type of kid, but that's a bit much. What happens if it doesn't work out and the kid's stupid? Or if (God forbid) the child were to be born with a serious disability? Would the parents just not love them? These are the implications of genetic engineering that I dislike. I mean, even if your child ends up being an obnoxious toe-rag, you have to realize that you designed a toe-rag for yourself. I mean, damn, that would suck.

*There were references to environmental determinism, which I studied for AP Human Geography, and a lot of references to Hitler. I find it slightly amusing/interesting that prior to WWII and the whole Holocaust thing, Americans LOVED Hitler and his views on the superior race. This was largely due to the anti-foreigners/anti-immigration stance of the time. People hated the immigrants from Asia and parts of eastern Europe. They wanted to justify their prejudices, and Hitler was a convincing speaker. It was only after WWII that all of the environmental determinist groups died down for fear of being accused of being Nazis and after realizing that they really weren't that much different from the "enemy".

Outliers:
*I'm really glad that I read it. Truly, it was excellent. I'd previously thought that Malcolm Gladwell was a bit of a ... schmaltzy writer. The type who was featured on Oprah and read by middle-aged women seeking empowerment. I mean, the subtitle is "Stories of Success"... sounds like a schmaltzy self-help book. But it's not. It's a psychology book and a sociology book. I definitely want to read his other works (which I'll add to my long list...).

*My favorite passage was about a study done on how aggressive Southerners are compared to Northerners. In the study, men (from the north and south) had to walk down a narrow hallway. In the hallway, a "confederate" would open a filing cabinet, thus blocking the hall. The confederate would then shove the man trying to pass slightly while murming "asshole".
The Northerners barely reacted to this, usually simply smirking slightly. When their saliva was tested when they reached the room at the end of the hallway (it had also been tested previously), they actually had lowered cortisol and testosterone levels. The Southerners, on the other hand, became visibly angry and their cortisol and testosterone levels spiked a TON. Then, all of the men were told of a situation in which "Larry" was trying to hook up with "Steve's" girlfriend. They were then asked to say how Steve should react. The Southerners who had been called assholes all had Steve beat the crap out of Larry, while the Northerners and the Southern control group did not.
Also, later, as they were leaving the testing room, a large confederate man walked down the narrow hallway towards them. The Northerners stepped to the side of the hall at an average of 7 feet away, regardless of whether they'd been called an asshole earlier. The Southerners who had not been insulted moved to the side at 9 feet away, deferring to the older, larger man. The Southerners who had been insulted, however, moved to the side at only 2 feet away. They were essentially picking a fight with this huge dude.
So yeah, I thought that study was cool. It was done at the University of Michigan by Cohen and Nisbett. It was used to explain why there are more "honor-based" crimes in the south, but far less random violence. It's a legacy. The murder rate when settlers first came to the area was high because they had to prove they were tough and could not be messed with. That attitude has been handed down.

*The only part of that book that I didn't like was the last chapter. It was about Malcolm Gladwell's family story. I honestly just wasn't that interested.

But, anyway READ IT. It was very good. But you can skip The Case Against Perfection.

Total Book Count: 74
Nonfiction: 24 (32.4%... and change)

Ned Vizzini Stole My Book

So some of you (because there actually is a “you” now) may know that I participated in NaNoWriMo last year. My book was about a boy named Nate who, through a surprising series of events, ended up in a psych ward.
Ned Vizzini wrote my book.
Okay, so It’s Kind of a Funny Story isn’t exactly my book, but it’s pretty dang close.
There is a dancing scene. There is a scene in which one of the hospital veterans rattles off information about all of the patients. The main character is an extremely intelligent high school freshman who finds himself overwhelmed by the stress placed upon him. There is a thin, blond girl with obvious issues who the main character has a thing for.
There are A LOT of similarities.
Also, Ned Vizzini uses "y'know". While Nate (my main character) doesn't use it, he does criticize it as a sign of “the degeneration of the English language” at multiple points in my book. The fact that it appears often in both of our novels... is annoying to me. It was MINE. Why did frikkin’ Ned have to use it too?
Ned did strike on a few things that I wish I'd included in my novel, like the presence of the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Version 4) in every mental health professionals office that you will ever enter. Also, I loved that he highlighted the amount of invented terminology in therapeutic situations. I touched on a few ("process", trigger", "deflection", "semantics", "the crazy" [on the right]), but he included so many.
Yet, overall, I actually think that my book is… better. Maybe I’m a little bit biased, but I think that my characters are more likeable and my plot is more realistic. Some of Ned’s major plot points seemed really absurd and contrived (along the lines of “The teen psych ward is being renovated, so OH LOOK, we’re going to stick a teenage boy in with the adult patients, even though that’s completely unrealistic.”), which I disliked. Also, his main character, Craig, was downright annoying. My Nate is not nearly as whiney.

So yes, I guess I’d recommend this book, but only if you don’t feel like waiting until I can publish mine. Because, essentially, my book is the same. (Except you won’t want to punch the main character.)

I read two other books this week, but I didn’t feel like writing about them right now. So, you shall see a new entry soon.

Also, I just want to say HELLO to the people subscribed to my blog. I warn you now that I'm extremely informal with this thing. I really only made it so that I could keep track of what I read and make myself think about the things a I read a little bit more. But hey, maybe I'll start working harder now that I feel as if I should try to impress you.

Total Book Count: 73
Total NonFic: 24 (32.8%)