Gladwell Power of Context Analysis

In the book, Outliers: The Story of Success, Malcom Gladwell intended to teach the readers about the many different rules that he discussed in his book, to help with the understanding people have of success. Gladwell defines outliers as “men and women who do things that are out of the ordinary” (Gladwell 17). Gladwell accurately applies the rhetorical techniques of logos, exemplification, and repetition to effectively employ how highly successful people are outliers.

Gladwell uses many rhetorical modes to prove his central claim, whether they be examples, comparing and contrasting two success stories, and etc, but out of all of them the one that Gladwell uses the most is process analysis. By using this mode Gladwell brings out the best points of his arguments over and over. In every chapter Gladwell uses this mode to break down the story in such as way that the reader understands how the central claim fits into that specific success story. The other modes are also well used but this one dominants over all of them as it is used to describe everything from the success of a hockey team to Gladwell’s own success, thus making process analysis the

Rhetorical questions appear throughout the book, allowing Gladwell to emphasize key points of his message and to interact with the reader in a way that they understand. Rhetorical questions are often used as transitions which introduce the next concept. While wrapping up his chapter about prejudice from subconscious

Extra Credit: In this chapter, Gladwell does address and disprove a counterargument that everyone came from hardworking hunter-gatherers. Gladwell disproves this by showing that hunter-gathers diet was largely “a rich assortment of fruits, berries, roots, and nuts” (Gladwell 233) which isn’t that difficult to find. They didn’t grow crops, nor raise animals, so they never had any hard work that needed to get done. This shows that not everyone has the same hard working background that the Asians do, and their ore each culture grows different individuals that show different

The author begins building his or her credibility by putting rhetorical questions, putting a study example that has been done, and the author successfully employs logic appeals but lacks pathos, which makes her purpose unclear.

All in all, Gladwell helps paint a picture of what’s said to be behind the locked door of the subconscious. He uses repetition and rhetorical questions to stress how thin-slicing plays a crucial part in our world. The power of our minds are limitless but Gladwell is still searching for the key to unlocking the truth of our unconscious

An ineffective device used by Gladwell was his use of repetition of evidence and failure to acknowledge counterexamples by forcing the reader into thinking that Gladwell’s theory is the only one possible to be correct. The lack of acknowledgment towards counterexamples thrusts the audience into thinking that Gladwell’s opinion is the only viable one. “Philip Norman, who wrote the Beatles biography”, “nonstop show, hour after hour”, “Here is John Lennon”, and “playing all night long” are examples of repetition of evidence because the author already established that the

In life, people tend to overthink and overanalyze certain situations and events that occur around them; in reality they should be focusing more on their instincts and quick decisions. This is exactly the point that Malcolm Gladwell makes in the intro to his book, Blink. In order to successfully get this point across, Gladwell blends together a number of different strategies and devices. This is a common practice for established authors, using literary and rhetorical devices in order to keep the audience interested in what they are saying. In the intro to Blink, Gladwell uses the rhetorical devices of plot progression, allusion, and narration to present his beliefs in a way the reader can easily understand.

I wondered how many of the solutions to situations that he described were any more than finding ways to filter out information that was superfluous? This is evident in the case of the doctors who did not know if their patients were having heart trouble or not. The solution eliminated the questions that relate to risk factors and only focused on the actual symptoms. A risk factor is not pertinent to whether the person is having a heart attack at that very moment, though it seems it should be. Doctors attempt to weigh risk factors in their determination of someone’s heart health, when it should have no import. Eliminating that information is not “thin slicing” instead, it is increasing the efficiency of your diagnosis. The same idea can be applied to Gladwell’s arguments about the Getty statue (the letters were irrelevant to the authenticity of the piece), and the wrapping of margarine (The foil wrapping gives it a look of quality, even if it doesn’t change anything.) I also wondered if Gladwell assumed far too much. For instance, he often haphazardly tied in overall ideas to his smaller individual points. Such as in his chapter about Kenna, he says at the end of one sub-chapter where he describes experts’ taste tests between Coke and Pepsi: “Isn’t this what happened to Kenna?” It seems irrational to devote an entire series of sub-chapters to something and then apply it in such a vague and oversimplified way. He also assumes that “experts” are immune to the foibles of blind taste testing, while giving no evidence that they are any better, other than saying, “Would they be fooled by the Pepsi Challenge? Of course not,” as though it should just be accepted as fact, when in reality, many studies have shown that “expert tasters”, in particular, the

Sociological theories of crime contain a great deal of useful information in the understanding of criminal behavior. Sociological theories are very useful in the study of criminal behavior because unlike psychological and biological theories they are mostly macro level theories which attempt to explain rates of crime for a group or an area rather than explaining why an individual committed a crime. (Kubrin, 2012). There is however some micro level sociological theories of crime that attempts to explain the individual’s motivation for criminal behavior (Kubrin, 2012). Of the contemporary

Some believe crime is committed due to poverty or desperation, others believe its committed in view of envy, and on the other hand, Gladwell believes crime is committed due to the surroundings of an individual. In ‘The Power of Context,’ Gladwell discusses the occurrence of crime in New York, stating that its major cause is the immediate environment one is in. Gladwell believes that the environment we’re in has a major effect on our behavior and eventually it makes us act according to it. Gladwell goes to great measures to prove his point, stating number of examples, including a number of major theories. However, is the environment really the only determinant of our actions? Gladwell tries to convince the audience that in the end it is the surroundings of an individual and the small things that matter. Trying to convince the audience and make them agree with him, Gladwell uses some big concepts and examples of crime in New York to prove to his audience that in the end, it actually is the small things or the ‘Tipping Points’ that make a completely normal human being commit a crime.

For the most part humans are all born in the same fashion, they have opposable thumbs, a pair of hands, a pair of legs, a brain, and a heart. Looks can be deceiving however, not all infants are created equal. Statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of the seven billion humans on earth will pass away as a member of the same socioeconomic class they began. In fact, society predicates itself on living a better life than their family who came before. Society takes part in a never ending race to further itself on a socioeconomic level from the generation before knowing full well that the majority will not achieve such goal. That in itself is a testament to how difficult the task of altering identity is. Malcolm Gladwell’s Power of Context echoes many of the same progressive principles preached in the early twentieth century, he believes external factors such as the aspects of environment are the greatest determinants of identity. Barbara Fredrickson argues in her book Love 2.0, that change comes from within. Frederickson believes that biochemical alterations of the human body can occur by increasing “loving potential” (119). An increase of such potential has a profoundly positive impact on human health . As nice as it may sound Fredrickson 's theory leaves her readers with far more questions than answers and in fact plays more into the hands of Gladwell’s “power of context”. Fredrickson offers vague descriptions and uses contradictory language in regards to

When it comes to schemes employed in the introduction of Gladwell's book, rhetorical questions take the cake. Upon countless instances, Gladwell used this rhetorical device to force the reader into staying engaged and seeing all sides of his argument. As mentioned earlier, the first subsection introduced an extensive story about the Getty museum's purchase of a forged Greek statue. In order to keep focused on the purpose of the novel Gladwell placed well-spaced out questions, asking the reader “ Who was right?” and “Why ... did the museum buy [the statue] in the first place?”, compelling one to pause and reevaluate how Gladwell’s notion, was in fact possible (Gladwell 7,14). To further excitement and engagement in his message, Gladwell prompts the reader with questions that poke at what the world could be like if humans put more trust in their instincts and “stopped scanning the horizon with our binoculars and began instead examining our own decision making and behavior through the most powerful of microscopes” (Gladwell 16). Open ended questions such as these give the reader a broader understanding of what Gladwell’s aspirations for the book were, allowing them to better comprehend his newfound ideas.

Meanwhile, ethos allow the reader to view the author as a trustworthy source and builds the author's credibility. An author can do this in a number of different ways, such as using other credible sources to their advantage or by building common ground with the reader. It is especially important for Gladwell’s audience to trust him, as he is trying to convince them that what they believe about success is wrong.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Power of Context,” includes a series of short anecdotes in which are all defined by environment and how society shapes mankind. While reading these short stories Gladwell put into the novel, the audience can conclude that the rules of society have the power to shape a person or community. When reading “The Power of Context,” the reader must be able to grasp the understanding of how environment can affect an individual. One would say nature is the setting in which a person is brought up, nurture is the care variable one has the power to influence how they behave or how the setting can define who they are. In this style of writing Gladwell uses, shifts in societies behaviors tell stories of how the setting can influence behaviors of the main characters.