“Honestly? Really interesting and accessible. He examines why outliers exist; why do some people succeed and others don't? He starts out by arguing that child prodigies exist because of the number of hours of practice they put into their skill (Gladwell argues you have to practice for 10,000 hours) e.g. Mozart didn't hit his stride until he had his 10,000 hours of practice in. *'Practice isn’t the thing you do once you're good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good.'* Another good section is when Gladwell looks into why Asian children seem to understand Mathematics more than western children. His arguments really make sense. Success has nothing to do with being bright. It's about seizing the opportunities that come your way. If you're interested in something similar I'd recommend 'Bounce' by Matthew Syed. ”

“I see that all the other comments are unanimously positive, and so I'd like to play devil's advocate and point out that his 'findings' have a fairly thin scientific foundation. The problem with his reasoning is that he puts forward a hypothesis (e.g talent isn't enough. You need x amount of hours and an opportunity), and then he gives you 3-4 examples that would seem to support that hypothesis. For example he tells us that the most important factor in becoming good at something is practicing for 10.000 hours+. He then tells us about some successful people who practiced a lot (The Beatles, child prodigies, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates). While this is really interesting, and makes for a fascinating study on what these extraordinary people have in common, it is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. It might have been even more exciting, if he had gone out and searched for the real 'outliers', i.e people who have excelled at their craft despite lacking the 10 thousand hours of practice, or access to opportunities no one else had (like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates). Instead of doing this, he cherry picks anecdotes that fit his narrative. All this being said, I really enjoy his books, and especially 'Outliers'. They are entertaining, but people should take them for what they are: pop-psychology/sociology with a thin scientific foundation. The New York Times review makes some of the same points for those interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/books/18kaku.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0”

“I thought it was brilliant. It has also made me contemplate blowing my brains out on a regular basis, as it makes a compelling case for the fact that being exceptional doesn't really matter if you aren't in the right place, at the right time, to rise above mediocre levels of success. I am, I'm not, I'm not, and I don't.”

“I enjoyed reading it. It is really similar to *Freakonomics* in the way it came at each "problem" from a very unique point of view. My only disagreement was that he seems to frequently make the argument that the successful "outliers" were only products of their environment rather than of their own hard work. Sure, each of the success stories he covers have a great opportunity, but many made the opportunity for him/herself, and every one of them worked extremely hard. Overall, worth the read. ”

“This book really helped me break out of a fixed mindset. I've been obsessing over IQ a lot, and I know how significant it can be to success in school etc. How can anyone stop it's fatalistic power over marginalized individuals and communities? Are people just doomed to fail. The good news is that life isn't an IQ test, even if school tests more or less are. Culture, upbringing, work ethic, and pure luck, is often downplayed too much in psychology. Even if you weren't smart enough to get into the Ivy league, people from other universities get the Nobel prize just as often. And people who scored lower and got a shot with affirmative action, do just as good in professional life as their peers who are smarter. That was relieving news! It's a really great book that enriched my perspective on things, building on great anecdotes and statistics. Highly recommend it, even if it's writen more for entertainment than science.”

“just a heads up relative to his other 3, i found What the Dog Saw to be not nearly as good. I first read The Tipping Point, blew through it, then followed with Outliers and Blink. I would say my preference was (first to last) Outliers, Tipping Pt, Blink, What the Dog Saw. As for Outliers itself, I found it very cool and pretty inspiring. The idea that people who are great had some luck on their side or things out of their control that benefited them makes me feel like I can accomplish more than I thought. It also gives me some ideas for helping my future children achieve their goals (my parents never really encouraged, nor could afford to, promote interests in travel sports or music... so i became a nerd haha)”