>> he is a provocative or behind some of the big ideas of our time, a creator of pop science, an unofficial but influential set of laws that govern human behavior. between five bestsellers and two decades at "the new yorker," malcolm gladwell has perked plextor the most chromatic -- critical of readers. joining me now, novelist and thought provocateur malcolm gladwell.

your argument is that disadvantages can create advantages, the opportunity to speak with cancer patients. what can a tech ceo take from this? >> adiversity is the best teacher. overcoming disadvantages can become a more efficient way of learning crucial skills than applying advantages. for those were willing to face up to the challenge, diversity is extraordinarily powerful teaching tool. it's a faster way to get from a to b. >> what do you see is the david and goliath and technology? amazon, google, facebook? >> what's fascinating is how quickly they transition from being underdogs to being a goliath. we are used to the trajectory of microsoft starts and it takes

them, whatever, 15 years ago from the upstart to the monolith. today i feel like it's a manner of years where faced the category from nowhere to being a dominant player. this kind of trajectory going from a perceived as advantage to being saddled with the attributes of goliath. now it has been sped up. >> you are published by hachette. your books kind of got caught in the middle. how did you feel about this? >> it breaks my heart a little. i had thought of amazon as in partnership with writers. for a company trying to make a business point by turning its back on -- i have sold through amazon millions of books.

i have contributed mightily to their bottom line. i would have thought they would see me as an asset. we have brought people to their site in droves. now they've turned on us. it is, to say the least, it is a puzzling strategy for business to turn on its assets. i would love to have this conversation with jeff bezos about the self-destructive nature of his strategy. >> amazon is arguing that books must be cheaper where there is so many immediate distractions. any sympathy? >> complete sympathy for it. i just don't understand why in order to get to that preferred outcome they have chosen to screw over the people bringing revenue to their business and customers to their site.

>> is there another way? >> is this an industry that's going to be disrupted? the answer is absolutely. i can imagine a world without traditional publishers. i cannot imagine a world without traditional bookstores. but i would like to see is a revision of the publishing environment in a way that ensures the success of the old-school physical bookstore. >> if that has impacted your

sales, how much? >> a lot. >> you were born in england, the son of a math professor and a therapist. how did they influence you? >> my father represents the analytical side and my mother represents psychology. my work is to fuse those things. >> where did this penchant come from? >> i was a bored child growing up in the middle of nowhere. i had to imagine a world for myself because my everyday environment wasn't necessarily compelling. >> what was your first job?

>> and little magazine and a bloomington, indiana, right after college and i was fired after four months. >> for what? >> basically for sleeping in. then i moved to washington, d.c., and did freelance and a variety of odd jobs for a while. it's very serendipitous. i never had any plans. i never had a lucky break or a random choice. >> a job at the "new yorker" is not a lucky break but the result of hard work. >> we tend underestimate the role of simple good fortune. >> have you evolved your conclusion about anything you've written? >> if you still believe the same

thing you wrote about 15 years ago then you are a joke, a fossil. ♪

>> there are myths about some of the greatest creators and innovators that are often boiled into legend. what is the myth of malcolm gladwell? >> i am just about as boring and pedestrian in my private life that i am in public. >> you said you had no idea how big your book would become. looking back, do you understand why it did? >> we caught a very specific wave over the last 20 years. there was this emerging class of business person who is demanding

a higher level of sophistication and thinking about business in the world. i haven't read it in 20 years. >> so many of your ideas have been widely debated. have you evolved your conclusion about anything you've written? >> all the time. you still believe the same thing you believed 15 years ago then you are a joke, a fossil. as all kinds of stuff that i was once crazy about them now think it's kind of incomplete or

juvenile or immature. >> like what? >> there are many cases where i think you have a responsibility as a thinking person to constantly revisit and revise what you believe. the minute you are unwilling to contradict things you believed in the past, you cease to be a thinking person. if i had the leisure, i would go back and revisit, reshape, reargue things. we just know so much more. >> has your life adapted? >> i was so impressed while writing "blink" about the potential for bias in our snap judgments and first impressions that i very actively tried to question my first impressions. when i meet people, the conclusions i draw about them, spending more time trying to understand from their perspective.

>> one of the chapters that has had a great impact this from "outliers" were you present a study of canadian hockey players and the oldest are the best. it's this nationwide phenomenon whereby parents are holding their kids back in school. should they be doing that? >> among kids who are 6, 7, eight years old, the difference between a january and a december kid is considerable which makes sense. parents appropriately have sent -- said, i don't want my kid disadvantaged in this way. it should never have to come down to parents acting. the school should step up and say in grades one through five, we will separate kids by their month of birth. the fact that schools don't do this blows my mind. if you're faced with a school that is being so dumb about the

evidence, by all means take action in your own hands. it does not solve the issue. >> my kid is a september kid. when he's around older kids, he's more inspired, more engaged. what am i to do? >> this observation is most pertinent for kids with other problems. it is most pertinent for kids already dealing with social economic and other struggles. >> a disadvantage can become an advantage and now you have kids at giving an artificial advantage. are these ideas counter? >> no, they're supposed to be in parallel. the idea of david and goliath is our understanding of disadvantage dates to be much more sophisticated. -- fo advantage needs to be more sophisticated.

there are clearly occasions when giving someone more resources or removing an obstacle helps them that there are also occasions when it doesn't. if they were contradictory, i would be ok with that. we need to get away from the notion that ideas are only interesting when they're fundamentally consistent. wrong. what a thoughtful, intelligent people do with their brains is mull over inconsistency. when two ideas are in conflict and you have to struggle to make sense of that conflict, that is when thinking starts. >> how do you view the power and influence that you have over how the public interprets? >> it's important not to overstate it. i'm someone who writes books. i see myself as contributing to a healthy conversation. i am not so much of a raging narcissist to think that i'm controlling the conversation. far from it.

>> i know you are aware of the criticisms of your books. some have said they are unoriginal, obvious. the science plays a supporting role, overgeneralized, oversimplifies. how do you respond? >> i don't think of them as criticism. the story comes first in science is secondary and that's because i wanted it to. the stories are incredibly powerful ways to communicate ideas. are my books simplified? of course they are. i spent a huge amount of time simplifying them. when someone says i am simplifying it? that's my intention. if i did not simplify it, people would not read them. they would be unreadable. >> critics say not to taken so seriously. >> exactly right. chill out. ideas ought to be a source of joy.

think about something in a new way even if you find it unconvincing. it's supposed to be something that brings you pleasure. >> you can write whatever you want now at the new yorker. why are you still writing essays when you could just write books? >> i enjoy it. "new yorker" is the most demanding literary form. it's much harder to write than a book. i've been fascinated with the ignition switch controversy although i'm late to the game here. i don't think anyone would read a book about it. would it be a kernel of a great article, absolutely. >> we see so many journalists go off and start their own companies. why not do something like that? >> because i would be terrible at it. i would have to wake up too

early in the morning. as all kinds of very good reasons for me to steer clear. >> what about how the nfl has handled domestic violence? >> this is a sport that's living in the past that has no connection, i think, to the realities of the game right now and no real connection to american society. ♪

>> one of the subjects you wrote about more recently is the nfl. you said it will become ghettoized because of concussions with only poor athletes willing to play the game and that the sport will become obsolete. the nfl has been settling with former players. are they doing enough with current players? >> no. i think the sport is a moral abomination. nfl released the actuaries report trying to estimate what number of retired players may well be in need of some kind of medical assistance from the league and they came up with one third.

when you watch football on sunday, in the course of playing the game, they're incurring an injury that will significantly impact their life. can you point to another industry in america which, in the course of doing business, maims one third of its employees? this is untenable. we are not talking about people limping at the age of 50. we are talking about brain injuries that are causing horrible, protracted, premature death. the idea that we are paying people to engage in a sport for our own entertainment that causes irreparable damage to themselves is appalling. >> what about how the nfl has handled the domestic violence issues? >> this is a sport living in the past with no connection to the realities of the game right now.

no real connection to american society. if you look at the whole ray rice issue, in a microcosm what's wrong with the nfl which is they are completely disconnected from the consequences of the sport they are engaged in. they are socializing young men into a culture of violence. right? is it at all surprising you see all sorts of corollary social damage surrounding players? not at all. they are off on this 19th century trajectory which is out of touch. >> your friend and podcasting partner bill simmons called the commissioner of the nfl a liar with respect to the ray rice case. he ended up getting suspended for three weeks. espn suspended him. was that the right decision? >> it was the totally wrong decision. if a sports columnist in a podcast cannot call -- exercise free speech -- by the way, calling him a liar,

it's not like it came out of nowhere. it's like one reasonable conclusion from the whole ray rice saga is that the commissioner of the nfl knew about the existence of the videotape and lied about it. am i saying that's what he did? i don't know, but it's a reasonable conclusion. if i thought in the course of expressing opinions sports columnist are allowed to draw conclusions -- apparently not. apparently you get suspended for that. that was an embarrassingly low moment. >> you think football still goes away? >> i don't see how it doesn't. it will start to shrivel up in high school and college level. then the pro game will wither on the vine. look, boxing was one of the biggest sports in this country in the 1920's. where is it now? >> what about print media in the future of journalism?

does it developer decline? >> we are entering a golden age for media. there is more media, more variety, more sophistication than there's ever been in the past. we happen to be in a little window of time where we are trying to figure out new business models for a lot of it, but we will. the new yorker is read by more people today than ever in the past. is there a desire and a demand in the reading public for investigative journalism? absolutely. >> how do you make your own work distinctive? >> i continue to follow my own curiosity and if no one follows along, that's too bad. i love waking up in the morning and learning new stuff. if large numbers of people want to follow me in that journey,

that's wonderful. i've been working on television and i have no idea what might become of it. >> for who? >> yet to be determined. >> what kind? >> a thriller. >> fiction. >> it's been a very fun digression from my normal stuff. >> you're selling it? >> i will probably write another book soon. i'm playing with various ideas. i have a bunch of things i want to write for the new yorker. the same kind of meandering progress that it has taken over the course. >> i cannot wait. thank you very much, malcolm gladwell, for joining us on this show.

it's been an honor and a pleasure having you. ♪

>> the following is a paid advertisement from starvista entertainment and time life. >> ♪ somewhere beyond the sea >> bobby darin, frank sinatra, dean martin. >> ♪ volare >> tony bennett, nat king cole, johnny mathis. >> ♪ it's not for me to say you