Bear with me for a moment while I set up the situation for you.

On Monday (01.26.09) our favorite memetician linked to Steven Johnson's (guest blogging for boing boing) analysis of children's board games, specifically Candy Land. Johnson notes:

There's a consistent theme to all these old-school game introductions: almost without exception, I have been mortified by the pathetic game that I've excitedly brought to the kids. Not because they're made out of cardboard and plastic, instead of 1080p HDMI graphics. (My boys still spend just as many happy hours with Lego as they do the PS3.) What's irritating about the games is that they are exercises in sheer randomness. It's not that they fail to sharpen any useful skills; it's that they make it literally impossible for a player to acquire any skills at all.

...It says you are powerless, that your destiny is entirely determined by the luck of the draw, that the only chance you have of winning the game lies in following the rules, and accepting the cards as they come. Who wants to grow up in that kind of universe?

To which Kottke is on point to add:

On the other hand, games of chance allow children of all ages and abilities to play the same games together and experience both winning and losing.

Today (01.28.09) the Candy Land conversation returned with a piece from Greg Costikyan. It should be noted this piece was written prior to Johnson's piece. In it Costikyan opines:

As such, it is a metaphorical representation of the fundamental ideology of the United States; the past is no constraint on the future, and each individual should strive resolutely for personal advance despite whatever the past may hold. The child born in a log cabin may achieve the presidency, an immigrant boy who grows up in the slums of Brooklyn may become a real-estate magnate, an Ivy-educated scion of wealth may wind up on a bread line, and a double green will speed you to the fore. Though there are winners and losers, initial conditions are no determinant of outcome in the freedom of America.

And finally Tom Armitage adds:

And so the first move in any game is starting to infer the rules, and deduce the logic behind the system. In Super Mario Bros., you know that you have to rescue the princess - the goal is made clear upfront, in the game and in the manual. But the rules of the system aren't. And so, using only "run" and "jump" (to begin with), you start to work out what you should and shouldn't do, what the shortcuts to success are, what enemies are dangerous and when, and by doing all this you slowly build up a picture of the rules.

Still with me? Good.

Johnson firmly states, in regards to the randomness of games, that, "It's not that they fail to sharpen any useful skills; it's that they make it literally impossible for a player to acquire any skills at all." Costikyan takes that theory and applies it to some real life situations and concludes, "Though there are winners and losers, initial conditions are no determinant of outcome in the freedom of America."

Somewhere upon reading that Gladwell is sitting and shaking his head in disagreement. The entire premise of Outliers is just the opposite. That circumstances beyond our control (including those we are born into initially) can and do determine, to some degree, how our lives unfold. Gladwell is careful not to jump into the 'all or none' camp though and acknowledges that the degree to which a circumstance affects our path is unknown. Johnson and Costikyan unfortunately take no such care. They are firmly entrenched in the 'all or none' camp and on this topic have loudly declared 'none'.

Thankfully both Kottke and Armitage are quick to recognize the benefits of such 'random' exercises. More specifically, Armitage's remarks regarding Super Mario Bros. can be applied to life itself. Your mission is clear- The pursuit of happiness. Not only is your starting point random, but the path to said goal and the system by which you achieve it are anything but clear. But as you experience more and more in life you discover friends, enemies, success, failure, shortcuts and yes even chance. All of which help form the rules you play your game by. And hopefully by the time you use your last life you will have reached your goal, saved the princess, found happiness.

Randomness is real and learning how to deal with it is a necessary path along the way to your goal. Johnson and Costikyan could not be more wrong. Kottke and Armitage could not be more right.