4 ms·

Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism

tokenadult 17y ago
Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism, even though they are usually quite enjoyable. I think Gladwell would largely agree with this description of his writings, or at least with the part that says that his writings should be approached skeptically and that they don't purport to be scholarly. From the article "Malcolm Gladwell's Method" in the Wall Street Journal on November 15, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html?mod=article-outset-box http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html?mod=... an interview by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg: "[Q:] Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little? "[A:] No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think. You have to be willing to put pressure on theories, to push the envelope. That's the fun part, the exciting part. If you are writing an intellectual adventure story, why play it safe? I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them."
- Psyonic 17y ago
  Hmmm... while that may be, many people are taking his books as nonfiction. Perhaps he should consider that, and be more careful, lest he spread potentially damaging information to the masses
- camccann 17y ago
  So basically, sometimes he says things that are flat-out wrong, and he doesn't care as long as they're thought-provoking falsehoods, and people read it anyway because it's fun and engaging and thought-provoking in a way completely unrelated to accuracy. In other words, he's basically an entertainer. Debunking Gladwell is like "debunking" the historical accuracy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
  - jamesbkel 17y ago
    Agreed. The problem is that nobody (or hopefully, very few) people ever took 'MP: Holy Grail' as historically accurate. As someone with a degree in Decision Science my main issue is not so much with Gladwell, but the fact that most people I encounter assume since it's in a book which references scholarly articles that it's true.
    - camccann 17y ago
      Yeah, I don't mean to bash Gladwell himself either. At times he indulges in glib bullshitting[0] but his infectious enthusiasm for exploring neat-sounding ideas is charming, and refreshing compared to some of the utter tripe that's out there. And he really is an excellent writer. The downside is his books ending up in the hands of people whose capacity for entertaining novel ideas far exceeds their capacity for rational critical thinking. [0] "Bullshit" in the sense of H. Frankfurt's technical term for assertions intended neither to inform nor deceive.
- philelly 17y ago
  yet, his personal blog is largely attacks on people who publish essays questioning his conclusions. for instance, he appears to be still steaming over the whole pinker review/ eigenvalue debacle. i guess i can't really argue with the quotation you provide but he seems to me like someone who takes his conclusions (too) seriously.

tokenadult 17y ago

Gladwell's books are not scholarly research. They're more like hipster coffee shop conversations, and should be taken with a healthy dose of rigorous skepticism, even though they are usually quite enjoyable. I think Gladwell would largely agree with this description of his writings, or at least with the part that says that his writings should be approached skeptically and that they don't purport to be scholarly. From the article "Malcolm Gladwell's Method" in the Wall Street Journal on November 15, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html?mod=article-outset-box http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html?mod=... an interview by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg: "[Q:] Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little? "[A:] No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think. You have to be willing to put pressure on theories, to push the envelope. That's the fun part, the exciting part. If you are writing an intellectual adventure story, why play it safe? I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them."

Psyonic 17y ago
Hmmm... while that may be, many people are taking his books as nonfiction. Perhaps he should consider that, and be more careful, lest he spread potentially damaging information to the masses
camccann 17y ago
So basically, sometimes he says things that are flat-out wrong, and he doesn't care as long as they're thought-provoking falsehoods, and people read it anyway because it's fun and engaging and thought-provoking in a way completely unrelated to accuracy. In other words, he's basically an entertainer. Debunking Gladwell is like "debunking" the historical accuracy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
- jamesbkel 17y ago
  Agreed. The problem is that nobody (or hopefully, very few) people ever took 'MP: Holy Grail' as historically accurate. As someone with a degree in Decision Science my main issue is not so much with Gladwell, but the fact that most people I encounter assume since it's in a book which references scholarly articles that it's true.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Yeah, I don't mean to bash Gladwell himself either. At times he indulges in glib bullshitting[0] but his infectious enthusiasm for exploring neat-sounding ideas is charming, and refreshing compared to some of the utter tripe that's out there. And he really is an excellent writer. The downside is his books ending up in the hands of people whose capacity for entertaining novel ideas far exceeds their capacity for rational critical thinking. [0] "Bullshit" in the sense of H. Frankfurt's technical term for assertions intended neither to inform nor deceive.
philelly 17y ago
yet, his personal blog is largely attacks on people who publish essays questioning his conclusions. for instance, he appears to be still steaming over the whole pinker review/ eigenvalue debacle. i guess i can't really argue with the quotation you provide but he seems to me like someone who takes his conclusions (too) seriously.