6 ms·
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 b
by 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 agoAgreed. 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 agoYeah, 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.