3 ms·

The problem with Gladwell is he will be read by literally millions of politicians, school administrators and middle management drones. They will read it as scie

The problem with Gladwell is he will be read by literally millions of politicians, school administrators and middle management drones. They will read it as science, and because they do not understand science, they will use the easy approximation of science=truth (especially if they can fit it into their worldview (which Gladwell is extremely good at assembling an argument to do)). From the propositions "Gladwell uses science" and "science=truth", they will not "spark conversation" but instead will progress to "Gladwell=truth". This leads to two bad things: 1. People start spouting crap Gladwell has said at parties because it is "scientifically proven" as if it were the unvarnished truth. 2. Your boss will start new initiatives to find the customer "tipping point," hand out "maven" badges to favoured employees, or think because they have been doing something for years, Blink shows they don't need to learn anything new, listen to others or do any analysis. These things are negative externalities. I'm not sure you could value them, but it is at least conceivable some CEO of a large company will make a stupid decision based on something he read in a Gladwell book. (Okay, maybe I should lighten up...) I guess what pisses me off is he is using our work as scientists to generate a large profit for himself at the expense of both the public's understanding of science and the careful use of science in policymaking (e.g. supporting broken windows v.s. abortion as the reason for the '90s drop in crime.)

tptacek 16y ago
It is not reasonable to bag on Gladwell because some ignoramus cites him as scientific fact. Your problem is with your boss, not with the "negative externalities" caused by an author who writes something that makes your boss do something else dumb. It would be a different story if Gladwell wrote an article exhorting bosses to hand out "maven" badges. But he did nothing of the sort.
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  It depends on your ethical theory I guess. To my mind, Gladwell's actions have predictable negative consequences and he should be held at least somewhat responsible for those consequences. Of course he's free to write what he likes, and I am not arguing for censorship or judicial intervention. But I think he has a negative impact on society and argue against him on that basis. He is the same as the "visualising higher dimensions video" or homeopathy, or any pseudo-science -- using the right words to get the answer you already thought of. I just love jerf's response to the video I mentioned (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1385736 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1385736) and I'd like to misquote it here: I can not anti-recommend Gladwell enough. He is anti-knowledge, convincing you that you know something when you actually understand it less well after reading than before.

tptacek 16y ago

It is not reasonable to bag on Gladwell because some ignoramus cites him as scientific fact. Your problem is with your boss, not with the "negative externalities" caused by an author who writes something that makes your boss do something else dumb. It would be a different story if Gladwell wrote an article exhorting bosses to hand out "maven" badges. But he did nothing of the sort.

Robin_Message 16y ago
It depends on your ethical theory I guess. To my mind, Gladwell's actions have predictable negative consequences and he should be held at least somewhat responsible for those consequences. Of course he's free to write what he likes, and I am not arguing for censorship or judicial intervention. But I think he has a negative impact on society and argue against him on that basis. He is the same as the "visualising higher dimensions video" or homeopathy, or any pseudo-science -- using the right words to get the answer you already thought of. I just love jerf's response to the video I mentioned (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1385736 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1385736) and I'd like to misquote it here: I can not anti-recommend Gladwell enough. He is anti-knowledge, convincing you that you know something when you actually understand it less well after reading than before.