5 ms·

What I took away from that chapter was two things. First was that Asian children, at least those who speak languages that function this way, grok the concept

What I took away from that chapter was two things. First was that Asian children, at least those who speak languages that function this way, grok the concept of addition faster than their Western counterparts because the counting systems are extremely regular, so they pick up on the patterns easier because 11 isn't the arbitrary "eleven" instead it's simply "ten one". Second was success in math is in part a function of perseverance. Impossible problems were given to groups of kids and something like the American kids gave up after 9 minutes on average and the Japanese kids gave up after 14 minutes on average. My memory is fuzzy on the details but that particular metric correlated really well iirc. Been a long time since I read it.

knolax 7y ago
Implicit in the premise of the chapter is that categories such as "Asian" and attributes like "better at math" exist objectively. Gladwell never defines Asian, instead shifting between definitions that rely on nationality (cherrypicked test scores from a number of well-off Northeast Asian countries), language (where he brings up the Chinese counting system used only in some but not all Asian Languages), and ethnicity (where he compares Asian-American children to other American children, many of whom share little to no commonalities with the former two groups). He uses the classic tactic of generalizing these three groups as one through the nefarious concept of "culture", which is poorly defined and can not objectively measured. He then makes the claim that "Asians" are "better at math" without backing up the point with anything other than cherrypicked standardized test scores. Aside from that, he only shows vague correlations without ever proving causation in any rigorous way. Even if the Chinese counting system leads to a faster understanding of arithmetic, Gladwell does not prove that this leads to significantly better math performance. Likewise, he simply claims without any solid proof that growing rice is more difficult than wheat (what units do you measure that in?), or that this increased difficulty would actually provide enough pressure to create a "culture of perseverance" (again, what objective units do you measure that in?). Individual claims in Gladwell's writing may be true, but they never connect together in any rigorous way to prove the claims he tries to make.
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  Well it's a pop-sci book that reads as such. I don't take it to be rigorous, I take it with a "I guess I could see how those dots might connect" food for thought type way.
  - knolax 7y ago
    Popularizing a bunch of disingenuous arguments and presenting it as science isn't excusable no matter the genre.
    - james_s_tayler 7y ago
      I don't find the arguments themselves entirely disingenuous.

knolax 7y ago

Implicit in the premise of the chapter is that categories such as "Asian" and attributes like "better at math" exist objectively. Gladwell never defines Asian, instead shifting between definitions that rely on nationality (cherrypicked test scores from a number of well-off Northeast Asian countries), language (where he brings up the Chinese counting system used only in some but not all Asian Languages), and ethnicity (where he compares Asian-American children to other American children, many of whom share little to no commonalities with the former two groups). He uses the classic tactic of generalizing these three groups as one through the nefarious concept of "culture", which is poorly defined and can not objectively measured. He then makes the claim that "Asians" are "better at math" without backing up the point with anything other than cherrypicked standardized test scores. Aside from that, he only shows vague correlations without ever proving causation in any rigorous way. Even if the Chinese counting system leads to a faster understanding of arithmetic, Gladwell does not prove that this leads to significantly better math performance. Likewise, he simply claims without any solid proof that growing rice is more difficult than wheat (what units do you measure that in?), or that this increased difficulty would actually provide enough pressure to create a "culture of perseverance" (again, what objective units do you measure that in?). Individual claims in Gladwell's writing may be true, but they never connect together in any rigorous way to prove the claims he tries to make.

james_s_tayler 7y ago
Well it's a pop-sci book that reads as such. I don't take it to be rigorous, I take it with a "I guess I could see how those dots might connect" food for thought type way.
- knolax 7y ago
  Popularizing a bunch of disingenuous arguments and presenting it as science isn't excusable no matter the genre.
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    I don't find the arguments themselves entirely disingenuous.