8 ms·

>The only issue is that Gladwell’s account doesn’t withstand serious scrutiny. As a piece of writing, The Bomber Mafia is engaging. As a work of history, it bor

by slg 5y ago

>The only issue is that Gladwell’s account doesn’t withstand serious scrutiny. As a piece of writing, The Bomber Mafia is engaging. As a work of history, it borders on reckless. Setting aside the numerous errors of fact and interpretation, Gladwell consistently cherry-picks from the historical record. Wittingly or not, he omits or downplays evidence that undermines the very premise of the book. Sub out history for science in the above paragraph and it is the same criticism that Gladwell has been receiving for literally decades. The guy is a good writer and storyteller but he seemingly prioritizes good writing and story over telling the most honest story. That isn't an unusual trait among pop-non-fiction writers. The reason they become popular is what they write is interesting and it is easier to make things interesting if you are a little loose with the truth.

mdeck_ 5y ago
> The guy is a good writer and storyteller but he seemingly prioritizes good writing and story over telling the most honest story. That isn't an unusual trait among pop-non-fiction writers. It’s not fair at all to cast Malcolm Gladwell as typical of pop nonfiction writers—there are tons of great and serious writers in the genre. It’s truly a shame that Malcolm Gladwell, an utter hack, has been consistently publishing garbage for decades and that he has such a wide audience.
- slg 5y ago
  I'm not going to disagree with the merits of your point, but I do want to provide clarification that I think there is a gap between "not unusual" and "typical". I think the former means it isn't rare while the later means it applies to most people. To make up a number, if this applied to 20% of people it would be both "not unusual" and "not typical".
- quadrangle 5y ago
  Despite the undeniably pattern of problematic framings (particularly how Gladwell invites readers to feel that they now have the answers as opposed to the scientific mindset of now feeling that they have so many more questions), I don't think "utter hack" is fair. Gladwell is not only a superb storyteller, he's sincerely interested in learning himself, has intriguing ideas… it's sloppy (almost in a Gladwellian manner) to be angry about the problems with his approach and then just insist that the conclusion is that his stuff is just garbage and he's just a hack.
  - wsinks 5y ago
    really great usage of Gladwellian here
iainctduncan 5y ago
Came here to say exactly that! Years ago he was a springboard for me to read further on various topics, each time leading me to conclude he doesn't give a shit about presenting the truth if it gets in the way of his story. :(
- rohitb91 5y ago
  I honestly have no clue how his books are so popular They’re like for a person who wants to appear like they read and have interesting though but it’s just a few anecdotes and a complete waste of time frankly
  - deadite 5y ago
    You've answered your own question. Actual wisdom is difficult to attain and often times difficult to further express in spoken or written language (ie. "tacit knowledge", if you believe such a thing exists I suppose). The kind of wisdom you DO attain may not be socially acceptable, either. But, you still want to have the appearance in front of your friends, colleagues and potential "partners" that you are somehow wise. So you turn to statistics, and damn lies that follow.
    - Stratoscope 5y ago
      > Actual wisdom is difficult to attain... In fact I think I've read that it takes 10,000 hours to attain wisdom or expertise. I don't quite remember where I read that...
      - iainctduncan 5y ago
        ba doom cha! God, as a musician and fan of Ericsson's actual work, that one drives me bloody bananas. Ericsson's own book "Peak" is worth reading. One must assume the motivation to write some for lay people was at least partly out of frustration at hearing his academic work mis-quoted so damn much because of Outliers. It would make me CRAZY.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
temp8964 5y ago
Lol. I see his critics did exactly that. The whole anti-ten-thousand-hours people cherry picks borderline arguments and ignores overall correctness of his general point.
- onemoresoop 5y ago
  I think the whole ten-thousand-hours is doing exactly that, it presents some cherry-picked facts and ignores giving substantial evidence. The main point of the book is quite obvious before Gladwell wrapped it into pop science: hard work does pay off one way or another but the extent of his generalization is ... pop science
  - enkid 5y ago
    There was a good freakonomics podcast episode on this where they interviewed both Gladwell and the original author. The person who did the original study basically said Gladwell was not representing his research accurately.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      If you read the author the original work, Gladwell got 80% right, 20% deviation on non-essential issues. Of course a pop science book can be said not representing the original research "accurately". I think the author focused more on the difference because there is Gladwell's book received too many backlashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del...
      - enkid 5y ago
        I don't know, seems like they have pretty different views based on the article you linked.
        temp8964 5y ago
        ""He's [Ericsson] a hard practice guy, and I'm a soft practice guy." Gladwell claims that talent is important with an intentional dedication to practice and having a support system is vital to produce superior outcomes. It is not all about methodical effort as Ericsson claims." That's not "pretty different views". That's agree on all the basics but having a different sense of how much talent matters.
paulsutter 5y ago
“As I’ve written more books I’ve realised there are certain things that writers and critics prize, and readers don’t. So we’re obsessed with things like coherence, consistency, neatness of argument. Readers are indifferent to those things” - Malcolm Gladwell
- wrp 5y ago
  Excellent quote. Critics say the same thing when explaining the popularity of novels like The Da Vinci Code. I wonder if general readers really don't approach non-fiction any more critically than they approach fiction.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Why would they? This person is claiming to be a metaexpert relaying what experts are saying. If somone doesn't have research skills or even know the structure of academia then they're probably very used to having to trust people. I'm wondering if they even have the skills to check anything if they wanted to: somone tried to support a bullshit etymology for an Arabic word by citing some pseudoscience website to me. That to them is just as credible as wiktionary or anything else.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I’d separate those two. The Da Vinci code is not supposed to represent a factual telling of reality; it’s a fictional novel. You might not like it as a piece of high art, but most of us understand the difference between art and pop literature. Heck, most of us consume and like “guilty pleasure” media, I actually rather enjoyed Angels & Demons by the same author. Malcolm Gladwell is purporting to communicate factual reality. If he discards good arguments and evidence to entertain, then he is doing a real measurable harm in a way that Dan Brown is not.
    - fenomas 5y ago
      > The Da Vinci code is not supposed to represent a factual telling of reality It was published with a preface titled "FACT" claiming that all the secret societies and rituals and documents in the novel were historically accurate. That was the book's whole schtick.
jimbob45 5y ago
I’m not sure if that’s really a problem though. I read The Tipping Point and, yes, he isn’t always historically accurate but the point isn’t really the history in the first place. It’s about whatever big idea he’s taking about. If his largely fictional account of history teaches me the big idea, then I don’t really see the big deal. Furthermore, he is extremely receptive to criticism and never presents himself as the one true source of fact.
- loco5niner 5y ago
  Assuming his big idea is correct (which is in danger due to being built on fiction).
emodendroket 5y ago
Considering his history being on speed dial for the tobacco industry when they wanted damage control, I'm not sure it's so innocuous as just wanting to tell an interesting story.

by slg 5y ago

mdeck_ 5y ago

> The guy is a good writer and storyteller but he seemingly prioritizes good writing and story over telling the most honest story. That isn't an unusual trait among pop-non-fiction writers. It’s not fair at all to cast Malcolm Gladwell as typical of pop nonfiction writers—there are tons of great and serious writers in the genre. It’s truly a shame that Malcolm Gladwell, an utter hack, has been consistently publishing garbage for decades and that he has such a wide audience.

slg 5y ago
I'm not going to disagree with the merits of your point, but I do want to provide clarification that I think there is a gap between "not unusual" and "typical". I think the former means it isn't rare while the later means it applies to most people. To make up a number, if this applied to 20% of people it would be both "not unusual" and "not typical".
quadrangle 5y ago
Despite the undeniably pattern of problematic framings (particularly how Gladwell invites readers to feel that they now have the answers as opposed to the scientific mindset of now feeling that they have so many more questions), I don't think "utter hack" is fair. Gladwell is not only a superb storyteller, he's sincerely interested in learning himself, has intriguing ideas… it's sloppy (almost in a Gladwellian manner) to be angry about the problems with his approach and then just insist that the conclusion is that his stuff is just garbage and he's just a hack.
- wsinks 5y ago
  really great usage of Gladwellian here

iainctduncan 5y ago

Came here to say exactly that! Years ago he was a springboard for me to read further on various topics, each time leading me to conclude he doesn't give a shit about presenting the truth if it gets in the way of his story. :(

rohitb91 5y ago
I honestly have no clue how his books are so popular They’re like for a person who wants to appear like they read and have interesting though but it’s just a few anecdotes and a complete waste of time frankly
- deadite 5y ago
  You've answered your own question. Actual wisdom is difficult to attain and often times difficult to further express in spoken or written language (ie. "tacit knowledge", if you believe such a thing exists I suppose). The kind of wisdom you DO attain may not be socially acceptable, either. But, you still want to have the appearance in front of your friends, colleagues and potential "partners" that you are somehow wise. So you turn to statistics, and damn lies that follow.
  - Stratoscope 5y ago
    > Actual wisdom is difficult to attain... In fact I think I've read that it takes 10,000 hours to attain wisdom or expertise. I don't quite remember where I read that...
    - iainctduncan 5y ago
      ba doom cha! God, as a musician and fan of Ericsson's actual work, that one drives me bloody bananas. Ericsson's own book "Peak" is worth reading. One must assume the motivation to write some for lay people was at least partly out of frustration at hearing his academic work mis-quoted so damn much because of Outliers. It would make me CRAZY.
- guerrilla 5y ago

temp8964 5y ago

Lol. I see his critics did exactly that. The whole anti-ten-thousand-hours people cherry picks borderline arguments and ignores overall correctness of his general point.

onemoresoop 5y ago
I think the whole ten-thousand-hours is doing exactly that, it presents some cherry-picked facts and ignores giving substantial evidence. The main point of the book is quite obvious before Gladwell wrapped it into pop science: hard work does pay off one way or another but the extent of his generalization is ... pop science
- enkid 5y ago
  There was a good freakonomics podcast episode on this where they interviewed both Gladwell and the original author. The person who did the original study basically said Gladwell was not representing his research accurately.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    If you read the author the original work, Gladwell got 80% right, 20% deviation on non-essential issues. Of course a pop science book can be said not representing the original research "accurately". I think the author focused more on the difference because there is Gladwell's book received too many backlashes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del...
    - enkid 5y ago
      I don't know, seems like they have pretty different views based on the article you linked.
      - temp8964 5y ago
        ""He's [Ericsson] a hard practice guy, and I'm a soft practice guy." Gladwell claims that talent is important with an intentional dedication to practice and having a support system is vital to produce superior outcomes. It is not all about methodical effort as Ericsson claims." That's not "pretty different views". That's agree on all the basics but having a different sense of how much talent matters.

paulsutter 5y ago

“As I’ve written more books I’ve realised there are certain things that writers and critics prize, and readers don’t. So we’re obsessed with things like coherence, consistency, neatness of argument. Readers are indifferent to those things” - Malcolm Gladwell

wrp 5y ago
Excellent quote. Critics say the same thing when explaining the popularity of novels like The Da Vinci Code. I wonder if general readers really don't approach non-fiction any more critically than they approach fiction.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Why would they? This person is claiming to be a metaexpert relaying what experts are saying. If somone doesn't have research skills or even know the structure of academia then they're probably very used to having to trust people. I'm wondering if they even have the skills to check anything if they wanted to: somone tried to support a bullshit etymology for an Arabic word by citing some pseudoscience website to me. That to them is just as credible as wiktionary or anything else.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I’d separate those two. The Da Vinci code is not supposed to represent a factual telling of reality; it’s a fictional novel. You might not like it as a piece of high art, but most of us understand the difference between art and pop literature. Heck, most of us consume and like “guilty pleasure” media, I actually rather enjoyed Angels & Demons by the same author. Malcolm Gladwell is purporting to communicate factual reality. If he discards good arguments and evidence to entertain, then he is doing a real measurable harm in a way that Dan Brown is not.
  - fenomas 5y ago
    > The Da Vinci code is not supposed to represent a factual telling of reality It was published with a preface titled "FACT" claiming that all the secret societies and rituals and documents in the novel were historically accurate. That was the book's whole schtick.

jimbob45 5y ago

I’m not sure if that’s really a problem though. I read The Tipping Point and, yes, he isn’t always historically accurate but the point isn’t really the history in the first place. It’s about whatever big idea he’s taking about. If his largely fictional account of history teaches me the big idea, then I don’t really see the big deal. Furthermore, he is extremely receptive to criticism and never presents himself as the one true source of fact.

loco5niner 5y ago
Assuming his big idea is correct (which is in danger due to being built on fiction).

emodendroket 5y ago

Considering his history being on speed dial for the tobacco industry when they wanted damage control, I'm not sure it's so innocuous as just wanting to tell an interesting story.