7 ms·

I quite like Malcolm Gladwell. Here's why: I view empirical truth as having layers. There is one objective truth, of course, but there are higher-order concent

I quite like Malcolm Gladwell. Here's why: I view empirical truth as having layers. There is one objective truth, of course, but there are higher-order concentric rings of abstractions above those that aren't strictly true but serve as an accurate enough first-order approximation of the truth. The clichéd example of this would be the Bohr model of atoms being the first "ring" of truth, and quantum mechanics being a second or third "ring". Another example would be "everything revolves around the earth" -> "everything revolves around the sun" -> "Newtonian gravity" -> "Einsteinian general relativity". As a first-order approximation of the truth, Gladwell is fine. There are serious criticisms of him in this article that may cause me to rethink this, but as long as they aren't full-on manipulations of reality, I view them as a useful entry point into a subject. Nuanced and rigorous history requires careful and objective study to truly understand. Gladwell, on the other hand, I can read in the bathtub with a cold beer. He's fun in a way that the more academic approach to history necessarily can't be (unless there is a Feynman-esque character writing history books that I'm not aware of?)

jmkni 5y ago
I like Adam Curtis for the same reason
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Curtis is trying to create a certain sort of dream state in which the free association of ideas takes place and you reframe your perspective on society. I'd hesitate to call it even something that could be true. It's more like an abstract painting. I went through quite a hostile phase, as it's clearly masquerading as something it isn't. It's more a work of aesthetic-political creation, than any kind of "history". It's a made up history of a possible world view possible dead people might have had; for the sake of saying something about our world views today.
  - mopsi 5y ago
    > It's more like an abstract painting. Or a music video: Massive Attack x Adam Curtis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e3I1mLc3RM&t=54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e3I1mLc3RM&t=54s
lovegoblin 5y ago
And that's fair enough, except he doesn't present his work as merely "first ring of truth" - he presents it as a deeper ring, or at least certainly does not indicate that it's merely an introduction. So laypeople read his books and listen to his podcasts and don't know that the truth has been fudged so much for the sake of storytelling that it borders on outright misleading. But it was so entertaining in the meantime that it feels like additional insight - which of course is the brilliant trick of his marketing.
prepend 5y ago
Truth having layers of detail seems accurate to me. Outer layers conflicting with inner layers is foolish and means that the outer layer wasn’t true at all. Fiction claiming to be non-fiction is annoying and should at least be labeled accurately.
- xapata 5y ago
  You'd not be able to label anything as non-fiction, unless it were from the mouth of Cthulu. No matter how dryly something is presented, the reader should still be skeptical.
  - prepend 5y ago
    I think it’s hard to be 100% accurate, but that doesn’t mean we should give up and purposely, or incompetently, include falseness when we’re trying to tell the truth.
- Talanes 5y ago
  > Truth having layers of detail seems accurate to me. Outer layers conflicting with inner layers is foolish and means that the outer layer wasn’t true at all. That just seems like how most teaching works. I.e. No one starts out learning physics as it works in any physical space, you start with a simplified fake version to start to understand concepts before you can start to handle greater complexity and approach greater truths.
  - prepend 5y ago
    There’s honest fake and dishonest fake. Using simplified, fake versions to learn concepts makes perfect sense. Teaching people that fake versions are actually true just to learn concepts is counterproductive. There’s no advantage to lying about training models and it’s not healthy, I think, to pretend I’m doing this for the good of my audience.
Seattle3503 5y ago
> Nuanced and rigorous history requires careful and objective study to truly understand. It seems like the most objective account of history one can create is merely a recollection of all facts, with no room for editorialization. I've read some books by historians and I find it hard to follow when reading in the 20 minute increments my free time is divided into. Maybe that's just my problem, but it makes me understand why some people reach for pop history.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Academic history is storytelling rather than a recollection of facts. This is why there are different analysis modes and multiple views of the same events can all be valid work. That said, it is definitely the case that academic history is written for other academics and is often terribly dry for people outside of the field. There are exceptions, but little about a book itself will tell you whether it is one of the ones that are well suited for amateur readers.
- chillacy 5y ago
  Given finite resources (limited pages in a book), the decision to put some facts over others into said book is by nature a form of editorialization.
didibus 5y ago
> There is one objective truth, of course Not necessarily, I think it's very likely that the foundation of truth is ever changing in itself, nothing has to be fixed in time and space. > but there are higher-order concentric rings of abstractions above those that aren't strictly true but serve as an accurate enough first-order approximation of the truth I think one thing that was a big "haha" moment for me was actually reconsidering what I'm even trying to accomplish when discussing "truth". I realized that in actuality, we are simply framing facts and observations into conceptual models that allows us to predict or infer further conclusions. This means we really only care about the practicalities. Like you said, quantum physics and general relativity are simply two conceptual models, in practice they each work well for certain things, but we've found they are incompatible right now, and what one is good at the other not so much. And that's fine, unless you wrongly obsess over "truth", which you will never find. But if you focus on your practicalities, then it's a question of finding the most effective conceptual model you can, and then applying it to your life. When it comes to history, it's the same. It doesn't really matter what actually happened and why. What matters is the conceptual model you use to look at the artifacts you've got, and what that allows you to do today in your life. It might be that one framing of history helps you keep together a free society and keep authoritarian agents at bay, if so, it's a pretty good model of history. If it doesn't allow you to do this, and actually does the opposite, and that's not your goal, than it's a bad model of history. Start thinking that way, and history becomes a means to protect yourself from future mistakes using past data. Now your model of history can be objectively measured in how good it is at doing that.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  This 'means to an end truth' should never be confused for the actual truth. QM and GR are both as true as we can make them. Newtonian mechanics is even more useful of a model, since it's much easier to work with, but it just isn't true at some point. The lesson to learn from the current limits of physics isn't that you should construct whichever narrative best serves your propaganda and stop obsessing about the truth. The only lesson they should teach you in history is to not obsess too much about details that just can't be known (like the internal motivations or beliefs of historical figures) and instead to focus on what actually happened (like the impact their actions had).
carbonguy 5y ago
> as they aren't full-on manipulations of reality, I view them as a useful entry point into a subject. But then, this is exactly the critique the article advances: in this book Gladwell presents a narrative that gives readers (to put it charitably) an incomplete understanding of the nature of American air doctrine in WWII. Omission of facts IS manipulation of reality, and what Gladwell has created seems to be more akin to a third- or fourth-order representation of reality where a heavily biased selection of (to be fair, mostly true) facts is then glossed and presented in a form where one "can read it in the bathtub with a cold beer" and have a good time. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's pretty remarkable to assume that such a work gives you any meaningful grasp of a subject in addition to being entertainment.
- joshuak 5y ago
  I think by "manipulations" the parent's implication is, manipulation to some purpose, as in to fabricate support for some political or philosophical belief. It's so common to manipulate reality for the purpose of entertainment that we have a fairly benign term for it: poetic license.
  - xenophonf 5y ago
    Then label Gladwell's works as the fictions they are.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  Who'd assume that though? Reading through a book does not give me a robust understanding of a subject. If that were true, why would people go to school? I read for a perspective and some entertainment, and maybe retaining some details. I read the God Delusion, but I wouldn't presume to know all that much about the intricacies of evolutionary biology. I have at most a cursory understanding of how natural selection works, and a few examples to go on that I didn't know about previously. Why would I care to know everything about "American air doctrine in WWII" when I hadn't previously paid the subject any thought at any level?
mcguire 5y ago
That is fine, of course, but be careful not to believe the conclusions you draw from Gladwell alone and be very careful about asserting those conclusions as guides to future behavior without going to the effort of finding out where he is simply wrong.
enriquepablo 5y ago
> Nuanced and rigorous history requires careful and objective study to truly understand. Have you read https://acoup.blog/ https://acoup.blog/? Another reader above (@iainctduncan) said: > 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. :( If everyone were like her or him, it would be fine to write sloppyly and engagingly about science and history posing as if you were a real authority. But that doesnt seem to be the case (this is HN).
bernardv 5y ago
In this day and age, ignoring the deeper layers of truth which are available to you as a writer is disingenuous. It is a choice.

jmkni 5y ago

I like Adam Curtis for the same reason

mjburgess 5y ago
Curtis is trying to create a certain sort of dream state in which the free association of ideas takes place and you reframe your perspective on society. I'd hesitate to call it even something that could be true. It's more like an abstract painting. I went through quite a hostile phase, as it's clearly masquerading as something it isn't. It's more a work of aesthetic-political creation, than any kind of "history". It's a made up history of a possible world view possible dead people might have had; for the sake of saying something about our world views today.
- mopsi 5y ago
  > It's more like an abstract painting. Or a music video: Massive Attack x Adam Curtis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e3I1mLc3RM&t=54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e3I1mLc3RM&t=54s

lovegoblin 5y ago

And that's fair enough, except he doesn't present his work as merely "first ring of truth" - he presents it as a deeper ring, or at least certainly does not indicate that it's merely an introduction. So laypeople read his books and listen to his podcasts and don't know that the truth has been fudged so much for the sake of storytelling that it borders on outright misleading. But it was so entertaining in the meantime that it feels like additional insight - which of course is the brilliant trick of his marketing.

prepend 5y ago

Truth having layers of detail seems accurate to me. Outer layers conflicting with inner layers is foolish and means that the outer layer wasn’t true at all. Fiction claiming to be non-fiction is annoying and should at least be labeled accurately.

xapata 5y ago
You'd not be able to label anything as non-fiction, unless it were from the mouth of Cthulu. No matter how dryly something is presented, the reader should still be skeptical.
- prepend 5y ago
  I think it’s hard to be 100% accurate, but that doesn’t mean we should give up and purposely, or incompetently, include falseness when we’re trying to tell the truth.
Talanes 5y ago
> Truth having layers of detail seems accurate to me. Outer layers conflicting with inner layers is foolish and means that the outer layer wasn’t true at all. That just seems like how most teaching works. I.e. No one starts out learning physics as it works in any physical space, you start with a simplified fake version to start to understand concepts before you can start to handle greater complexity and approach greater truths.
- prepend 5y ago
  There’s honest fake and dishonest fake. Using simplified, fake versions to learn concepts makes perfect sense. Teaching people that fake versions are actually true just to learn concepts is counterproductive. There’s no advantage to lying about training models and it’s not healthy, I think, to pretend I’m doing this for the good of my audience.

Seattle3503 5y ago

> Nuanced and rigorous history requires careful and objective study to truly understand. It seems like the most objective account of history one can create is merely a recollection of all facts, with no room for editorialization. I've read some books by historians and I find it hard to follow when reading in the 20 minute increments my free time is divided into. Maybe that's just my problem, but it makes me understand why some people reach for pop history.

UncleMeat 5y ago
Academic history is storytelling rather than a recollection of facts. This is why there are different analysis modes and multiple views of the same events can all be valid work. That said, it is definitely the case that academic history is written for other academics and is often terribly dry for people outside of the field. There are exceptions, but little about a book itself will tell you whether it is one of the ones that are well suited for amateur readers.
chillacy 5y ago
Given finite resources (limited pages in a book), the decision to put some facts over others into said book is by nature a form of editorialization.

didibus 5y ago

> There is one objective truth, of course Not necessarily, I think it's very likely that the foundation of truth is ever changing in itself, nothing has to be fixed in time and space. > but there are higher-order concentric rings of abstractions above those that aren't strictly true but serve as an accurate enough first-order approximation of the truth I think one thing that was a big "haha" moment for me was actually reconsidering what I'm even trying to accomplish when discussing "truth". I realized that in actuality, we are simply framing facts and observations into conceptual models that allows us to predict or infer further conclusions. This means we really only care about the practicalities. Like you said, quantum physics and general relativity are simply two conceptual models, in practice they each work well for certain things, but we've found they are incompatible right now, and what one is good at the other not so much. And that's fine, unless you wrongly obsess over "truth", which you will never find. But if you focus on your practicalities, then it's a question of finding the most effective conceptual model you can, and then applying it to your life. When it comes to history, it's the same. It doesn't really matter what actually happened and why. What matters is the conceptual model you use to look at the artifacts you've got, and what that allows you to do today in your life. It might be that one framing of history helps you keep together a free society and keep authoritarian agents at bay, if so, it's a pretty good model of history. If it doesn't allow you to do this, and actually does the opposite, and that's not your goal, than it's a bad model of history. Start thinking that way, and history becomes a means to protect yourself from future mistakes using past data. Now your model of history can be objectively measured in how good it is at doing that.

tsimionescu 5y ago
This 'means to an end truth' should never be confused for the actual truth. QM and GR are both as true as we can make them. Newtonian mechanics is even more useful of a model, since it's much easier to work with, but it just isn't true at some point. The lesson to learn from the current limits of physics isn't that you should construct whichever narrative best serves your propaganda and stop obsessing about the truth. The only lesson they should teach you in history is to not obsess too much about details that just can't be known (like the internal motivations or beliefs of historical figures) and instead to focus on what actually happened (like the impact their actions had).

carbonguy 5y ago

> as they aren't full-on manipulations of reality, I view them as a useful entry point into a subject. But then, this is exactly the critique the article advances: in this book Gladwell presents a narrative that gives readers (to put it charitably) an incomplete understanding of the nature of American air doctrine in WWII. Omission of facts IS manipulation of reality, and what Gladwell has created seems to be more akin to a third- or fourth-order representation of reality where a heavily biased selection of (to be fair, mostly true) facts is then glossed and presented in a form where one "can read it in the bathtub with a cold beer" and have a good time. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's pretty remarkable to assume that such a work gives you any meaningful grasp of a subject in addition to being entertainment.

joshuak 5y ago
I think by "manipulations" the parent's implication is, manipulation to some purpose, as in to fabricate support for some political or philosophical belief. It's so common to manipulate reality for the purpose of entertainment that we have a fairly benign term for it: poetic license.
- xenophonf 5y ago
  Then label Gladwell's works as the fictions they are.
brailsafe 5y ago
Who'd assume that though? Reading through a book does not give me a robust understanding of a subject. If that were true, why would people go to school? I read for a perspective and some entertainment, and maybe retaining some details. I read the God Delusion, but I wouldn't presume to know all that much about the intricacies of evolutionary biology. I have at most a cursory understanding of how natural selection works, and a few examples to go on that I didn't know about previously. Why would I care to know everything about "American air doctrine in WWII" when I hadn't previously paid the subject any thought at any level?

mcguire 5y ago

That is fine, of course, but be careful not to believe the conclusions you draw from Gladwell alone and be very careful about asserting those conclusions as guides to future behavior without going to the effort of finding out where he is simply wrong.

enriquepablo 5y ago

> Nuanced and rigorous history requires careful and objective study to truly understand. Have you read https://acoup.blog/ https://acoup.blog/? Another reader above (@iainctduncan) said: > 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. :( If everyone were like her or him, it would be fine to write sloppyly and engagingly about science and history posing as if you were a real authority. But that doesnt seem to be the case (this is HN).

bernardv 5y ago

In this day and age, ignoring the deeper layers of truth which are available to you as a writer is disingenuous. It is a choice.