5 ms·

David Graeber had an account here and defended himself from DeLong's accusations in a comment [1]. They even had an exchange in that thread. At best I think DeL

by steppi 5y ago

David Graeber had an account here and defended himself from DeLong's accusations in a comment [1]. They even had an exchange in that thread. At best I think DeLong has been pretty uncharitable to Graeber. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17163449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17163449

specialist 5y ago
Once I read Debt, I decided DeLong criticized a book which Graeber had not written. Like @heydenberk, I unfollowed DeLong.
paganel 5y ago
Thanks for that link, I somehow missed it when DeLong's article was discussed in here, it helps explain lots of stuff.
notahacker 5y ago
DeLong was definitely trolling Graeber, but Graeber brought it on himself with overreaction to reviews which brought up the error. (A reviewer opened an article by saying it was an impressive book he was considering setting as a text for his students and a few paragraphs of summary of points Graeber made which are good, before highlighting a mistake and another argument he considered weak. Graeber wrote a screed about how the reviewer was "part of a strategy of deligitimization... without even being aware he was doing so" and insisted the Apple quote was the only error in his book and it was actually the editors' fault...) Debt is a thought-provoking book, but it's a book with no shortage of sloppy errors and dubious ancillary claims mostly incidental to its actual arguments. One DeLong probably should have picked up when he was compiling his lists is referring to Keynes' Treatise on Money his "most famous work", which is a bit like calling Wings Paul McCartney's most famous band.
- steppi 5y ago
  I'd accept that. OP's submission has a good example where Graeber's difficulty taking criticism almost cost him and Wengrow a publication which was saved by Wengrow's more measured approach. He and Wengrow were serious in a certain sense: They were determined to publish extracts in peer-reviewed journals, to establish scholarly credibility. When they made their first submission, to the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, they received brief comments dismissing their work as insufficiently “new.” Graeber was immediately distressed, convinced the anonymous reviewers had “some ax to grind.” Wengrow managed to calm him down while he replied on their behalf. Politely, Wengrow asked for examples of where exactly work like theirs had appeared before. The Journal was unable to produce any. It accepted the paper. Graeber was amazed. “How do you do that?” Wengrow remembers him marveling. “The man did not know how to handle stress,” another friend told me. A heated exchange on Twitter could derail him. Still, he refused to shy away. One persistent bugbear was the Berkeley economist Brad DeLong — after DeLong’s blog took him to task for a handful of factual errors in Debt, the two became entrenched in a protracted flamewar. (DeLong recently resurfaced, amid positive press for The Dawn of Everything, to affirm his stance that “nothing David Graeber writes is trustable.”) I'd missed the claim about Keynes on first reading. I suppose it would have to be The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It appears to be very difficult for one person to write a historical treatise of such scope and breadth without making a nontrivial number of sloppy errors. There's so much surface area of things that could go wrong relative to the powers of human attention and working memory. I recall Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy which also has no shortage of sloppy errors and dubious ancillary claims despite Russell's reputation as a careful thinker. I greatly enjoyed reading Debt. It gave me a new and valuable perspective on many things. I would not trust it alone as a source for any particular factual claim and would carefully check the references as needed, but as a whole I found the core arguments compelling. (That said, I think the overall level of scholarship is actually quite good and I would extend this same caution to any large work synthesizing many sources.) Like you said, it's a thought-provoking book.
  - specialist 5y ago
    I like your example of Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Nitpicking (trolling) stuff that does not change or invalidate the central thesis is unhelpful. Food fights over "most influential" (books, albums, paintings) is just hipster gatekeeping. As if. Which is more influential? St Peppers or Rubber Soul? Could the more popular St Peppers exist without Rubber Soul? Blah, blah, blah. Most people don't care. Both are amazing and worth studying. I'd much prefer to read both DeLong and Graeber's Top Ten Albums lists, over DeLong kibitzing about Graeber's choices. Especially now that I know Graeber was easily antagonized. Continuing to poke him just feels mean spirited. And definitely antithetical to scholarship.
    - steppi 5y ago
      Right on. I'd actually edited out for brevity "perhaps a better analogy is that it's like saying Rubber Soul is the most famous Beatles album." and am now happy I left it to you to express better.

by steppi 5y ago

specialist 5y ago

Once I read Debt, I decided DeLong criticized a book which Graeber had not written. Like @heydenberk, I unfollowed DeLong.

paganel 5y ago

Thanks for that link, I somehow missed it when DeLong's article was discussed in here, it helps explain lots of stuff.

notahacker 5y ago

DeLong was definitely trolling Graeber, but Graeber brought it on himself with overreaction to reviews which brought up the error. (A reviewer opened an article by saying it was an impressive book he was considering setting as a text for his students and a few paragraphs of summary of points Graeber made which are good, before highlighting a mistake and another argument he considered weak. Graeber wrote a screed about how the reviewer was "part of a strategy of deligitimization... without even being aware he was doing so" and insisted the Apple quote was the only error in his book and it was actually the editors' fault...) Debt is a thought-provoking book, but it's a book with no shortage of sloppy errors and dubious ancillary claims mostly incidental to its actual arguments. One DeLong probably should have picked up when he was compiling his lists is referring to Keynes' Treatise on Money his "most famous work", which is a bit like calling Wings Paul McCartney's most famous band.

steppi 5y ago
I'd accept that. OP's submission has a good example where Graeber's difficulty taking criticism almost cost him and Wengrow a publication which was saved by Wengrow's more measured approach. He and Wengrow were serious in a certain sense: They were determined to publish extracts in peer-reviewed journals, to establish scholarly credibility. When they made their first submission, to the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, they received brief comments dismissing their work as insufficiently “new.” Graeber was immediately distressed, convinced the anonymous reviewers had “some ax to grind.” Wengrow managed to calm him down while he replied on their behalf. Politely, Wengrow asked for examples of where exactly work like theirs had appeared before. The Journal was unable to produce any. It accepted the paper. Graeber was amazed. “How do you do that?” Wengrow remembers him marveling. “The man did not know how to handle stress,” another friend told me. A heated exchange on Twitter could derail him. Still, he refused to shy away. One persistent bugbear was the Berkeley economist Brad DeLong — after DeLong’s blog took him to task for a handful of factual errors in Debt, the two became entrenched in a protracted flamewar. (DeLong recently resurfaced, amid positive press for The Dawn of Everything, to affirm his stance that “nothing David Graeber writes is trustable.”) I'd missed the claim about Keynes on first reading. I suppose it would have to be The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It appears to be very difficult for one person to write a historical treatise of such scope and breadth without making a nontrivial number of sloppy errors. There's so much surface area of things that could go wrong relative to the powers of human attention and working memory. I recall Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy which also has no shortage of sloppy errors and dubious ancillary claims despite Russell's reputation as a careful thinker. I greatly enjoyed reading Debt. It gave me a new and valuable perspective on many things. I would not trust it alone as a source for any particular factual claim and would carefully check the references as needed, but as a whole I found the core arguments compelling. (That said, I think the overall level of scholarship is actually quite good and I would extend this same caution to any large work synthesizing many sources.) Like you said, it's a thought-provoking book.
- specialist 5y ago
  I like your example of Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Nitpicking (trolling) stuff that does not change or invalidate the central thesis is unhelpful. Food fights over "most influential" (books, albums, paintings) is just hipster gatekeeping. As if. Which is more influential? St Peppers or Rubber Soul? Could the more popular St Peppers exist without Rubber Soul? Blah, blah, blah. Most people don't care. Both are amazing and worth studying. I'd much prefer to read both DeLong and Graeber's Top Ten Albums lists, over DeLong kibitzing about Graeber's choices. Especially now that I know Graeber was easily antagonized. Continuing to poke him just feels mean spirited. And definitely antithetical to scholarship.
  - steppi 5y ago
    Right on. I'd actually edited out for brevity "perhaps a better analogy is that it's like saying Rubber Soul is the most famous Beatles album." and am now happy I left it to you to express better.