4 ms·

Wait, his writing is bunk? I read the series of books and honestly it changed my outlook a lot and I think it was quite successfully, particularly the whole thi

Wait, his writing is bunk? I read the series of books and honestly it changed my outlook a lot and I think it was quite successfully, particularly the whole thing about Mavens and trendsetters. I also related strongly to the leukemia doctor story. I think my rough up bringing made me more stubborn and tenacious than my peers because if I didn’t work I didn’t eat. I read the Tipping Point in particular more than once, I thought it was so fascinating I’m kinda sad now

NikolaNovak 4y ago
I believe consensus is that there's a tremendous (like, wow, tremendous) cherry picking of data and spurious connections to create a catchy engrossing narrative that makes us feel more enlightened and with profound new understanding of the world... But has no actual rigorous methodology or statistical significance. He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher. They are fun but should not be taken as accurate. As tptacek says, pretty much all of us have gone through that cycle. He's a great read but should be taken as casual entertainment, more closely related to fiction. Do not make policy decisions based on Gladwell :-) Edit : a perhaps stretched analogy - his stories are to me akin to Taylor Swift sharing her story and saying "I practised hard and didn't give up and succeeded beyond my wildest dreams". It's true but not as meaningful or applicable as it may seem - it's insufficient causation and incomplete correlation. Majority of people who practice hard won't be Taylor Swift. Conversely,There are many additional reasons beyond practicing hard Taylor Swift succeeded. It's a compelling narrative but horrible statistical model or understanding of world and causality.
- hermitcrab 4y ago
  His "The Bomber Mafia" book seems to have gone down pretty badly with WWII historians. Possibly there is an element of professional jealousy, but mostly I think because of his cavalier attitude to the facts as generally understood by historians.
  - no_wizard 4y ago
    Bomber Mafia is where he lost me a bit. Some of those stories are super fascinating but I felt the arch was a little hard to connect the dots on.
- rchaud 4y ago
  > He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher. They are fun but should not be taken as accurate. Real science is boring, wishy-washy and full of caveats, as they should be, researchers should disclose limitations of the studies. But because of that, it's not something the average person will find memorable or talk to a friend about. Gladwell's popularity comes from the fact that his narratives are told with conviction and in a way that feels exciting. People respond to that, similarly to how they respond to confidence in interpersonal interactions.
- WhitneyLand 4y ago
  He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher This implies he considers himself a storyteller but he does not. I recently heard him interviewed where he (rightly or wrongly) explicitly described his job as being a researcher.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    Fascinating! I read couple of interviews with him, but many years ago, where he insisted he was a storyteller! Limited chance I'll dig them up but I'll try
lofatdairy 4y ago
It's not that his stories aren't true, so much as that he has a tendency to draw grand conclusions and compelling narratives from history and events that are far more complicated than he depicts. I also personally didn't like his podcast because he has sometimes will make absurd analogies or emotive appeals, but that's more of an academic criticism than his points being bunk. eg: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-pop-history-bombs-a-response-to-malcolm-gladwells-love-letter-to-american-air-power/ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-pop-history-bombs-a...
smnrchrds 4y ago
> leukemia doctor story What story is that?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- no_wizard 4y ago
  It’s the story of Emil Freireich, M.D[0] who went against conventional wisdom at the time in treating childhood leukemia and (as I recall) made what was once a almost guaranteed death sentence for children something with higher survival rates and ultimately saved millions of lives, but his approach, as told in the book, was not for the faint of heart and it’s credited to his tumultuous upbringing that made him hardened to criticism that would deter others from pursuing something they had conviction about, basically. At the time Emil was (as I recall) treated as an outsider and viewed with skepticism for his work until basically it was irrational not to see how he was saving lives [0]: https://uofuhealth.utah.edu/innovation/news/2014/07/malcolm-gladwell-disruptive-innovation-importance-of-urgency-and https://uofuhealth.utah.edu/innovation/news/2014/07/malcolm-...
msla 4y ago
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1897 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1897 > An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “saggital plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong. There's probably a deeper philosophical point to make here between "ART" and "SCIENCE" broadly (and reductively) considered, but I see it as a matter of respect: Do you think the author respects the subject enough to write a factual story that portrays that subject honestly, or is the author doing a cleaned-up piece of tabloid journalism and going for readership and responses, and is simply going to use some misunderstood parts of that subject as props to make a Sweeping Conclusion regardless of what the facts support? In short: Does the author care about facts, or do they care about making their case?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

NikolaNovak 4y ago

I believe consensus is that there's a tremendous (like, wow, tremendous) cherry picking of data and spurious connections to create a catchy engrossing narrative that makes us feel more enlightened and with profound new understanding of the world... But has no actual rigorous methodology or statistical significance. He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher. They are fun but should not be taken as accurate. As tptacek says, pretty much all of us have gone through that cycle. He's a great read but should be taken as casual entertainment, more closely related to fiction. Do not make policy decisions based on Gladwell :-) Edit : a perhaps stretched analogy - his stories are to me akin to Taylor Swift sharing her story and saying "I practised hard and didn't give up and succeeded beyond my wildest dreams". It's true but not as meaningful or applicable as it may seem - it's insufficient causation and incomplete correlation. Majority of people who practice hard won't be Taylor Swift. Conversely,There are many additional reasons beyond practicing hard Taylor Swift succeeded. It's a compelling narrative but horrible statistical model or understanding of world and causality.

hermitcrab 4y ago
His "The Bomber Mafia" book seems to have gone down pretty badly with WWII historians. Possibly there is an element of professional jealousy, but mostly I think because of his cavalier attitude to the facts as generally understood by historians.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  Bomber Mafia is where he lost me a bit. Some of those stories are super fascinating but I felt the arch was a little hard to connect the dots on.
rchaud 4y ago
> He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher. They are fun but should not be taken as accurate. Real science is boring, wishy-washy and full of caveats, as they should be, researchers should disclose limitations of the studies. But because of that, it's not something the average person will find memorable or talk to a friend about. Gladwell's popularity comes from the fact that his narratives are told with conviction and in a way that feels exciting. People respond to that, similarly to how they respond to confidence in interpersonal interactions.
WhitneyLand 4y ago
He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher This implies he considers himself a storyteller but he does not. I recently heard him interviewed where he (rightly or wrongly) explicitly described his job as being a researcher.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Fascinating! I read couple of interviews with him, but many years ago, where he insisted he was a storyteller! Limited chance I'll dig them up but I'll try

lofatdairy 4y ago

It's not that his stories aren't true, so much as that he has a tendency to draw grand conclusions and compelling narratives from history and events that are far more complicated than he depicts. I also personally didn't like his podcast because he has sometimes will make absurd analogies or emotive appeals, but that's more of an academic criticism than his points being bunk. eg: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-pop-history-bombs-a-response-to-malcolm-gladwells-love-letter-to-american-air-power/ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-pop-history-bombs-a...

smnrchrds 4y ago

> leukemia doctor story What story is that?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
no_wizard 4y ago
It’s the story of Emil Freireich, M.D[0] who went against conventional wisdom at the time in treating childhood leukemia and (as I recall) made what was once a almost guaranteed death sentence for children something with higher survival rates and ultimately saved millions of lives, but his approach, as told in the book, was not for the faint of heart and it’s credited to his tumultuous upbringing that made him hardened to criticism that would deter others from pursuing something they had conviction about, basically. At the time Emil was (as I recall) treated as an outsider and viewed with skepticism for his work until basically it was irrational not to see how he was saving lives [0]: https://uofuhealth.utah.edu/innovation/news/2014/07/malcolm-gladwell-disruptive-innovation-importance-of-urgency-and https://uofuhealth.utah.edu/innovation/news/2014/07/malcolm-...

msla 4y ago

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1897 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1897 > An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “saggital plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong. There's probably a deeper philosophical point to make here between "ART" and "SCIENCE" broadly (and reductively) considered, but I see it as a matter of respect: Do you think the author respects the subject enough to write a factual story that portrays that subject honestly, or is the author doing a cleaned-up piece of tabloid journalism and going for readership and responses, and is simply going to use some misunderstood parts of that subject as props to make a Sweeping Conclusion regardless of what the facts support? In short: Does the author care about facts, or do they care about making their case?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]