4 ms·
Another data point towards caution when reading Gladwell: Malcom Gladwell's book: Outliers, The Stories of Success (2011) is what brought the "10,000 hours to
by schaefer 4y ago
Another data point towards caution when reading Gladwell:
Malcom Gladwell's book: Outliers, The Stories of Success (2011) is what brought the "10,000 hours to master a skill" quip to popularity.
That book drew on research by Anders Ericson as its scientific basis.
But Ericson himself found Gladwell's book so problematic he later wrote a book of his own: Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise (2017) to set the record straight.
In Peak, there is an entire section dedicated to describing what portions of Gladwell's interpretation is problematic, and how it oversimplified the Ericson's own research.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoThat comment isn't arguing against the gladwell-is-a-hack perspective, just pointing out that his skill at a certain kind of writing is orthogonal and that he is, in fact, good at a certain kind of writing.
- dragonwriter 4y agoIts not orthogonal, though. Being a hack is an integral component of his effectiveness at that particular kind of writing, not a separable component.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoHm ok on further consideration, yes. I'll revise to "being a hack doesn't, in itself, make him an incompetent writer."
- xapata 4y agoWhy is being a hack necessary to his effectiveness as an author? Do you think that it's impossible to be as effective with a more correct thesis?
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Do you think that it's impossible to be as effective with a more correct thesis? No. I think that the techniques for being effective at synthesizing and conveying accurate information in writing are very different from the techniques for being effectiveness at selling pseudo-intellectual just-so stories reinforcing conventional values like “putting time in on focussed hard work is the most important ingredient to success”.
- xapata 4y agoMy interpretation of Gladwell is simply that he's very good at the standard method of finding a relatable example to illustrate a theory. His problem (a common problem) is that he tends to ignore counter-examples.
- tptacek 4y agoNo, it's not. The subtext here is the text of this (very excellent) blog post: https://jsomers.net/blog/it-turns-out https://jsomers.net/blog/it-turns-out We all get it. Gladwell trades in "it turns out than" constructions as much as anybody else. But so do lots of mediocre writers. Gladwell is fun to read. People don't read him simply to scratch their chin and say "yeah, that's right, that's how the world works, I should uPdAtE mY pRiOrS", the way they do with other it-turns-out-ists. They read him because he knows how to bait a hook and cast a line, and if you make the mistake of nibbling at a Gladwell paragraph you're apt to get snagged. That's a skill, and it's as superficial and vapid as a Gladwell argument to pretend otherwise.
- dragonwriter 4y agoYou seem to be confusing the claim hackery is integral to and inseperable from Gladwell's effectiveness rather than orthogonal to it for a claim that hackery is sufficient for his effectiveness. Those are... not the same.
- tptacek 4y agoThat's also not true! Gladwell has written some pieces for The New Yorker that actually hold up pretty well. Go read his ketchup piece. It's just not the case that Gladwell is only effective when he's teflon-coating vapid, big-sounding ideas to shoot into his readers brains.
- yamtaddle 4y agoI think the hackery's necessary in that it's necessary in order for him to have completed his books with as little effort as he did. Writing as well without the hackery would require coming up with better theses (which would mean jettisoning weak ones when you realize they're weak, and starting over, rather than plowing ahead regardless—this could be a long process) and a lot more time finding and evaluating evidence. Good writing ability (for certain definitions of "good") plus hackery are necessary if you want to make the economics of your writing work as well as he has, writing airport nonfiction books. Writing non-hacky nonfiction is takes a lot more time and (perhaps) more talent.
- ra 4y agoGladwell later changed his view on the 10,000 hours thesis. In the foreword to "Range: Why Generalists Win in a Specialized World" by David Epstein, he openly says that. I don't think this is a failing of Gladwell, though. He truly believed the Outliers thesis at the time and was, in fact, partially true. "Range" by David Epstein is a fascinating book.
- schaefer 4y agoThank you, I did not know this! and I'll add Range to my reading list.