6 ms·

A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form. You just have to do it right.

by pg 18y ago

apu 18y ago
But it seems that to "do it right," the writer must be able to pick the right anecdotes and draw the right conclusions from them. This is probably close to impossible if he's not an expert in the area. And if the writer's an expert, then he should be able to provide other (non-anecdotal) evidence to support his claims as well. I think that's why many of these books are so frustrating to read -- they seem to rely almost completely on anecdotes, without any sort of underlying data to look at long-term/overarching trends/themes. Thus, instead of saying, "here are various data, including these representative anecdotes about some of them, and so we can see that my theory is true," these writers usually say "this is my theory, and look how well these carefully chosen anecdotes match it!"
- ntoshev 18y ago
  A lot of expertise is not based on scientific statistics, but rather on the sample of problems the expert encounters and his intuition.
spolsky 18y ago
If you have real data, and used the anecdote to illustrate it, you're doing it right. If you give us the anecdote, but don't extrapolate to wild grand theories, you're doing it right... simultaneously telling an interesting story and giving people more data points to build up their own understanding of how the world works. If you give us an anecdote, then tag on some theory so that the anecdote isn't mere storytelling, trying to make the anecdote more than it really is, it's deception (at best), or, at the very least, talking about something you know nothing about. And all these anecdotes and know-nothing books, blog posts, and articles are crowding out real, genuine stories and useful knowledge.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  There are many theories that Gladwell's book ties together, and there's some pretty serious data on each of them. I know three, and all of this book I've read are excerpts. Each of his books includes a reading list and citations, and I don't think this will be any different. In particular, page 10 of Flynn's book is worth reading. It is not merely Gladwell's hypothesis. Terman et. al's studies of gifted children (http://books.google.com/books?id=MXwVAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=terman&lr=&ei=-6IjSaSSD4L8lQSjubSUCA http://books.google.com/books?id=MXwVAAAAIAAJ&printsec=f...) Sherar et. al's study of physical maturity in hockey player development (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778078133~db=all http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778078133~...) Flynn's book "On Intelligence" and review of the growing IQ of the worldwide population and ethnographic studies of Chinese. (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvBipuypYUkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=flynn+chinese+intelligence&ots=dI5FSqQ_c4&sig=SzsQ7umFTljNiYyaAkxhx7z04UI http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvBipuypY...) I don't think one should claim an insufficient justification of his hypotheses without actually examining the justification thoroughly. Oftentimes, for Gladwell in particular, people claim that he's being unrigorous, imprecise, or incomplete. He's not being incomplete. He's being concise. If he weren't concise, almost nobody would pay any attention. Almost nobody would learn anything from him. And almost nobody would, wanting to learn more, have the opportunity to follow the reference list that he carefully puts out. Which I guess few people do, anyway.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    You expected any kind of depth, even in criticizing others for a lack of depth, from Spolsky?
  - jimbokun 18y ago
    I believe in one of his interviews (the New Yorker?) Gladwell kind of sheepishly admitted that people think he's a genius while really he's just packaging up other people's work with a more engaging presentation.
    - andreyf 18y ago
jackchristopher 18y ago
It's implicit in the form. Mediums can bend but they break. The hard part is figuring out where. Essays make you generalize; they're short. But generalizations need interpretation. And if you really want to know something, you read a technical paper or do it yourself. I could go on about this in comment but won't; Comments want to be witty.
Agathos 18y ago
You mean, "I was on a bus, complaining about Thomas Friedman, when the driver looked back and said, 'A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form.' And I realized it was true. You just have to do it right."

A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form. You just have to do it right.

by pg 18y ago

A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form. You just have to do it right.

apu 18y ago

But it seems that to "do it right," the writer must be able to pick the right anecdotes and draw the right conclusions from them. This is probably close to impossible if he's not an expert in the area. And if the writer's an expert, then he should be able to provide other (non-anecdotal) evidence to support his claims as well. I think that's why many of these books are so frustrating to read -- they seem to rely almost completely on anecdotes, without any sort of underlying data to look at long-term/overarching trends/themes. Thus, instead of saying, "here are various data, including these representative anecdotes about some of them, and so we can see that my theory is true," these writers usually say "this is my theory, and look how well these carefully chosen anecdotes match it!"

ntoshev 18y ago
A lot of expertise is not based on scientific statistics, but rather on the sample of problems the expert encounters and his intuition.

spolsky 18y ago

If you have real data, and used the anecdote to illustrate it, you're doing it right. If you give us the anecdote, but don't extrapolate to wild grand theories, you're doing it right... simultaneously telling an interesting story and giving people more data points to build up their own understanding of how the world works. If you give us an anecdote, then tag on some theory so that the anecdote isn't mere storytelling, trying to make the anecdote more than it really is, it's deception (at best), or, at the very least, talking about something you know nothing about. And all these anecdotes and know-nothing books, blog posts, and articles are crowding out real, genuine stories and useful knowledge.

DaniFong 18y ago
There are many theories that Gladwell's book ties together, and there's some pretty serious data on each of them. I know three, and all of this book I've read are excerpts. Each of his books includes a reading list and citations, and I don't think this will be any different. In particular, page 10 of Flynn's book is worth reading. It is not merely Gladwell's hypothesis. Terman et. al's studies of gifted children (http://books.google.com/books?id=MXwVAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=terman&lr=&ei=-6IjSaSSD4L8lQSjubSUCA http://books.google.com/books?id=MXwVAAAAIAAJ&printsec=f...) Sherar et. al's study of physical maturity in hockey player development (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778078133~db=all http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778078133~...) Flynn's book "On Intelligence" and review of the growing IQ of the worldwide population and ethnographic studies of Chinese. (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvBipuypYUkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=flynn+chinese+intelligence&ots=dI5FSqQ_c4&sig=SzsQ7umFTljNiYyaAkxhx7z04UI http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvBipuypY...) I don't think one should claim an insufficient justification of his hypotheses without actually examining the justification thoroughly. Oftentimes, for Gladwell in particular, people claim that he's being unrigorous, imprecise, or incomplete. He's not being incomplete. He's being concise. If he weren't concise, almost nobody would pay any attention. Almost nobody would learn anything from him. And almost nobody would, wanting to learn more, have the opportunity to follow the reference list that he carefully puts out. Which I guess few people do, anyway.
- calambrac 18y ago
  You expected any kind of depth, even in criticizing others for a lack of depth, from Spolsky?
- jimbokun 18y ago
  I believe in one of his interviews (the New Yorker?) Gladwell kind of sheepishly admitted that people think he's a genius while really he's just packaging up other people's work with a more engaging presentation.
  - andreyf 18y ago

jackchristopher 18y ago

It's implicit in the form. Mediums can bend but they break. The hard part is figuring out where. Essays make you generalize; they're short. But generalizations need interpretation. And if you really want to know something, you read a technical paper or do it yourself. I could go on about this in comment but won't; Comments want to be witty.

Agathos 18y ago

You mean, "I was on a bus, complaining about Thomas Friedman, when the driver looked back and said, 'A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form.' And I realized it was true. You just have to do it right."