3 ms·

You're right on the details, yet the symbol remains compelling. I find this interesting. When a symbol or meme takes hold and gets repeated, it's often because

by gruseom 14y ago

You're right on the details, yet the symbol remains compelling. I find this interesting. When a symbol or meme takes hold and gets repeated, it's often because it captures something real – not usually accurate or logical, but resonant – about the thing. It's almost the default case for the details to be all wrong and discredited, yet the image hovers in the truth field of the thing it's about, often closer to the core than any accurate detail. "Igon value" is an example. Maybe Gladwell never typed i-g-o-n, and you're probably right to say so what if he did, yet there it sits in exactly the space of glibness approaching charlatanry that (a lot of people argue) he inhabits. It's almost as if there is a force of cultural justice that speaks in symbols, not facts, yet finds its mark anyway. I've noticed this over and over. Some of the best examples are political so I won't mention them here. But I'd like to see an example of the phenomenon where the repetition of the meme really is unjust. As for Gladwell, he's a good storyteller, and part of what makes him interesting is that he glides so smoothly between things that we expect to be made up and things we trust to be factual. If Lehrer is a petty criminal then Gladwell is a master art thief. Bet he'd like that analogy.

tptacek 14y ago
When you write "yet there it sits in exactly the space of glibness approaching charlatanry that (a lot of people argue) he inhabits", my inner Wikipedian says "WP:WEASEL". I get the sense that you think he occupies that space, too, and it'd be interesting to know why. I don't intend to win a debate here. :)
- gruseom 14y ago
  Sorry, but I don't have much of an opinion, just a vague impression that is based on random snippets and could easily be wrong - hence the "a lot of people argue". (To avoid circularity I might add that, if the "igon value" thing really is inapt, that would be a counterexample to my "cultural justice" theory, which is okay since I only thought of it this morning.) In general, I think storytelling and factual fidelity are at odds with one another. They're incommensurable and can't even really be balanced. What we most want is stories, but we also want them to be true, which is impossible, so we do a lot of complicated ritual dances around that, and get angry when someone breaks the dance rules.

by gruseom 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

When you write "yet there it sits in exactly the space of glibness approaching charlatanry that (a lot of people argue) he inhabits", my inner Wikipedian says "WP:WEASEL". I get the sense that you think he occupies that space, too, and it'd be interesting to know why. I don't intend to win a debate here. :)

gruseom 14y ago
Sorry, but I don't have much of an opinion, just a vague impression that is based on random snippets and could easily be wrong - hence the "a lot of people argue". (To avoid circularity I might add that, if the "igon value" thing really is inapt, that would be a counterexample to my "cultural justice" theory, which is okay since I only thought of it this morning.) In general, I think storytelling and factual fidelity are at odds with one another. They're incommensurable and can't even really be balanced. What we most want is stories, but we also want them to be true, which is impossible, so we do a lot of complicated ritual dances around that, and get angry when someone breaks the dance rules.