8 ms·

Why Malcolm Gladwell Matters and Why That's Unfortunate

137 points by jamesbritt 13y ago

wmeredith 13y ago
People like Malcolm Gladwell and Oprah (her gross promotion of The Secret was pretty bad) are basically snake oil salesmen or con-men. They'll tell you something you like to hear for a small fee, but you'll be no better off for it. In fact, depending on what level of credibility you assign their claims, you may be worse. It's frustrating, but part of the human condition. I imagine it wasn't too long after language was invented that the one human looked at another and made up a story that was credible because the audience was scared or frustrated at being saddled with the human condition.
- bluecalm 13y ago
  So I am not familiar with all of his books and it was some time I've read the last one (Outliers) but he doesn't give (at least not much) direct possibly harmful advice to people. He just describes some phenomena and some bold theories to explain those. It's not like you will hurt yourself committing to 10k hours of deliberate practice in your field or something. On the other hand Oprah with her promotion of The Secret which is potentially very harmful if you start applying things it advocates or Kiyosaki with his books/mlm promotion are better candidates to put into scam category.
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    I mostly agree, but one thing I saw was multiple 7 year olds in my kids' kindergarten classes. They were "red shirted" by their parents because after reading Outliers they thought it would give them an advantage. I think it ended up hurting those kids because they were bored. It also hurt the youngest kids (some nearly two years younger) who were physically and mentally outmatched. And it hurt the class because the teacher had to split attention between kids who were very different in maturity and ability.
    - gregpilling 13y ago
      I have seen a fair bit of 'red shirting' also. It seems quite strange to me - but then I graduated high school at 17 (no skips) and many high school students in my town are 19 when they graduate now. The inevitable result of 7 year old kindergarten students I guess (btw one of my sons is 6 and in first grade). After reading Outliers at least I have a theory of why I was a crappy hockey player with my October birthday.
    - rpedela 13y ago
      It can make sense in certain situations. I personally grew up as a very late bloomer. By very late, I mean I was THE shortest person in school (boys and girls) until junior year of high school. This put me at a huge disadvantage when it came to sports even though I am naturally very athletic. This of course didn't ruin my life, and I don't think I would have ever made pro. But who knows.
GVIrish 13y ago
The problem I have with best-seller pseudoscience is that it gets used by people to justify assinine decisions in the workplace and even worse, in public policy. In that respect, people like Gladwell can do real harm, rather than advancing scientific literacy or spreading knowledge. Gladwell gets rich with his writing, so good for him. But his dubious counterintuitive "insights" are really close to snake oil in some cases. That said, maybe there's money in writing books to take down Gladwell.
- willis77 13y ago
  Your opinion doesn't matter; you have not spent the required 10,000 hours to become a Hacker News comment expert.
  - Udo 13y ago
    Could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say that?
- pstuart 13y ago
  I thought Outliers was pretty good (the only one of his I've read). I'd be happy to have you disabuse me of that notion.
  - walexander 13y ago
    As a start, you could read this article (or the book, I guess), exploring elite athletes (like Usain Bolt) and comparing their stories to what Malcolm Gladwell suggests in Outliers: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/How-Athletes-Get-Great.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/H...
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      That article is arguing against a gross simplification of an idea in Gladwell's book. Not exactly the same standard of rigorous science that Gladwell's critics seem to demand.
tuke 13y ago
If you ask me . . . :-) The rhetoric of Malcolm Gladwell's work represents that of the "new historicism" in literary studies, which emerged in the 80s. There is a common style to these works: -- They start with a startling and interesting anecdote, and, basically, tell a story. -- They leverage finding from various articles. -- They use a lot of argumentative ju-jitsu. For example, when the author is going to basically attempt a kind of whopper, they will admit that there are some failing to the argument. The rhetorical tic for Greenblatt is to write: "To be sure . . ." to make the reader feel that, yes, there are other opinions, but I'm kind of right. Then they go barreling ahead with a highly contentious argument. For Greenblatt and the literary historians who write about the past: Their claims are rarely falsifiable. Sometimes other scholars will say that the new historicists are "wrong," but it is not uncommon for the critics' basis for their own claims to be equally frail. If you asked Greenblatt, he might not claim that what is describing is "true," but, rather, "good to think with." For the past, maybe that's reasonable. But: Gladwell is almost always talking about the present, and making claims that should be testable with a robust experiment. Very frequently, he will cite incredibly thin research (as Chris Chabris notes). I think this is the essential problem: Gladwell's style is OK if you can't really test the hypothesis (new historicism). But if you're talking about the here-and-now, you have to answer to a higher standard of argumentation.
- aaronem 13y ago
  > [Greenblatt] might not claim that what is describing is "true," but, rather, "good to think with." Ah! Gleichschaltung.
  - tuke 13y ago
    Bwa ha ha! Right you are.
carsongross 13y ago
Gladwell is a meme-optimizer, and he's got it dialed in perfectly for his audience. Same with Ferriss, but for a different audience. Kiyosaki, same. The techniques are amazingly well executed, even if (or especially because) the practitioners are sociopaths. That doesn't mean they are always wrong or offering bad analysis, but it does mean that meme-optimization (certainty, in-group/out-group creation, etc.) will trump the truth.
- innino 13y ago
  Do you think Gladwell and Ferriss are sociopaths? Why?
  - lmm 13y ago
    Ferriss openly advocates falsely claiming to be an expert on a subject, and pretty blatantly acquired fake 5-star reviews on amazon when launching his books. He also talks about e.g. gaming the weigh-in for a kickboxing tournament to compete in a category two below his natural one, and then pushing all the other competitors off the platform to abuse the TKO rule rather than doing any actual kickboxing. He does not come across as a nice guy.
  - icelancer 13y ago
    Ferriss is obviously a borderline scam-artist. Just read the titles of his books. For more detailed information, you can search out blog posts by others (or by him!) where it's blatantly obvious he spammed Amazon, blogs, and other services with MTurk-like workers to promote his brand. Not to mention cheating the push-hands tournament (if in spirit and not law necessarily), etc.
    - innino 13y ago
      I was already aware of a lot of this, didn't mean to appear like I was doubting the claim - I mostly wanted to hear this stuff from a fresh mouth.
innino 13y ago
I think the real reason why people like this author don't like Gladwell is because he bypasses this writer's academic community to deal directly with the masses. He gives normal people what they want, makes them feel smarter and more confident analysing the world, and, most insultingly, does it without respecting the rules of conduct developed by academics. This really stings because the community itself has failed to communicate with normal people, but its members still feel like they deserve to be listened to because they know they are right. Its playground jealousy - they can't accept the fact that they don't know how to compete with Gladwell, so they sit around wagging their fingers about the hidden dangers of his writing.
- milesskorpen 13y ago
  "Hidden dangers"? The review doesn't say Gladwell is dangerous, just that he doesn't actually PROVE anything, but people take his claims as if their solid & settled science. There are scientists & researchers who can communicate clearly — Einstein did, Bill Bryson does for astronomy, etc. — without going too simple.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Academia has no monopoly on the ability to spot a snake-oil salesman.
bluecalm 13y ago
I like him. Lively writing, interesting anecdotes, bold (to say the least) explanations of described phenomena. It's a fair point that he/his publishers often hype it as the real thing (like in real science) but that's how promotion is done these days. I don't see the case of Gladwell as especially abusive in this respect and again the guy has a lot of interesting/entartaining things to say. Comparing it to Oprah and The Secret hype (as some other commenters did) which is snake oil in the purest form is not fair imo.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  I'm with you. I've read and enjoyed Mr. Gladwell's books, and may even prefer his essay writing[1]. The guy isn't writing a dissertation; this is lightweight pop-science from a fairly good writer and presenter, with a knack for inductive reasoning (albeit sometimes controversial). The fact that the masses misjudge the scientific efficacy of his arguments is not a real issue. It's not like the guy is selling hate-speech. He should be WAY down the list of authors requiring a scientific debunking. [1]http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/ http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/
  - corresation 13y ago
    "The guy isn't writing a dissertation; this is lightweight pop-science from a fairly good writer and presenter, with a knack for inductive reasoning" Gladwell's angle is that he's done the heavy lifting and read those dissertations for you, in the end democratizing these counterintuitive tidbits of intellectual shortcuts that will allow everyone to understand the world better. His audience listens to him because there is a belief that he is simplifying hard material. Only he isn't. The conclusions he draws seldom have any legitimate supports, though Gladwell writes as if he does. Indeed, I have to disagree that he has any knack for inductive reasoning -- his real knack is to identify those conclusions that will get him PR, which in turn will make him rich and important. The fact that the masses misjudge the scientific efficacy of his arguments is not a real issue This is unfair to every reader of Gladwell. Unfair to everyone who quoted his various assertions in blog posts or infographic form. Because they did it based on the idea that there is a reasonable probability that his claims are valid. But they aren't. They might be randomly generated with as much legitimacy. Gladwell is a fantastic writer, but scientifically he operates with the same behavior of a million snake oil salesman.
casca 13y ago
I believe that the biggest problem with Malcolm Gladwell's writing is that one may be left with the impression that it's journalism. To understand why he does not provide critical analysis of the topics he writes on, this quote from last week's NY Times Sunday Book Review is enlightening: I also like to steer clear of writing about people whom I do not personally like. My rule is that if I interview someone, they should never read what I have to say about them and regret having given me the interview.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/books/review/malcolm-gladwell-by-the-book.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/books/review/malcolm-gladw...
tokenadult 13y ago
Thank you for the very interesting submission. Christopher Chabris, the author of the blog post submitted here, is a good friend of several of my friends around the country, and I have interacted directly with him in online communities of human behavior researchers. So I take Chabris's criticisms of Gladwell's writings, especially his most recent book, seriously. Gladwell is indeed on record saying that he doesn't write to be true in the scholarly sense, but to be thought-provoking. He has said in an interview that he writes to try out ideas. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html "Q: Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little? "A: No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think. You have to be willing to put pressure on theories, to push the envelope. That's the fun part, the exciting part. If you are writing an intellectual adventure story, why play it safe? I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them." And Gladwell is good, while trying out ideas, at crediting his sources. Any reader of a Malcolm Gladwell book (as I know, from being a reader of the book Outliers) can check the sources, and decide from there what other sources to check and what other ideas to play with. Gladwell doesn't purport to write textbooks, but I give him a lot of credit for finding interesting scholarly sources that haven't had enough attention in the popular literature. He is equaled by very few authors as a story-teller who can tie ideas together in a thought-provoking assembly. And in particular, I recommend Gladwell's "Disclosure Statement," an essay about conflicts of interest for professional writers, http://gladwell.com/disclosure-statement/ http://gladwell.com/disclosure-statement/ which I learned about from another HN submission. Gladwell has strong integrity of a kind, but it is not the integrity of a scholar of psychology like Christopher Chabris. Regarding the new book under review, I am particularly worried about claims that dyslexia is any kind of advantage for anything. Many cases of dyslexia are the woeful result of poor practices in teaching reading, http://learninfreedom.org/readseri.html http://learninfreedom.org/readseri.html http://learninfreedom.org/readbook.html http://learninfreedom.org/readbook.html and it would be very regrettable to drop efforts to improve initial reading instruction on the flawed theory that dyslexia provides advantages to young learners. Gladwell says he is "happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think," and definitely we should all think each time we read anything.
djdj123 13y ago
Another criticism of Gladwell's writing by Steven Pinker some years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html...
languagehacker 13y ago
The whole Googling "proved" vs "showed" thing is junk science at its finest. Not really an effective way to illustrate your point, dude.
- pm90 13y ago
  He admits it rather openly that its not a rigorous method. So the question really is: is it even slightly rigorous? To which I would say, yes, its ok.
zeteo 13y ago
>I think the effect is the propagation of a lot of wrong beliefs among a vast audience of influential people You mean like politics? sports? Hollywood? Yes, maybe Gladwell's writings don't pass muster for publication into an academic journal. But in a world obsessed with 30-second clips, I'm sure glad he's peddling his "gateway drugs". Maybe he's not good with qualifiers, but at least he's working hard to research complex issues and, for goodness sake, even uses references! In light of the usual quality of information that the public is exposed to these days, intellectuals telling Gladwell to shut up is an incredibly self-defeating attitude.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  He's not good with qualifiers, but he's at least working hard to research complex issues and, for goodness sake, the man even uses references! I'd say no reference it pretty much better than distorting the overall state of research. (Edit: Also Gladwell isn't researching at all, he's reading research and presenting it, just FYI). Sure, everyday debate and everyday judgement involves continuously formulating and using unproven, unscientific beliefs. But at least we should be aware when someone is doing that. Arbitrary judgement that just presents itself as arbitrary judgement, that you have strong to examine yourself, it better than dubious positions that present themselves as Proven By Science.
  - zeteo 13y ago
    Well, I'd say everyone tries to overstate their case a bit, don't we? But if we care about the state of everyday debate and judgment then we should also accept improvements. And it could be considered improvement if a politician / manager / director gets their knowledge of science and psychology from Gladwell than from CSI or ESPN Live respectively (which they would otherwise).
    - pnathan 13y ago
      Actually, this is a specific case of the bad is worse than the none (as opposed to the bad being better than none. I.e., half a loaf of bread is better than no bread if you're hungry, but a half-finished boat hull won't float, if you take it out it'll sink under you). In this case, your friendly PHB looks at Gladwell or other pop sci author, decides its true (a falsehood), and then makes policy based on the illusion of correctness. Now you, in your quest for truth, have to defeat Gladwell as well as spread truth. See how it gets worse than your PHB just derping it up on his own?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Zigurd 13y ago
If his TED Talk on the David and Goliath story http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_of_david_and_goliath.html http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_... is any indication, his book is for people who find Sun Tzu too subtle. Much of his previous writing and public speaking are, at least, literate and entertaining. Listen to the whole TED talk, I dare you! I could not finish. The treacle was too thick, the grinding of clashing unapt analogies too loud. It may be easy and popular to slag Gladwell, but man he set himself up for it this time.

137 points by jamesbritt 13y ago

People like Malcolm Gladwell and Oprah (her gross promotion of The Secret was pretty bad) are basically snake oil salesmen or con-men. They'll tell you something you like to hear for a small fee, but you'll be no better off for it. In fact, depending on what level of credibility you assign their claims, you may be worse. It's frustrating, but part of the human condition. I imagine it wasn't too long after language was invented that the one human looked at another and made up a story that was credible because the audience was scared or frustrated at being saddled with the human condition.

bluecalm 13y ago
So I am not familiar with all of his books and it was some time I've read the last one (Outliers) but he doesn't give (at least not much) direct possibly harmful advice to people. He just describes some phenomena and some bold theories to explain those. It's not like you will hurt yourself committing to 10k hours of deliberate practice in your field or something. On the other hand Oprah with her promotion of The Secret which is potentially very harmful if you start applying things it advocates or Kiyosaki with his books/mlm promotion are better candidates to put into scam category.
- NoPiece 13y ago
  I mostly agree, but one thing I saw was multiple 7 year olds in my kids' kindergarten classes. They were "red shirted" by their parents because after reading Outliers they thought it would give them an advantage. I think it ended up hurting those kids because they were bored. It also hurt the youngest kids (some nearly two years younger) who were physically and mentally outmatched. And it hurt the class because the teacher had to split attention between kids who were very different in maturity and ability.
  - gregpilling 13y ago
    I have seen a fair bit of 'red shirting' also. It seems quite strange to me - but then I graduated high school at 17 (no skips) and many high school students in my town are 19 when they graduate now. The inevitable result of 7 year old kindergarten students I guess (btw one of my sons is 6 and in first grade). After reading Outliers at least I have a theory of why I was a crappy hockey player with my October birthday.
  - rpedela 13y ago
    It can make sense in certain situations. I personally grew up as a very late bloomer. By very late, I mean I was THE shortest person in school (boys and girls) until junior year of high school. This put me at a huge disadvantage when it came to sports even though I am naturally very athletic. This of course didn't ruin my life, and I don't think I would have ever made pro. But who knows.

GVIrish 13y ago

The problem I have with best-seller pseudoscience is that it gets used by people to justify assinine decisions in the workplace and even worse, in public policy. In that respect, people like Gladwell can do real harm, rather than advancing scientific literacy or spreading knowledge. Gladwell gets rich with his writing, so good for him. But his dubious counterintuitive "insights" are really close to snake oil in some cases. That said, maybe there's money in writing books to take down Gladwell.

willis77 13y ago
Your opinion doesn't matter; you have not spent the required 10,000 hours to become a Hacker News comment expert.
- Udo 13y ago
  Could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say that?
pstuart 13y ago
I thought Outliers was pretty good (the only one of his I've read). I'd be happy to have you disabuse me of that notion.
- walexander 13y ago
  As a start, you could read this article (or the book, I guess), exploring elite athletes (like Usain Bolt) and comparing their stories to what Malcolm Gladwell suggests in Outliers: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/How-Athletes-Get-Great.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/H...
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    That article is arguing against a gross simplification of an idea in Gladwell's book. Not exactly the same standard of rigorous science that Gladwell's critics seem to demand.

tuke 13y ago

If you ask me . . . :-) The rhetoric of Malcolm Gladwell's work represents that of the "new historicism" in literary studies, which emerged in the 80s. There is a common style to these works: -- They start with a startling and interesting anecdote, and, basically, tell a story. -- They leverage finding from various articles. -- They use a lot of argumentative ju-jitsu. For example, when the author is going to basically attempt a kind of whopper, they will admit that there are some failing to the argument. The rhetorical tic for Greenblatt is to write: "To be sure . . ." to make the reader feel that, yes, there are other opinions, but I'm kind of right. Then they go barreling ahead with a highly contentious argument. For Greenblatt and the literary historians who write about the past: Their claims are rarely falsifiable. Sometimes other scholars will say that the new historicists are "wrong," but it is not uncommon for the critics' basis for their own claims to be equally frail. If you asked Greenblatt, he might not claim that what is describing is "true," but, rather, "good to think with." For the past, maybe that's reasonable. But: Gladwell is almost always talking about the present, and making claims that should be testable with a robust experiment. Very frequently, he will cite incredibly thin research (as Chris Chabris notes). I think this is the essential problem: Gladwell's style is OK if you can't really test the hypothesis (new historicism). But if you're talking about the here-and-now, you have to answer to a higher standard of argumentation.

aaronem 13y ago
> [Greenblatt] might not claim that what is describing is "true," but, rather, "good to think with." Ah! Gleichschaltung.
- tuke 13y ago
  Bwa ha ha! Right you are.

carsongross 13y ago

Gladwell is a meme-optimizer, and he's got it dialed in perfectly for his audience. Same with Ferriss, but for a different audience. Kiyosaki, same. The techniques are amazingly well executed, even if (or especially because) the practitioners are sociopaths. That doesn't mean they are always wrong or offering bad analysis, but it does mean that meme-optimization (certainty, in-group/out-group creation, etc.) will trump the truth.

innino 13y ago
Do you think Gladwell and Ferriss are sociopaths? Why?
- lmm 13y ago
  Ferriss openly advocates falsely claiming to be an expert on a subject, and pretty blatantly acquired fake 5-star reviews on amazon when launching his books. He also talks about e.g. gaming the weigh-in for a kickboxing tournament to compete in a category two below his natural one, and then pushing all the other competitors off the platform to abuse the TKO rule rather than doing any actual kickboxing. He does not come across as a nice guy.
- icelancer 13y ago
  Ferriss is obviously a borderline scam-artist. Just read the titles of his books. For more detailed information, you can search out blog posts by others (or by him!) where it's blatantly obvious he spammed Amazon, blogs, and other services with MTurk-like workers to promote his brand. Not to mention cheating the push-hands tournament (if in spirit and not law necessarily), etc.
  - innino 13y ago
    I was already aware of a lot of this, didn't mean to appear like I was doubting the claim - I mostly wanted to hear this stuff from a fresh mouth.

innino 13y ago

I think the real reason why people like this author don't like Gladwell is because he bypasses this writer's academic community to deal directly with the masses. He gives normal people what they want, makes them feel smarter and more confident analysing the world, and, most insultingly, does it without respecting the rules of conduct developed by academics. This really stings because the community itself has failed to communicate with normal people, but its members still feel like they deserve to be listened to because they know they are right. Its playground jealousy - they can't accept the fact that they don't know how to compete with Gladwell, so they sit around wagging their fingers about the hidden dangers of his writing.

milesskorpen 13y ago
"Hidden dangers"? The review doesn't say Gladwell is dangerous, just that he doesn't actually PROVE anything, but people take his claims as if their solid & settled science. There are scientists & researchers who can communicate clearly — Einstein did, Bill Bryson does for astronomy, etc. — without going too simple.
aaronem 13y ago
Academia has no monopoly on the ability to spot a snake-oil salesman.

bluecalm 13y ago

I like him. Lively writing, interesting anecdotes, bold (to say the least) explanations of described phenomena. It's a fair point that he/his publishers often hype it as the real thing (like in real science) but that's how promotion is done these days. I don't see the case of Gladwell as especially abusive in this respect and again the guy has a lot of interesting/entartaining things to say. Comparing it to Oprah and The Secret hype (as some other commenters did) which is snake oil in the purest form is not fair imo.

onebaddude 13y ago
I'm with you. I've read and enjoyed Mr. Gladwell's books, and may even prefer his essay writing[1]. The guy isn't writing a dissertation; this is lightweight pop-science from a fairly good writer and presenter, with a knack for inductive reasoning (albeit sometimes controversial). The fact that the masses misjudge the scientific efficacy of his arguments is not a real issue. It's not like the guy is selling hate-speech. He should be WAY down the list of authors requiring a scientific debunking. [1]http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/ http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/
- corresation 13y ago
  "The guy isn't writing a dissertation; this is lightweight pop-science from a fairly good writer and presenter, with a knack for inductive reasoning" Gladwell's angle is that he's done the heavy lifting and read those dissertations for you, in the end democratizing these counterintuitive tidbits of intellectual shortcuts that will allow everyone to understand the world better. His audience listens to him because there is a belief that he is simplifying hard material. Only he isn't. The conclusions he draws seldom have any legitimate supports, though Gladwell writes as if he does. Indeed, I have to disagree that he has any knack for inductive reasoning -- his real knack is to identify those conclusions that will get him PR, which in turn will make him rich and important. The fact that the masses misjudge the scientific efficacy of his arguments is not a real issue This is unfair to every reader of Gladwell. Unfair to everyone who quoted his various assertions in blog posts or infographic form. Because they did it based on the idea that there is a reasonable probability that his claims are valid. But they aren't. They might be randomly generated with as much legitimacy. Gladwell is a fantastic writer, but scientifically he operates with the same behavior of a million snake oil salesman.

casca 13y ago

I believe that the biggest problem with Malcolm Gladwell's writing is that one may be left with the impression that it's journalism. To understand why he does not provide critical analysis of the topics he writes on, this quote from last week's NY Times Sunday Book Review is enlightening: I also like to steer clear of writing about people whom I do not personally like. My rule is that if I interview someone, they should never read what I have to say about them and regret having given me the interview.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/books/review/malcolm-gladwell-by-the-book.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/books/review/malcolm-gladw...

tokenadult 13y ago

Thank you for the very interesting submission. Christopher Chabris, the author of the blog post submitted here, is a good friend of several of my friends around the country, and I have interacted directly with him in online communities of human behavior researchers. So I take Chabris's criticisms of Gladwell's writings, especially his most recent book, seriously. Gladwell is indeed on record saying that he doesn't write to be true in the scholarly sense, but to be thought-provoking. He has said in an interview that he writes to try out ideas. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html "Q: Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little? "A: No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think. You have to be willing to put pressure on theories, to push the envelope. That's the fun part, the exciting part. If you are writing an intellectual adventure story, why play it safe? I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them." And Gladwell is good, while trying out ideas, at crediting his sources. Any reader of a Malcolm Gladwell book (as I know, from being a reader of the book Outliers) can check the sources, and decide from there what other sources to check and what other ideas to play with. Gladwell doesn't purport to write textbooks, but I give him a lot of credit for finding interesting scholarly sources that haven't had enough attention in the popular literature. He is equaled by very few authors as a story-teller who can tie ideas together in a thought-provoking assembly. And in particular, I recommend Gladwell's "Disclosure Statement," an essay about conflicts of interest for professional writers, http://gladwell.com/disclosure-statement/ http://gladwell.com/disclosure-statement/ which I learned about from another HN submission. Gladwell has strong integrity of a kind, but it is not the integrity of a scholar of psychology like Christopher Chabris. Regarding the new book under review, I am particularly worried about claims that dyslexia is any kind of advantage for anything. Many cases of dyslexia are the woeful result of poor practices in teaching reading, http://learninfreedom.org/readseri.html http://learninfreedom.org/readseri.html http://learninfreedom.org/readbook.html http://learninfreedom.org/readbook.html and it would be very regrettable to drop efforts to improve initial reading instruction on the flawed theory that dyslexia provides advantages to young learners. Gladwell says he is "happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think," and definitely we should all think each time we read anything.

djdj123 13y ago

Another criticism of Gladwell's writing by Steven Pinker some years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html...

languagehacker 13y ago

The whole Googling "proved" vs "showed" thing is junk science at its finest. Not really an effective way to illustrate your point, dude.

pm90 13y ago
He admits it rather openly that its not a rigorous method. So the question really is: is it even slightly rigorous? To which I would say, yes, its ok.

zeteo 13y ago

>I think the effect is the propagation of a lot of wrong beliefs among a vast audience of influential people You mean like politics? sports? Hollywood? Yes, maybe Gladwell's writings don't pass muster for publication into an academic journal. But in a world obsessed with 30-second clips, I'm sure glad he's peddling his "gateway drugs". Maybe he's not good with qualifiers, but at least he's working hard to research complex issues and, for goodness sake, even uses references! In light of the usual quality of information that the public is exposed to these days, intellectuals telling Gladwell to shut up is an incredibly self-defeating attitude.

joe_the_user 13y ago
He's not good with qualifiers, but he's at least working hard to research complex issues and, for goodness sake, the man even uses references! I'd say no reference it pretty much better than distorting the overall state of research. (Edit: Also Gladwell isn't researching at all, he's reading research and presenting it, just FYI). Sure, everyday debate and everyday judgement involves continuously formulating and using unproven, unscientific beliefs. But at least we should be aware when someone is doing that. Arbitrary judgement that just presents itself as arbitrary judgement, that you have strong to examine yourself, it better than dubious positions that present themselves as Proven By Science.
- zeteo 13y ago
  Well, I'd say everyone tries to overstate their case a bit, don't we? But if we care about the state of everyday debate and judgment then we should also accept improvements. And it could be considered improvement if a politician / manager / director gets their knowledge of science and psychology from Gladwell than from CSI or ESPN Live respectively (which they would otherwise).
  - pnathan 13y ago
    Actually, this is a specific case of the bad is worse than the none (as opposed to the bad being better than none. I.e., half a loaf of bread is better than no bread if you're hungry, but a half-finished boat hull won't float, if you take it out it'll sink under you). In this case, your friendly PHB looks at Gladwell or other pop sci author, decides its true (a falsehood), and then makes policy based on the illusion of correctness. Now you, in your quest for truth, have to defeat Gladwell as well as spread truth. See how it gets worse than your PHB just derping it up on his own?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Zigurd 13y ago

If his TED Talk on the David and Goliath story http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_of_david_and_goliath.html http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_... is any indication, his book is for people who find Sun Tzu too subtle. Much of his previous writing and public speaking are, at least, literate and entertaining. Listen to the whole TED talk, I dare you! I could not finish. The treacle was too thick, the grinding of clashing unapt analogies too loud. It may be easy and popular to slag Gladwell, but man he set himself up for it this time.