3 ms·

You should have stopped long ago. Malcolm Gladwell as an entertainer is great. Gladwell as a pundit quoted by (and presumably influencing) real decision-makers

You should have stopped long ago. Malcolm Gladwell as an entertainer is great. Gladwell as a pundit quoted by (and presumably influencing) real decision-makers ... has me steaming in frustration. He is dangerous.

Ygg2 13y ago
Is he much worse than CSI? I mean I don't trust both, they have right details (like some study proving one thing, or name of disease), but overall miss the big picture. Also it seems that he sometimes hits a mark. I remember his article on criminal Profilers being mostly correct as far as I could tell. Anyone who trust a journalist unconditionally and blindly is a fool. They are paid to pique your interest and entertain you, not find out the truth (most people don't like the truth, I definitely wouldn't like all the truth about me to come into light). Just like someone that thinks that most crime TV series depict real life.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  I don't hear senior people in all sorts of professions referencing CSI the way I hear them referencing Malcolm Gladwell.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Umm, isn't there a CSI effect, as in judges changed their sentences, because there wasn't enough certainity in the proofs provided by real forensic experts? Isn't that bigger impact than anything Gladwell's stories had on policies?
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    There is a disturbing number of jurors who won't convict the guilty because the evidence isn't as blindingly solid as CSI makes it seem necessary, or dismiss blindingly solid evidence because they expect some wildly implausible CSI-like theory is likely the truth.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Is he much worse than CSI? People who accept CSI confuse fantasy and reality. People who accept Gladwell confuse a contrived reality with a real one. I think the risk posed by the latter category is greater than the former, because the latter are more difficult to separate from their superficial grasp of reality.
- debacle 13y ago
  The problem is that Gladwell doesn't label himself a journalist or amateur - he speaks with a voice of authority about things he is not an authority on.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  CSI is pretty bad. WOrse than Gladwell. If you have been following how the Massachusetts crime lab screwed up thousands of investigations, you know CSI is putting an unrealistically competent face on a topic about which people should be very skeptical. Gladwell isn't as tendentious and propagandistic.
visakanv 13y ago
Any "real decision-maker" who makes decisions because of pop-writers... was probably going to screw things up anyway. Gladwell isn't dangerous, ignorance is.

Ygg2 13y ago

Is he much worse than CSI? I mean I don't trust both, they have right details (like some study proving one thing, or name of disease), but overall miss the big picture. Also it seems that he sometimes hits a mark. I remember his article on criminal Profilers being mostly correct as far as I could tell. Anyone who trust a journalist unconditionally and blindly is a fool. They are paid to pique your interest and entertain you, not find out the truth (most people don't like the truth, I definitely wouldn't like all the truth about me to come into light). Just like someone that thinks that most crime TV series depict real life.

auctiontheory 13y ago
I don't hear senior people in all sorts of professions referencing CSI the way I hear them referencing Malcolm Gladwell.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Umm, isn't there a CSI effect, as in judges changed their sentences, because there wasn't enough certainity in the proofs provided by real forensic experts? Isn't that bigger impact than anything Gladwell's stories had on policies?
- ctdonath 13y ago
  There is a disturbing number of jurors who won't convict the guilty because the evidence isn't as blindingly solid as CSI makes it seem necessary, or dismiss blindingly solid evidence because they expect some wildly implausible CSI-like theory is likely the truth.
lutusp 13y ago
> Is he much worse than CSI? People who accept CSI confuse fantasy and reality. People who accept Gladwell confuse a contrived reality with a real one. I think the risk posed by the latter category is greater than the former, because the latter are more difficult to separate from their superficial grasp of reality.
debacle 13y ago
The problem is that Gladwell doesn't label himself a journalist or amateur - he speaks with a voice of authority about things he is not an authority on.
Zigurd 13y ago
CSI is pretty bad. WOrse than Gladwell. If you have been following how the Massachusetts crime lab screwed up thousands of investigations, you know CSI is putting an unrealistically competent face on a topic about which people should be very skeptical. Gladwell isn't as tendentious and propagandistic.

visakanv 13y ago

Any "real decision-maker" who makes decisions because of pop-writers... was probably going to screw things up anyway. Gladwell isn't dangerous, ignorance is.