3 ms·

I have to say, I always take the criticisms of Gladwell very seriously. I read his first three books several years ago and have constantly felt like a sucker ov

by jere 13y ago

I have to say, I always take the criticisms of Gladwell very seriously. I read his first three books several years ago and have constantly felt like a sucker over the years as his detractors have grown louder. And yet I find his responses very convincing, especially this one and the response to the Ask A Korean! article. I don't know, maybe I'm just easily swayed or maybe it speaks more about how persuasive Gladwell is.

aaronem 13y ago
Superficially, he is quite convincing, but when you look at a given statement or claim in isolation, it's common to find anything from an insufficiency of support, to outright howling fallacy. It's an interesting illustration of his "narratives often begin in one place and end in another" that his Slate piece begins with calling his detractors ill-read and careless ("I didn’t want to debate them. I just wanted them to read my book all the way to the end."), and ends with the implicit argument that criticizing his work is the same thing as calling his adherents stupid ("I was simply saying that all writing about social science need not be presented with the formality and precision of the academic world...My point was that the people who read my books appreciate this.").
deelowe 13y ago
I've read his books as well and definitely feel like I've been lied to. I almost feel like he was playing on stereotypes and I fell for it. Of course things aren't as simple as he presents them in outliers, but man did I fall for it at first.
- jere 13y ago
  >Of course things aren't as simple as he presents them in outliers, but man did I fall for it at first. Yea, I had just graduated from college and was binging on popsci. I felt really smart because all the popsci authors seemed to reference each other and when I saw the references I thought I was very well read. Obviously, I don't think that anymore. This is an embarrassingly accurate description of me at that time: http://xkcd.com/863/ http://xkcd.com/863/
  - deelowe 13y ago
    haha. That's a good one.
maxprogram 13y ago
You "felt like a sucker" and from another comment "feel like I've been lied to"? Do other people's comments and criticisms make you change your mind about something that easily? If you thought it was a good book when you read it, why would anything anyone else says change that? (Short of, say, Gladwell made up the entire thing or has been rampantly plagiarizing without attribution.) Gladwell's books are very well-written narrative combining summarized research studies, anecdotal stories and histories to support his overall thesis. It is not a scientific study. He "connects the dots" of what he believes to be the central theme of his book. I haven't seen anywhere that he "lied". There will always be detractors to any non-fiction author, especially one so popular. (See Nassim Taleb's books as another example.) If you can find a non-fiction book without major detractors, it probably isn't very good.
- deelowe 13y ago
  I felt lied to because he cites facts that aren't true, uses questionable sources, and draws conclusions more based on gut feeling and speculation than hard science. He does all this while presenting it as science. The book is sold as non-fiction after all. I got caught up in the hype and naively assumed he must know what he's talking about, but clearly there are issues with his methods.

by jere 13y ago

aaronem 13y ago

Superficially, he is quite convincing, but when you look at a given statement or claim in isolation, it's common to find anything from an insufficiency of support, to outright howling fallacy. It's an interesting illustration of his "narratives often begin in one place and end in another" that his Slate piece begins with calling his detractors ill-read and careless ("I didn’t want to debate them. I just wanted them to read my book all the way to the end."), and ends with the implicit argument that criticizing his work is the same thing as calling his adherents stupid ("I was simply saying that all writing about social science need not be presented with the formality and precision of the academic world...My point was that the people who read my books appreciate this.").

deelowe 13y ago

I've read his books as well and definitely feel like I've been lied to. I almost feel like he was playing on stereotypes and I fell for it. Of course things aren't as simple as he presents them in outliers, but man did I fall for it at first.

jere 13y ago
>Of course things aren't as simple as he presents them in outliers, but man did I fall for it at first. Yea, I had just graduated from college and was binging on popsci. I felt really smart because all the popsci authors seemed to reference each other and when I saw the references I thought I was very well read. Obviously, I don't think that anymore. This is an embarrassingly accurate description of me at that time: http://xkcd.com/863/ http://xkcd.com/863/
- deelowe 13y ago
  haha. That's a good one.

maxprogram 13y ago

You "felt like a sucker" and from another comment "feel like I've been lied to"? Do other people's comments and criticisms make you change your mind about something that easily? If you thought it was a good book when you read it, why would anything anyone else says change that? (Short of, say, Gladwell made up the entire thing or has been rampantly plagiarizing without attribution.) Gladwell's books are very well-written narrative combining summarized research studies, anecdotal stories and histories to support his overall thesis. It is not a scientific study. He "connects the dots" of what he believes to be the central theme of his book. I haven't seen anywhere that he "lied". There will always be detractors to any non-fiction author, especially one so popular. (See Nassim Taleb's books as another example.) If you can find a non-fiction book without major detractors, it probably isn't very good.

deelowe 13y ago
I felt lied to because he cites facts that aren't true, uses questionable sources, and draws conclusions more based on gut feeling and speculation than hard science. He does all this while presenting it as science. The book is sold as non-fiction after all. I got caught up in the hype and naively assumed he must know what he's talking about, but clearly there are issues with his methods.