4 ms·

Aren't some of these arguments against Gladwell along the same lines as people complaining about Mythbusters' lack of rigor? Well, then I defer to zombie Feynma

by Finster 13y ago

Aren't some of these arguments against Gladwell along the same lines as people complaining about Mythbusters' lack of rigor? Well, then I defer to zombie Feynman. http://xkcd.com/397/ http://xkcd.com/397/ I'm not saying Gladwell is right, but Chabris' argument amounts to pulling one referenced study out of context and saying "SEE HOW TERRIBLE THIS IS." He's complaining about sample size... with a single anecdotal example? Also, social scientists are kind of cute when they get all angry.

sailfast 13y ago
I completely agree that bringing a helpful idea to a broader audience is quite valuable. The problem, however, lies in the combination of lack of precision and lack of attention span that creates artifacts of conventional wisdom that rattle around for years and years without question. Some day, someone's grandkid is going to be spouting something about "10,000 hours" and not even know where it comes from.
- Legion 13y ago
  > Some day, someone's grandkid is going to be spouting something about "10,000 hours" and not even know where it comes from. Which will replace the even more flawed understanding of "born with it". We all go through life with flawed mental models, which aren't perfect but are better than a complete lack of understanding. Over time, we make those models in the general consciousness better, even if they continue to lag behind true scientific understanding.
snowwrestler 13y ago
The difference is that Mythbusters is doing their own (informal,just for fun) scientific investigations, while Gladwell is selectively misrepresenting other people's (serious, rigorous) scientific investigations so people take his essays more seriously.
- msane 13y ago
  "Misrepresenting" is your postulation perhaps. Either way the spirit of backing up your thesis with peer reviewed research is totally fine in my book. The citations aren't there to trick people into thinking things are more serious than they are. They are meant as foundation and support to the theses of the essays. What more could you ask for? Seems ad hominem.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    The citations don't actually support the theses [1], so they make a pretty poor foundation. [1] An example that Chabris points out: "The Law of the Few."
wpietri 13y ago
I'd say just the opposite. Zombie Feynman's point isn't "lay off the popularizers". It's that the essence of science is testing ideas. I haven't read a Gladwell book, let alone bothered to run down all the relevant science. But if Gladwell's legion of critics are right, then he's doing the opposite of Mythbusters. They are teaching people to experiment; he's turning ideas into appealing stories without any interest in testing them.

by Finster 13y ago

sailfast 13y ago

I completely agree that bringing a helpful idea to a broader audience is quite valuable. The problem, however, lies in the combination of lack of precision and lack of attention span that creates artifacts of conventional wisdom that rattle around for years and years without question. Some day, someone's grandkid is going to be spouting something about "10,000 hours" and not even know where it comes from.

Legion 13y ago
> Some day, someone's grandkid is going to be spouting something about "10,000 hours" and not even know where it comes from. Which will replace the even more flawed understanding of "born with it". We all go through life with flawed mental models, which aren't perfect but are better than a complete lack of understanding. Over time, we make those models in the general consciousness better, even if they continue to lag behind true scientific understanding.

snowwrestler 13y ago

The difference is that Mythbusters is doing their own (informal,just for fun) scientific investigations, while Gladwell is selectively misrepresenting other people's (serious, rigorous) scientific investigations so people take his essays more seriously.

msane 13y ago
"Misrepresenting" is your postulation perhaps. Either way the spirit of backing up your thesis with peer reviewed research is totally fine in my book. The citations aren't there to trick people into thinking things are more serious than they are. They are meant as foundation and support to the theses of the essays. What more could you ask for? Seems ad hominem.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  The citations don't actually support the theses [1], so they make a pretty poor foundation. [1] An example that Chabris points out: "The Law of the Few."

wpietri 13y ago

I'd say just the opposite. Zombie Feynman's point isn't "lay off the popularizers". It's that the essence of science is testing ideas. I haven't read a Gladwell book, let alone bothered to run down all the relevant science. But if Gladwell's legion of critics are right, then he's doing the opposite of Mythbusters. They are teaching people to experiment; he's turning ideas into appealing stories without any interest in testing them.