5 ms·

What Makes Malcolm Gladwell Fascinating

5 points by webhat 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago
> In 1971, a sociologist named Murray Davis published a groundbreaking paper that opened with these two lines: > "It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his theories are true, but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not because his theories are true, but because they are interesting.” The above aphorism only applies to sociology theorists, not scientific ones. It aptly exposes the central problem with sociology -- an indifference to science and evidence. Malcolm Gladwell is certainly interesting. But 100 years from now, when Gladwell's name had been completely forgotten, people will still remember Einstein, Hawking and Higgs.
- triplesec 13y ago
  This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology. Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims siciology expertise. Incidentally, Gladwell popularises psychology, sociology and other human action theories, adding in his own hypotheses (untested, but plausible) for good measure. He ought to differentiate more between his hypotheses and the things he gleans from others, but his work at least raises awareness in the wider public that there is a lot of useful work done in studying humans. It's useful journalism, if taken as such. Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology, which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods. As in many academic arenas, there are good, mediocre and bad practitioners. Only the most naive of epistemologists assumes that a whole academic discipline-set is bad because not all of it requires mathematical assistance.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology. No, it's a comment about an article written by a sociologist, commenting favorably about another sociologist. Neither of them are straw men. Both of them are typical sociologists. > Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims siciology expertise. The article I quoted from wasn't written by Gladwell, it was written by a sociologist. > Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology ... I didn't. The author of the inked article might have, and that's why I commented as I did. > which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods. Yes, but not remotely scientific. http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/
    - triplesec 13y ago
      Again with the patently absurd assertions. The author Adam Grant is a professor of Management. Gladwell is a Journalist. Now, I see that your use of the pullout quotation (from an old philosophy of sociology paper) is what you decided to base all your comments on. That is not entirely clear from the rant. OK, so what's wrong with an insight that, given a universe of true papers, we ape-humans don't realise that we ascribe greatness to the 'interesting' theorists, regardless of other merit. Human frailty of attention exists in all fields, and this does not negate a field because of it. This human ape-weakness happens in physical sciences too: sexy theories (relativity, quantum physics) or outgoing professors (Feynman) receive a lot more public plaudits than the more boring but equally useful work, say on planetary physics, pulsars, telescope or accelerator design, new materials. Sociology is barely 100 years old, and it takes time to iron out the cultural problems in any community of practice. Physical sciences have had centuries. And still they make mistakes: see the peer review issue right now, a hot topic about the publication Science. This a critique of how science is judged, but I don't see people negating the validity of the fields just because there are a lot of bad humans out there in those very fields. Sociology lives only on evidence. It is not science, because it deals with the mostly stupid human apes' behaviours and activities; humans who do things like make gross generalisations, and cannot see where they are hugely biased, due to emotions such as pride and unwarranted arrogance. Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. Would you copmlain at chemistry for not using partical accelerators, or biologists for sitting in trees observing birds? If you complain about sociologists using sophisticated but different tools from science, then you are doing the same thing. And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. It's the perspective of the most reductionist, old-fashioned blinkered Sheldon Cooper from that TV show. Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah. So, think carefully about your own frailties and biases before you decide that you are "pure".
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > Again with the patently absurd assertions. If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims. Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on repeatable, objective evidence. > And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere. https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd yields over 30,000 hits. > Sociology lives only on evidence. Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field. The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences. > Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science. > Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah. You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited charity. Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public schools.
godisdad 13y ago
See also: http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-into-the-life-work-of-america’s-most-successful-propagandist/ http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-int...

5 points by webhat 13y ago

> In 1971, a sociologist named Murray Davis published a groundbreaking paper that opened with these two lines: > "It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his theories are true, but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not because his theories are true, but because they are interesting.” The above aphorism only applies to sociology theorists, not scientific ones. It aptly exposes the central problem with sociology -- an indifference to science and evidence. Malcolm Gladwell is certainly interesting. But 100 years from now, when Gladwell's name had been completely forgotten, people will still remember Einstein, Hawking and Higgs.

triplesec 13y ago
This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology. Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims siciology expertise. Incidentally, Gladwell popularises psychology, sociology and other human action theories, adding in his own hypotheses (untested, but plausible) for good measure. He ought to differentiate more between his hypotheses and the things he gleans from others, but his work at least raises awareness in the wider public that there is a lot of useful work done in studying humans. It's useful journalism, if taken as such. Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology, which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods. As in many academic arenas, there are good, mediocre and bad practitioners. Only the most naive of epistemologists assumes that a whole academic discipline-set is bad because not all of it requires mathematical assistance.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology. No, it's a comment about an article written by a sociologist, commenting favorably about another sociologist. Neither of them are straw men. Both of them are typical sociologists. > Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims siciology expertise. The article I quoted from wasn't written by Gladwell, it was written by a sociologist. > Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology ... I didn't. The author of the inked article might have, and that's why I commented as I did. > which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods. Yes, but not remotely scientific. http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/
  - triplesec 13y ago
    Again with the patently absurd assertions. The author Adam Grant is a professor of Management. Gladwell is a Journalist. Now, I see that your use of the pullout quotation (from an old philosophy of sociology paper) is what you decided to base all your comments on. That is not entirely clear from the rant. OK, so what's wrong with an insight that, given a universe of true papers, we ape-humans don't realise that we ascribe greatness to the 'interesting' theorists, regardless of other merit. Human frailty of attention exists in all fields, and this does not negate a field because of it. This human ape-weakness happens in physical sciences too: sexy theories (relativity, quantum physics) or outgoing professors (Feynman) receive a lot more public plaudits than the more boring but equally useful work, say on planetary physics, pulsars, telescope or accelerator design, new materials. Sociology is barely 100 years old, and it takes time to iron out the cultural problems in any community of practice. Physical sciences have had centuries. And still they make mistakes: see the peer review issue right now, a hot topic about the publication Science. This a critique of how science is judged, but I don't see people negating the validity of the fields just because there are a lot of bad humans out there in those very fields. Sociology lives only on evidence. It is not science, because it deals with the mostly stupid human apes' behaviours and activities; humans who do things like make gross generalisations, and cannot see where they are hugely biased, due to emotions such as pride and unwarranted arrogance. Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. Would you copmlain at chemistry for not using partical accelerators, or biologists for sitting in trees observing birds? If you complain about sociologists using sophisticated but different tools from science, then you are doing the same thing. And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. It's the perspective of the most reductionist, old-fashioned blinkered Sheldon Cooper from that TV show. Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah. So, think carefully about your own frailties and biases before you decide that you are "pure".
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Again with the patently absurd assertions. If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims. Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on repeatable, objective evidence. > And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere. https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd yields over 30,000 hits. > Sociology lives only on evidence. Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field. The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences. > Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science. > Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah. You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited charity. Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public schools.

godisdad 13y ago

See also: http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-into-the-life-work-of-america’s-most-successful-propagandist/ http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-int...