5 ms·

Funny thing is Gladwell admits he doesn't think coherency or consistency matter, he just wants to sell books: "As I’ve written more books I’ve realised there a

Funny thing is Gladwell admits he doesn't think coherency or consistency matter, he just wants to sell books: "As I’ve written more books I’ve realised there are certain things that writers and critics prize, and readers don’t. So we’re obsessed with things like coherence, consistency, neatness of argument. Readers are indifferent to those things." - Malcolm Gladwell Edit: I stand by my interpretation. Gladwell's books aren't useful sources of knowledge, but they ARE a commercial gem. He takes a clear intuitive idea, and wraps enough text around it to fill a book. So high-concept that anyone can discuss his books at a cocktail party, even if they havent read it. Maximum virality. It does sell a lot of books.

logophobia 12y ago
He says readers are indifferent to those things, not that he doesn't value them. So you could draw that conclusion, but he doesn't state that explicitly.
philh 12y ago
That quote doesn't support your claim. "Writers and critics value X, readers don't" doesn't necessarily* imply "X doesn't sell books", and it definitely doesn't imply "and selling books is all I care about". *Readers might not care about X, but they might care about what critics think of a book. This makes sense: as a reader, I'm probably not capable of critically evaluating the arguments in a book, so I have to rely on critics to find out whether or not the arguments are solid.
- paulsutter 12y ago
  > I'm probably not capable of critically evaluating the arguments in a book That does perfectly identify the target market for Gladwell books.
  - philh 12y ago
    You're being snarky towards Gladwell, and yet you're constructing a narrative around him that is simply not supported by the evidence you've provided. > I stand by my interpretation. Gladwell's books aren't useful sources of knowledge, but they ARE a commercial gem. ... Maximum virality. It does sell a lot of books. None of this means that Gladwell only cares about selling books.
- wellpast 12y ago
  > I'm probably not capable of critically evaluating the arguments in a book That, my friend, is a skill you can acquire and grow. Since we're on the topic of popular science books, here's a reasonable read that can help you start improving: http://www.amazon.com/Art-Thinking-Clearly-Rolf-Dobelli/dp/0062219693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431444586&sr=8-1&keywords=thinking+clearly http://www.amazon.com/Art-Thinking-Clearly-Rolf-Dobelli/dp/0...
  - philh 12y ago
    It was something of an exaggeration. I'm capable of doing many things that realistically, I'm not going to bother with. But I don't think "clear thinking" is a solution to this problem. I can read a book and say "the facts as presented don't fit the narrative", which is what I did with paulsutter. If I'm really dedicated, I can look up references. I can bypass the paywall, read a journal article, and see that the author has misrepresented the results. But I can't read a book and say "wait, you're completely ignoring the effect that in-fighting in the Roman senate had on politics in Britain circa A.D. 50", because I don't know anything about that subject. I don't even know that it's relevant. Unknown unknowns. I can't know everything, so I have to rely on other people.
cousin_it 12y ago
Wow. He could also say that people are "indifferent" to poisoned food, as long as they can't taste the poison.
- sukilot 12y ago
  This is close to how the food industry operates. It intentionally builds products get superficially resemble known good food, but without expensive nutritional qualities or sustainable or ethical production practices , and then says that it's OK because non-expert consumers don't directly observe any problems..

logophobia 12y ago

He says readers are indifferent to those things, not that he doesn't value them. So you could draw that conclusion, but he doesn't state that explicitly.

philh 12y ago

That quote doesn't support your claim. "Writers and critics value X, readers don't" doesn't necessarily* imply "X doesn't sell books", and it definitely doesn't imply "and selling books is all I care about". *Readers might not care about X, but they might care about what critics think of a book. This makes sense: as a reader, I'm probably not capable of critically evaluating the arguments in a book, so I have to rely on critics to find out whether or not the arguments are solid.

paulsutter 12y ago
> I'm probably not capable of critically evaluating the arguments in a book That does perfectly identify the target market for Gladwell books.
- philh 12y ago
  You're being snarky towards Gladwell, and yet you're constructing a narrative around him that is simply not supported by the evidence you've provided. > I stand by my interpretation. Gladwell's books aren't useful sources of knowledge, but they ARE a commercial gem. ... Maximum virality. It does sell a lot of books. None of this means that Gladwell only cares about selling books.
wellpast 12y ago
> I'm probably not capable of critically evaluating the arguments in a book That, my friend, is a skill you can acquire and grow. Since we're on the topic of popular science books, here's a reasonable read that can help you start improving: http://www.amazon.com/Art-Thinking-Clearly-Rolf-Dobelli/dp/0062219693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431444586&sr=8-1&keywords=thinking+clearly http://www.amazon.com/Art-Thinking-Clearly-Rolf-Dobelli/dp/0...
- philh 12y ago
  It was something of an exaggeration. I'm capable of doing many things that realistically, I'm not going to bother with. But I don't think "clear thinking" is a solution to this problem. I can read a book and say "the facts as presented don't fit the narrative", which is what I did with paulsutter. If I'm really dedicated, I can look up references. I can bypass the paywall, read a journal article, and see that the author has misrepresented the results. But I can't read a book and say "wait, you're completely ignoring the effect that in-fighting in the Roman senate had on politics in Britain circa A.D. 50", because I don't know anything about that subject. I don't even know that it's relevant. Unknown unknowns. I can't know everything, so I have to rely on other people.

cousin_it 12y ago

Wow. He could also say that people are "indifferent" to poisoned food, as long as they can't taste the poison.

sukilot 12y ago
This is close to how the food industry operates. It intentionally builds products get superficially resemble known good food, but without expensive nutritional qualities or sustainable or ethical production practices , and then says that it's OK because non-expert consumers don't directly observe any problems..