3 ms·

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

by philh 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.

by philh 11y ago

paulsutter 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.