How to write like Malcolm Gladwell(commonreader.substack.com)
commonreader.substack.com
How to write like Malcolm Gladwell
https://commonreader.substack.com/p/how-to-write-like-malcolm-gladwell
31 comments
Another data point towards caution when reading Gladwell:
Malcom Gladwell's book: Outliers, The Stories of Success (2011) is what brought the "10,000 hours to master a skill" quip to popularity.
That book drew on research by Anders Ericson as its scientific basis.
But Ericson himself found Gladwell's book so problematic he later wrote a book of his own: Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise (2017) to set the record straight.
In Peak, there is an entire section dedicated to describing what portions of Gladwell's interpretation is problematic, and how it oversimplified the Ericson's own research.
Malcom Gladwell's book: Outliers, The Stories of Success (2011) is what brought the "10,000 hours to master a skill" quip to popularity.
That book drew on research by Anders Ericson as its scientific basis.
But Ericson himself found Gladwell's book so problematic he later wrote a book of his own: Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise (2017) to set the record straight.
In Peak, there is an entire section dedicated to describing what portions of Gladwell's interpretation is problematic, and how it oversimplified the Ericson's own research.
That comment isn't arguing against the gladwell-is-a-hack perspective, just pointing out that his skill at a certain kind of writing is orthogonal and that he is, in fact, good at a certain kind of writing.
Its not orthogonal, though. Being a hack is an integral component of his effectiveness at that particular kind of writing, not a separable component.
No, it's not.
The subtext here is the text of this (very excellent) blog post:
https://jsomers.net/blog/it-turns-out
We all get it. Gladwell trades in "it turns out than" constructions as much as anybody else. But so do lots of mediocre writers. Gladwell is fun to read. People don't read him simply to scratch their chin and say "yeah, that's right, that's how the world works, I should uPdAtE mY pRiOrS", the way they do with other it-turns-out-ists. They read him because he knows how to bait a hook and cast a line, and if you make the mistake of nibbling at a Gladwell paragraph you're apt to get snagged. That's a skill, and it's as superficial and vapid as a Gladwell argument to pretend otherwise.
The subtext here is the text of this (very excellent) blog post:
https://jsomers.net/blog/it-turns-out
We all get it. Gladwell trades in "it turns out than" constructions as much as anybody else. But so do lots of mediocre writers. Gladwell is fun to read. People don't read him simply to scratch their chin and say "yeah, that's right, that's how the world works, I should uPdAtE mY pRiOrS", the way they do with other it-turns-out-ists. They read him because he knows how to bait a hook and cast a line, and if you make the mistake of nibbling at a Gladwell paragraph you're apt to get snagged. That's a skill, and it's as superficial and vapid as a Gladwell argument to pretend otherwise.
You seem to be confusing the claim hackery is integral to and inseperable from Gladwell's effectiveness rather than orthogonal to it for a claim that hackery is sufficient for his effectiveness.
Those are... not the same.
Those are... not the same.
That's also not true! Gladwell has written some pieces for The New Yorker that actually hold up pretty well. Go read his ketchup piece.
It's just not the case that Gladwell is only effective when he's teflon-coating vapid, big-sounding ideas to shoot into his readers brains.
It's just not the case that Gladwell is only effective when he's teflon-coating vapid, big-sounding ideas to shoot into his readers brains.
I think the hackery's necessary in that it's necessary in order for him to have completed his books with as little effort as he did. Writing as well without the hackery would require coming up with better theses (which would mean jettisoning weak ones when you realize they're weak, and starting over, rather than plowing ahead regardless—this could be a long process) and a lot more time finding and evaluating evidence.
Good writing ability (for certain definitions of "good") plus hackery are necessary if you want to make the economics of your writing work as well as he has, writing airport nonfiction books. Writing non-hacky nonfiction is takes a lot more time and (perhaps) more talent.
Good writing ability (for certain definitions of "good") plus hackery are necessary if you want to make the economics of your writing work as well as he has, writing airport nonfiction books. Writing non-hacky nonfiction is takes a lot more time and (perhaps) more talent.
Again: I can give you examples of Gladwell articles that aren't based on hackery, which seems to more or less refute this argument.
(The books don't hold up, but some of his New Yorker stuff does.)
(The books don't hold up, but some of his New Yorker stuff does.)
Why is being a hack necessary to his effectiveness as an author? Do you think that it's impossible to be as effective with a more correct thesis?
> Do you think that it's impossible to be as effective with a more correct thesis?
No.
I think that the techniques for being effective at synthesizing and conveying accurate information in writing are very different from the techniques for being effectiveness at selling pseudo-intellectual just-so stories reinforcing conventional values like “putting time in on focussed hard work is the most important ingredient to success”.
No.
I think that the techniques for being effective at synthesizing and conveying accurate information in writing are very different from the techniques for being effectiveness at selling pseudo-intellectual just-so stories reinforcing conventional values like “putting time in on focussed hard work is the most important ingredient to success”.
My interpretation of Gladwell is simply that he's very good at the standard method of finding a relatable example to illustrate a theory. His problem (a common problem) is that he tends to ignore counter-examples.
Hm ok on further consideration, yes. I'll revise to "being a hack doesn't, in itself, make him an incompetent writer."
Gladwell later changed his view on the 10,000 hours thesis. In the foreword to "Range: Why Generalists Win in a Specialized World" by David Epstein, he openly says that.
I don't think this is a failing of Gladwell, though. He truly believed the Outliers thesis at the time and was, in fact, partially true.
"Range" by David Epstein is a fascinating book.
I don't think this is a failing of Gladwell, though. He truly believed the Outliers thesis at the time and was, in fact, partially true.
"Range" by David Epstein is a fascinating book.
Thank you, I did not know this!
and I'll add Range to my reading list.
I'm in a public speaking club and we often separate content (topic, grammar) from the presentation (e.g. good use of gestures)
I've come to regard Gladwell as strong on presentation (writing-wise), weak on content.
I've come to regard Gladwell as strong on presentation (writing-wise), weak on content.
He fumbled bad (in my opinion) in this recent Munk debate, "Be it resolved, don't trust mainstream media," against Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OgH9EfxuM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OgH9EfxuM
Not just in your opinion. The 39% swing away from Gladwell's position, in favor of the affirmative, is the largest swing in the history of the Munk debates.
Not super surprising given the audience and the history of those debates.
The audience was slightly in favor of the media in the pre-debate poll. Or do you think they weren't really, but were massively sandbagging? I admit that it's a possibility, but that wouldn't explain why this was apparently the largest pre/post swing in Munk history.
Can you please elaborate? What type of audience does one expect to not support a particular claim at the start, then to swing their opinion wildly in favor of it?
I'm just looking at the results of all the previous debates on Wikipedia. Whatever the starting vote on this issue was, the result of the debate falls sort of coherently in line with previous results.
Michael McFaul absolutely trounced Mearsheimer on the Ukraine issue. The forum may feature more conservatives than liberals, but the result is not a forgone conclusion. This is evidenced by 30+ point swings in recent debates, where both the liberal and conservative position have prevailed. I encourage you to reconsider your assessment.
The Ukraine debate is I think the one example I think you can come up with, and something like 50% of conservatives are on the same page as liberals on Ukraine.
If you actually watch the debate, you can see the audience shift from their initial position to their final one. I don't buy your premise that the outcome is predetermined based on the political bias you've implied with your comments.
I'm simply observing that if you look at the history of these debates, there's a pretty coherent ideology to the winning side. That's all. Make of it what you will. If I got to bet on this debate before it occurred, I'd have put all my money on the "against the mainstream media" square, and then taken out a loan to get more money to put down.
Ah. Well. Thank you for finally speaking clearly about your thoughts.
I've watched about 40 minutes of that debate -- does it improve at all? The pro side seemed content to provide compelling anecdotes almost exclusively. The con side was also presenting anecdotes, but Gladwell at least made the crucial point that the mainstream media at least has a process for discovering and reporting the truth.
The "both sides" game from the pro team was excruciating.
As an aside, even when it comes to the anecdotes, Matt Taibbi was incredibly disingenuous about the one thing I fact-checked: his reporting on ivermectin. Sure, he might not have said "everyone should take ivermectin." But in the very first interview I hit with him about it his statements can be summarized as:
"Ivermectin is a miracle drug for treating parasites." -- this sets up a kind of expert opinion fallacy: if Ivermectin is so good at fighting parasites, and viruses are sort of like parasites, right? So Ivermectin might be good for Covid.
Then he says, "Some studies have given weak evidence supporting the use of Ivermectin for Covid." This elides so much about those early studies.
Then he says, "And no one can talk about it [those positive studies]."
It boils down to "tell me you think Ivermectin is good for Covid without saying the words 'Ivermectin is good for Covid'" and it makes me doubt anything Taibbi says. And the fact that he can have said that and then claim that he never supported Ivermectin tells me he will lie to prove a point.
The "both sides" game from the pro team was excruciating.
As an aside, even when it comes to the anecdotes, Matt Taibbi was incredibly disingenuous about the one thing I fact-checked: his reporting on ivermectin. Sure, he might not have said "everyone should take ivermectin." But in the very first interview I hit with him about it his statements can be summarized as:
"Ivermectin is a miracle drug for treating parasites." -- this sets up a kind of expert opinion fallacy: if Ivermectin is so good at fighting parasites, and viruses are sort of like parasites, right? So Ivermectin might be good for Covid.
Then he says, "Some studies have given weak evidence supporting the use of Ivermectin for Covid." This elides so much about those early studies.
Then he says, "And no one can talk about it [those positive studies]."
It boils down to "tell me you think Ivermectin is good for Covid without saying the words 'Ivermectin is good for Covid'" and it makes me doubt anything Taibbi says. And the fact that he can have said that and then claim that he never supported Ivermectin tells me he will lie to prove a point.
How much of that is him vs the media being impossible to defend at this point?
In the pre-debate vote, trust in media had a 4 point edge (52/48), and in the open-minded poll, 82% said they were open to changing their mind.
He and Michelle Goldberg were beaten soundly by a guy whose first name Malcom got wrong, and a guy whose last name Malcom got wrong (repeatedly, in both cases).
He and Michelle Goldberg were beaten soundly by a guy whose first name Malcom got wrong, and a guy whose last name Malcom got wrong (repeatedly, in both cases).
If they are impossible to defend, why did he participate in a Munk debate where his sole purpose was to defend them? Clearly he doesn't agree with your premise. For that he deserves criticism.
The phrase "impossible to defend" implies a successful defense.
Gladwell's like a TED talk. Both taste good but at some point you realize you just ate a bunch of empty calories.
He's an awful public speaker though, fwiw. Maybe he's changed since the time I saw him but it was....less than satisfying.
Gladwell? Have you heard his Moth story? Or his podcast? He's annoyingly good at it (anything Gladwell is good at is annoying, of course).
I'm unfortunately quite familiar, and I heard him speak in person in Cambridge MA, many years ago when he was in the first period of his fame. Its not just my own feelings about him or his dishonesty, he truly was a lackluster speaker and the person who brought me to hear him was slightly embarrassed!
> That's problematic, because the society we're a part of (HN, the Internet, whatever) has roundly concluded that Gladwell is a farce.
I wish this was backed up with some actual links. Even the comments here asking "Wait, what/who/when decided that Gladwell is a farce?" are met with just comments without more information.
Personally, I am aware of the widespread rejection of how Gladwell presented "10000 hours" in Outliers (and by just googling "Anders Ericsson 10000" it's easy to find plenty of references). And, as Gladwell is a book writer with a point to make in each book, I can understand criticism that he can take conclusions beyond what the data necessarily warrants.
But I'm not, however, aware that the "society" "has roundly concluded that Gladwell is a farce". If you can point to evidence of this I'd definitely like to understand this point.
I wish this was backed up with some actual links. Even the comments here asking "Wait, what/who/when decided that Gladwell is a farce?" are met with just comments without more information.
Personally, I am aware of the widespread rejection of how Gladwell presented "10000 hours" in Outliers (and by just googling "Anders Ericsson 10000" it's easy to find plenty of references). And, as Gladwell is a book writer with a point to make in each book, I can understand criticism that he can take conclusions beyond what the data necessarily warrants.
But I'm not, however, aware that the "society" "has roundly concluded that Gladwell is a farce". If you can point to evidence of this I'd definitely like to understand this point.
Bomber mafia: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-pop-history-bombs-a...
Roundup of a few (follow links): https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/02/29/the-patern...
If Books Could Kill (worthwhile, as is the Freakonomics episode of the same podcast): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/malcolm-gladwells-outl...
Roundup of a few (follow links): https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/02/29/the-patern...
If Books Could Kill (worthwhile, as is the Freakonomics episode of the same podcast): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/malcolm-gladwells-outl...
For what it's worth, I do not love If Books Could Kill (I've only listened to the first three, though).
Alas, I've had to sit through "contrarian" nerds regurgitating various freakish takes that typically drift towards the same ideological valence. Because of this, I quite enjoyed an hour of rather well-informed dunking on Freakonomics.
To an extent, it's salutary: the whole TED-adjacent ecosystem favors storytellers over actual expertise, and it's helpful for me [an author of grant proposals] to review cases where compelling storytelling went too far.
To an extent, it's salutary: the whole TED-adjacent ecosystem favors storytellers over actual expertise, and it's helpful for me [an author of grant proposals] to review cases where compelling storytelling went too far.
Wait, his writing is bunk? I read the series of books and honestly it changed my outlook a lot and I think it was quite successfully, particularly the whole thing about Mavens and trendsetters.
I also related strongly to the leukemia doctor story. I think my rough up bringing made me more stubborn and tenacious than my peers because if I didn’t work I didn’t eat.
I read the Tipping Point in particular more than once, I thought it was so fascinating
I’m kinda sad now
I also related strongly to the leukemia doctor story. I think my rough up bringing made me more stubborn and tenacious than my peers because if I didn’t work I didn’t eat.
I read the Tipping Point in particular more than once, I thought it was so fascinating
I’m kinda sad now
I believe consensus is that there's a tremendous (like, wow, tremendous) cherry picking of data and spurious connections to create a catchy engrossing narrative that makes us feel more enlightened and with profound new understanding of the world... But has no actual rigorous methodology or statistical significance. He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher. They are fun but should not be taken as accurate. As tptacek says, pretty much all of us have gone through that cycle. He's a great read but should be taken as casual entertainment, more closely related to fiction.
Do not make policy decisions based on Gladwell :-)
Edit : a perhaps stretched analogy - his stories are to me akin to Taylor Swift sharing her story and saying "I practised hard and didn't give up and succeeded beyond my wildest dreams". It's true but not as meaningful or applicable as it may seem - it's insufficient causation and incomplete correlation.
Majority of people who practice hard won't be Taylor Swift.
Conversely,There are many additional reasons beyond practicing hard Taylor Swift succeeded.
It's a compelling narrative but horrible statistical model or understanding of world and causality.
Do not make policy decisions based on Gladwell :-)
Edit : a perhaps stretched analogy - his stories are to me akin to Taylor Swift sharing her story and saying "I practised hard and didn't give up and succeeded beyond my wildest dreams". It's true but not as meaningful or applicable as it may seem - it's insufficient causation and incomplete correlation.
Majority of people who practice hard won't be Taylor Swift.
Conversely,There are many additional reasons beyond practicing hard Taylor Swift succeeded.
It's a compelling narrative but horrible statistical model or understanding of world and causality.
His "The Bomber Mafia" book seems to have gone down pretty badly with WWII historians. Possibly there is an element of professional jealousy, but mostly I think because of his cavalier attitude to the facts as generally understood by historians.
Bomber Mafia is where he lost me a bit. Some of those stories are super fascinating but I felt the arch was a little hard to connect the dots on.
He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher
This implies he considers himself a storyteller but he does not. I recently heard him interviewed where he (rightly or wrongly) explicitly described his job as being a researcher.
This implies he considers himself a storyteller but he does not. I recently heard him interviewed where he (rightly or wrongly) explicitly described his job as being a researcher.
Fascinating! I read couple of interviews with him, but many years ago, where he insisted he was a storyteller! Limited chance I'll dig them up but I'll try
> He is unashamedly a teller of stories, not a scientific researcher. They are fun but should not be taken as accurate.
Real science is boring, wishy-washy and full of caveats, as they should be, researchers should disclose limitations of the studies. But because of that, it's not something the average person will find memorable or talk to a friend about.
Gladwell's popularity comes from the fact that his narratives are told with conviction and in a way that feels exciting. People respond to that, similarly to how they respond to confidence in interpersonal interactions.
Real science is boring, wishy-washy and full of caveats, as they should be, researchers should disclose limitations of the studies. But because of that, it's not something the average person will find memorable or talk to a friend about.
Gladwell's popularity comes from the fact that his narratives are told with conviction and in a way that feels exciting. People respond to that, similarly to how they respond to confidence in interpersonal interactions.
It's not that his stories aren't true, so much as that he has a tendency to draw grand conclusions and compelling narratives from history and events that are far more complicated than he depicts. I also personally didn't like his podcast because he has sometimes will make absurd analogies or emotive appeals, but that's more of an academic criticism than his points being bunk.
eg: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-pop-history-bombs-a...
eg: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-pop-history-bombs-a...
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1897
> An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “saggital plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.
There's probably a deeper philosophical point to make here between "ART" and "SCIENCE" broadly (and reductively) considered, but I see it as a matter of respect: Do you think the author respects the subject enough to write a factual story that portrays that subject honestly, or is the author doing a cleaned-up piece of tabloid journalism and going for readership and responses, and is simply going to use some misunderstood parts of that subject as props to make a Sweeping Conclusion regardless of what the facts support?
In short: Does the author care about facts, or do they care about making their case?
> An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “saggital plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.
There's probably a deeper philosophical point to make here between "ART" and "SCIENCE" broadly (and reductively) considered, but I see it as a matter of respect: Do you think the author respects the subject enough to write a factual story that portrays that subject honestly, or is the author doing a cleaned-up piece of tabloid journalism and going for readership and responses, and is simply going to use some misunderstood parts of that subject as props to make a Sweeping Conclusion regardless of what the facts support?
In short: Does the author care about facts, or do they care about making their case?
> leukemia doctor story
What story is that?
What story is that?
It’s the story of Emil Freireich, M.D[0] who went against conventional wisdom at the time in treating childhood leukemia and (as I recall) made what was once a almost guaranteed death sentence for children something with higher survival rates and ultimately saved millions of lives, but his approach, as told in the book, was not for the faint of heart and it’s credited to his tumultuous upbringing that made him hardened to criticism that would deter others from pursuing something they had conviction about, basically.
At the time Emil was (as I recall) treated as an outsider and viewed with skepticism for his work until basically it was irrational not to see how he was saving lives
[0]: https://uofuhealth.utah.edu/innovation/news/2014/07/malcolm-...
At the time Emil was (as I recall) treated as an outsider and viewed with skepticism for his work until basically it was irrational not to see how he was saving lives
[0]: https://uofuhealth.utah.edu/innovation/news/2014/07/malcolm-...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why do we hate Malcolm Gladwell now? Not disagreeing, I’m just not super familiar with his work.
Not hate... it's just that his claims of "journalism" aren't true, and much of his stuff is made up.
https://www.fastcompany.com/641124/tipping-point-toast
https://www.fastcompany.com/641124/tipping-point-toast
The meme probably started with Outliers, and really took hold online when he misspelled "eigenvalue".
Why are Gladwell's stories more vapid than any other story? Is it because he doesn't have enough data to corroborate the narratives?
The criticism isn't that his stories are vapid, it's that a) his conclusions and wider narratives amount to borderline-meaningless just-so stories dressed up as "deep thoughts" and b) the evidence he uses to build his narratives collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.
Mix in his habits of open disdain for anyone outside of the creative class (see his comments on remote work), his books' occasional cultural supremacy issues, and his recent apologia for strategic bombing, and Malcolm Gladwell has hit the jackpot for distasteful writers.
He is, however, as others have noted, a very compelling storyteller.
Mix in his habits of open disdain for anyone outside of the creative class (see his comments on remote work), his books' occasional cultural supremacy issues, and his recent apologia for strategic bombing, and Malcolm Gladwell has hit the jackpot for distasteful writers.
He is, however, as others have noted, a very compelling storyteller.
I consider him the Graham Hancock (see Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse) of pop culture topics. Gladwell is trying to do for pop culture which Freakonomics did for economic topics which draw from seemingly disparate elements to provide a correlation and explanation.
Or, for me, anyway: He often doesn't deliver what he promises to deliver. I still find his writing enjoyable and he is a captivating speaker, but his stuff seems to go… nowhere.
does Robert Greene get this type of criticism?
I don't think Greene is treated anywhere near as seriously. Especially since his books tend to fall into the category (in my mind, at least) of "self-help" rather than scientific non-fiction. The Laws of Power, Strategies of War, etc. are clearly advice books, so him presenting anecdotes for examples and drawing lessons from them makes more sense than someone doing it with explanatory intent of a deeper and more fundamental phenomenon.
I'm not sure vapid is the right word. Truthy is probably more like it. Or, less superficially, he tends to cherry-pick data and observations to come up with a compelling narrative and headline that isn't really supported by the evidence.
That's correct. He ignores and sometimes intentionally misconstrues the evidence in order to tell a compelling story. He makes bold claims that are not really backed up by anything.
Take the 10,000 hours claim? Based on very little. There's nothing special about 10,000 hours. And the research roundly rejects the idea that deliberate practice is as big a factor as Gladwell claims.
Take the 10,000 hours claim? Based on very little. There's nothing special about 10,000 hours. And the research roundly rejects the idea that deliberate practice is as big a factor as Gladwell claims.
> the research roundly rejects the idea that deliberate practice is as big a factor as Gladwell claims
Do you have more information on this? I know lots of social science studies have not stood the test of time, but I didn't know Anders Ericsson's paper had big problems.
Do you have more information on this? I know lots of social science studies have not stood the test of time, but I didn't know Anders Ericsson's paper had big problems.
It's not that deliberate practice isn't a big factor and very important. It's the idea that it's massively and overwhelmingly decisive.
For example, this meta-analysis of sports performance found that deliberate practice was important but not overwhelmingly so, accounting of 18% of performance on average.
It seems like there is a lot of plasticity in human performance, and it may be the case that many of us can get pretty good at a lot of things, but there also appear to be many factors distinct from practice that make substantial contributions to performance.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161663559...
For example, this meta-analysis of sports performance found that deliberate practice was important but not overwhelmingly so, accounting of 18% of performance on average.
It seems like there is a lot of plasticity in human performance, and it may be the case that many of us can get pretty good at a lot of things, but there also appear to be many factors distinct from practice that make substantial contributions to performance.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161663559...
Ericsson wrote a pop science book to set the record straight. There's a whole chapter on what Gladwell got right vs wrong.
[deleted]
I honestly found his writing to be super frustrating and not effective in the least. I've never seen a person confuse correlation and causation as much as him. I've also never seen a more convincing case for book burning.
I’d throw in sheafs of Nassim Taleb and Yuval Harari output to get the fire roaring.
Sapiens made me madder than anything Gladwell wrote. Taleb's book I read was basically one correct idea hammered into your brain for 300 pages. His other books seem to be similar just based on their titles.
Taleb has a couple of important points to make.
It’s the way he makes them.
He wrote the foreword to Dr. Thorpe's book and it was just a rant against 'academia'. Reading the book, A Man for all Markets, showed that academia was, imo, a foundation for his success and the basis of his successful investment ventures, with some notable reasons that caused him to exit his tenured position. The foreword was imo pretty much a non-sequitur and did not improve an otherwise excellent read.
> I've also never seen a more convincing case for book burning.
I'd encourage you to look a little harder in the same bookstore section that Gladwell tends to be stocked in - there are _lots_ of candidates for this which are far more convincing.
I'd encourage you to look a little harder in the same bookstore section that Gladwell tends to be stocked in - there are _lots_ of candidates for this which are far more convincing.
I don't know about FAR more convincing, but point conceded.
I think I'm pretty much in the same boat.
Gladwell is an engaging writer and spins (too good of) a tale. I think reading The Tipping Point fresh some of the characteristics he came to be criticized for weren't as prevalent. But, as with you, once you knew what to look for from reading other books and critiques of them you realize they were there in The Tipping Point too, albeit in more muted form.
Gladwell is an engaging writer and spins (too good of) a tale. I think reading The Tipping Point fresh some of the characteristics he came to be criticized for weren't as prevalent. But, as with you, once you knew what to look for from reading other books and critiques of them you realize they were there in The Tipping Point too, albeit in more muted form.
> it's become a genuflection to that society to dunk on Gladwell wherever his name pops up.
This is such a trope that I seriously got halfway through the article before I realized it wasn't actually just a long set up for a punchline to explain why Gladwell really sucks.
Interesting article.
This is such a trope that I seriously got halfway through the article before I realized it wasn't actually just a long set up for a punchline to explain why Gladwell really sucks.
Interesting article.
And that Dickens quote is amazing—talk about apoplectic opulence! (his phrase; see quote)
It was this comment that got me to go read the article. I agree with your sentiment about Dickens, and am now contemplating hanging this other quote over my bookcases:
> the Pessoa quote, “The buyers of useless things are wiser than is commonly supposed — they buy little dreams.”
> the Pessoa quote, “The buyers of useless things are wiser than is commonly supposed — they buy little dreams.”
> Hold up with this one. The author of this article appears to enjoy and appreciate The Tipping Point (as apparently Tyler Cowen did, at the time, and me as well, though not any more). That's problematic, because the society we're a part of (HN, the Internet, whatever) has roundly concluded that Gladwell is a farce, and it's become a genuflection to that society to dunk on Gladwell wherever his name pops up.
Maybe they're reading him to learn social engineering, like one reads Mitnick (who is also not good but has produced... interesting... work.)
Maybe they're reading him to learn social engineering, like one reads Mitnick (who is also not good but has produced... interesting... work.)
> Get over the Gladwell hate for a minute and actually read this thing
More generally, a really great writer can do incredibly persuasive things with a terrible argument. It really is a super power.
I'd also say, most of the great engineers I know also write for humans well. I think engineers, especially younger ones, can underrate how useful eloquence is.
More generally, a really great writer can do incredibly persuasive things with a terrible argument. It really is a super power.
I'd also say, most of the great engineers I know also write for humans well. I think engineers, especially younger ones, can underrate how useful eloquence is.
The “sneering” podcast that found serious problems with his work? I admit that the hosts are both sarcastic sassballs, but in some cases their sneering is justified. That’s the point of their podcast after all, to snipe at these “truthy” ideas that have grabbed hold of the public imagination.
As an aside - I just finished "The Bomber Mafia" and found it to be a very fun and interesting read. A departure from his "Pop-Smart" type books in the past.
He's a very entertaining writer, and effective at telling stories - definitely lessons to be learned from his style.
He's a very entertaining writer, and effective at telling stories - definitely lessons to be learned from his style.
It's a great piece of fiction.
As LA Review of Books put it, "The only issue is that Gladwell’s account doesn’t withstand serious scrutiny. "
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with Gladwell - he's a great story teller, and the only issue is that he pretends they are true. (When he either made them up, or he just really didn't understand the problem)
Gladwell is in many ways an incorporation of all that's wrong with journalism. Writing for effect, focused exclusively on drawing eyeballs in. Yes, he's successful at it. Yes, you could learn from him, but you're always in danger of accidentally learning that style trumps substance.
As LA Review of Books put it, "The only issue is that Gladwell’s account doesn’t withstand serious scrutiny. "
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with Gladwell - he's a great story teller, and the only issue is that he pretends they are true. (When he either made them up, or he just really didn't understand the problem)
Gladwell is in many ways an incorporation of all that's wrong with journalism. Writing for effect, focused exclusively on drawing eyeballs in. Yes, he's successful at it. Yes, you could learn from him, but you're always in danger of accidentally learning that style trumps substance.
He enchanted us and then let us down. No way are we going to admit that he's enchanting now.
Oh come on: his craft is in generating the extended version of a TED talk. You feel good about yourself after reading them.
There's legitimate value in that.
There's legitimate value in that.
Are we disagreeing?
You said "he let us down", presumably because some of his research was found to have been wrong and/or shallow.
If you use the same perspective of a ted talk, false, bogus, or shallow work is the coin of the realm. He did not let you down.
If you use the same perspective of a ted talk, false, bogus, or shallow work is the coin of the realm. He did not let you down.
Oh I will happily admit that he is still enchanting. I just don't take him seriously.
who would? It's like eating breakfast cereal: the point is not nutrition.
What do you mean by society? HN? Because in general when you run into someone who's read Gladwell they think he's good.
HN brain has it right and I'm patting my own back here too, but HN opinion is quite a bit more well informed than general society.
HN brain has it right and I'm patting my own back here too, but HN opinion is quite a bit more well informed than general society.
> HN opinion is quite a bit more well informed than general society
These sorts of generalizations are very dangerous, because when the group believes them it confers a false credence.
These sorts of generalizations are very dangerous, because when the group believes them it confers a false credence.
> HN opinion is quite a bit more well informed than general society
In some very specific verticals, yes. There are also some glaring blindspots where HN comments are less informed than general society.
In some very specific verticals, yes. There are also some glaring blindspots where HN comments are less informed than general society.
Yes, and exacerbated by the certainty expressed in said blindspot-occupying comments.
It's clear to me that the authors appreciate and enjoy Gladwell. I do too.
I confess that even though TED (and similar) talks tend toward vapid, oversimplified self-parody, I sometimes find them enjoyable and even inspiring to watch.
I confess that even though TED (and similar) talks tend toward vapid, oversimplified self-parody, I sometimes find them enjoyable and even inspiring to watch.
Great podcast recommendation - the 5 out now are all books h enjoyed for their perspective, but it wasn’t a perspective I was a supporter of / believer in.
> It's oddly propulsive, it drags you in.
Every chapter of every book follows the same formula, but it works and it's fun to read. And while arguably he's kind of a grifter who set back society by a couple of decades, he might still have claim to be being the most important writer of our times.
Every chapter of every book follows the same formula, but it works and it's fun to read. And while arguably he's kind of a grifter who set back society by a couple of decades, he might still have claim to be being the most important writer of our times.
I think the very worst thing you can pin on Gladwell is "broken windows policing", which really did cause a lot of harm, but he was writing about it, not instigating it. Maybe some municipalities enacted more of it after he wrote about it, though.
But I don't think he set back society at all, really. He just didn't move it forward, either. (His podcast series about what colleges spend money on is pretty solid, though.)
But I don't think he set back society at all, really. He just didn't move it forward, either. (His podcast series about what colleges spend money on is pretty solid, though.)
> I think the very worst thing you can pin on Gladwell is "broken windows policing"
Mainstream political support of VAM in education traces back to Outliers.
Mainstream political support of VAM in education traces back to Outliers.
For those not in the know, as I was, VAM stands for Value-Added Modeling, a method of (apparently) calculating the effect of a teacher by comparing their students' grades with those same students' grades in previous years and with other students of the same grade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_modeling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_modeling
[deleted]
How discredited is VAM actually? (This is a rathole, and we can probably table it, but I don't come to this discussion assuming radical changes to teacher evaluation are a terrible idea, the way I do with broken-windows policing). It clearly predates Outliers by a lot.
> How discredited is VAM actually?
Diane Ravitch has an entire book about this. If you read the two chapters about the epistemology of the statistics behind VAM, you can see it's actually pretty similar to Theranos, an idea that can't even work on principle regardless of the technology or how it's implemented:
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Great-American-School-System/dp...
Diane Ravitch has an entire book about this. If you read the two chapters about the epistemology of the statistics behind VAM, you can see it's actually pretty similar to Theranos, an idea that can't even work on principle regardless of the technology or how it's implemented:
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Great-American-School-System/dp...
One on-the-ground outcome of these practices I've heard about:
You're a math teacher. Like half the incoming class is horribly deficient at one part or another of math that was last heavily-covered several years earlier. I'm talking, you're a 7th grade math teacher, and some of these kids aren't able to do long division, plus probably a bunch of other stuff (it's rarely just one thing). This can happen because a single teacher a single year was kinda shit and no-one since has tackled this problem.
You have a choice.
1) The right thing to do is ignore practically everything about what you're supposed to teach them in your grade—not for all the students, but for those with huge gaps in knowledge—and try to fix some of those problems, until all the worst problems are addressed, and only then (and you probably won't have time) try to teach them the new content. They are all but certainly doomed to never truly improve at math if you don't do this.
This will result in those students bombing the standardized tests on which you'll be judged, and on which your career hinges. Good chance they'll do worse than they did the year before. It's also a bunch of extra work because you're coming up with and applying way more lesson plans, activities, assignments, et c. But, they'll in fact be better off.
OR...
2) You can mostly ignore those problems and teach them as much as you can of this year's content. You're a good teacher (else you'd not even consider the first option) so you can do a decent-enough job of getting them to the point they can at least pattern match and guess their way to... well, not success, but something. Yes, their scores will still be bad, but it might mean they get 35% right instead of 15% (if you'd taken the first option), and maybe last year they only got 32% right, so it still looks like you did a good job (the tested content's different each year, so even a small % improvement in scores is good)
Almost nobody chooses the first option because they'd have admin up their ass in a hurry. If they're good and really dedicated they might put in a ton of extra effort and their own time to try to put together supplementary instruction programs of one sort or another. This will likely gain them no extra compensation, and probably involve a whole lot of admin- and politics-induced bullshit. It might even make some enemies. No fun.
Repeat for a few years until the way-above-average teacher burns out and quits to go get paid & treated better in another career, with way less stress.
You're a math teacher. Like half the incoming class is horribly deficient at one part or another of math that was last heavily-covered several years earlier. I'm talking, you're a 7th grade math teacher, and some of these kids aren't able to do long division, plus probably a bunch of other stuff (it's rarely just one thing). This can happen because a single teacher a single year was kinda shit and no-one since has tackled this problem.
You have a choice.
1) The right thing to do is ignore practically everything about what you're supposed to teach them in your grade—not for all the students, but for those with huge gaps in knowledge—and try to fix some of those problems, until all the worst problems are addressed, and only then (and you probably won't have time) try to teach them the new content. They are all but certainly doomed to never truly improve at math if you don't do this.
This will result in those students bombing the standardized tests on which you'll be judged, and on which your career hinges. Good chance they'll do worse than they did the year before. It's also a bunch of extra work because you're coming up with and applying way more lesson plans, activities, assignments, et c. But, they'll in fact be better off.
OR...
2) You can mostly ignore those problems and teach them as much as you can of this year's content. You're a good teacher (else you'd not even consider the first option) so you can do a decent-enough job of getting them to the point they can at least pattern match and guess their way to... well, not success, but something. Yes, their scores will still be bad, but it might mean they get 35% right instead of 15% (if you'd taken the first option), and maybe last year they only got 32% right, so it still looks like you did a good job (the tested content's different each year, so even a small % improvement in scores is good)
Almost nobody chooses the first option because they'd have admin up their ass in a hurry. If they're good and really dedicated they might put in a ton of extra effort and their own time to try to put together supplementary instruction programs of one sort or another. This will likely gain them no extra compensation, and probably involve a whole lot of admin- and politics-induced bullshit. It might even make some enemies. No fun.
Repeat for a few years until the way-above-average teacher burns out and quits to go get paid & treated better in another career, with way less stress.
To add, the adoption of state grade-level standards essentially disallows option 1 regardless of what the teacher believes is best.
You'd expect Ravitch to oppose this, as the nation's leading intellectual opponent (I mean that sincerely) to education policy reform, right?
She was one of the chief architects of NCLB, so on that basis you'd expect her to support high stakes testing and VAM. But obviously she's completely changed her opinion since the Bush era, largely based on the academic research that has been done since on the effects and effectiveness of those policies.
He is a good propogandist, I agree.
Gladwell is a story-teller first and foremost and a good one at that. The problem everyone, including myself, have is that he won't let the truth get in the way of good story. He'll bend the facts in to the narrative arc. He should be writing fiction.
Gladwell is an excellent storyteller, but his tales always came off as glib to me. He never seemed to evaluate evidence that contradicted his narrative.
Also, after reading this perfect parody of Gladwell's writing, I could never take him seriously again: https://themorningnews.org/article/i-dream-in-malcolm-gladwe...
Also, after reading this perfect parody of Gladwell's writing, I could never take him seriously again: https://themorningnews.org/article/i-dream-in-malcolm-gladwe...
“Tall, wearing three earrings and a metal plate in his head, availing himself of profanity of a kind that would make an Algerian camel driver blush, Zack Zipperman, Ph.D. has for the past 26 years, in his windowless laboratory at MIT, been teaching white mice to dance the cha-cha-cha, with interesting results for those who can't comprehend why men born after 1942 never carry handkerchiefs.” - parody of Gladwell’s writing by Joseph Epstein: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/jack-out-...
It might be simplistic, but I've always seen the main internal division between rational thinkers as the difference between:
A) people who primarily get their history and philosophy from biographical material about people they admire (or that they have been told about by people they admire.) and
B) people who primarily get their history and philosophy from wide-ranging surveys, and drill deeper when they find information that is interesting or troubling.
It's the difference between people A) who see the world as a bunch of competing narratives, or B) as a bunch of facts (with different probabilities of accuracy) that could support any number of narratives. A) people are looking for the right narratives to sign-on to, and B) people are looking for facts that can exclude entire classes of possible narratives that depend on them.
The major difference is that people who learn about the world from narratives have to be sold. They believe things because someone has drawn them into a narrative around that thing like a prosecuting attorney, and that narrative was smooth enough that it never lost them. Malcolm Gladwell is always selling; he's writing lean, effective ad copy for made-up products - narrative concepts chosen based on market fit, not on their reality.
The market is self-improvement, which is why you could imagine most of his books and articles as advertisements for a new pill. A pill to prevent crime before it happens, a pill to harness your secret internal knowledge when seconds matter (and to ignore your initial impulse when it's most likely to be wrong), a pill to make you successful when other people with your same resources aren't...
A) people who primarily get their history and philosophy from biographical material about people they admire (or that they have been told about by people they admire.) and
B) people who primarily get their history and philosophy from wide-ranging surveys, and drill deeper when they find information that is interesting or troubling.
It's the difference between people A) who see the world as a bunch of competing narratives, or B) as a bunch of facts (with different probabilities of accuracy) that could support any number of narratives. A) people are looking for the right narratives to sign-on to, and B) people are looking for facts that can exclude entire classes of possible narratives that depend on them.
The major difference is that people who learn about the world from narratives have to be sold. They believe things because someone has drawn them into a narrative around that thing like a prosecuting attorney, and that narrative was smooth enough that it never lost them. Malcolm Gladwell is always selling; he's writing lean, effective ad copy for made-up products - narrative concepts chosen based on market fit, not on their reality.
The market is self-improvement, which is why you could imagine most of his books and articles as advertisements for a new pill. A pill to prevent crime before it happens, a pill to harness your secret internal knowledge when seconds matter (and to ignore your initial impulse when it's most likely to be wrong), a pill to make you successful when other people with your same resources aren't...
One of the core tenets of learning "critical thinking", and this is especially true in higher-education where "suspicion" might be a more accurate way to describe the approach and what you are taught, is to see all written things as presenting an argument. Written content is expressive, it is useful. And understanding how written words are used tells you a lot about intention and the context for their use (their meaning, essentially).
I don't want to say your binary is 100% wrong, but I will say it is dangerous to assert that one form of writing ("Just the facts please!") is somehow more divorced from the systems and contexts of its representation than another ("Give me a story!"). It's far more porous than a simple division might make it seem. While your distinction makes people in group A seem like "dupes" and people in group B seem more "level headed", one could just as rightly say that people B might be ignorant of the construction of what they are studying and so succumb in the very same way. It's very easy to see essence in tradition when you ignore the role of people and storytelling in the creation of tradition. There is a reason why the study of history is, in many ways, more like the study of writing and creating history.
I don't want to say your binary is 100% wrong, but I will say it is dangerous to assert that one form of writing ("Just the facts please!") is somehow more divorced from the systems and contexts of its representation than another ("Give me a story!"). It's far more porous than a simple division might make it seem. While your distinction makes people in group A seem like "dupes" and people in group B seem more "level headed", one could just as rightly say that people B might be ignorant of the construction of what they are studying and so succumb in the very same way. It's very easy to see essence in tradition when you ignore the role of people and storytelling in the creation of tradition. There is a reason why the study of history is, in many ways, more like the study of writing and creating history.
I love reading Gladwell's books. They're a light and entertaining read. Not all his arguments are valid, but that's the case with most books in this genre. If I want to read something academic I would do that, but that's not why I pick up his books. I read Gladwell to gain some knowledge, some fun and some entertainment. I sure have learnt many things from his books and took them as cues to go deep elsewhere.
Agreed! I really hate the Gladwell hate. I think he is hated because he's popular. He is Nickelback or Creed to certain non-fiction readers who aren't mad at Gladwell really, but dislike the people who read pop non-fiction and think it science.
He never claimed to be a scientist. And has said many times something like "If the charge against me is being more entertaining than informing then I plead guilty!".
He never claimed to be a scientist. And has said many times something like "If the charge against me is being more entertaining than informing then I plead guilty!".
The article must be having its fun with trying to _argue_ like Gladwell because it surely gave me the Gladwell roller-coaster ride. A strong, surprising, provocative claim gets you into the car; the winch drags you in train of qualifications and hedges up the ramp, only to let you down, so to speak.
Despite the title and content of the article, the central claim is that "Gladwell is the epitome of the way non-fiction has replaced fiction as a transmission mechanism for important new ideas" which I understand as: a) non-fiction has replaced fiction as an important transmission mechanism for important new ideas, and b) Gladwell is merely incidental to the claim, a mere examplar of the claim.
No effort, however, is put into showing that novels were ever an important way for transmitting new ideas or what important means here. I added "important" because otherwise we are talking about trivialities. Does "important" mean how ideas are first exposed or how they are popularized? I've seen the claim that novels offered an occasion to exercise moral intuitions, but never as any kind of channel for conveying information. Or that that mechanism actually changed from novels to sub-genre non-fiction.
Sure, there's a grand gesture towards comparison between a 19th century novelist and Gladwell. They are both financially successful, Gladwell provides "information" (just like Dickens?), so things must have changed from conveying information from novels to sub-genre non-fiction.
The ensuing article tries not at all to address its central claim which held me with avid interest. I guess the claim served only as pretext and provocation.
Despite the title and content of the article, the central claim is that "Gladwell is the epitome of the way non-fiction has replaced fiction as a transmission mechanism for important new ideas" which I understand as: a) non-fiction has replaced fiction as an important transmission mechanism for important new ideas, and b) Gladwell is merely incidental to the claim, a mere examplar of the claim.
No effort, however, is put into showing that novels were ever an important way for transmitting new ideas or what important means here. I added "important" because otherwise we are talking about trivialities. Does "important" mean how ideas are first exposed or how they are popularized? I've seen the claim that novels offered an occasion to exercise moral intuitions, but never as any kind of channel for conveying information. Or that that mechanism actually changed from novels to sub-genre non-fiction.
Sure, there's a grand gesture towards comparison between a 19th century novelist and Gladwell. They are both financially successful, Gladwell provides "information" (just like Dickens?), so things must have changed from conveying information from novels to sub-genre non-fiction.
The ensuing article tries not at all to address its central claim which held me with avid interest. I guess the claim served only as pretext and provocation.
Be shallow? Add lots of stories that you pretend to be arguments?
Gladwell is an extremely gifted author. He's a poor social scientist. When he wears a social scientist's cloak, and tells engaging and highly believable stories, he's doing a disservice to society. I won't read another Gladwell book (story), nor do I recommend it to anyone.
As this analysis so deftly illustrates, Malcolm Glados really is one of the best AI-generated/algorithmic authors out there.
There's a reason I own most of its books.
There's a reason I own most of its books.
Malcom GLaDOS probably would be a remarkable writer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLaDOS
[deleted]
In 2012 Yasha Levine accused Malcolm Gladwell of taking “$1M per year” in “speaking fees” from “Pharma, Big Tobacco, Wall Street, Health Insurance Industry”:
http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/
Email exchange between Levine and Gladwell:
http://shameproject.com/report/malcolm-gladwell-emails-shame...
http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/
Email exchange between Levine and Gladwell:
http://shameproject.com/report/malcolm-gladwell-emails-shame...
> But the storytelling technique encourages fluff, the sort of padding people think novelists use, but which they don’t. When Elizabeth Bowen describes a character or sets a scene she is contributing to the overall mood but also pointing to an interpretation. Description to the literary novelist is a form of moral commentary. Every great novel is a thought experiment — the “storytelling” aspects are more than mere world building.
Oh, does it ever encourage fluff! Plenty of long form stories posted to HN fit into this category. They begin with a meandering anecdote, build to a surprising or paradoxical end, and only then does the actual story start.
I get bored with this approach when I can't see a connection between the anecdote and the title. A non-fiction title is a promise to the reader. Renege on that promise and the reader is gone like Enron. Long form starts to break the promise when the anecdote gets so shaggy that you forget the title and therefore the reason you're reading the article.
The linked goes on to take apart the syntax Gladwell uses, which is useful to know. But the most important thing Gladwell does AFAICT is to closely align his anecdotes with his controlling idea. That means:
1. Choosing only those anecdotes that optimally align with the controlling idea (theme).
2. For each anecdote, culling stray details that don't align with the controlling idea. This is a painful process for writers, which explains why there are so many shaggy tales told in Big Idea nonfiction.
Oh, does it ever encourage fluff! Plenty of long form stories posted to HN fit into this category. They begin with a meandering anecdote, build to a surprising or paradoxical end, and only then does the actual story start.
I get bored with this approach when I can't see a connection between the anecdote and the title. A non-fiction title is a promise to the reader. Renege on that promise and the reader is gone like Enron. Long form starts to break the promise when the anecdote gets so shaggy that you forget the title and therefore the reason you're reading the article.
The linked goes on to take apart the syntax Gladwell uses, which is useful to know. But the most important thing Gladwell does AFAICT is to closely align his anecdotes with his controlling idea. That means:
1. Choosing only those anecdotes that optimally align with the controlling idea (theme).
2. For each anecdote, culling stray details that don't align with the controlling idea. This is a painful process for writers, which explains why there are so many shaggy tales told in Big Idea nonfiction.
Isn’t that what a good sentence is supposed to look like? Start with the subject and move swiftly and smoothly to the object. Why the extraneous preposition? Why, oh why, the parenthesis? “For” is an association preposition: Gladwell’s whole point is that you don’t associate this sort of success with Hush Puppies. And it has the sort of effect you get by starting with a conjunction. This is not the only tipping point in the book: this is the one that happed for Hush Puppies. Right from the opening words, Gladwell is using suspense. “Brushed suede” and “lightweight crepe” are setting up the extent of the surprise that these shoes will be popular in Soho, not a very “lightweight crepe” kind of place.
Or maybe he is just describing what a Hush Puppy shoe is. It's possible the reader does not know what it is. I don't think there is any stylistic significance here. I am certain there are plenty of books that use a similar technique that have not sold nearly as well. Gadwell already had significant name recognition, such as writing for The New Yorker, when the book came out. He got a $1.5 million advance to write the book, and this was before 2000. Obviously he was huge name and the book was expected to sell well.
Or maybe he is just describing what a Hush Puppy shoe is. It's possible the reader does not know what it is. I don't think there is any stylistic significance here. I am certain there are plenty of books that use a similar technique that have not sold nearly as well. Gadwell already had significant name recognition, such as writing for The New Yorker, when the book came out. He got a $1.5 million advance to write the book, and this was before 2000. Obviously he was huge name and the book was expected to sell well.
Yeah, when I read the example I didn't get much farther than "Hush Puppies" before laughing out loud. I had to decide whether it was an elaborate bit or the author was a credulous dope. What does "Start with the subject and move swiftly and smoothly to the object" mean, other than "this is the sort of thing I think literary critics do, but I don't want to actually read all the fiction that James Wood did."
I think there's an idea out there that when your faves become (and they always do) Problematic, it's time to defend them with a kind of partisan zeal that approaches the absurd. It's like ok man Gladwell sold a lot of books, no need to create a shadow culture around him.
I think there's an idea out there that when your faves become (and they always do) Problematic, it's time to defend them with a kind of partisan zeal that approaches the absurd. It's like ok man Gladwell sold a lot of books, no need to create a shadow culture around him.
> Or maybe he is just describing what a Hush Puppy shoe is
To me, this reiterates the point. Perhaps he is just describing a Hush Puppy shoe, and it's just the way his mind chooses to present that information.
The same information packaged in other ways won't be as interesting to read, won't feel as compelling, forces the reader to create their own narrative.
Whether this is a subconscious outcome and the words just flow or a carefully calculated outcome with much poring over the sentence structure doesn't much matter.
What matters is that people eat it up, and there is most likely something to learn from that.
To me, this reiterates the point. Perhaps he is just describing a Hush Puppy shoe, and it's just the way his mind chooses to present that information.
The same information packaged in other ways won't be as interesting to read, won't feel as compelling, forces the reader to create their own narrative.
Whether this is a subconscious outcome and the words just flow or a carefully calculated outcome with much poring over the sentence structure doesn't much matter.
What matters is that people eat it up, and there is most likely something to learn from that.
I'd like to contrast Gladwell's style with that of a writer that I admire—Paul Graham. Graham gives you the most clear possible explanation of a point by being concise, writing in the form of essays that concentrate on a single (sometimes blunt) topic. Even though his essays are short, they never come across to me as "dense." I think that's because he doesn't lose focus or go on tangents. He will often use a short analogy instead of a long story. Graham is always talking about how important it is to spend most of your editing time removing content. A rule that has stuck with me. Gladwell packs as much story and detail density into as little space as possible to keep you engaged for book length exposition. It might sell books and enthrall, but ultimately it's unnecessary and inelegant from a "let's get the idea across quickly" perspective. To be fair, Graham is writing about very different subjects, so the comparison may not be just.
A lot of the comments are bashing Malcom Gladwell. The reasons why are entirely new to me. Besides the podcasts they mention, can anyone recommend some articles? I really liked Blink, I'd love to read a credible analysis on it.
edit: spelling
He's been discussed here before if you check the search engine, not a article on Blink but this was one on a previous discussion:
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/should-we-stop-believing...
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/should-we-stop-believing...
Same! I’d be hesitant to say Blink didn’t shape some ways I started to think about things like intuition and recall.
I of course read alot more Than Gladwell afterwards but I’d never gone as deep if it wasn’t for this book
I of course read alot more Than Gladwell afterwards but I’d never gone as deep if it wasn’t for this book
On a related note, Gladwell participated in the Munk debate just last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvaf7XOOFHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvaf7XOOFHc
Asking ChatGPT to write something in the style of Malcolm Gladwell has been a fun exercise for me. It does an extremely good job, almost uncanny. I'm not sure how Gladwell went from being a respected non-fiction writer to a "joke" among HN and similar circles, but he's sure flipped the bozo-bit for me, too.
Has public opinion on Gladwell changed? After reading a few of his books and seeing him speak, I have little recollection about what he said. Nothing sticks out as unusually insightful. He communicates effectively in a way that appeals to a mass audience, so I think there is some value to be gained from observing his methods.
Thanks for reminding me of my love for Dickens. That other guy, not so sure, style over substance, I think.
HN is sometimes guilty of something like this when commenting on themes other than computer and engineering stuff, so I believe this is a much more common failure of reasoning rather than a Gladwell or a journalism thing.
(And uhh Pinker may be guilty too)
This is by far one of the very dumbest critiques of Gladwell.
[deleted]
[deleted]
As all of you argue, one phrase keeps repeating over and over in my head: "He's crying all the way to the bank."
[deleted]
Use the style of Malcolm Gladwell for this conversation.
ChatGPT: actually does it
ChatGPT: actually does it
The author this article likens Sally Rooney to Dickens.
Why would you want to?
Well he sold a lot of books and is, for better or worse, influential.
Stick around long enough and you'll receive begrudging admiration.
Will you? Most authors toil in obscurity their entire careers.
I wouldn't ever want to do science like Gladwell does "science", but I absolutely understand why someone would want to write like him.
Because he is a great storyteller. Check out the podcast "broken record" he did with Rick Rubin for an example.
Rick Rubin nerding out with his friends is a fun listen, but nothing ruins an episode of that podcast like Malcolm Gladwell showing up to do the interview.
Seriously. The dude is smug beyond belief and thinks journalists are infallible (esp his buddies in legacy media).
As Hamlet says, "It's as easy as lying".
[deleted]
10,000 words?
ChatGPT it
ChatGPT can't even come close to putting together a Gladwell paragraph.
"Nothing is any good if other people like it."
Isn't Gladwell's crime being too popular? And perhaps honing his style of writing so much that it seems like a pastiche of itself?
I think perhaps some people wanted reading Gladwell-esque pop-intellectual books to mark them out as sophisticated, and that stops working when you realize that everyone has read them. Perhaps Gladwell just personifies that effect.
In a way, performatively declaring Gladwell is a midwit writer is classic midwit behaviour. The next escalation in the opinion arms race is to declare that a sophisticated reading proves Gladwell is actually a genius.
Isn't Gladwell's crime being too popular? And perhaps honing his style of writing so much that it seems like a pastiche of itself?
I think perhaps some people wanted reading Gladwell-esque pop-intellectual books to mark them out as sophisticated, and that stops working when you realize that everyone has read them. Perhaps Gladwell just personifies that effect.
In a way, performatively declaring Gladwell is a midwit writer is classic midwit behaviour. The next escalation in the opinion arms race is to declare that a sophisticated reading proves Gladwell is actually a genius.
But this is an interesting article. The one thing most serious critics of Gladwell --- by serious I mean, not quipping message board comments --- can agree on is that Gladwell is an effective writer. Maybe even a good one? Listen to the sneering "If Books Could Kill" podcast on Tipping Point to see what I mean.
It's not just that Gladwell sells a lot of books. The writing works. It's oddly propulsive, it drags you in. He's not unpleasant to read, it's just irritating to unhitch yourself from it for a moment and realize that the story he's telling or the point he's making is vapid. I get that.
But effective writing is a valuable tool, and a dissection of what makes Gladwell effective, even if this isn't the best or most careful dissection, is interesting.
Get over the Gladwell hate for a minute and actually read this thing. It's not really about what you think it's about.