Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?(ksj.mit.edu)
ksj.mit.edu
Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/10/should-we-stop-believing-malcolm-gladwel
50 comments
It's a market that's developed in response to the fact that nerds are addicted to feeling like they're just a little bit smarter than everyone else.
IMO, this is what appeals to many about HN....the desire to find share-worthy things that will help cement their image as the smart person within their social group. Nothing wrong with it, just an (unscientific) observation.
IMO, this is what appeals to many about HN....the desire to find share-worthy things that will help cement their image as the smart person within their social group. Nothing wrong with it, just an (unscientific) observation.
"IMO, this is what appeals to many about HN....the desire to find share-worthy things that will help cement their image as the smart person within their social group."
Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.
Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.
> Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.
This is why I hate being around a good deal of "smart" people (or atleast, people who have smartness attached to their identity, which seems to be rarely the same group). Every statement, every conversation, every fact is just another opportunity for them to put something down or puff themselves up.
This is why I hate being around a good deal of "smart" people (or atleast, people who have smartness attached to their identity, which seems to be rarely the same group). Every statement, every conversation, every fact is just another opportunity for them to put something down or puff themselves up.
Ah yes. Let's all stay positive. It's not like anyone ever died from not wanting to criticize something, right?
Only, things ranging from people going on doomed escapades and startups, via mountaineering accidents up to and including the Eschede train disaster can be at least partially attributed to people being afraid of expressing criticism. Of course there is a valid criticism of how many people express said criticism, but that's another matter.
In fact, what I do see, is a lot of people who are so attached to their own opinion, that even after an amount of statements intended discern between the opinion and person expressing it, they still become angry when facing criticism.
One of the actual reasons I come to HN is to read dissenting views. I may disagree with them, but without them this site would be useless.
Only, things ranging from people going on doomed escapades and startups, via mountaineering accidents up to and including the Eschede train disaster can be at least partially attributed to people being afraid of expressing criticism. Of course there is a valid criticism of how many people express said criticism, but that's another matter.
In fact, what I do see, is a lot of people who are so attached to their own opinion, that even after an amount of statements intended discern between the opinion and person expressing it, they still become angry when facing criticism.
One of the actual reasons I come to HN is to read dissenting views. I may disagree with them, but without them this site would be useless.
You sound like you're snarkily disagreeing with d23, yet the core of your disagreement is based on something that he/she didn't say. No one is saying criticism is bad; obviously if anyone had a default position of never expressing criticism or disagreement, nothing would ever improve, right? But there is absolutely a personality type that thrives on thinking of one's self as being smarter than everyone else, and constantly trying to prove that via relentless negativity or contrarianism. If you rely on such people for insight, you will generally end up being less informed than if you hadn't listened to them at all, because their views are based on boosting their own ego by trying to appear smarter than everyone else rather than from an intellectually honest attempt to get at the truth.
At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
The one good quality such people might have is as a continual Devil's Advocate, in the sense that by disagreeing with all conventional wisdom they might make you take a second look at your own beliefs. But I really feel like it's everyone's responsibility to be their own Devil's Advocate; relying on other people to fill that role isn't constructive.
I guess what I'm really getting at is that there's no shortage of negativity or contrariness out there, and contrariness without insight is no better than agreement without insight. In fact, it can easily lead you astray if you're not careful.
At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
The one good quality such people might have is as a continual Devil's Advocate, in the sense that by disagreeing with all conventional wisdom they might make you take a second look at your own beliefs. But I really feel like it's everyone's responsibility to be their own Devil's Advocate; relying on other people to fill that role isn't constructive.
I guess what I'm really getting at is that there's no shortage of negativity or contrariness out there, and contrariness without insight is no better than agreement without insight. In fact, it can easily lead you astray if you're not careful.
> You sound like you're snarkily disagreeing with d23, yet the core of your disagreement is based on something that he/she didn't say. No one is saying criticism is bad; obviously if anyone had a default position of never expressing criticism or disagreement, nothing would ever improve, right?
Well, I did get sick of it after yet another discussion on HN went into the 'stop raining on the parade' comments.
> At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
I've met many people who dismiss any criticism with complaints of negativism. I've even seen that happen when I complained about how they were dissing others, as if me suggesting they should be more understanding was negative.
In fact, I see a lot of negativity with insight, and a lot of yes-men attitude without any reflection. It's a far more common disease.
Well, I did get sick of it after yet another discussion on HN went into the 'stop raining on the parade' comments.
> At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
I've met many people who dismiss any criticism with complaints of negativism. I've even seen that happen when I complained about how they were dissing others, as if me suggesting they should be more understanding was negative.
In fact, I see a lot of negativity with insight, and a lot of yes-men attitude without any reflection. It's a far more common disease.
I think I'd still rather be around people who argue with statistics and logic than people who don't. Step into a Yahoo news comment section with any article that mentions the US gov't or Obamacare. There's so much bullshit and stupidity thrown around it makes you lose faith in humanity.
I'd rather be around smart people putting someone down or puffing themselves over things they are right about than be around dumb people putting someone down or puffing themselves up over things they are wrong about. Internet arguing, Politics, Sports, Rap battles, etc. same shit, different group, different MO's
What you've described is normal human behavior irrespective of their level of intelligence.
What you've described is normal human behavior irrespective of their level of intelligence.
That sounds infuriating. Why would you hang around with those "smart" people?
For the record, although I consider myself smart, I usually like to get substantive feedback (whether agreeing with me or not) to battle test my views, learn more and refine my presentation. I intuitively find this to be valuable for me and I seem to be addicted to debating with people of different points of view on topics I care about. I don't care about an echo chamber beyond once in a while reinforcing that random reasonable people agree with me. But I quickly want to move the conversation to stuff I am still battle testing. The thing that frustrates me the most are people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know. Usually they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious and ignore the main arguments. It makes me waste a lot of time.
I took a plane ride to Wisconsin for instance, for a three day conference of Christian apologists because they are hard to get a hold of online, and I had serious questiona.
Is there anyone else motivated by this like me?
I took a plane ride to Wisconsin for instance, for a three day conference of Christian apologists because they are hard to get a hold of online, and I had serious questiona.
Is there anyone else motivated by this like me?
I enjoy having my views continually challenged -- but I have begun to draw a line between those with whom I disagree and those who make me angry. I have less time for those who make me angry -- but I say that without judgement. I can't say they're arguments are empty if I refuse to engage them -- the most I can say is that it's not beneficial for me to engage them.
In terms of "people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know ... they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious", I would counsel toward assuming good faith on their part, and just not engaging them. If you'd like to benefit from what they know, it's fair that you should try to hear their arguments charitably and even entertain that what you consider "logically obvious" may be more cultural than logical.
In terms of "people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know ... they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious", I would counsel toward assuming good faith on their part, and just not engaging them. If you'd like to benefit from what they know, it's fair that you should try to hear their arguments charitably and even entertain that what you consider "logically obvious" may be more cultural than logical.
>Is there anyone else motivated by this like me?
Analytic philosophers tend to be.
Analytic philosophers tend to be.
I hate this about myself. =P
Is this where you came across the concept of "insight porn"? http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/trying-to-see-...
There's an interesting possibility that our brain actually gives us a neurochemical "hit" every time we encounter a particularly juicy piece of insight porn. The reason for this is evolutionary: insights are basically the recognition of deep patterns that explain seemingly unrelated phenomena, which lets us "compress" our knowledge and so increase our understanding of the world. (It's not that our stone age ancestors were developing scientific theories, but they had many complex things in their environment to predict: the weather, animal behaviour, their own social networks, other hunter-gather tribes, etc).
The pleasure gained from studying mathematics, or listening to complicated pieces of music (esp classical, where complex pieces might be based on simple underlying patterns) are good examples. Humour might be a complementary reward circuit, giving us a psychological hit when we discover something that contradicts our worldview.
(I'm aware that the preceding paragraphs was themselves a piece of insight porn :)
There's an interesting possibility that our brain actually gives us a neurochemical "hit" every time we encounter a particularly juicy piece of insight porn. The reason for this is evolutionary: insights are basically the recognition of deep patterns that explain seemingly unrelated phenomena, which lets us "compress" our knowledge and so increase our understanding of the world. (It's not that our stone age ancestors were developing scientific theories, but they had many complex things in their environment to predict: the weather, animal behaviour, their own social networks, other hunter-gather tribes, etc).
The pleasure gained from studying mathematics, or listening to complicated pieces of music (esp classical, where complex pieces might be based on simple underlying patterns) are good examples. Humour might be a complementary reward circuit, giving us a psychological hit when we discover something that contradicts our worldview.
(I'm aware that the preceding paragraphs was themselves a piece of insight porn :)
Whenever someone says "There's a possibility X is evolutionary", nowadays, I mentally continue it with "The reason for this is rationalization".
As an aside, what's it called when you come up with an explanation of something to fit the facts the way you want them? Hindsight bias comes to mind, but it's not exactly that. More like a mixture of hindsight/confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
As an aside, what's it called when you come up with an explanation of something to fit the facts the way you want them? Hindsight bias comes to mind, but it's not exactly that. More like a mixture of hindsight/confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
It's not scientific, but criticism of this kind of rationalization often applies the term "just-so story", as does the Chabris review that started this discussion. It's borrowed from Kipling, who told fanciful but childishly plausible tales of "How the Camel Got His Hump", etc.
Indeed, I wish I"d gotten a degree in evo bio, as its proponents are able to predict nearly everything about human behavior.
After the fact, of course.
After the fact, of course.
You know how it goes, "explain everything, predict nothing".
Or maybe you don't, because I just made that up, but it fits.
Or maybe you don't, because I just made that up, but it fits.
That is an established idea; if you can explain any possible outcome equally fluently, you can't explain anything. I find it a useful cognitive hack; if someone asks you whether X or Y will happen (and for the sake of argument let's discard "none of the above"), instead of asking that question of my brain directly, I try to pretend in sequence that both have already happened, and then explain why. If you can easily explain both, if neither gives you trouble, you don't really know, no matter how convincingly the rest of your brain may be telling you that you have an opinion.
I meant the phrase, not the idea. I agree with you, though. Especially when someone tells me "well, it was obvious that X would happen, because Y", I ask them "what if I was lying and the opposite of X happened? Was that equally obvious? If both are obvious, then neither is".
Yes, that was sloppy of me.
You have to be precise when talking about the effects of biological evolution on our brains. We know our brains were initially created entirely by biological evolution; what's not clear is how direct or indirect the influence of evolution has been on our psychology. That is, does evolution hardwire relatively complex behaviour (as it does in many animals) or does it merely specify high-level learning algorithms? This appears to be the case with humans - we don't have many instinctual behaviours compared with other animals, but we do have an instinctual ability to learn new things. It's interesting to speculate how this ability might have arisen; the ability to learn new things and to spot patterns must have been useful to our distant ancestors, as they're such fundamental traits of human cognition.
This is also why the "nature vs nurture"/"biology vs culture" debate is a false dichotomy: the foundation of human culture is our ability to learn, which is itself a genetic adaptation.
You have to be precise when talking about the effects of biological evolution on our brains. We know our brains were initially created entirely by biological evolution; what's not clear is how direct or indirect the influence of evolution has been on our psychology. That is, does evolution hardwire relatively complex behaviour (as it does in many animals) or does it merely specify high-level learning algorithms? This appears to be the case with humans - we don't have many instinctual behaviours compared with other animals, but we do have an instinctual ability to learn new things. It's interesting to speculate how this ability might have arisen; the ability to learn new things and to spot patterns must have been useful to our distant ancestors, as they're such fundamental traits of human cognition.
This is also why the "nature vs nurture"/"biology vs culture" debate is a false dichotomy: the foundation of human culture is our ability to learn, which is itself a genetic adaptation.
[deleted]
Evolutionary biologists are rightly slammed for having made many strong, wrong predictions. But I think it still has some value, if you just make weaker predictions. Instead of "a is necessary because of such and such living conditions", we think that "a might be more likely then b because of such and such living conditions". From certain assertions to potential hypotheses basically.
> what's it called when you come up with an explanation of something to fit the facts the way you want them?
That sounds like motivated reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
That sounds like motivated reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
Just like with music, people prefer just the right amount of cognitive dissonance - noone likes to be told exactly what they already know, and hardly anyone likes to hear something that's completely the opposite of what they already knew/thought.
In music, just a little bit of (harmonic) dissonance catches the listener's attention, but too much gives you a headache. Funny how that metaphor carries over so well, haven't thought of it before.
In music, just a little bit of (harmonic) dissonance catches the listener's attention, but too much gives you a headache. Funny how that metaphor carries over so well, haven't thought of it before.
So I think of people like Gladwell as pop-fusion artists, like say, Jamie Cullum or Michael Buble. They often get disproportionately rewarded (as compared to "real" jazz artists), but they DO do a lot for a lot of people by introducing them to something they otherwise might not have considered.
You should write a book about it...
I have read this elsewhere. "Interestingness" is a fine balance between familiarity and surprise.
Interesting theory. I like it.
Nice to see you around here, Svante!
Nice to see you around here, Svante!
I believe it's unfair to include Diamond in this genre, as although he's popular, he's also a thinker (and prof) with an academic's consistency and attention to data. The Freakonomics guys are also closer to data, but episodically popularising rather than Diamond's coherent meta-narratives. The biggest argument you could level against Diamond might be one of leaning too heavily on "geographical determinism", which he can veer towards at times.
I agree with both your points--at least with respect to Guns Germs and Steel. Arguably he way overextended his basic research in later works.
An interesting supplement to Diamond is Ian Morris' Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future. To greatly oversimplify, Morris endorses the idea of a Western core headstart (with credit to Diamond) but then basically says "Well, yeah, of course that's the case." But how does that explain how things ended up millennia later. A good read.
Another broader point though is that serious researchers are always going to put down popularizers who write books people actually read. But no one is going to read serious researchers except other serious researchers. Of course, you can go too far in the popularization direction and I tend to agree Malcolm Gladwell is a great example of that.
An interesting supplement to Diamond is Ian Morris' Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future. To greatly oversimplify, Morris endorses the idea of a Western core headstart (with credit to Diamond) but then basically says "Well, yeah, of course that's the case." But how does that explain how things ended up millennia later. A good read.
Another broader point though is that serious researchers are always going to put down popularizers who write books people actually read. But no one is going to read serious researchers except other serious researchers. Of course, you can go too far in the popularization direction and I tend to agree Malcolm Gladwell is a great example of that.
Fortunately, there are a couple examples of serious researchers who are also excellent (though maybe not as well known) popularizers. Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow) and Steven Strogatz (Sync, etc.) come immediately to mind, because I have read them recently. I have some books by Benoit Mandlebrot in shipping, and I am quite excited about them.
If anyone has other examples, I would love to hear them--I'm trying to pack my immediate reading list right now and am currently uninterested in fiction.
If anyone has other examples, I would love to hear them--I'm trying to pack my immediate reading list right now and am currently uninterested in fiction.
Steven Pinker is an experimental Psychologist you might like. His book 'The Blank Slate' is very good.
Joseph Stiglitz, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek & Paul Krugman are all winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and all have written some accessible books for the public.
The Richard Dawkins books on biology are really good.
Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics has written some fine popular science books.
Joseph Stiglitz, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek & Paul Krugman are all winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and all have written some accessible books for the public.
The Richard Dawkins books on biology are really good.
Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics has written some fine popular science books.
I found "The Misbehavior of Markets" by Benoit Mandelbrot to be a good and engrossing read. It explained the concepts of fractals and especially fractal dimensions better than the Wikipedia page and other sources that I have read previously.
Diamond is a little different, but he is working outside of his original field and produces very mixed responses from anthropologists (e.g. http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/01/14/169374400/why-does-... ).
The difference between Gladwell and Diamond (and for that matter Levitt) is that Gladwell is attacked for his work being atheoretical; it's basically a collection of anecdotes that belongs on a bookshelf with Bill Bryson.
Diamond is criticised for stretching his grand unified theories too far and missing all the evidence to the contrary. Levitt is accused of picking bad hypotheses and doing sloppy econometric analysis to support them. Gladwell doesn't have any grand unified theories, or any theories substantial or original enough to be controversial. and doesn't do any comparable statistical analysis.
Diamond is criticised for stretching his grand unified theories too far and missing all the evidence to the contrary. Levitt is accused of picking bad hypotheses and doing sloppy econometric analysis to support them. Gladwell doesn't have any grand unified theories, or any theories substantial or original enough to be controversial. and doesn't do any comparable statistical analysis.
Worth mentioning that the Freakonomics guys (Donohue and Levitt) work tying abortion law to crime reduction was debunked. There was a bug in the regression analysis code, "coding errors" (as in typos while copying data tables from print sources), and flat out statistical errors (most egregious was their use of total arrests instead of arrests per capita).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortio...
More interesting is that reduction in childhood exposure to lead is the most significant factor. Levitt counters the debunking of his theory two paragraphs down from your link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortio...
I know, Levitt and Donohue made the corrections, and then made even more "corrections", until they got back their original results (or as close as they could get).
That's how it often goes when researches are accused of scientific misconduct (not to accuse LD, just noting). One famous example was Potti & Nevins at Duke. There were several back-and-forth "Comments" published to counter the questions Baggerly & Coombes were raising. PN repeatedly addressed the issues, each time releasing another "corrected" supplementary data set. Eventually the journals stopped publishing the BC critiques, PN seemingly convinced the reviewers that BC were just being pedantic about inconsequential statistical subtleties. It only came to a head because Duke was proceeding with human clinical trials based on that research.
To this day Potti still claims that he can address all the issues BN raised and correct them, and that his research was valid.
That's how it often goes when researches are accused of scientific misconduct (not to accuse LD, just noting). One famous example was Potti & Nevins at Duke. There were several back-and-forth "Comments" published to counter the questions Baggerly & Coombes were raising. PN repeatedly addressed the issues, each time releasing another "corrected" supplementary data set. Eventually the journals stopped publishing the BC critiques, PN seemingly convinced the reviewers that BC were just being pedantic about inconsequential statistical subtleties. It only came to a head because Duke was proceeding with human clinical trials based on that research.
To this day Potti still claims that he can address all the issues BN raised and correct them, and that his research was valid.
Diamond is very much in the same camp. In the introduction to Guns, Germs, and Steel he stated that his motivation for the work was to come up with evidence with which to counter an Occam's Razor assumption (basically, that certain groups had done more smart things because they were smarter) that contradicted his campus political theory. The "academic's consistency" is the lawyer's consistency of only making the arguments that support what he has decided in advance to support, and the "attention to detail" is attention to only those details that support his case. The fact that his book presented no evidence in favor of the Occam's Razor position (the reason certain groups do more smart things is because they are smarter) but only a list of possible counter-arguments makes it not an investigation of an issue, but an attempt to defend a pre-existing political position.
Even anthropologists sharing the same campus politics have been unwilling to endorse Diamond's arguments with any real enthusiasm.
Even anthropologists sharing the same campus politics have been unwilling to endorse Diamond's arguments with any real enthusiasm.
"developed in response to the fact that nerds are addicted to feeling like they're just a little bit smarter than everyone else."
It doesn't seem limited to nerds, though. These books are always top sellers in places like airport book stores, so there's got to be a wider audience than that. If anything, I'd say these are very middlebrow books that hit a sweet spot in making college-educated (though not necessarily nerdy or even particularly smart) people feel smarter. They're like the USA Today distillations of behavioral and neuroscience research.
The nerdier equivalent would be TED.
It doesn't seem limited to nerds, though. These books are always top sellers in places like airport book stores, so there's got to be a wider audience than that. If anything, I'd say these are very middlebrow books that hit a sweet spot in making college-educated (though not necessarily nerdy or even particularly smart) people feel smarter. They're like the USA Today distillations of behavioral and neuroscience research.
The nerdier equivalent would be TED.
the destructive thing about this style of writing[1] isn't that the readers like to feel smart or superior to others; the destructive thing about it is that instead of distilling research with an aim to convey useful information, he distills that research with an aim to find the most shocking or counterintuitive possibility, even if the evidence isn't really strong enough to support an 'extraordinary claim' You actually get dumber (well, not dumber, but you gain incorrect models, which can make you look and act dumber) from reading Gladwell's work.
Really, though, I'd argue that most business books I've read had a similar feel. 99% bullshit, and the 1% based on actual science is often based on very shaky evidence.
[1]Gladwell's style is pretty familiar if you've read many business books. Very light, very easy to read; it sounds very authoritative, but is at best 99% fluff and 1% actual solid information. When the fluff is actual fluff (case studies, etc...) so long as you find it entertaining, there's no harm. The problem comes when the fluff is demonstrably incorrect and contributes to you making real-world poor decisions.
Really, though, I'd argue that most business books I've read had a similar feel. 99% bullshit, and the 1% based on actual science is often based on very shaky evidence.
[1]Gladwell's style is pretty familiar if you've read many business books. Very light, very easy to read; it sounds very authoritative, but is at best 99% fluff and 1% actual solid information. When the fluff is actual fluff (case studies, etc...) so long as you find it entertaining, there's no harm. The problem comes when the fluff is demonstrably incorrect and contributes to you making real-world poor decisions.
One important difference is that Gladwell is pretty good writer and doesn't really go too much into specific personal/business advice. Vast majority of business/personal development books on the other hand display crappy writing and live off people buying their promises hoping to actually find some practical advice. In that landscape Gladwell stands out: he actually give a lot of references you can check yourself, he doesn't give harmful advice and he delivers what should be expected from him - entertainment and great topics for conversations.
The field of popular nutrition is exploding with this. "Warrior diet" and "Paleo diet" are two recent ideas that come to mind.
But as I type this it occurs to me: This might extend to beyond nerds. This effect might be what is addictive about Oprah or Dr. Phil (relationship insights), or even the bobble-heads on tv talking about the latest source of their political rage, or even sports junkies.
But as I type this it occurs to me: This might extend to beyond nerds. This effect might be what is addictive about Oprah or Dr. Phil (relationship insights), or even the bobble-heads on tv talking about the latest source of their political rage, or even sports junkies.
The Paleo or Primal diet idea has been around for a long time. I think it has gotten more momentum as more cherry-picked scientific studies have been found.
Jared Diamond counter-intuitive? I'm with you on the other three but Guns Germs & Steel always struck me as very "D'uh".
One of his ideas is that the development of agriculture was "the worst mistake in the history of the human race"[0] contra the popular belief that agriculture improved food yields and freed people up to spend time developing science, technology and art -- and could therefore be considered one of the greatest achievements in the history of the human race.
I'm not saying that his argument is wrong, but it definitely runs against the prevailing wisdom. Similarly "Collapse" (the idea that the success or failure of societies is predictable) and "Guns, Germs and Steel" (the advantages of old-world people over new-world people in the 1500s were due to the influence of geography and climate, not inherent superiorities).
Maybe those things are obvious to you, but I don't think they're obvious to most people.
[0] http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in...
I'm not saying that his argument is wrong, but it definitely runs against the prevailing wisdom. Similarly "Collapse" (the idea that the success or failure of societies is predictable) and "Guns, Germs and Steel" (the advantages of old-world people over new-world people in the 1500s were due to the influence of geography and climate, not inherent superiorities).
Maybe those things are obvious to you, but I don't think they're obvious to most people.
[0] http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in...
> Guns, Germs and Steel" (the advantages of old-world people over new-world people in the 1500s were due to the influence of geography and climate, not inherent superiorities).
I'm too lazy to look for the actual references, but in one form or another climate-related arguments for the "superiority" of Europeans were made in the late 1700s and in the 1800s (and towards the end of the 1800s a more racist undertone emerged, but that's another story). Something like "one can only be productive in a temperate climate", while those poor souls that have to live at the Tropics will never become industrious peoples.
What's funny is that way earlier than that, the early Greeks were saying that their dry climate was perfect for talking about philosophy and related stuff, and that a more "humid" climate would have been against that (I'm thinking about Heraclitus, mainly).
I'm too lazy to look for the actual references, but in one form or another climate-related arguments for the "superiority" of Europeans were made in the late 1700s and in the 1800s (and towards the end of the 1800s a more racist undertone emerged, but that's another story). Something like "one can only be productive in a temperate climate", while those poor souls that have to live at the Tropics will never become industrious peoples.
What's funny is that way earlier than that, the early Greeks were saying that their dry climate was perfect for talking about philosophy and related stuff, and that a more "humid" climate would have been against that (I'm thinking about Heraclitus, mainly).
My recollection is that Diamond's argument is slightly different. He argues that the east-west orientation of Eurasia meant that societies were more easily able to expand, because you experience relatively little climate variation moving along parallels than you do moving up and down meridians, which you are forced to do when you expand in a north-south oriented continent like America or Africa.
Similarly Eurasia had a wider variety of indigenous grains suitable for cultivation, and more large mammals suitable for domestication, and these could be taken with a population when the migrated (because of the aforementioned east-west orientation).
These advantages meant that populations were able to increase more rapidly, which necessitated an earlier development of agriculture, which lead to further productivity gains as improving food yields meant that people could spend more time developing more advanced technology.
The increased population densities had two further advantages - firstly, it meant that wars were more frequent, so Eurasians developed more advanced weaponry (the "guns" and "steel" of the title). Secondly, evolutionary pressures selected for resistance to diseases that could spread easily in crowded environments (the "germs").
So it's a little bit more subtle than just "our climate is inherently better for deep philosophical thoughts" or "our climate means that we are more productive workers".
Similarly Eurasia had a wider variety of indigenous grains suitable for cultivation, and more large mammals suitable for domestication, and these could be taken with a population when the migrated (because of the aforementioned east-west orientation).
These advantages meant that populations were able to increase more rapidly, which necessitated an earlier development of agriculture, which lead to further productivity gains as improving food yields meant that people could spend more time developing more advanced technology.
The increased population densities had two further advantages - firstly, it meant that wars were more frequent, so Eurasians developed more advanced weaponry (the "guns" and "steel" of the title). Secondly, evolutionary pressures selected for resistance to diseases that could spread easily in crowded environments (the "germs").
So it's a little bit more subtle than just "our climate is inherently better for deep philosophical thoughts" or "our climate means that we are more productive workers".
>So it's a little bit more subtle than just "our climate is inherently better for deep philosophical thoughts" or "our climate means that we are more productive workers".
Precisely.
The people here are ripping on the author's simplified theories by presenting even more simplified versions of the arguments.
Precisely.
The people here are ripping on the author's simplified theories by presenting even more simplified versions of the arguments.
It's usually called environmental determinism and is something no modern anthropologist or geographer really wants to be associated with (as much as a modern biologist would want to be associated with eugenics or phrenology).
GGS did cause some despair among academics, as century old discredited ideas were presented as science to the public.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008....
The popularity of the work Guns, germs and steel (GGS) has served to bring the question of human–environment connections once again to the forefront of popular thought. We assert that the recent success of GGS represents both a persistence of environmental determinist logic and a contemporary trend that privileges the environment as the primary influence on human–environment relationships. […] The book is found to mirror earlier environmental determinism by failing to take into account many of the advances in human–environmental thought since the early twentieth century. Its popular success suggests the pitfalls of failures to acknowledge the complex, intertwined and indivisible relationship that exists among humans and their environment. Furthermore, there is evidence that the environmental determinism espoused in GGS has caught the attention of international development policymakers potentially influencing future outlays of aid and assistance to the developing world. These conclusions raise cautionary flags against repeating past theoretical mistakes by accepting simplistic, causal explanations based largely on a deterministic conception of the natural environment.
GGS did cause some despair among academics, as century old discredited ideas were presented as science to the public.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008....
The popularity of the work Guns, germs and steel (GGS) has served to bring the question of human–environment connections once again to the forefront of popular thought. We assert that the recent success of GGS represents both a persistence of environmental determinist logic and a contemporary trend that privileges the environment as the primary influence on human–environment relationships. […] The book is found to mirror earlier environmental determinism by failing to take into account many of the advances in human–environmental thought since the early twentieth century. Its popular success suggests the pitfalls of failures to acknowledge the complex, intertwined and indivisible relationship that exists among humans and their environment. Furthermore, there is evidence that the environmental determinism espoused in GGS has caught the attention of international development policymakers potentially influencing future outlays of aid and assistance to the developing world. These conclusions raise cautionary flags against repeating past theoretical mistakes by accepting simplistic, causal explanations based largely on a deterministic conception of the natural environment.
What's the alternative? Racial determinism? I can accept that there were many possible outcomes of different groups of humans and way they formed civilizations, and that which one happened was determined by dumb luck - but the environment that people happen to be born in is a part of that dumb luck.
That abstract is completely empty - and I'm paywalled away from the paper.
If the environment isn't responsible at all, you have to be saying that its entirely something from within people that determines their social structure and achievements. No?
That abstract is completely empty - and I'm paywalled away from the paper.
If the environment isn't responsible at all, you have to be saying that its entirely something from within people that determines their social structure and achievements. No?
This paper is really interesting - thanks. Some of my archaeologist friends have criticised Diamond's books for being too simplistic and using outdated techniques (even when they were written in the 80s and 90s) but I had never really figured out why they were wrong before.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/302333 discusses limitations of Diamond's approach, http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-ger... mentions where the GGS approach to explain history falls short, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/ggs makes an interesting note of framing in GGS.
> I'm too lazy to look for the actual references, but in one form or another climate-related arguments for the "superiority" of Europeans were made in the late 1700s and in the 1800s (and towards the end of the 1800s a more racist undertone emerged, but that's another story). Something like "one can only be productive in a temperate climate", while those poor souls that have to live at the Tropics will never become industrious peoples.
To be fair, the GGS arguments are about explaining the origins of different rates of development, and not giving a rationalization for continued supremacy. For instance, one of his major arguments was that the New World had few domesticated draught animals. That ceases to be of any relevance with modern transportation, or indeed modern industry. He is talking about why some countries got a headstart, not trying to establish some firmly rooted 'natural order'.
To be fair, the GGS arguments are about explaining the origins of different rates of development, and not giving a rationalization for continued supremacy. For instance, one of his major arguments was that the New World had few domesticated draught animals. That ceases to be of any relevance with modern transportation, or indeed modern industry. He is talking about why some countries got a headstart, not trying to establish some firmly rooted 'natural order'.
The argument actually was that the extreme area offered by Europe and Asia being situated along a large e-w oriented latitude offered both a wide variety of domesticated plant species as well as a greater area to grow them. So a crop domesticated in W Europe could much more easily be traded as there are more markets and arable land.
Africa, oriented N-S has a huge variation in climates from the Med in the North through the Serengheti, the sahel, the savannah, tropical rainforests, the veldt, and etc. A lot more micro-climates that make transferring crops to a different area problematic. There were some other reasons but this was the basis of his geographical argument.
Africa, oriented N-S has a huge variation in climates from the Med in the North through the Serengheti, the sahel, the savannah, tropical rainforests, the veldt, and etc. A lot more micro-climates that make transferring crops to a different area problematic. There were some other reasons but this was the basis of his geographical argument.
Ok, I see where you're coming from.
But I disagree that this puts Jared Diamond in the same category as the other three. I think the fact that he is, for the most part, not wrong, clearly sets him apart from Gladwell, Lehrer and Freakonomics.
Dumping too much data on your readers to ram home the point you're making may be tedious to read, but it's not reprehensible the way twisting and stretching the truth to appear original and profound is.
But I disagree that this puts Jared Diamond in the same category as the other three. I think the fact that he is, for the most part, not wrong, clearly sets him apart from Gladwell, Lehrer and Freakonomics.
Dumping too much data on your readers to ram home the point you're making may be tedious to read, but it's not reprehensible the way twisting and stretching the truth to appear original and profound is.
One of his ideas is that the development of agriculture was "the worst mistake in the history of the human race"[0] contra the popular belief that agriculture improved food yields and freed people up to spend time developing science, technology and art
Both arguments appear to have some truth. Agriculture at early stages led to worse health, caused inequality, people started living in larger groups which helped diseases to spread.
Time to develop science and art came later, and was not available to an average person for a long time anyway - up to 95% population was working in agriculture until relatively recent times (I don't have the reference for this number though).
Both arguments appear to have some truth. Agriculture at early stages led to worse health, caused inequality, people started living in larger groups which helped diseases to spread.
Time to develop science and art came later, and was not available to an average person for a long time anyway - up to 95% population was working in agriculture until relatively recent times (I don't have the reference for this number though).
The bigger problem with "the worst mistake in the history of the human race" is that it ascribes a meaning and purpose to human existence. That is, there can be no mistake if there is no goal. What is the goal or purpose of human existence? There are many answers to that question, some more defensible than others, but there is no "scientific" answer to it.
Upvoted comment for making me feel just a little bit smarter.
"new scientist" etc also play this role. Though fairly accurate as far as it goes, it is pop-science.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1777
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1777
I like Stephen Collins' take on it - http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/beyond_the_beyond/2009/07/...
There's another great one from SMBC about how to tell the difference between a math enthusiast from a mathematician.
I won't try to find it since I'm on mobile, but it's just as good.
I won't try to find it since I'm on mobile, but it's just as good.
Do you mean this one? It's the only one I can quickly find that includes "math enthusiast" and "mathematician", though it's not exactly "how to tell the difference". http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2320
Yeah that's the one! I probably should have just googled for it, but yep, that's it. My memory was a bit hazy.
See also "You're not a nerd, geeks are not sexy, and you don't 'fucking love' science" about the "I fucking love science" facebook page.
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd
About time a Maddox reference made it on here! Though is not quite the Gladwell type, his insights are interesting and had quite a few geeks visiting his site. Matter of fact it was a popular pastime during our CS Lab when our brains were fried from coding.
So, sure this stuff isn't science, but the Gladwell types also give "cultural context" to many geeks I know.
So, sure this stuff isn't science, but the Gladwell types also give "cultural context" to many geeks I know.
I think the significant difference between 'new scientist' weekly news and many others is they stick to reporting, and leave the proselytising to others - though they often people a space to make their claims.
Here in Brazil, people love to cite Gladwell 10k hours like he is a GOD.
In a recent startup accelerator demo day it was cited by both a famous entrepreneur and a journalist.
I always cringe when I see it cited as pure truth and in a bad context.
My conclusion is people do it do sound cool and smarter. The "insight porn" was spot on.
This might also apply to NPR Planet Money.
Seems to plague the softer/human sciences like economics, psychology and anthropology more than physics/chemistry/maths (though these fields have there own poor journalism)
Seems to plague the softer/human sciences like economics, psychology and anthropology more than physics/chemistry/maths (though these fields have there own poor journalism)
> This might also apply to NPR Planet Money
You think so? Planet Money routinely brings on actual economists to explain things in plain language. And when they don't, they're just describing not-very-technical but interesting things (e.g., how the music industry works, what those complex securities that ruined the economy were, etc.). They don't often (ever, that I can recall) come up with new phenomena.
You think so? Planet Money routinely brings on actual economists to explain things in plain language. And when they don't, they're just describing not-very-technical but interesting things (e.g., how the music industry works, what those complex securities that ruined the economy were, etc.). They don't often (ever, that I can recall) come up with new phenomena.
I worry about this when I listen, but in general I agree with the other commenter that they do pretty well at giving a voice to real experts.
Is it really fair to lump Jared Diamond in with Malcom Gladwell? Diamond writes about a career of firsthand research, and has won a Pulitzer prize. His field of study (traditional societies) is by its very nature shrinking daily, and requires serious dedication to observe firsthand. In contrast, every single human on earth has experienced a difficult assignment. So yes, while both Diamond and Gladwell overgeneralize based on a small sample size, Diamond's pool of potential samples is orders of magnitude smaller.
It's like Daniel Dennett's deepities, just a little less shallow, to cater for the intellectually self-absorbed. (<s> Look at my mice bite-size analysis! </s>)
The Freakonomics guys and Jared Diamond are more or less scientists. Malcolm Gladwell is a journalist. There's a difference.
Both Steven Levitt and Jared Diamond devote a lot of ink over whether or not their theories are testable, while Malcolm Gladwell tends to just find anecdotes which seem to back his theories up.
Both Steven Levitt and Jared Diamond devote a lot of ink over whether or not their theories are testable, while Malcolm Gladwell tends to just find anecdotes which seem to back his theories up.
I'm afraid you are spot on. I often realize the bs and then keep on reading, because
A) Its so fun.
B) I hope I might still learn something useful.
I suspect school and teachers are part of the problem. Even at the best universities I would spot professors claiming things which were obviously wrong or not based on strong scientific evidence but presented as if. So all you can do is keeping to plow on hoping you learn more truth than not.
Ok, so, as someone who admits to read this stuff I would like to ask. Is there anyone who was able to break their addiction? And if so, what helped?
Also, is there a good book review source which spots "insight porn". I usually check Amazon before buying a book to check if its outright bullshit but that approach doesn't work all that well.
I suspect school and teachers are part of the problem. Even at the best universities I would spot professors claiming things which were obviously wrong or not based on strong scientific evidence but presented as if. So all you can do is keeping to plow on hoping you learn more truth than not.
Ok, so, as someone who admits to read this stuff I would like to ask. Is there anyone who was able to break their addiction? And if so, what helped?
Also, is there a good book review source which spots "insight porn". I usually check Amazon before buying a book to check if its outright bullshit but that approach doesn't work all that well.
Gladwell's books aren't aimed at nerds in the HN sense. They're actually targeted at people in communications / advertising who want an edge and also something to read on the plane.
That's what makes him so influential.
That's what makes him so influential.
"the same reason that many of us have read pg's essays - particularly the early ones." [1]
The question is would anyone have thought anything of PG's essays before he became "PG" that he is today? Not that people didn't read them but it seem now that anything that he has written or writes takes on such status that people are less likely to question or disagree with any conclusions.
[1] Also noting that PG's (at least the ones's I've seen) essays are always proofed by others it would be interesting to get a sense of the type of comments and changes that are made post that proofing.
The question is would anyone have thought anything of PG's essays before he became "PG" that he is today? Not that people didn't read them but it seem now that anything that he has written or writes takes on such status that people are less likely to question or disagree with any conclusions.
[1] Also noting that PG's (at least the ones's I've seen) essays are always proofed by others it would be interesting to get a sense of the type of comments and changes that are made post that proofing.
Well, it's not just that he's been successful in the past, but that to this day his advice and mentoring helps produce many successful startups.
When someone achieves repeated and consistent success over many years (say, Warren Buffett), it is wise to listen to what they have to say if they're willing to share their knowledge and experience.
And also, HN isn't full of nearly as many mindless zombies as many other sites. When pg posts something contentious or controversial, usually there's debate about it in the comments.
When someone achieves repeated and consistent success over many years (say, Warren Buffett), it is wise to listen to what they have to say if they're willing to share their knowledge and experience.
And also, HN isn't full of nearly as many mindless zombies as many other sites. When pg posts something contentious or controversial, usually there's debate about it in the comments.
The reason PG is the YC founder we hear about is his essays, not the other way around. Trevor Blackwell, Robert Morris, and Jessica Livingston were all just as much founders as he was.
I'm trying to think now what would be the opposite of this? Books that are completely counter-intuitive, that forces you to rethink your original Weltanschaunng in the first place - Niall Ferguson's "Civilization: The West and the Rest" and Nassim Taleb's "AntiFragile: Things that Gain from Disorder" comes to mind. Even rereading Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" can give you this counter-intuitive insight.
The problem I have with your comment is that you describe something auspicious and then slap a derogatory label on it and thus unfairly decry it as problematic. If insight equates to truth, and counter-intuitiveness equates to challenging our flawed assumptions, and 'face-value' equates to lucid and well-argued, then what exactly is there to complain about? Just because you find a formula behind something, doesn't make it a problem.
It's also probably why we read sites like HN, so we can feel like we know something others don't... or know something before others.
In my experience this stuff is not nearly as popular with actual nerds/geeks/hackers as it is with MBA/CEO/executives.
And if you combine insight porn with finance porn are people extra addicted? (we hope so: http://backrecord.com .. blatent plug)
I don't think this deserved to be down-voted - the website is relevant to the discussion and we've put countless hours into trying to make a useful tool and we've already taken the concept further than anyone else that I'm aware of. My comment is making fun at what we're doing, but what we're doing is not a joke. I would sharing what we've done as one of my more useful comments, yet it is the only one to be downvoted.
Interesting comment from the piece. Legit?
Boyce Rensberger - 5:20pm 10/08/2013
Gladwell is the same Gladwell as when I was his editor at The Washington Post. At first, I fell for his approach and brought him over to the science pod from the Post's business staff. Then I realized that he cherry picks research findings to support just-so stories. Every time I sent him back to do more reporting on the rest of the story, he moaned and fumed.
When I read his proposal for "The Tipping Point," I found it to be warmed over epidemiology. It was based on a concept and a perception so old it was already an ancient saying about straw and a camel's back. But gussied up in Malcolm's writing style, it struck the epidemiologically naive as brilliant. Brilliant enough to win an advance of more than $1 million.
Boyce Rensberger - 5:20pm 10/08/2013
Gladwell is the same Gladwell as when I was his editor at The Washington Post. At first, I fell for his approach and brought him over to the science pod from the Post's business staff. Then I realized that he cherry picks research findings to support just-so stories. Every time I sent him back to do more reporting on the rest of the story, he moaned and fumed.
When I read his proposal for "The Tipping Point," I found it to be warmed over epidemiology. It was based on a concept and a perception so old it was already an ancient saying about straw and a camel's back. But gussied up in Malcolm's writing style, it struck the epidemiologically naive as brilliant. Brilliant enough to win an advance of more than $1 million.
Looks quite plausible: http://web.med.harvard.edu/healthcaucus/bg_rensberger.html
Yeah, this comment is my favorite part of the story. Hilarious to have someone with such direct experience commenting. Assuming they are who they say they are :)
As a personal data point, I grew up reading lots of "entertaining" books that claimed to have intellectual value, but in hindsight didn't really end up being that intelligent. My early thought heroes were John Stossel, Chuck Palahniuk, Ayn Rand, the Freakonomics guys, and Michael Crichton. While my views have grown more sophisticated over the years, those early adventures into "intellectual" topics eventually led me to study these topics in more depth and expose me to new, more complicated ideas.
So Gladwell's writings, if not specific scientific, may at least have some pedagogical value. Their entertainment value is certainly not questioned.
So Gladwell's writings, if not specific scientific, may at least have some pedagogical value. Their entertainment value is certainly not questioned.
There seems to be something different about, say, Rand vs. Gladwell.
With Rand, you kind of know these are her opinions. They are ideology. Much like listening to the Right vs. the Left in ideological debates.
But, with Gladwell, he delivers his conclusions as fact, based on "scientific" research. He observes very specific phenomena and draws concrete conclusions, then generalizes to a broader point. But, he doesn't say "here's what I think". He says, "here's what the data says".
With Rand too, you also know that she has a personal belief system/agenda. Gladwell writes as an objective reporter, just delivering the "facts".
With Rand, you kind of know these are her opinions. They are ideology. Much like listening to the Right vs. the Left in ideological debates.
But, with Gladwell, he delivers his conclusions as fact, based on "scientific" research. He observes very specific phenomena and draws concrete conclusions, then generalizes to a broader point. But, he doesn't say "here's what I think". He says, "here's what the data says".
With Rand too, you also know that she has a personal belief system/agenda. Gladwell writes as an objective reporter, just delivering the "facts".
Why Chuck Palahniuk? Doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the list.
He's got an incredibly creative writing style and pulls things off, like writing a novel in second-person, that not many authors could.
And I never got the impression of intellectual pretentiousness from any of his books.
He's got an incredibly creative writing style and pulls things off, like writing a novel in second-person, that not many authors could.
And I never got the impression of intellectual pretentiousness from any of his books.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I guess after the magic 10,000 hours of reading you became an expert on reading.
After 20,000 hours you get so good you can read in the bath without getting the pages wet. At that point you are ready to turn pro.
Way ahead of you: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bath+book&tbm=isch
It's funny that people here are mocking Gladwell and Diamond for presenting popularized, simplified interpretations of the science, but those people are doing the same thing by simplifying the works of the authors.
There's nothing "magic" about 10,000 hours. The implication is that hard work, practice and luck play a bigger role in success than most people believe. It's a theory. Sorry if it was too nuanced for you.
There's nothing "magic" about 10,000 hours. The implication is that hard work, practice and luck play a bigger role in success than most people believe. It's a theory. Sorry if it was too nuanced for you.
They are "mocking" Gladwell for presenting anecdotes as science, not for simplification.
Things by Palahniuk and Rand can have a ton of intellectual value. Anthem is a good story, and everything I've read by Palahnuik has been well written. They make you think, and even if you don't come to the same conclusions as the author wants you to, at least you can see how they got there.
I agree. If you judge a book by what you get out of it rather than what the author's ideas and motivations are you'll probably enjoy your reading a lot more.
That boils down to reading purely for pleasure, in which case fiction may be more effective. The whole point of non-fiction is that it should NOT be fiction, which requires intellectual honesty.
No, I think it boils doing to engaging with whatever you're reading rather than just consuming it. For non-fiction you can encounter the same facts as the author and reach different conclusions. Take something like Outliers, you can read it and say that his conclusions are too broad, but still get something out of the book.
You should have stopped long ago.
Malcolm Gladwell as an entertainer is great. Gladwell as a pundit quoted by (and presumably influencing) real decision-makers ... has me steaming in frustration. He is dangerous.
Malcolm Gladwell as an entertainer is great. Gladwell as a pundit quoted by (and presumably influencing) real decision-makers ... has me steaming in frustration. He is dangerous.
Is he much worse than CSI? I mean I don't trust both, they have right details (like some study proving one thing, or name of disease), but overall miss the big picture.
Also it seems that he sometimes hits a mark. I remember his article on criminal Profilers being mostly correct as far as I could tell.
Anyone who trust a journalist unconditionally and blindly is a fool. They are paid to pique your interest and entertain you, not find out the truth (most people don't like the truth, I definitely wouldn't like all the truth about me to come into light). Just like someone that thinks that most crime TV series depict real life.
Also it seems that he sometimes hits a mark. I remember his article on criminal Profilers being mostly correct as far as I could tell.
Anyone who trust a journalist unconditionally and blindly is a fool. They are paid to pique your interest and entertain you, not find out the truth (most people don't like the truth, I definitely wouldn't like all the truth about me to come into light). Just like someone that thinks that most crime TV series depict real life.
> Is he much worse than CSI?
People who accept CSI confuse fantasy and reality. People who accept Gladwell confuse a contrived reality with a real one. I think the risk posed by the latter category is greater than the former, because the latter are more difficult to separate from their superficial grasp of reality.
People who accept CSI confuse fantasy and reality. People who accept Gladwell confuse a contrived reality with a real one. I think the risk posed by the latter category is greater than the former, because the latter are more difficult to separate from their superficial grasp of reality.
I don't hear senior people in all sorts of professions referencing CSI the way I hear them referencing Malcolm Gladwell.
There is a disturbing number of jurors who won't convict the guilty because the evidence isn't as blindingly solid as CSI makes it seem necessary, or dismiss blindingly solid evidence because they expect some wildly implausible CSI-like theory is likely the truth.
Umm, isn't there a CSI effect, as in judges changed their sentences, because there wasn't enough certainity in the proofs provided by real forensic experts?
Isn't that bigger impact than anything Gladwell's stories had on policies?
Isn't that bigger impact than anything Gladwell's stories had on policies?
CSI is pretty bad. WOrse than Gladwell. If you have been following how the Massachusetts crime lab screwed up thousands of investigations, you know CSI is putting an unrealistically competent face on a topic about which people should be very skeptical. Gladwell isn't as tendentious and propagandistic.
The problem is that Gladwell doesn't label himself a journalist or amateur - he speaks with a voice of authority about things he is not an authority on.
Any "real decision-maker" who makes decisions because of pop-writers... was probably going to screw things up anyway.
Gladwell isn't dangerous, ignorance is.
Gladwell isn't dangerous, ignorance is.
"I haven't read the book"
That could be a useful prelude to writing about it.
That could be a useful prelude to writing about it.
I think his last paragraph sums it up.
"I have long been an admirer of Gladwell's; I wish I could put stories together the way he does. But I'm now afraid to read him. My work, my intellectual life, and even my social and emotional experiences with my family are based on knowing what's really going on--not Gladwell's made-up ideas of how things should be. I don't want to base my reading, or my life, on Gladwell's currency: things that might or might not be true, but which make possible masterful storytelling."
I often have a hard time remembering where I learned something so it makes it hard to keep strait why I think something is true. As a result, I try very hard to avoid talented liars.
"I have long been an admirer of Gladwell's; I wish I could put stories together the way he does. But I'm now afraid to read him. My work, my intellectual life, and even my social and emotional experiences with my family are based on knowing what's really going on--not Gladwell's made-up ideas of how things should be. I don't want to base my reading, or my life, on Gladwell's currency: things that might or might not be true, but which make possible masterful storytelling."
I often have a hard time remembering where I learned something so it makes it hard to keep strait why I think something is true. As a result, I try very hard to avoid talented liars.
The article is more about Gladwell than about his latest book.
No, the article is clearly about Gladwell's work.
Yes. This is what I meant.
Let me clarify: The article is more about Gladwell's approach/style overall than about his latest book, specifically.
Let me clarify: The article is more about Gladwell's approach/style overall than about his latest book, specifically.
Oh but he read a review of it! That's got to be the same as reading it, right?
Another review (of the book) at
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/malcolm-gladwell-backlas...
"Gladwell is the non-fiction equivalent of Dan Brown."
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/malcolm-gladwell-backlas...
"Gladwell is the non-fiction equivalent of Dan Brown."
> So, Gladwell promises that our alleged misunderstanding has “consequences for everything from the way we educate our children to the way we fight crime and disorder”. Consequences for everything! That is the hard sell, the first free rock of intellectual crack.
> The examples of “everything” include basketball coaching, policing, university science, Martin Luther King, and the Impressionists. (The waft of luxury art-history tourism in the Impressionists sequence is only the most obvious example of how Gladwell is now the non-fiction equivalent of Dan Brown.) The promise that such heterogeneous matter can be governed by one or two big ideas and understood through them constitutes the main attraction of the Gladwellian literary genre. Armed with these “ideas”, you won’t have to think for yourself ever again.
Ouch.
> The examples of “everything” include basketball coaching, policing, university science, Martin Luther King, and the Impressionists. (The waft of luxury art-history tourism in the Impressionists sequence is only the most obvious example of how Gladwell is now the non-fiction equivalent of Dan Brown.) The promise that such heterogeneous matter can be governed by one or two big ideas and understood through them constitutes the main attraction of the Gladwellian literary genre. Armed with these “ideas”, you won’t have to think for yourself ever again.
Ouch.
Gladwell does the literary equivalent of this:
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Barack-Obama-C...
The world he presents is a cartoon caricature of the real world. In the drawing linked above, you can clearly recognize the president, but you wouldn't use the drawing to fit him for a hat. His prominent features are overemphasized in interesting and humorous ways for the purpose of sparking delighted recognition in the viewer.
Gladwell does the same thing in words. He presents us with a caricature of our world with its features humorously exaggerated in order to spark the same sort of recognition.
tl;dr. Its a funny. Don't use it for science.
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Barack-Obama-C...
The world he presents is a cartoon caricature of the real world. In the drawing linked above, you can clearly recognize the president, but you wouldn't use the drawing to fit him for a hat. His prominent features are overemphasized in interesting and humorous ways for the purpose of sparking delighted recognition in the viewer.
Gladwell does the same thing in words. He presents us with a caricature of our world with its features humorously exaggerated in order to spark the same sort of recognition.
tl;dr. Its a funny. Don't use it for science.
It's not a very good comparison. First, it's not presented as funny, it's presented as science, complete with links to studies. If you ask most people reading Gladwell, they will believe his theories.
Second, it's not that he exaggerates something, but often he's flat-out wrong. The fascination he sparks is the "oh, that's an unlikely fact I wouldn't have believed was true, had it not been for the fact that these science studies cited here proves it."
Second, it's not that he exaggerates something, but often he's flat-out wrong. The fascination he sparks is the "oh, that's an unlikely fact I wouldn't have believed was true, had it not been for the fact that these science studies cited here proves it."
> Second, it's not that he exaggerates something, but often he's flat-out wrong.
Eh, is it though? I confess I haven't read much by him, but it seems like most of his works are truisms anyway (e.g. if something's hard, it'll make you work harder!).
Eh, is it though? I confess I haven't read much by him, but it seems like most of his works are truisms anyway (e.g. if something's hard, it'll make you work harder!).
Here's at least one: I've read some rebuttals to the "ethnic theory of plane crashes" here: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/foreign-airline-safety
and here:
http://askakorean.blogspot.no/2013/07/culturalism-gladwell-a...
Put it simply, Gladwell seems to form a theory, then find enough facts to support that theory. But that's not the way to do proper research.
In this case, had he actually consulted with pilots, koreans, and finally korean pilots, he might have ended up with a different conclusion (let alone now have made so many trivial errors in the text).
He could also have compared accident statistics and looked at how many accidents could be attributed to poor CRM in different countries. But again, he didn't do that.
He mentions that CRM training is used nowadays in all airlines (to improve crew collaboration) but fails to mention that the accident that sparked the focus on CRM (the worst airline accident of all time) was caused by a Dutch captain, from a country with a low power-distance index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster)
and here:
http://askakorean.blogspot.no/2013/07/culturalism-gladwell-a...
Put it simply, Gladwell seems to form a theory, then find enough facts to support that theory. But that's not the way to do proper research.
In this case, had he actually consulted with pilots, koreans, and finally korean pilots, he might have ended up with a different conclusion (let alone now have made so many trivial errors in the text).
He could also have compared accident statistics and looked at how many accidents could be attributed to poor CRM in different countries. But again, he didn't do that.
He mentions that CRM training is used nowadays in all airlines (to improve crew collaboration) but fails to mention that the accident that sparked the focus on CRM (the worst airline accident of all time) was caused by a Dutch captain, from a country with a low power-distance index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster)
I don't read Gladwell to learn anything. And that's okay—there are plenty of other places I read to learn.
Like the rest of The New Yorker, what Gladwell provides is interesting, entertaining, and realistic stories. Whether those stories are entirely true or not just isn't relevant. It's about entertaining myself and occasionally having a thought-provoking discussion about Gladwell's work. None of this actually affects how I do my work or interact with the world.
However, a good portion of this enjoyment is contingent on the stories ostensibly not being fiction, largely due to the "stranger than fiction" effect. If Gladwell were to write complete fiction, then we wouldn't have plausible lines of reality to reference in his work, or the entertainment of seeing the convolutions he makes in bending reality to his thesis.
Like the rest of The New Yorker, what Gladwell provides is interesting, entertaining, and realistic stories. Whether those stories are entirely true or not just isn't relevant. It's about entertaining myself and occasionally having a thought-provoking discussion about Gladwell's work. None of this actually affects how I do my work or interact with the world.
However, a good portion of this enjoyment is contingent on the stories ostensibly not being fiction, largely due to the "stranger than fiction" effect. If Gladwell were to write complete fiction, then we wouldn't have plausible lines of reality to reference in his work, or the entertainment of seeing the convolutions he makes in bending reality to his thesis.
If you want actual scientific knowledge, read a textbook, not a breezy popular science book written by some journalist dude.
For example, I am taking a CMU OLI course on introductory statistics, which is about 216 pages long. I am in it for 29 days at 151 pages thus far, which means I am about 70% complete. I study an hour a day, does about 30 minutes of review minimum each day.
I admit that it's not the most exciting subject to learn and requires a lot of work. Although the subject isn't actually boring to learn. However, armed with knowledge of statistics, I will be able to spot more bullshit coming from writers like Malcolm Gladwell.
Popular science books are not to be trusted, at the very least, without a subject matter expert's recommendation. They should be viewed as only entertainment.
For example, I am taking a CMU OLI course on introductory statistics, which is about 216 pages long. I am in it for 29 days at 151 pages thus far, which means I am about 70% complete. I study an hour a day, does about 30 minutes of review minimum each day.
I admit that it's not the most exciting subject to learn and requires a lot of work. Although the subject isn't actually boring to learn. However, armed with knowledge of statistics, I will be able to spot more bullshit coming from writers like Malcolm Gladwell.
Popular science books are not to be trusted, at the very least, without a subject matter expert's recommendation. They should be viewed as only entertainment.
I'm afraid you're comparing two entirely different genres. People who read popular non-fiction (on science, economics etc.) aren't looking to learn concepts the way you are. They, I surmise, want to read interesting stories that can be explained using science/economics etc.
In other words, you're attempting to learn the science so you can apply it, while most others are attempting to read stories which can be explained using science.
In other words, you're attempting to learn the science so you can apply it, while most others are attempting to read stories which can be explained using science.
In other words, you're attempting to learn the science so you can apply it, while most others are attempting to read stories which can be explained using science.
I don't need to apply the scientific knowledge. I have gratification in knowing how reality work.
I don't need to apply the scientific knowledge. I have gratification in knowing how reality work.
Consider yourself lucky. It is currently impossible to flip a switch in the brain and get gratification from knowing. For those who do not enjoy understanding the inner workings the textbook aproach will never work.
Yes, and more power to you, but your boss, and his boss, and your city manager, and the people providing the services you have are basing their decisions on something. If it's pseudo-science instead of the real thing, you're still living with the consequences.
The problem with popular science books is that they are written by journalists untrained in science. It should be scientists who write popular works. There are several scientists who have written great works which are neither difficult, nor dumbed down - for example, Steinhaus' "Mathematical Snapshots", Einstein and Infeld's "The Evolution of Physics", Schrodinger's "What is life?" and even delightful works such as Faraday's "Chemical history of a candle".
With the hypercompetitiveness of modern scientific careers, scientists who take time off to write popular expositions are looked down upon. The problem is not Malcolm Gladwell, the problem is the insularity of modern scientists.
With the hypercompetitiveness of modern scientific careers, scientists who take time off to write popular expositions are looked down upon. The problem is not Malcolm Gladwell, the problem is the insularity of modern scientists.
> The problem with popular science books is that they are written by journalists untrained in science. It should be scientists who write popular works.
Yes, perhaps, but you need to realize something -- scientists who write popular books often pay a very high price. Not always, there are exceptions, but Carl Sagan is a perfect example of someone who did a lot of public good by popularizing science and scientific topics, but it ruined his scientific career.
Most scientists understand this -- to write a popular science book or article may send the signal to other scientists that you don't have anything more serious to write about. As a reward for such important projects as Cosmos, Sagan was denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences, something extraordinary given his actual scientific accomplishments.
For balance, we can look at Leon Lederman ("The God Particle") and Stephen Hawking (several well-received books) who seem not to have suffered unduly for their popularizations of science. But the risk is real.
Yes, perhaps, but you need to realize something -- scientists who write popular books often pay a very high price. Not always, there are exceptions, but Carl Sagan is a perfect example of someone who did a lot of public good by popularizing science and scientific topics, but it ruined his scientific career.
Most scientists understand this -- to write a popular science book or article may send the signal to other scientists that you don't have anything more serious to write about. As a reward for such important projects as Cosmos, Sagan was denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences, something extraordinary given his actual scientific accomplishments.
For balance, we can look at Leon Lederman ("The God Particle") and Stephen Hawking (several well-received books) who seem not to have suffered unduly for their popularizations of science. But the risk is real.
I've heard good things about Hawking's books as well, although haven't read any yet.
Don't waste your time. His books are just horribly misleading. After reading them you won't come out with any better knowledge about what is actually going on, in fact you might even be worse off. He throws around lots of technical jargon without any attempt to actually explain (relying instead on layman reader's wrong intuitions) what those words mean in the context of theoretical physics and you can really see just how hard he tries to make it all mysterious to impress the "common man" and give him enough illusion of understanding so he doesn't stop reading. But hey, that sells books! Although he's not the only scientist who does this, he's become in my mind a prototype for such deceitful behavior.
Feynman's approach was as good as it gets when it comes to popularizing physics, so your best bet are his popular books. And if you have some working calculus knowledge you should just read his Lectures on Physics to get to understand pretty much all of physics up to and not including QFT and General Relativity.
Feynman's approach was as good as it gets when it comes to popularizing physics, so your best bet are his popular books. And if you have some working calculus knowledge you should just read his Lectures on Physics to get to understand pretty much all of physics up to and not including QFT and General Relativity.
Almost nobody has. Oh yes, we've all got them, but we haven't read them.
A Brief History of Time was good, and informative if you don't really know very much about physics, but a light read.
does Asimov count?
Between this and yesterday's Gladwell-doubting article it seems Malcolm has reached a tipping point of his very own.
[deleted]
Yes.
For example, the story about TIMMs scores showing that math ability is correlated not with talent but with effort is completely bogus, and obviously so if you look at the actual studies.
First, the effect only appeared for 2 age levels in one year of taking, all the other age levels did not show this correlation. Second, the effect only shows at the national level, if you compare whole countries. It disappears completely as soon as you go down to school or class levels.
Which means that his claim in the book is completely bogus: yes, nations are not more talented at math than others (duh!), but individuals still are, completely contrary to his claims.
That goes way beyond just cherry picking results.
For example, the story about TIMMs scores showing that math ability is correlated not with talent but with effort is completely bogus, and obviously so if you look at the actual studies.
First, the effect only appeared for 2 age levels in one year of taking, all the other age levels did not show this correlation. Second, the effect only shows at the national level, if you compare whole countries. It disappears completely as soon as you go down to school or class levels.
Which means that his claim in the book is completely bogus: yes, nations are not more talented at math than others (duh!), but individuals still are, completely contrary to his claims.
That goes way beyond just cherry picking results.
For everyone feeling cheated by Malcolm Gladwell, there is relief in sight! Buy books by Simon Singh e.g. The Code Book and Fermat's Last Theorem; after his court tangle with homeopathy he needs all the royalties he can get!
Could you elaborate a bit about his 'court tangle'? I'm reading 'Bad Science' which also talks about Homeopathy and it basically says homeopathy is relying on the Placebo effect, the attention patients receive and the probability a lot of people will resort to homeopathy when it's really, really bad. That's usually the point when it starts getting better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book)
Apologies, his tangle was chiropractic not homeopathic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh
My general point was two-fold:
1) he is an excellent popular science writer. He has a PhD in particle physics, and his books are well researched and well received.
2) we all want him to prosper from writing so he keeps writing :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh
My general point was two-fold:
1) he is an excellent popular science writer. He has a PhD in particle physics, and his books are well researched and well received.
2) we all want him to prosper from writing so he keeps writing :)
H_O_L_Y crap. Just read his column 'Beware The Spinal trap' in The Guardian about chiropractic therapy.
" if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market."
I have had this done a lot of times. No one ever told me about any of the risks before starting the procedure. Thanks for the information. http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian.science/2010/04...
" if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market."
I have had this done a lot of times. No one ever told me about any of the risks before starting the procedure. Thanks for the information. http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian.science/2010/04...
He was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for writing in a newspaper column that they promoted "bogus treatments".
Edit: Too late. I'd second the book recommendations though, they're excellent.
Edit: Too late. I'd second the book recommendations though, they're excellent.
Malcolm Gladwell : non-fiction journalism :: Fox News : television journalism
It's entertaining fluff. If we become a society of fluffheads, that's okay, these things have a habit of correcting themselves.
It's entertaining fluff. If we become a society of fluffheads, that's okay, these things have a habit of correcting themselves.
I don't think that's quite right.
Fox News encourages people not to think at all. Gladwell encourages people to think (the adjective thought-provoking is frequently applied to his work), even if his actual content isn't 100% true.
Also, I don't think Gladwell ever completely lies. He certainly bends the truth, but he doesn't make up things on a whim like Fox.
Fox News encourages people not to think at all. Gladwell encourages people to think (the adjective thought-provoking is frequently applied to his work), even if his actual content isn't 100% true.
Also, I don't think Gladwell ever completely lies. He certainly bends the truth, but he doesn't make up things on a whim like Fox.
> Also, I don't think Gladwell ever completely lies.
True, but we need to ask what we mean by "lie". Blatant lying is easy to detect and uncover. Cherry-picking facts to make a point contradicted by reality, by science, is a sneakier kind of lying, a kind meant to appeal to the superficially educated, the sort of people for whom the title of the article asks a reasonable question -- should we "believe him"?
Educated people don't need to believe anyone -- they will instead accept a responsibility to gather facts, evidence, for themselves.
True, but we need to ask what we mean by "lie". Blatant lying is easy to detect and uncover. Cherry-picking facts to make a point contradicted by reality, by science, is a sneakier kind of lying, a kind meant to appeal to the superficially educated, the sort of people for whom the title of the article asks a reasonable question -- should we "believe him"?
Educated people don't need to believe anyone -- they will instead accept a responsibility to gather facts, evidence, for themselves.
The issue is just a larger-scale version of a common social problem I constantly see on blog discussions:
Critics demand encyclopedic thoroughness for what is little more than brief casual conversation.
Someone writes a pithy & insightful blog post (a la HN). It fits a convenient size suitable for the medium (1-10 paragraphs). Rather than responding to the substantive point of the post, critics nit-pick some obscure point which the author glossed over precisely because more detail runs at odds to the medium. To wit: the criticism amounts to demands for peer-reviewed scientific process with rock-solid presentation & references, when said critic would in no way actually read such material.
Gladwell's (and many other writers', ex.: 1491 and A History Of The World In Six Glasses) works are like this. The books are not weighty tomes, they are not peer-reviewed, they are not scientific papers with rigorous analysis of the material. They are lightweight overviews of interesting insights, appealing to many people (enough so that some expend energy loudly criticizing the works), and providing launching points for those so motivated to further pursue the subject (such as the would-be pro golfer testing the "10,000 hours" theory by actually doing it). If Gladwell et al wrote books the way critics demand, critics (and pretty much everyone else) would never bother reading them.
"the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so." - Ratatouille
Critics demand encyclopedic thoroughness for what is little more than brief casual conversation.
Someone writes a pithy & insightful blog post (a la HN). It fits a convenient size suitable for the medium (1-10 paragraphs). Rather than responding to the substantive point of the post, critics nit-pick some obscure point which the author glossed over precisely because more detail runs at odds to the medium. To wit: the criticism amounts to demands for peer-reviewed scientific process with rock-solid presentation & references, when said critic would in no way actually read such material.
Gladwell's (and many other writers', ex.: 1491 and A History Of The World In Six Glasses) works are like this. The books are not weighty tomes, they are not peer-reviewed, they are not scientific papers with rigorous analysis of the material. They are lightweight overviews of interesting insights, appealing to many people (enough so that some expend energy loudly criticizing the works), and providing launching points for those so motivated to further pursue the subject (such as the would-be pro golfer testing the "10,000 hours" theory by actually doing it). If Gladwell et al wrote books the way critics demand, critics (and pretty much everyone else) would never bother reading them.
"the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so." - Ratatouille
This is a false dichotomy - there is no reason that being factually accurate prevents writing from being entertaining and accessible. Both can be done in the same piece if the author is willing. It is unfortunate that many science writers don't care about good writing and many writers don't care about truth.
> They are lightweight overviews of interesting insights, appealing to many people (enough so that some expend energy loudly criticizing the works), and providing launching points for those so motivated to further pursue the subject
What use is an overview if it's wrong?
Here's an example of the problem:
(http://www.social-consciousness.com/2013/10/ten-simple-thing...)
This blog got posted to HN. The first point in the post says:
> Exercise has such a profound effect on our happiness and well-being that it's actually been proven to be an effective strategy for overcoming depression. In a study cited in Shawn Achor's book, The Happiness Advantage, three groups of patients treated their depression with either medication, exercise, or a combination of the two. The results of this study really surprised me. Although all three groups experienced similar improvements in their happiness levels to begin with, the follow up assessments proved to be radically different:
A blog cites a pop sci book, which cites a single study. And this is "proof" of a treatment for depression. It feels like it should be true. it repeats something that many people say ("exercise helps depression") and it has some sciencey stuff to support it (endorphins!). It's not homoeopathy or crystal healing.
The main problem is that it is not clear if exercise works for treating depression.
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004366/exercise-for-depressi...
> Exercise is moderately more effective than no therapy for reducing symptoms of depression.
[...]
> The reviewers also note that when only high-quality studies were included, the difference between exercise and no therapy is less conclusive.
People do not investigate further. They repeat these factoids and they believe they're promoting science.
What use is an overview if it's wrong?
Here's an example of the problem:
(http://www.social-consciousness.com/2013/10/ten-simple-thing...)
This blog got posted to HN. The first point in the post says:
> Exercise has such a profound effect on our happiness and well-being that it's actually been proven to be an effective strategy for overcoming depression. In a study cited in Shawn Achor's book, The Happiness Advantage, three groups of patients treated their depression with either medication, exercise, or a combination of the two. The results of this study really surprised me. Although all three groups experienced similar improvements in their happiness levels to begin with, the follow up assessments proved to be radically different:
A blog cites a pop sci book, which cites a single study. And this is "proof" of a treatment for depression. It feels like it should be true. it repeats something that many people say ("exercise helps depression") and it has some sciencey stuff to support it (endorphins!). It's not homoeopathy or crystal healing.
The main problem is that it is not clear if exercise works for treating depression.
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004366/exercise-for-depressi...
> Exercise is moderately more effective than no therapy for reducing symptoms of depression.
[...]
> The reviewers also note that when only high-quality studies were included, the difference between exercise and no therapy is less conclusive.
People do not investigate further. They repeat these factoids and they believe they're promoting science.
Relevant quote from the current HN thread History Must Be Curved:
"Science doesn’t follow a mythic positivist ideal but the plural scientific methods described by Feyerabend: a mixture of empiricism, flights of fancy, intuition, aesthetics, doggedness, and jealousy. Scientific theories are underdetermined. Any finite set of facts can support multiple theories, and for a long time the available facts were equally explained by geostationary or geomobile models."
"Science doesn’t follow a mythic positivist ideal but the plural scientific methods described by Feyerabend: a mixture of empiricism, flights of fancy, intuition, aesthetics, doggedness, and jealousy. Scientific theories are underdetermined. Any finite set of facts can support multiple theories, and for a long time the available facts were equally explained by geostationary or geomobile models."
But these books do not present the geostationary and geomobile models, and explain the differences and how the data fits.
They put out a book "GEOSTATIONARY: The Blah of blah blah", and they talk about a tiny subset of the supporting evidence. They won't mention geomobile, or if they do they won't accept that facts at the time are explained equally by both but to destroy geomobile and the gullible saps who believe it.
Your quote argues persuasively against the books of Gladwell, which are semi-truthy, using Science to sound authoritative and accurate but without accepting any of the fluidity of actual science.
They put out a book "GEOSTATIONARY: The Blah of blah blah", and they talk about a tiny subset of the supporting evidence. They won't mention geomobile, or if they do they won't accept that facts at the time are explained equally by both but to destroy geomobile and the gullible saps who believe it.
Your quote argues persuasively against the books of Gladwell, which are semi-truthy, using Science to sound authoritative and accurate but without accepting any of the fluidity of actual science.
Could someone help me out, I've read Pinker's criticisms, Chablis' and others, but I don't feel convinced because they all seem to be generic attacks on accuracy. From their articles, I was not able to identify a specific point that Gladwell has made that is false. Lets take for example, his most recent book, David & Goliath. I was impressed by his unusual look at the David coming down the valley story in a new light including Goliath being a sufferer of pitiutary defect (hence the weak vision). Is that analysis somehow wrong? It doesn't seem to be any more wrong than other analysis I've seen, eg: Pinker's claim that violence has been decreasing over the ages.
> From their articles, I was not able to identify a specific point that Gladwell has made that is false.
There are many such cases, easy to uncover. As just one example, his remarks about easy versus difficult problem solving relied on a preliminary study that failed replication when applied to a larger experimental group, a fact he omitted from his book.
> I was impressed by his unusual look at the David coming down the valley story in a new light including Goliath being a sufferer of pitiutary defect (hence the weak vision). Is that analysis somehow wrong?
To answer, I have to ask "is fiction wrong?" Can a fictional account about fictional characters ever truly be called "wrong"? Whatever novel conclusion made about the David and Goliath story must confront the fact that it's an anecdote about an anecdote.
There are many such cases, easy to uncover. As just one example, his remarks about easy versus difficult problem solving relied on a preliminary study that failed replication when applied to a larger experimental group, a fact he omitted from his book.
> I was impressed by his unusual look at the David coming down the valley story in a new light including Goliath being a sufferer of pitiutary defect (hence the weak vision). Is that analysis somehow wrong?
To answer, I have to ask "is fiction wrong?" Can a fictional account about fictional characters ever truly be called "wrong"? Whatever novel conclusion made about the David and Goliath story must confront the fact that it's an anecdote about an anecdote.
OP asked for a specific point. You wrote: "his remarks about easy versus difficult problem solving relied on a preliminary study that failed replication when applied to a larger experimental group, a fact he omitted from his book". Could a layperson work out which specific point you're referring to and then understand it? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
> OP asked for a specific point.
Indeed he did -- he said, "I was not able to identify a specific point that Gladwell has made that is false." In my reply, I gave an example where Gladwell published something that had not been replicated, always a risky practice in science journalism, but worse, it was an example in which an ambitious effort at replication has failed.
In short, Gladwell published something that had been proven false, a case in which a cautious reading of the literature would have prevented this error.
Also, the original study came from the field of psychology, a field that's famous for superficial studies that lead to grand but unsupportable claims. Even for psychology studies that have stood unchallenged for years, one must be very careful in taking their conclusions seriously.
The Gladwell example I used represented something that was false, that had been falsified, something that all scientific results, to meet the definition of "scientific", must have as a possible outcome (testable and potentially falsifiable).
Indeed he did -- he said, "I was not able to identify a specific point that Gladwell has made that is false." In my reply, I gave an example where Gladwell published something that had not been replicated, always a risky practice in science journalism, but worse, it was an example in which an ambitious effort at replication has failed.
In short, Gladwell published something that had been proven false, a case in which a cautious reading of the literature would have prevented this error.
Also, the original study came from the field of psychology, a field that's famous for superficial studies that lead to grand but unsupportable claims. Even for psychology studies that have stood unchallenged for years, one must be very careful in taking their conclusions seriously.
The Gladwell example I used represented something that was false, that had been falsified, something that all scientific results, to meet the definition of "scientific", must have as a possible outcome (testable and potentially falsifiable).
>but I don't feel convinced because they all seem to be generic attacks on accuracy."
It's the same mentality that drives people to criticize every article here with an I know better, this is wrong attitude.
Malcolm Gladwell is a popular entertainer, he has a new book out which will surely be a best-seller, so he gets attacked. In the same way that people will attack the work of Ben Affleck or Michael Buble. That's unfortunately how our society works.
If policy makers are quoting Gladwell on important issues, that isn't his fault.
It's the same mentality that drives people to criticize every article here with an I know better, this is wrong attitude.
Malcolm Gladwell is a popular entertainer, he has a new book out which will surely be a best-seller, so he gets attacked. In the same way that people will attack the work of Ben Affleck or Michael Buble. That's unfortunately how our society works.
If policy makers are quoting Gladwell on important issues, that isn't his fault.
Which is harder: to make people like Gladwell scientifically sound or to make the scientifically sound more entertaining?
While I strongly agree that he does himself, and those curious about science, a great disservice by what one might label as intellectual laziness and sloppiness, there is a need to make science and interesting ideas more available to the public. So while the criticism of Gladwell's cherry-picking and rough treatment of the truth appears to be valid, we should ask ourselves "what have I done to make ideas more accessible to others"?
I think this is why we love people like Carl Sagan. He made science accessible. He showed a whole generation of kids that science is cool and interesting and beautiful. Without (to my knowledge) compromising scientific integrity.
While I strongly agree that he does himself, and those curious about science, a great disservice by what one might label as intellectual laziness and sloppiness, there is a need to make science and interesting ideas more available to the public. So while the criticism of Gladwell's cherry-picking and rough treatment of the truth appears to be valid, we should ask ourselves "what have I done to make ideas more accessible to others"?
I think this is why we love people like Carl Sagan. He made science accessible. He showed a whole generation of kids that science is cool and interesting and beautiful. Without (to my knowledge) compromising scientific integrity.
Bill Nye the Science Guy Show: "Rules"
Objective: Change the world.
Produce a TV show that gets kids and adults excited about science, so that the United States will again be the world leader in technology, innovation, and sound management of the environment.
For example, when our audience is of age, we'd like them to produce the best transportation systems in the world, e.g. cars, electric cars, trains, and aircraft.
Rules of the Road
- The show is entertainment first; curriculum content and presentation of specific facts come later. Ideally, school curricula will follow us.
- All the science we see has to be real science. No fictional “molecular resynthesizer“ machines that perform magic tricks, for example.
- The science being explored provides the drama. For example, there is no time spent looking for someone's stolen lab coat.
- Science Guy is always himself. He could play another character as the Science Guy playing another character. He wears a lab coat and safety glasses for a reason. If he takes them off, it's for a reason.
- Science Guy's reality is television. He can jump from place to place the way a viewer would expect anyone on television to be able to do. There is no need for something like the “Way-Back" machine or the “Transporter” or the "Door to Anywhere." However, the “monitor in the field" can show us supplementary video, e.g. condensation after the walk-in freezer sequence in the pilot.
- Host interacts with guests. kids, other scientists, and celebrities, as peers: E.g. “Hi, Joey; Hi, Michael; "Hi, Cindy; Hi Hammer." / "Hi, Bill."
- Show takes place as much as possible in the field. The world is the laboratory.
Objective: Change the world.
Produce a TV show that gets kids and adults excited about science, so that the United States will again be the world leader in technology, innovation, and sound management of the environment.
For example, when our audience is of age, we'd like them to produce the best transportation systems in the world, e.g. cars, electric cars, trains, and aircraft.
Rules of the Road
- The show is entertainment first; curriculum content and presentation of specific facts come later. Ideally, school curricula will follow us.
- All the science we see has to be real science. No fictional “molecular resynthesizer“ machines that perform magic tricks, for example.
- The science being explored provides the drama. For example, there is no time spent looking for someone's stolen lab coat.
- Science Guy is always himself. He could play another character as the Science Guy playing another character. He wears a lab coat and safety glasses for a reason. If he takes them off, it's for a reason.
- Science Guy's reality is television. He can jump from place to place the way a viewer would expect anyone on television to be able to do. There is no need for something like the “Way-Back" machine or the “Transporter” or the "Door to Anywhere." However, the “monitor in the field" can show us supplementary video, e.g. condensation after the walk-in freezer sequence in the pilot.
- Host interacts with guests. kids, other scientists, and celebrities, as peers: E.g. “Hi, Joey; Hi, Michael; "Hi, Cindy; Hi Hammer." / "Hi, Bill."
- Show takes place as much as possible in the field. The world is the laboratory.
Richard Dawkins does a great job of this too.
Is this the same story with Freakonomics?
I listen to their podcast and they seem pretty intelligent and don't really drawn crazy conclusions and always advice with a pinch of salt.
I listen to their podcast and they seem pretty intelligent and don't really drawn crazy conclusions and always advice with a pinch of salt.
Gladwell's books are both valid and surprising. Unfortunately, the parts that are valid aren't surprising, and the parts that are surprising aren't valid.
"I haven't read the book"
But hey lets get some pageviews anyway right?
But hey lets get some pageviews anyway right?
Did he at least see the cover, in order to judge it?
Well, according to this great book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell (you might not have heard of him, but all the smart people are reading his stuff), one's first impression of something is sometimes amazingly accurate! So it's really not important that he read the book.
Blink did qualify this with "sometimes." Your second sentence doesn't follow.
The critique is more of Gladwell's schtick or ouevre, than just latest book.
Scary fact: everything you "know" is based on convincing storytelling. Perhaps reading Gladwell is a good way to be reminded of this, that all knowledge is tentative, subject to revision.
(If yours isn't, you're dogmatic, an epistemological fundamentalist! Even logic has completeness/consistency limitations. At least, those are the limitations we know of so far...).
(If yours isn't, you're dogmatic, an epistemological fundamentalist! Even logic has completeness/consistency limitations. At least, those are the limitations we know of so far...).
When you say storytelling, I think you're only talking about knowledge by description. Knowledge by acquaintance is equally valid, and is based on direct experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_by_description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_by_acquaintance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_by_description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_by_acquaintance
"I haven't read the book; I'm taking this example from a review in The Wall Street Journal by Christopher F. Chabris, a psychology professor at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y."
Well, come on then. This is just blogspam in that case. We have already discussed Chabris's review (in its longer form from Chabris's blog) here on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510996
We should stop believing ANYONE just because of their name or their previously published writings. We should read anything we read with our minds active, ready to disagree if the facts warrant. And that is what Malcolm Gladwell himself has said in interviews: "I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think."
Well, come on then. This is just blogspam in that case. We have already discussed Chabris's review (in its longer form from Chabris's blog) here on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6510996
We should stop believing ANYONE just because of their name or their previously published writings. We should read anything we read with our minds active, ready to disagree if the facts warrant. And that is what Malcolm Gladwell himself has said in interviews: "I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think."
The piece isn't a review of Gladwell's book, nor is its thesis predicated upon the (de)merits thereof. He's saying Gladwell as a whole, in all of his works, may be Considered Harmful. You don't have to read his latest book to cogently draw that conclusion.
Funny, I both started David and Goliath because I wanted to be entertained, and stopped about 10% of the way in because his constant extrapolations from anecdote to Gladwellian Law or Rule made me realize D&G was like a Buzzfeed article: entertaining, but ultimately unsatisfying.
I think that it's far more universal problem:
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_fina...
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_fina...
Malcolm Gladwell's piece is like a fiction in Decision making . I will still prefer likes of Daniel Khaneman and others. Should have read "Thinking Fast and Slow" long ago.
Thinking Fast and Slow at least mentions many similar experiments and the results are often interesting, so it is probably worth reading if the topic is of interest (and it probably should be).
I have't looked at the actual research behind the topics they are covering, but at least there seems to be a good reference list in the book so it should be possible dig out the articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...
I have't looked at the actual research behind the topics they are covering, but at least there seems to be a good reference list in the book so it should be possible dig out the articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...
The complaint seems to be that entertaining books are not sufficiently educational.
What I think we should really be complaining about is that educational books are not sufficiently entertaining.
Many of the startup websites promoted on Hacker News go to extreme lengths to reduce "cognitive load" - to make everything as easy as possible for their users to understand what they are doing.
Entertainment is content presented to us in a manner which does not require unpleasant effort on our part to maintain our attention as readers, listeners or viewers.
When text-book writers put the same effort into making their content entertaining as startup websites put into the UX of their websites, then we will have an educational revolution.
Actually, for most people, video is more entertaining than books, so the best results will come from making entertaining videos on technical subjects.
It is much easier to be entertaining if your content is "fluffy", and some of the most entertaining content is about "almost nothing at all", like Seinfeld, for example.
But that is no excuse for neglecting the need to make serious content as entertaining as possible.
To get some ideas about how to make technical content more entertaining, try the following:
* Search for your favourite technical subject on YouTube, and watch the most popular videos.
* Still on YouTube, search for "vlog", or "youtubers", or anything else that leads to videos made specifically for YouTube which include visual and verbal presentation of non-fictional content and commentary. (For example, see Ray William Johnson.)
* Observe the difference.
* Don't just observe the difference. Revisit the technical videos, and identify each point of pain, where the video requires effort of the viewer in a manner that would never have occurred in the "entertaining" videos. It could be things as simple as an extended interval where nothing happens at all, or too much talking and nothing happening on the screen, or the talking consists entirely of reading words that are already on the screen, or action on the screen but no talking, or too much talking about what the presenter is going to talk about. Etc.
What I think we should really be complaining about is that educational books are not sufficiently entertaining.
Many of the startup websites promoted on Hacker News go to extreme lengths to reduce "cognitive load" - to make everything as easy as possible for their users to understand what they are doing.
Entertainment is content presented to us in a manner which does not require unpleasant effort on our part to maintain our attention as readers, listeners or viewers.
When text-book writers put the same effort into making their content entertaining as startup websites put into the UX of their websites, then we will have an educational revolution.
Actually, for most people, video is more entertaining than books, so the best results will come from making entertaining videos on technical subjects.
It is much easier to be entertaining if your content is "fluffy", and some of the most entertaining content is about "almost nothing at all", like Seinfeld, for example.
But that is no excuse for neglecting the need to make serious content as entertaining as possible.
To get some ideas about how to make technical content more entertaining, try the following:
* Search for your favourite technical subject on YouTube, and watch the most popular videos.
* Still on YouTube, search for "vlog", or "youtubers", or anything else that leads to videos made specifically for YouTube which include visual and verbal presentation of non-fictional content and commentary. (For example, see Ray William Johnson.)
* Observe the difference.
* Don't just observe the difference. Revisit the technical videos, and identify each point of pain, where the video requires effort of the viewer in a manner that would never have occurred in the "entertaining" videos. It could be things as simple as an extended interval where nothing happens at all, or too much talking and nothing happening on the screen, or the talking consists entirely of reading words that are already on the screen, or action on the screen but no talking, or too much talking about what the presenter is going to talk about. Etc.
What did it for me was a TED talk of Gladwell, a good few years ago. It was a talk about marketing and the point he wanted to make was that diversification (multiple lines of the same product) was the answer. I took it for granted at the time - and having read "The Tipping Point" before then, I felt he was the man to follow. But having tried it it in the real world, I realised most of what he was saying just didn't hold.
Malcolm Gladwell has the same problem as any of the other 100's of authors of those shitty "How to win!" business books.
It's not that what he's saying is not true, it's that you don't get the whole picture, because actually giving you the whole picture would take a whole lot more time to research and wouldn't be half as entertaining.
The best example are the "Good to Great" series of books that espouse what companies should to be successful, neglecting to mention that the majority of the companies held up as examples from the previous book have somehow spectacularly failed. The books aren't predictive because they're based on an extremely flawed methodology that cherry-picks data to fit pre-conceived notions.
Also, success on the scale that most people reading these books aspire to requires a huge amount of luck no matter how hard you work, what short and long-term goals you create, or how early you wake up every day to run four miles.
But most people won't read books titled "Preparing For Modest Success from a Lifetime of Hard Work and Saving" or "Success Secrets: Being Lucky."
It's not that what he's saying is not true, it's that you don't get the whole picture, because actually giving you the whole picture would take a whole lot more time to research and wouldn't be half as entertaining.
The best example are the "Good to Great" series of books that espouse what companies should to be successful, neglecting to mention that the majority of the companies held up as examples from the previous book have somehow spectacularly failed. The books aren't predictive because they're based on an extremely flawed methodology that cherry-picks data to fit pre-conceived notions.
Also, success on the scale that most people reading these books aspire to requires a huge amount of luck no matter how hard you work, what short and long-term goals you create, or how early you wake up every day to run four miles.
But most people won't read books titled "Preparing For Modest Success from a Lifetime of Hard Work and Saving" or "Success Secrets: Being Lucky."
I don't have any opinion one way or another about Gladwell but it really lowers my opinion of MIT to see them publishing posts such as this. The author has not read the book in question (or for all I know any book by Gladwell) and seems to be regurgitating the argument of a second author. I'd expect this from some rag not MIT.
anyone else also feel this way about Tim Ferriss's stuff? I know theres a huge community of 4HWW fanboys around here so don't take it personally. However - I did have the feeling reading most of Ferriss' books that he essentially did just what Gladwell does - say something counterintuitive - back it up with some sort of studies (though he bothers even less to do that than Gladwell does) and even worse - personal anecdotal evidence! (What still cracks me up is - "I put my phone away from my pocket for a week and my sperm count went up" ..Geez).
As one of the comments on the article points out, it's amusing that Steven Pinker is one of the cited critics, given his own record of writing intellectual feel-goodery.
Pinker: "To begin with, the findings of science entail that the belief systems of all the world’s traditional religions and cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans, and societies—are factually mistaken."[1]
[1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-...
Pinker: "To begin with, the findings of science entail that the belief systems of all the world’s traditional religions and cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans, and societies—are factually mistaken."[1]
[1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-...
The New Yorker recently ran an article with a bevy of scientific studies on redshirting [1] which confirm Gladwell's latest thesis that adversity improves performance. The relative overachievement of immigrant populations tends to support this view as well, but of course you may have selection bias there.
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/young...
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/young...
Great piece by Chris Chabris in Slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... - "I thought he was sincerely misunderstanding the science, but he knows exactly what he is doing."
> Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
As long as people think believing stands higher than understanding, people like Gladwell will find a wide audience.
As long as people think believing stands higher than understanding, people like Gladwell will find a wide audience.
Gladwell responds: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
There was an article yesterday which I found far better written and researched on here yesterday trashing Gladwell's science that didn't get much traction:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6519843
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6519843
"Don't leave your brain by the door."
The above should be the disclaimer on these types of books. I like Gladwell but there still needs to be some level of critical thinking involved when reading these books.
I like to take the main ideas and do further investigation on my own.
The above should be the disclaimer on these types of books. I like Gladwell but there still needs to be some level of critical thinking involved when reading these books.
I like to take the main ideas and do further investigation on my own.
Believe? Odd choice of word. If a subject is important to you, read around it and make up your own mind. Gladwell usually cites his sources. Just don't fall into the trap of only reading the given sources, look for updated and contraindicative papers.
Yes.
That was just my adaptive unconscious coming to a rapid blink of an insight rather than a long and convoluted reasoning process. Mr Gladwell seems to think the former is okay though, so I'm sticking with my gut instinct.
That was just my adaptive unconscious coming to a rapid blink of an insight rather than a long and convoluted reasoning process. Mr Gladwell seems to think the former is okay though, so I'm sticking with my gut instinct.
> are based on what's really going on
Where can we actually get accurate information of what's really going on? News? Government? Businesses? Church? Blogs? Forums?
Where can we actually get accurate information of what's really going on? News? Government? Businesses? Church? Blogs? Forums?
I would just like to point out that this is quite possibly the only violation of Betteridge's Law I've found on HN in... gosh, quite some time. Maybe ever?
This entire problem would go away if Gladwell's writings were classified as speculative fiction instead of non-fiction.
"I haven't read the book;" - I think we can stop reading the book review right about there.
Should we stop believing book reviewers who haven't read the book?
If not people like Gladwell then what should we be really reading ?
It takes 10,000 hours of practice to disbelieve Malcolm Gladwell.
Not to seem unfairly partial towards Steve Jobs, but after Malcolm Gladwell's repeated rants against him, I started trusting his (Gladwell's) judgement a whole lot less.
When did we start?
TL;DR Yes.
This seems like a fit of jealousy to me. Malcom Gladwell makes no claim that the observations mentioned in his books meet any scientific standards. His points are usually correct (though obvious to many); in this case his point is that adversity often breeds success in ambitious people (e.g. Princeton students, not necessarily random students at a public college). Perhaps he cherry picks examples to prove those points, but having read his books and the recent criticisms of them, I still don't feel that I have been lied to.
Gladwell does what many successful authors in this genre do: he tells us what we already intuitively know in a palatable way that makes the concepts feel new. It makes people feel justified in their belief that they can overcome seemingly daunting challenges when they see it in print by a noted author. His books may not reveal groundbreaking results of scientific studies, but they justify the views of the kinds of people that read his books, and that will tend to make them successful regardless of the scientific accuracy of any examples mentioned in his books.
Gladwell does what many successful authors in this genre do: he tells us what we already intuitively know in a palatable way that makes the concepts feel new. It makes people feel justified in their belief that they can overcome seemingly daunting challenges when they see it in print by a noted author. His books may not reveal groundbreaking results of scientific studies, but they justify the views of the kinds of people that read his books, and that will tend to make them successful regardless of the scientific accuracy of any examples mentioned in his books.
[deleted]
Huh?
"His points are usually correct (though obvious to many); in this case his point is that adversity often breeds success in ambitious people."
No. Just no. Did you not read the article? The study demonstrating this "point" was a low-powered study. A more highly powered study failed to reproduce the result. Now, at best you could say that the result only applies to "ambitious people", but that remains to be proved - after the Canadian result, the null hypothesis has to be that making the task superficially more difficult has no impact on people's ability to complete the task. In other words, Gladwell's hypothesis is unproven and unjustified.
"His points are usually correct (though obvious to many); in this case his point is that adversity often breeds success in ambitious people."
No. Just no. Did you not read the article? The study demonstrating this "point" was a low-powered study. A more highly powered study failed to reproduce the result. Now, at best you could say that the result only applies to "ambitious people", but that remains to be proved - after the Canadian result, the null hypothesis has to be that making the task superficially more difficult has no impact on people's ability to complete the task. In other words, Gladwell's hypothesis is unproven and unjustified.
Actually, you (and the jealous author of the critical article) are comparing apples to oranges. It is a safe assumption that a group of random students at a public Canadian university are not nearly as ambitious as a group of students at an impossibly competitive university such as Princeton. The study does in fact show that adversity often breeds success in ambitious people.
So, the results were as expected. The ambitious group was inspired by the challenge. A group of average public college students were neither inspired nor deterred by it. And I would bet that my house that a group of homeless people would be significantly deterred by it. It is an apples to oranges comparison that in no way disproves Gladwell's hypothesis.
So, the results were as expected. The ambitious group was inspired by the challenge. A group of average public college students were neither inspired nor deterred by it. And I would bet that my house that a group of homeless people would be significantly deterred by it. It is an apples to oranges comparison that in no way disproves Gladwell's hypothesis.
"It is a safe assumption that a group of random students at a public Canadian university are not nearly as ambitious as a group of students at an impossibly competitive university such as Princeton."
No, it is not a safe assumption. It remains to be proven, and that's assuming you can even come up with a decent objective definition of "ambition". Your post-hoc reasoning is exactly the type of reasoning that is taken to task in the article -
Gladwell: Making a task harder makes people perform better.
Academia: No, actually, when tested with a higher-powered study, this effect disappeared.
You: (with no evidence, and only after the release of the Canadian study refuting Gladwell) Oh, but the result only applies to ambitious people.
That argument is weak - it's fitting the facts to the hypothesis, and not the other way round. With the available data, the only thing you can really say is that perhaps a study needs to be done to better understand the why the Princeton study and the Canadian study gave different results (statistical fluke? different ambition? cultural bias?)
No, it is not a safe assumption. It remains to be proven, and that's assuming you can even come up with a decent objective definition of "ambition". Your post-hoc reasoning is exactly the type of reasoning that is taken to task in the article -
Gladwell: Making a task harder makes people perform better.
Academia: No, actually, when tested with a higher-powered study, this effect disappeared.
You: (with no evidence, and only after the release of the Canadian study refuting Gladwell) Oh, but the result only applies to ambitious people.
That argument is weak - it's fitting the facts to the hypothesis, and not the other way round. With the available data, the only thing you can really say is that perhaps a study needs to be done to better understand the why the Princeton study and the Canadian study gave different results (statistical fluke? different ambition? cultural bias?)
So you're saying, then, that there are no differences between those that choose to attend a public college and those that attend an elite university? That those two groups of people wouldn't perform differently in studies focused on performance? That is nonsense.
He isn't saying that at all. I think his main point is you are talking crap (though he articulated it much better than I have).
And Princeton (in undergrad) isn't "intellectually" elite, it is financially elite. I don't think you can derive anything about student "ambitiousness" just from how wealthy they are, and wealth is pretty much the only thing that separates Princeton undergrad student from a public college student.
Caveat: I'm assuming the study was done on undergrads, postgrad princeton is different beast.
And Princeton (in undergrad) isn't "intellectually" elite, it is financially elite. I don't think you can derive anything about student "ambitiousness" just from how wealthy they are, and wealth is pretty much the only thing that separates Princeton undergrad student from a public college student.
Caveat: I'm assuming the study was done on undergrads, postgrad princeton is different beast.
He is saying that. Further, it doesn't appear that we're talking about the same Princeton. From http://abt.cm/GOXrfh :
"Princeton University is one of the most selective colleges in the country.....Most students who got into Princeton had GPAs close to a 4.0, SAT scores (CR+M+W) above 2100, and ACT composite scores above 30......many students with a 4.0 GPA and extremely high standardized test scores get rejected from Princeton. For this reason, even strong students should consider Princeton a reach school."
The results of the two studies at issue here can be swayed dramatically by the type of students participating, and each study in fact looked at two dramatically different groups of students - one matching the criteria above and one being a public college in Canada. Yet both of you have taken the position that the results of one cancels out the results of the other. You are, quite simply, wrong.
"Princeton University is one of the most selective colleges in the country.....Most students who got into Princeton had GPAs close to a 4.0, SAT scores (CR+M+W) above 2100, and ACT composite scores above 30......many students with a 4.0 GPA and extremely high standardized test scores get rejected from Princeton. For this reason, even strong students should consider Princeton a reach school."
The results of the two studies at issue here can be swayed dramatically by the type of students participating, and each study in fact looked at two dramatically different groups of students - one matching the criteria above and one being a public college in Canada. Yet both of you have taken the position that the results of one cancels out the results of the other. You are, quite simply, wrong.
I think you need to learn more about the correlation between educational outcomes and socio-economic status (Hint: There is an extremely strong one).
Also, GPAs, SATs, and ACT composites don't measure ambition. So... I'm trying to work out what your point was...
40 people isn't a 'study' it's an anecdote.
What I am saying, is there is not enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion, which I believe the GP is also saying... You can say we are 'wrong' as much as possible, but that's just rhetoric.
Also, GPAs, SATs, and ACT composites don't measure ambition. So... I'm trying to work out what your point was...
40 people isn't a 'study' it's an anecdote.
What I am saying, is there is not enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion, which I believe the GP is also saying... You can say we are 'wrong' as much as possible, but that's just rhetoric.
No, antimagic is saying that there isn't enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate that they actually did perform better, rather than it being due to some other factor--such as random noise from the small sample size. Post hoc justification doesn't prove anything.
sorry to say this, but this is exactly why MG is dangerous for the society. Because people start perpetuating myths and fictions passed to them in entertaining tone as facts. They start narrating them to kids and gradually turn them into common wisdom. To whoever reads this shit as entertainment. Please don't. Go watch a movie, listen to standup, watch porn, whatever else makes you feel less board. Pop science is perhaps even more important than scientific journals and shouldn't be crapped on the way MG does. I just can't fathom why people are such entertainment junkies anyways.
Here's an idea: instead of lazily relying on people to come up with clever ways to say things for you, come up with your own ways of viewing the world. People who rely on baseless aphorisms to make themselves seem more interesting belong in the same circle of Hell as those who name-drop. The example that the author uses, "the act of facing overwhelming odds produces greatness and beauty," isn't even useful or palatable.
We intuitively know that if the print is hard to read that more people will be successful at solving the problem?
The idea is to deliver small chunks of insight that is just counter-intuitive enough to be novel, but not so counter-intuitive that we can't take it at face value. It's a market that's developed in response to the fact that nerds are addicted to feeling like they're just a little bit smarter than everyone else.
I think the same rush we get from learning something counter-intuitive and novel is the same reason that many of us have read pg's essays - particularly the early ones.
Edit: It occurs to me that this comment could be seen as an example of what it describes...