Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joel on Software: Anecdotes

joelonsoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 65 posts

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#3

Post by run4yourlives »

On Sunday Dave Winer defined "great blogging" as "people talking about things they know about, not just expressing opinions about things they are not experts in." Can we get some more of that, please? Thanks.

Irony, defined. :-) I kid.

I think Joel's problem here is that he missed the point where any of these guys claimed to be doing anything more than making a bunch of observations. Galdwell certainly isn't science, but I don't think he proclaims to be either.

I haven't read his newest book, but certainly his thesis is at odds with the idea (the one we truly want to love) that the only thing separating the haves from have nots is desire and work ethic. We're all over saying this is common sense, but then we find it outrageous that this could have an affect on any one particular outcome.

Gladwell's ultimate theory I suppose is that his observations should make us question how our society functions overall (again, haven't read the book yet). I guess that forces us to look at things in a way we often don't enjoy.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#5

Post by jwilliams »

run4yourlives wrote: post #3

On Sunday Dave Winer defined "great blogging" as "people talking about things they know about, not just expressing opinions about things they are not experts in." Can we get some more of that, please? Thanks. Irony, defined. :-) I kid. I think Joel's problem here is that he missed the point where any of these guys claimed to be doing anything more than making a bunch of observations. Galdwell certainly isn't science,…

> I think Joel's problem here is that he missed the point where any of these guys claimed to be doing anything more than making a bunch of observations. Galdwell certainly isn't science, but I don't think he proclaims to be either.

Well I'm going to compound it by adding my observations :)

I've got to say, in my own experience, I like anecdotes that are war-stories best. A critical self-analysis often is full of insights for others... The most gripping, amusing and insightful talks I've seen have often been "here's how a large project detonated on us".

Unfortunately, in my experience (I end up at a lot of SOA, Cloud, Web/2.0 type events) these are quite rare for a variety of reasons . You tend to get more of the hypothesis/external critique - which by and large I find a lot less valuable.

Anyway, that's my anecdote on anecdotes :)

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#6

Post by apu »

pg wrote: post #2

A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form. You just have to do it right.

But it seems that to "do it right," the writer must be able to pick the right anecdotes and draw the right conclusions from them. This is probably close to impossible if he's not an expert in the area. And if the writer's an expert, then he should be able to provide other (non-anecdotal) evidence to support his claims as well.

I think that's why many of these books are so frustrating to read -- they seem to rely almost completely on anecdotes, without any sort of underlying data to look at long-term/overarching trends/themes. Thus, instead of saying, "here are various data, including these representative anecdotes about some of them, and so we can see that my theory is true," these writers usually say "this is my theory, and look how well these carefully chosen anecdotes match it!"

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#7

Post by sharkfish »

It kills me how the Gladwell book brought this out of Joel. Nobody wants to be told their success is a good part luck and timing. They all want to believe it is because they are smarter and worked harder.

So suddenly the software world's number one anecdotal blowhard decides to slam another blowhard. Okay. Whatever.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#8

Post by spolsky »

pg wrote: post #2

A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form. You just have to do it right.

If you have real data, and used the anecdote to illustrate it, you're doing it right.

If you give us the anecdote, but don't extrapolate to wild grand theories, you're doing it right... simultaneously telling an interesting story and giving people more data points to build up their own understanding of how the world works.

If you give us an anecdote, then tag on some theory so that the anecdote isn't mere storytelling, trying to make the anecdote more than it really is, it's deception (at best), or, at the very least, talking about something you know nothing about.

And all these anecdotes and know-nothing books, blog posts, and articles are crowding out real, genuine stories and useful knowledge.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#9

Post by DaniFong »

The book review is impressively hypocritical. She ruthlessly disdains Malcolm Gladwell's use of selectively chosen biographical examples and anecdotal evidence, and then proceeds to selectively cherry-pick examples, to optimally infuriate politically correct sensibilities. She then lampoons him for incompleteness.

She mentions only one of the many larger studies that he cites, the Terman study. Was the Terman study wide ranging? Yes. Does it fit Gladwell's hypothesis that the opportunities one is offered matter? Yes. Does she show it to be incorrect? No. Does she attack any part of it? No. Does she mention any of the other studies that Gladwell mentions? That major hockey players are nearly all born in the first three months of the year? Ericsson's studies on expertise? Flynn's analysis on historic chinatowns? No!

If I present a theory, and back it up with a bunch of other data points, one should not be able to pick out a single data point, claim that I am basing my loose hypothesis on anecdotal evidence, and say I am irresponsible. This is what is being done.

Post reply on HN