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

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#21

Post by timr »

DaniFong wrote: post #9

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 w…

"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."

You've pretty much described 95% of the fun of reading the New York Times' book review. It's a public forum for less-famous writers to snipe at more-famous ones -- it's practically the first blog.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#22

Post by thomasmallen »

spolsky wrote: post #11
sharkfish wrote: post #7

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.

Um, lemme see if I understand here, what you're saying... Are you claiming that (a) I'm successful, and (b) I think that I'm successful because I'm smarter and worked harder and (c) Malcolm Gladwell thinks I'm successful because of good luck and timing and that (d) therefore I'm mad at Gladwell's new book and that (e) therefore I decided to slam it? Is that your theory?

If I saw a rabbit right now, I'd certainly give chase.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#23

Post by astrec »

timr wrote: post #21
DaniFong wrote: post #9

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 w…

"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." You've pretty much described 95% of the fun of reading the New York Times' book review. It's a public…

Indeed. And Michiko Kakutani happens to be somewhat famous for her negative pieces on famous writers.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#24

Post by Tichy »

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,…

"Galdwell certainly isn't science, but I don't think he proclaims to be either."

The problem is that the majority of people will think it is science. It is written in a book, so it has to be true.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#25

Post by run4yourlives »

Tichy wrote: post #24
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,…

"Galdwell certainly isn't science, but I don't think he proclaims to be either." The problem is that the majority of people will think it is science. It is written in a book, so it has to be true.

The stupidity of some people can hardly be blamed on the author of the book.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#27

Post by antiform »

DaniFong wrote: post #9

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 w…

I generally agree with what you're saying, and it's amusing how she proceeds to do something that is essentially what she is criticizing Gladwell for doing himself, but I give benefit of the doubt to the critic, because there is a remarkable difference in medium. It's a book review, not a complete refutation. She has about a dozen paragraphs to summarize and critique 300+ pages. Is there enough space to complete address even one of the cases brought up in the book? I think not.

I've read the book. It's entertaining, but I don't think it's as well-developed as Blink or The Tipping Point. I think Gladwell is a good writer who serves a previously unfilled role as a popular popularizer of academic work. However, every time I read his work, I wish that experts of the fields he reports on would also write popular expositions that could be consumed by an audience like that of the New Yorker.

I know that the evidence backing some of what I was reading was sketchy at best. Asian children score higher on math tests because their ancestors labored in rice fields? Please. It doesn't detract from the entertainment value of the book, but I would think twice before believing what I read in the book was indicative of reality.

As for your theory argument, I would have to disagree in many different cases. Suppose that you only chose to include data points that support your argument. Then people have every right to pick an alternate data point, claim that your study is faulty and that you're being irresponsible. This is exactly what many of his detractors are pointing out, and it is a point that is often missed.

The primary argument against the book and the Gladwell style of investigation is that he tends not to include or even discuss studies or points or examples that do not support his argument. This is understandable, since he is attempt to speak to a popular audience and does not have the space to discuss every relevant study if he wants to run through all of his cases, but by doing this, he makes many smart people feel like he is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#28

Post by planzero »

sharkfish wrote: post #7

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.

Your data is correct, but you've got it backwards. People who believe they can be successful by working harder generally do become successful. The inverse holds as well.

Aside: watch for when people say "whatever." It means they care very much about something.

Re: Joel on Software: Anecdotes

#30

Post by DaniFong »

antiform wrote: post #27
DaniFong wrote: post #9

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 w…

I generally agree with what you're saying, and it's amusing how she proceeds to do something that is essentially what she is criticizing Gladwell for doing himself, but I give benefit of the doubt to the critic, because there is a remarkable difference in medium. It's a book review, not a complete refutation. She has about a dozen paragraphs to summarize and critique 300+ pages. Is there enough space to complete addr…

"However, every time I read his work, I wish that experts of the fields he reports on would also write popular expositions that could be consumed by an audience like that of the New Yorker."

I wish that were true too. I am trying in my own blog to present my work in both a form accessible to the literate public and helpful for researchers (though I have neither published most of my work yet, nor attracted an audience the size of the New Yorker so you will just have to be patient!)

Arguably, Flynn did his best with "What is intelligence?" but people probably ran for the hills at the first formula. Such is life. But there are at least a few scientists who write for the public audience, Dawkins, Dyson, Hawking and Pinker perhaps most relevantly today, that do attract a wide readership. I honestly think Gladwell does a better job presenting things straight than Hawking.

The rice field argument, while apparently silly, doesn't strike me as particularly wrong. I'm merely unconvinced.

Does Gladwell in this book, more than his others, draw theories from selected scattered 'outliers,' more often than reasonable? I do not know how far he goes.

Post reply on HN