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

The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#11

Post by petercooper »

Andrew Orlowski has made the typical geek mistake of dismissing the value of presentation in relation to content. Gladwell may well twist soft scientific insights into "intellectual comfort food" (as said by Alex3917 above) and this might not be particularly challenging or clever, but it's easy to read, gets readers, and gets most of us thinking about the bigger picture. He's just joining dots in a way that helps idea and an interest in social sciences to flow.

Gladwell, Godin, 37signals, Merlin Mann, pg, Hugh MacLeod and 1001 other well known pundits and "idea spreaders" do not claim to be making significant scientific discoveries. They are the lubricant of science, programming, design, management strategies, creativity, or whatever their respective niche is. They give us ideas that are easily digested but then force us to consider our own positions and ideas on their ground. This is valuable in itself.

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#12

Post by trominos »

Alex3917 wrote: post #2

This article is kind of amusing, but it's clear the author didn't actually read Gladwell's newest book. While in general I think it'd be fair to describe Gladwell's writing as intellectual comfort food, Outliers is pretty good. The last chapter on KIPP was pretty dubious, but not in a way that detracted from the thesis.

Dunno about that.

I read the first seven (I think) chapters of Outliers, and I can only remember Gladwell using two statistically relevant pieces of information: that sports players are born close to the cutoff line for their sport, and that violinists who have a chance to become virtuosos have uniformly practiced about 10000 hours, while the merely "good" ones have practiced about 8000 hours and the bad ones have practiced 4000 hours. (Incidentally, I don't really believe the second one -- because it implies that all kinds "effortful practice" are exactly as efficient as one another.) I'm not saying that there weren't others, just that I can't remember them.

I can remember at least eight statistically irrelevant anecdotes, though, and certainly I think anecdotes (and boilerplate) made up at least 80% of those first seven chapters. Plus his anecdotes kind of sucked. The Beatles prove the 10000 hour rule? Okay, I guess. Bill Joy? I don't really think so. Bill Gates? Hell no.

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#13

Post by Alex3917 »

petercooper wrote: post #11

Andrew Orlowski has made the typical geek mistake of dismissing the value of presentation in relation to content. Gladwell may well twist soft scientific insights into "intellectual comfort food" (as said by Alex3917 above) and this might not be particularly challenging or clever, but it's easy to read, gets readers, and gets most of us thinking about the bigger picture. He's just joining dots in a way that helps ide…

"Gladwell, Godin, 37signals, Merlin Mann, pg, Hugh MacLeod and 1001 other well known pundits and 'idea spreaders' do not claim to be making significant scientific discoveries."

I think you do a disservice to these guys by your description. PG et al aren't idea spreaders, they're people who actually have good ideas and write them down. Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment and run statistical tests afterward.

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#15

Post by allenbrunson »

sharkfish wrote: post #14
sharkfish wrote: post #9

I hate rants with misspellings. One I found was "breaktaking". I'm sure he meant "breathtaking". Get an editor, you twat.

I see I'm being modded down by programmers who also can't spell.

No, you are being modded down for being crude. That kind of thing might be common on other forums, but not here.

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#17

Post by robg »

Alex3917 wrote: post #13
petercooper wrote: post #11

Andrew Orlowski has made the typical geek mistake of dismissing the value of presentation in relation to content. Gladwell may well twist soft scientific insights into "intellectual comfort food" (as said by Alex3917 above) and this might not be particularly challenging or clever, but it's easy to read, gets readers, and gets most of us thinking about the bigger picture. He's just joining dots in a way that helps ide…

"Gladwell, Godin, 37signals, Merlin Mann, pg, Hugh MacLeod and 1001 other well known pundits and 'idea spreaders' do not claim to be making significant scientific discoveries." I think you do a disservice to these guys by your description. PG et al aren't idea spreaders, they're people who actually have good ideas and write them down. Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment…

I don't doubt the value of good ideas. But they're pretty cheap. The hard part is testing them for some truth value. Merely writing them down doesn't do that.

But, sure, working the lab equipment and running the tests is a waste if you're not testing good ideas. Problem is, I'm the worst judge of what's a good idea especially if it seems good to me.

I'll venture so far to say that good ideas are the ones that work. The difficulty is predicting ahead of time whether they will.

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#18

Post by fallentimes »

Alex3917 wrote: post #13
petercooper wrote: post #11

Andrew Orlowski has made the typical geek mistake of dismissing the value of presentation in relation to content. Gladwell may well twist soft scientific insights into "intellectual comfort food" (as said by Alex3917 above) and this might not be particularly challenging or clever, but it's easy to read, gets readers, and gets most of us thinking about the bigger picture. He's just joining dots in a way that helps ide…

"Gladwell, Godin, 37signals, Merlin Mann, pg, Hugh MacLeod and 1001 other well known pundits and 'idea spreaders' do not claim to be making significant scientific discoveries." I think you do a disservice to these guys by your description. PG et al aren't idea spreaders, they're people who actually have good ideas and write them down. Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment…

I wouldn't lump Godin with PG & 37signals.

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#19

Post by Tichy »

Alex3917 wrote: post #13
petercooper wrote: post #11

Andrew Orlowski has made the typical geek mistake of dismissing the value of presentation in relation to content. Gladwell may well twist soft scientific insights into "intellectual comfort food" (as said by Alex3917 above) and this might not be particularly challenging or clever, but it's easy to read, gets readers, and gets most of us thinking about the bigger picture. He's just joining dots in a way that helps ide…

"Gladwell, Godin, 37signals, Merlin Mann, pg, Hugh MacLeod and 1001 other well known pundits and 'idea spreaders' do not claim to be making significant scientific discoveries." I think you do a disservice to these guys by your description. PG et al aren't idea spreaders, they're people who actually have good ideas and write them down. Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment…

I swear I don't say this for brownie points, but honestly, I wouldn't put pg in the same category as the other names you mentioned (though I admit I don't know them all, but most). I value pg's essays much more - he is not going for the daily quip, rather, his essays always treat something new in perfect fashion. Gladwell and Godin could be writing daily columns for womens/mens magazines, saying the same things we all already know over and over (yet we like to read them for our daily motivational boost). PG explores new things (or makes them accessible).

There are several pg essays that I wish everyone would read (not only geeks). Can't say that for the other names you mention.

Re: The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell

#20

Post by iamdave »

allenbrunson wrote: post #15
sharkfish wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see I'm being modded down by programmers who also can't spell.

No, you are being modded down for being crude. That kind of thing might be common on other forums, but not here.

Sometimes it takes an (admittedly erroneous) crude approach just to bring what should be an overt point to fruition. While this wasn't one of them, there are certainly times.

And on that point, that's the feeling I get when I read this article. The writer is trying to be direct and ride the fence of "condemnation by realization" but only comes off as wrongly crude. While I haven't read any of Gladwell's book, I've seen him speak and he's got his wits about him regarding these things. Let's put it into perspective: how many of us can effectively lecture on the things he does?

Post reply on HN