Live data from Hacker News

Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#61
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top link from googling "gladwell corporate shill" http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/malcolm-gladwell-unma... Summary: * pushed ritalin for big pharma * defending tobacco corporations on settlements * advocating for financial deregulation * and defending Enron executives Allegedly rewarded $1m/yr for speaking by undisclosed corporations. Significantly more than what he makes as journalist or writer.

This case against Gladwell as a corporate shill is weak. The article cherry-picks a handful of controversial (sometimes wrong, whatever) positions that align with corporate interests. Note that not all of his positions do, the entire thesis of Outliers is offensive to many in the corporate world. There's no evidence of a quid pro quo anywhere.

Quid pro quo is a red herring. Conflicts of interest rarely work that way. They are more subtle than that, so we can keep our self-image of being neutral when in fact our actions have been corrupted. There is much experimental work being done on this. Here is a (long, but relevant) quote from a recent post by Dan Ariely on the topic:

The real issue here is that people don’t understand how profound the problem of conflicts of interest really is, and how easy it is to buy people. Doctors on Pfizer’s payroll may think they’re not being influenced by the drug maker — “I can still be objective!” they’ll say — but in reality, it’s very hard for us not to be swayed by money. Even minor amounts of it. Or gifts. Studies have found that doctors who receive free lunches or samples from pharmaceutical reps end up prescribing more of the company’s drugs afterwards. It’s just a fact of human life: we are compelled to reciprocate favors, and an ingrained inability to disregard what’s in our financial interest. As author Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” http://danariely.com/2012/07/09/disclosure-not-good-enough/

As I understand it, the experimental evidence is clear that measures like self-regulation, intuitive judgement, and disclosure are nowhere near sufficient to prevent the corrupting effects of conflicts of interest. What we need are new, simple rules grounded in the empirical findings. We're a long way from that, and it seems that such rules are likely to seem pretty extreme by today's standards, but as long as the science continues to pile up this way it seems like we will eventually have a shot at cleaning things up.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#62
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case against Gladwell as a corporate shill is weak. The article cherry-picks a handful of controversial (sometimes wrong, whatever) positions that align with corporate interests. Note that not all of his positions do, the entire thesis of Outliers is offensive to many in the corporate world. There's no evidence of a quid pro quo anywhere.

Quid pro quo is a red herring. Conflicts of interest rarely work that way. They are more subtle than that, so we can keep our self-image of being neutral when in fact our actions have been corrupted. There is much experimental work being done on this. Here is a (long, but relevant) quote from a recent post by Dan Ariely on the topic: The real issue here is that people don’t understand how profound the problem of conf…

I see where you're coming from, but I worry about the standard of evidence being thrown around. Is anyone who says something that aligns with a corporate interest a "shill"? It seems to be easy to allege and impossible to disprove.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#63
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quid pro quo is a red herring. Conflicts of interest rarely work that way. They are more subtle than that, so we can keep our self-image of being neutral when in fact our actions have been corrupted. There is much experimental work being done on this. Here is a (long, but relevant) quote from a recent post by Dan Ariely on the topic: The real issue here is that people don’t understand how profound the problem of conf…

I see where you're coming from, but I worry about the standard of evidence being thrown around. Is anyone who says something that aligns with a corporate interest a "shill"? It seems to be easy to allege and impossible to disprove.

Surely there is a gradation at some point along which a word like "shill" becomes applicable. I don't know where that line is. Is anyone who says something that aligns with a corporate interest plus takes a million dollars from said interest a "shill"?

I like a good muckraking as much as the next guy but in the end, judging individual actors as "shills" or whatever obscures the important issues, which are systemic. It may even be that tarring a few people as shills and frauds is a big mistake insofar as the rest of us then take that as a license to let ourselves off the hook.

In my opinion academia, medicine, and journalism (to pick three pretty important institutions) are all corrupt in this systemic way, a way that has little to do with individual choice (apart from a few ethically gifted souls whom we can all admire but mostly won't imitate) and much to do with human nature. And this is a big, big deal because it deeply affects what those institutions are producing. Think of all the work done on how big pharma gets doctors to push their product into people who don't need it, or about how journalists are mollified by "access" (friendly personal contact) with powerful people they're covering.

The really great thing about what researchers like Ariely are doing is that it could lead to an objective basis for preventing the conditions for corruption from arising in the first place. Can you imagine what a difference that would make to society?

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#64
post #18

My favorite part of this mess is that Jad Abumrad (one of the two guys behind Radiolab which, I think, is extremely messy with its science) called the initial ousting of Lehrer when he recycled passages a "cheap moral crusade."[1] [1]: https://twitter.com/jadabumrad/status/218042197826732033

It is easy to call the Radio lab guys "messy" but it is a lot harder to tell compelling science stories that fit the medium and the audience. If you can name a better general-audience radio show about science, I will eat my tote bag.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what are you referring? And how did this fly completely out of my radar?

I think this is it http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/

Wow, the case is really weak. And I don't even like Malcolm Gladwell.

In 2007, Gladwell took up the financial industry’s cause. He argued that Enron’s investors were to blame for their losses, rather than accounting fraud, which he dismissed. His "analysis" was debunked and mocked by U.C. Berkeley Economics Professor Brad DeLong.

That same year, 2007, Gladwell hailed ex-Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson’s move to head the Treasury Department, praising him for being among those “self-selected toward public service. . . ” Gladwell did not mention that Paulson saved himself roughly $100 million in taxes by moving straight from Goldman Sachs to Treasury.

He's a contrarian. Maybe wrong, maybe even stupid. But that is different than corruption.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#67
Now some people are bothered because a guy who sells a bunch of books, made up quotes. Well, in academy this is the rule, most citations are just skimmed and put in papers just because they sound arcane/profound. If people are buying, shame on editors, who not revised well. Even worse, why on earth the source is more important than content? Status seeking is what people do when trying to signal intelligence. Maintaining a track of published book/posts like most writers/popscience/ do is not easy. If you are already on the staff, is more efficient to manage to become permanent, then trying to be "moral". And all this time, only now someone accused him. I doubt very seriusly he'll become unemployed for this.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#68
post #67

Now some people are bothered because a guy who sells a bunch of books, made up quotes. Well, in academy this is the rule, most citations are just skimmed and put in papers just because they sound arcane/profound. If people are buying, shame on editors, who not revised well. Even worse, why on earth the source is more important than content? Status seeking is what people do when trying to signal intelligence. Maintain…

It is not the rule in academia that people just make up quotes. Not any place I was ever at, anyway.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#69
post #67

Now some people are bothered because a guy who sells a bunch of books, made up quotes. Well, in academy this is the rule, most citations are just skimmed and put in papers just because they sound arcane/profound. If people are buying, shame on editors, who not revised well. Even worse, why on earth the source is more important than content? Status seeking is what people do when trying to signal intelligence. Maintain…

In academia, quotes and excerpts are cited. They can be verified. Many publications do verify (at least a random selection of) the citations in an article they are publishing.

Re: Jonah Lehrer Resigns From The New Yorker After Making Up Quotes

#70
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, being a "corporate shill" is not "quite more serious" than fabricating quotes.

"Comparing being a shill to fabricating quotes is preposterous, they are such different things that have a huge and overlapping spectrum of possible impact" -Ben Franklin

[deleted]
Post reply on HN