Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
ksj.mit.edu
Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
1–10 of 232 posts
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#2"I haven't read the book"
But hey lets get some pageviews anyway right?
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#3"I haven't read the book" But hey lets get some pageviews anyway right?
Did he at least see the cover, in order to judge it?
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#4Malcolm 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.
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#5Interesting 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.
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#6"I haven't read the book" But hey lets get some pageviews anyway right?
The critique is more of Gladwell's schtick or ouevre, than just latest book.
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#7If 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.
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#8Is 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.
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#9Funny, 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.
Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?
#10If 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 excitin…
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.