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

Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

ksj.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 232 posts

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#11

Post by kiba »

r0h1n wrote: post #10
kiba wrote: post #7

If 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 explain…

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.

I don't need to apply the scientific knowledge. I have gratification in knowing how reality work.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#12

Post by riffraff »

jetru wrote: post #8

Is 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.

I'd suppose there is a continuum from "totally made up" and the "100% true fact" and freakonomics leans a bit closer to the latter than gladwell, but e.g. the "names" prediction in the book was totally off (though I can't find the reference for this now).

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#13

Post by sn41 »

kiba wrote: post #7

If 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…

The problem with popular science books is that they are written by journalists untrained in science. It should be scientists who write popular works. There are several scientists who have written great works which are neither difficult, nor dumbed down - for example, Steinhaus' "Mathematical Snapshots", Einstein and Infeld's "The Evolution of Physics", Schrodinger's "What is life?" and even delightful works such as Faraday's "Chemical history of a candle".

With the hypercompetitiveness of modern scientific careers, scientists who take time off to write popular expositions are looked down upon. The problem is not Malcolm Gladwell, the problem is the insularity of modern scientists.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#14

Post by natural219 »

As a personal data point, I grew up reading lots of "entertaining" books that claimed to have intellectual value, but in hindsight didn't really end up being that intelligent. My early thought heroes were John Stossel, Chuck Palahniuk, Ayn Rand, the Freakonomics guys, and Michael Crichton. While my views have grown more sophisticated over the years, those early adventures into "intellectual" topics eventually led me to study these topics in more depth and expose me to new, more complicated ideas.

So Gladwell's writings, if not specific scientific, may at least have some pedagogical value. Their entertainment value is certainly not questioned.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#16

Post by limelight »

I don't read Gladwell to learn anything. And that's okay—there are plenty of other places I read to learn.

Like the rest of The New Yorker, what Gladwell provides is interesting, entertaining, and realistic stories. Whether those stories are entirely true or not just isn't relevant. It's about entertaining myself and occasionally having a thought-provoking discussion about Gladwell's work. None of this actually affects how I do my work or interact with the world.

However, a good portion of this enjoyment is contingent on the stories ostensibly not being fiction, largely due to the "stranger than fiction" effect. If Gladwell were to write complete fiction, then we wouldn't have plausible lines of reality to reference in his work, or the entertainment of seeing the convolutions he makes in bending reality to his thesis.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#17

Post by Angostura »

ddellacosta wrote: post #5

Interesting 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…

Looks quite plausible: http://web.med.harvard.edu/healthcaucus/bg_rensberger.html

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#19

Post by morgante »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #4

Malcolm 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.

I don't think that's quite right.

Fox News encourages people not to think at all. Gladwell encourages people to think (the adjective thought-provoking is frequently applied to his work), even if his actual content isn't 100% true.

Also, I don't think Gladwell ever completely lies. He certainly bends the truth, but he doesn't make up things on a whim like Fox.

Post reply on HN