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

21–30 of 232 posts

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#21

Post by crntaylor »

I have heard the genre (which includes Malcolm Gladwell, Jonah Lehrer, the Freakonomics guys and Jared Diamond) described as "insight porn".

The idea is to deliver small chunks of insight that is just counter-intuitive enough to be novel, but not so counter-intuitive that we can't take it at face value. It's a market that's developed in response to the fact that nerds are addicted to feeling like they're just a little bit smarter than everyone else.

I think the same rush we get from learning something counter-intuitive and novel is the same reason that many of us have read pg's essays - particularly the early ones.

Edit: It occurs to me that this comment could be seen as an example of what it describes...

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#22

Post by Ygg2 »

auctiontheory wrote: post #18

You should have stopped long ago. Malcolm Gladwell as an entertainer is great. Gladwell as a pundit quoted by (and presumably influencing) real decision-makers ... has me steaming in frustration. He is dangerous.

Is he much worse than CSI? I mean I don't trust both, they have right details (like some study proving one thing, or name of disease), but overall miss the big picture.

Also it seems that he sometimes hits a mark. I remember his article on criminal Profilers being mostly correct as far as I could tell.

Anyone who trust a journalist unconditionally and blindly is a fool. They are paid to pique your interest and entertain you, not find out the truth (most people don't like the truth, I definitely wouldn't like all the truth about me to come into light). Just like someone that thinks that most crime TV series depict real life.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#23

Post by hingisundhorsa »

Could someone help me out, I've read Pinker's criticisms, Chablis' and others, but I don't feel convinced because they all seem to be generic attacks on accuracy. From their articles, I was not able to identify a specific point that Gladwell has made that is false. Lets take for example, his most recent book, David & Goliath. I was impressed by his unusual look at the David coming down the valley story in a new light including Goliath being a sufferer of pitiutary defect (hence the weak vision). Is that analysis somehow wrong? It doesn't seem to be any more wrong than other analysis I've seen, eg: Pinker's claim that violence has been decreasing over the ages.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#24

Post by downandout »

This seems like a fit of jealousy to me. Malcom Gladwell makes no claim that the observations mentioned in his books meet any scientific standards. His points are usually correct (though obvious to many); in this case his point is that adversity often breeds success in ambitious people (e.g. Princeton students, not necessarily random students at a public college). Perhaps he cherry picks examples to prove those points, but having read his books and the recent criticisms of them, I still don't feel that I have been lied to.

Gladwell does what many successful authors in this genre do: he tells us what we already intuitively know in a palatable way that makes the concepts feel new. It makes people feel justified in their belief that they can overcome seemingly daunting challenges when they see it in print by a noted author. His books may not reveal groundbreaking results of scientific studies, but they justify the views of the kinds of people that read his books, and that will tend to make them successful regardless of the scientific accuracy of any examples mentioned in his books.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#25

Post by tempestn »

sn41 wrote: post #13
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 F…

I've heard good things about Hawking's books as well, although haven't read any yet.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#26

Post by [deleted] »

downandout wrote: post #24

This seems like a fit of jealousy to me. Malcom Gladwell makes no claim that the observations mentioned in his books meet any scientific standards. His points are usually correct (though obvious to many); in this case his point is that adversity often breeds success in ambitious people (e.g. Princeton students, not necessarily random students at a public college). Perhaps he cherry picks examples to prove those point…

[deleted]

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#28

Post by mmaunder »

crntaylor wrote: post #21

I have heard the genre (which includes Malcolm Gladwell, Jonah Lehrer, the Freakonomics guys and Jared Diamond) described as "insight porn". The idea is to deliver small chunks of insight that is just counter-intuitive enough to be novel, but not so counter-intuitive that we can't take it at face value. It's a market that's developed in response to the fact that nerds are addicted to feeling like they're just a littl…

Upvoted comment for making me feel just a little bit smarter.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#29

Post by svantana »

crntaylor wrote: post #21

I have heard the genre (which includes Malcolm Gladwell, Jonah Lehrer, the Freakonomics guys and Jared Diamond) described as "insight porn". The idea is to deliver small chunks of insight that is just counter-intuitive enough to be novel, but not so counter-intuitive that we can't take it at face value. It's a market that's developed in response to the fact that nerds are addicted to feeling like they're just a littl…

Just like with music, people prefer just the right amount of cognitive dissonance - noone likes to be told exactly what they already know, and hardly anyone likes to hear something that's completely the opposite of what they already knew/thought.

In music, just a little bit of (harmonic) dissonance catches the listener's attention, but too much gives you a headache. Funny how that metaphor carries over so well, haven't thought of it before.

Post reply on HN