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

41–50 of 232 posts

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#41

Post by vdaniuk »

kiba wrote: post #11
r0h1n wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider yourself lucky. It is currently impossible to flip a switch in the brain and get gratification from knowing. For those who do not enjoy understanding the inner workings the textbook aproach will never work.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#42

Post by bborud »

Which is harder: to make people like Gladwell scientifically sound or to make the scientifically sound more entertaining?

While I strongly agree that he does himself, and those curious about science, a great disservice by what one might label as intellectual laziness and sloppiness, there is a need to make science and interesting ideas more available to the public. So while the criticism of Gladwell's cherry-picking and rough treatment of the truth appears to be valid, we should ask ourselves "what have I done to make ideas more accessible to others"?

I think this is why we love people like Carl Sagan. He made science accessible. He showed a whole generation of kids that science is cool and interesting and beautiful. Without (to my knowledge) compromising scientific integrity.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#43

Post by agravier »

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…

It's like Daniel Dennett's deepities, just a little less shallow, to cater for the intellectually self-absorbed. ( Look at my mice bite-size analysis! )

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#44

Post by lutusp »

hingisundhorsa wrote: post #23

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…

> From their articles, I was not able to identify a specific point that Gladwell has made that is false.

There are many such cases, easy to uncover. As just one example, his remarks about easy versus difficult problem solving relied on a preliminary study that failed replication when applied to a larger experimental group, a fact he omitted from his book.

> 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?

To answer, I have to ask "is fiction wrong?" Can a fictional account about fictional characters ever truly be called "wrong"? Whatever novel conclusion made about the David and Goliath story must confront the fact that it's an anecdote about an anecdote.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#45

Post by antimagic »

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…

Huh?

"His points are usually correct (though obvious to many); in this case his point is that adversity often breeds success in ambitious people."

No. Just no. Did you not read the article? The study demonstrating this "point" was a low-powered study. A more highly powered study failed to reproduce the result. Now, at best you could say that the result only applies to "ambitious people", but that remains to be proved - after the Canadian result, the null hypothesis has to be that making the task superficially more difficult has no impact on people's ability to complete the task. In other words, Gladwell's hypothesis is unproven and unjustified.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#46

Post by downandout »

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…

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.

IMO, this is what appeals to many about HN....the desire to find share-worthy things that will help cement their image as the smart person within their social group. Nothing wrong with it, just an (unscientific) observation.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#47

Post by IsaacL »

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…

Is this where you came across the concept of "insight porn"? http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/trying-to-see-...

There's an interesting possibility that our brain actually gives us a neurochemical "hit" every time we encounter a particularly juicy piece of insight porn. The reason for this is evolutionary: insights are basically the recognition of deep patterns that explain seemingly unrelated phenomena, which lets us "compress" our knowledge and so increase our understanding of the world. (It's not that our stone age ancestors were developing scientific theories, but they had many complex things in their environment to predict: the weather, animal behaviour, their own social networks, other hunter-gather tribes, etc).

The pleasure gained from studying mathematics, or listening to complicated pieces of music (esp classical, where complex pieces might be based on simple underlying patterns) are good examples. Humour might be a complementary reward circuit, giving us a psychological hit when we discover something that contradicts our worldview.

(I'm aware that the preceding paragraphs was themselves a piece of insight porn :)

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#48

Post by mtts »

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…

Jared Diamond counter-intuitive? I'm with you on the other three but Guns Germs & Steel always struck me as very "D'uh".

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#49

Post by willvarfar »

digitalengineer wrote: post #39
willvarfar wrote: post #15

For everyone feeling cheated by Malcolm Gladwell, there is relief in sight! Buy books by Simon Singh e.g. The Code Book and Fermat's Last Theorem; after his court tangle with homeopathy he needs all the royalties he can get!

Could you elaborate a bit about his 'court tangle'? I'm reading 'Bad Science' which also talks about Homeopathy and it basically says homeopathy is relying on the Placebo effect, the attention patients receive and the probability a lot of people will resort to homeopathy when it's really, really bad. That's usually the point when it starts getting better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book)

Apologies, his tangle was chiropractic not homeopathic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh

My general point was two-fold:

1) he is an excellent popular science writer. He has a PhD in particle physics, and his books are well researched and well received.

2) we all want him to prosper from writing so he keeps writing :)

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#50

Post by lutusp »

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…

> The problem with popular science books is that they are written by journalists untrained in science. It should be scientists who write popular works.

Yes, perhaps, but you need to realize something -- scientists who write popular books often pay a very high price. Not always, there are exceptions, but Carl Sagan is a perfect example of someone who did a lot of public good by popularizing science and scientific topics, but it ruined his scientific career.

Most scientists understand this -- to write a popular science book or article may send the signal to other scientists that you don't have anything more serious to write about. As a reward for such important projects as Cosmos, Sagan was denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences, something extraordinary given his actual scientific accomplishments.

For balance, we can look at Leon Lederman ("The God Particle") and Stephen Hawking (several well-received books) who seem not to have suffered unduly for their popularizations of science. But the risk is real.

Post reply on HN