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

101–110 of 232 posts

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#101

Post by bluecalm »

lsc wrote: post #95
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…

the destructive thing about this style of writing[1] isn't that the readers like to feel smart or superior to others; the destructive thing about it is that instead of distilling research with an aim to convey useful information, he distills that research with an aim to find the most shocking or counterintuitive possibility, even if the evidence isn't really strong enough to support an 'extraordinary claim' You actua…

One important difference is that Gladwell is pretty good writer and doesn't really go too much into specific personal/business advice. Vast majority of business/personal development books on the other hand display crappy writing and live off people buying their promises hoping to actually find some practical advice. In that landscape Gladwell stands out: he actually give a lot of references you can check yourself, he doesn't give harmful advice and he delivers what should be expected from him - entertainment and great topics for conversations.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#103

Post by StavrosK »

IsaacL wrote: post #47
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,…

Whenever someone says "There's a possibility X is evolutionary", nowadays, I mentally continue it with "The reason for this is rationalization".

As an aside, what's it called when you come up with an explanation of something to fit the facts the way you want them? Hindsight bias comes to mind, but it's not exactly that. More like a mixture of hindsight/confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#105

Post by Ygg2 »

auctiontheory wrote: post #32
Ygg2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 entert…

I don't hear senior people in all sorts of professions referencing CSI the way I hear them referencing Malcolm Gladwell.

Umm, isn't there a CSI effect, as in judges changed their sentences, because there wasn't enough certainity in the proofs provided by real forensic experts?

Isn't that bigger impact than anything Gladwell's stories had on policies?

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#106

Post by diroussel »

StavrosK wrote: post #103
IsaacL wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Whenever someone says "There's a possibility X is evolutionary", nowadays, I mentally continue it with "The reason for this is rationalization". As an aside, what's it called when you come up with an explanation of something to fit the facts the way you want them? Hindsight bias comes to mind, but it's not exactly that. More like a mixture of hindsight/confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

post-hoc rationalisation?

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#107

Post by moocowduckquack »

6ren wrote: post #68
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…

"new scientist" etc also play this role. Though fairly accurate as far as it goes, it is pop-science. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1777

I like Stephen Collins' take on it - http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/beyond_the_beyond/2009/07/...

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#108

Post by krmmalik »

What did it for me was a TED talk of Gladwell, a good few years ago. It was a talk about marketing and the point he wanted to make was that diversification (multiple lines of the same product) was the answer. I took it for granted at the time - and having read "The Tipping Point" before then, I felt he was the man to follow. But having tried it it in the real world, I realised most of what he was saying just didn't hold.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#109

Post by ebbv »

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…

In my experience this stuff is not nearly as popular with actual nerds/geeks/hackers as it is with MBA/CEO/executives.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#110

Post by StavrosK »

diroussel wrote: post #106
StavrosK wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever someone says "There's a possibility X is evolutionary", nowadays, I mentally continue it with "The reason for this is rationalization". As an aside, what's it called when you come up with an explanation of something to fit the facts the way you want them? Hindsight bias comes to mind, but it's not exactly that. More like a mixture of hindsight/confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

post-hoc rationalisation?

Sounds right, thank you.
Post reply on HN