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

131–140 of 232 posts

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#131

Post by debacle »

natural219 wrote: post #14

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…

Things by Palahniuk and Rand can have a ton of intellectual value. Anthem is a good story, and everything I've read by Palahnuik has been well written. They make you think, and even if you don't come to the same conclusions as the author wants you to, at least you can see how they got there.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#132

Post by EGreg »

georgemcbay wrote: post #60
downandout wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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." Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.

For the record, although I consider myself smart, I usually like to get substantive feedback (whether agreeing with me or not) to battle test my views, learn more and refine my presentation. I intuitively find this to be valuable for me and I seem to be addicted to debating with people of different points of view on topics I care about. I don't care about an echo chamber beyond once in a while reinforcing that random reasonable people agree with me. But I quickly want to move the conversation to stuff I am still battle testing. The thing that frustrates me the most are people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know. Usually they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious and ignore the main arguments. It makes me waste a lot of time.

I took a plane ride to Wisconsin for instance, for a three day conference of Christian apologists because they are hard to get a hold of online, and I had serious questiona.

Is there anyone else motivated by this like me?

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#133

Post by debacle »

Ygg2 wrote: post #22
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 entert…

The problem is that Gladwell doesn't label himself a journalist or amateur - he speaks with a voice of authority about things he is not an authority on.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#134

Post by Volpe »

downandout wrote: post #100
Volpe wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He isn't saying that at all. I think his main point is you are talking crap (though he articulated it much better than I have). And Princeton (in undergrad) isn't "intellectually" elite, it is financially elite. I don't think you can derive anything about student "ambitiousness" just from how wealthy they are, and wealth is pretty much the only thing that separates Princeton undergrad student from a public college st…

He is saying that. Further, it doesn't appear that we're talking about the same Princeton. From http://abt.cm/GOXrfh : "Princeton University is one of the most selective colleges in the country.....Most students who got into Princeton had GPAs close to a 4.0, SAT scores (CR+M+W) above 2100, and ACT composite scores above 30......many students with a 4.0 GPA and extremely high standardized test scores get rejected fro…

I think you need to learn more about the correlation between educational outcomes and socio-economic status (Hint: There is an extremely strong one).

Also, GPAs, SATs, and ACT composites don't measure ambition. So... I'm trying to work out what your point was...

40 people isn't a 'study' it's an anecdote.

What I am saying, is there is not enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion, which I believe the GP is also saying... You can say we are 'wrong' as much as possible, but that's just rhetoric.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#135

Post by debacle »

tempestn wrote: post #25
sn41 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A Brief History of Time was good, and informative if you don't really know very much about physics, but a light read.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#136

Post by arjunnarayan »

d23 wrote: post #128
georgemcbay wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.

> Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now. This is why I hate being around a good deal of "smart" people (or atleast, people who have smartness attached to their identity, which seems to be rarely the same group). Every statement, every conversation, every…

That sounds infuriating. Why would you hang around with those "smart" people?

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#137

Post by jpalomaki »

linux_devil wrote: post #20

Malcolm Gladwell's piece is like a fiction in Decision making . I will still prefer likes of Daniel Khaneman and others. Should have read "Thinking Fast and Slow" long ago.

Thinking Fast and Slow at least mentions many similar experiments and the results are often interesting, so it is probably worth reading if the topic is of interest (and it probably should be).

I have't looked at the actual research behind the topics they are covering, but at least there seems to be a good reference list in the book so it should be possible dig out the articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#138

Post by jerf »

stavros wrote: post #119
mattgreenrocks wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I wish I"d gotten a degree in evo bio, as its proponents are able to predict nearly everything about human behavior. After the fact, of course.

You know how it goes, "explain everything, predict nothing". Or maybe you don't, because I just made that up, but it fits.

That is an established idea; if you can explain any possible outcome equally fluently, you can't explain anything. I find it a useful cognitive hack; if someone asks you whether X or Y will happen (and for the sake of argument let's discard "none of the above"), instead of asking that question of my brain directly, I try to pretend in sequence that both have already happened, and then explain why. If you can easily explain both, if neither gives you trouble, you don't really know, no matter how convincingly the rest of your brain may be telling you that you have an opinion.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#140

Post by Zigurd »

Ygg2 wrote: post #22
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 entert…

CSI is pretty bad. WOrse than Gladwell. If you have been following how the Massachusetts crime lab screwed up thousands of investigations, you know CSI is putting an unrealistically competent face on a topic about which people should be very skeptical. Gladwell isn't as tendentious and propagandistic.
Post reply on HN