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

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#171

Post by walshemj »

arjunnarayan wrote: post #136
d23 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Beats hanging around with dumb ones.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#172

Post by dorkrawk »

debacle wrote: post #131
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.

I agree. If you judge a book by what you get out of it rather than what the author's ideas and motivations are you'll probably enjoy your reading a lot more.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#173

Post by Sheepshow »

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 it really fair to lump Jared Diamond in with Malcom Gladwell? Diamond writes about a career of firsthand research, and has won a Pulitzer prize. His field of study (traditional societies) is by its very nature shrinking daily, and requires serious dedication to observe firsthand. In contrast, every single human on earth has experienced a difficult assignment. So yes, while both Diamond and Gladwell overgeneralize based on a small sample size, Diamond's pool of potential samples is orders of magnitude smaller.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#174

Post by georgemcbay »

onebaddude wrote: post #122
georgemcbay wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess after the magic 10,000 hours of reading you became an expert on reading.

It's funny that people here are mocking Gladwell and Diamond for presenting popularized, simplified interpretations of the science, but those people are doing the same thing by simplifying the works of the authors. There's nothing "magic" about 10,000 hours. The implication is that hard work, practice and luck play a bigger role in success than most people believe. It's a theory. Sorry if it was too nuanced for you.

My intention wasn't really to mock Gladwell, but the act of throwing out the snippet of "10,000 hours" as a way of saying "I'm smart, I've read this book, here's a snippet of it to prove I 'get it'".

This isn't really specific to Gladwell and also comes up with memes that aren't so closely tied to one of these "insight porn" authors.

Other examples:

People invoking Betteridge's Law, or the Dunning-Kruger effect, or "You aren't Google's customer, you are Google's product", and other such bits of techo-folksy wisdom that aren't wrong or even inapplicable to the context of the conversation, but which get beaten to death on places like HN the way that "the old reddit switcharoo" or recursively-circlejerky meta jokes get beaten to death on reddit.

I should point out that while I was mocking this sort of thing, I know I'm totally guilty of participating in it myself, both the HN version (on HN) and the reddit version (on reddit).

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#176

Post by larrys »

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 same reason that many of us have read pg's essays - particularly the early ones." [1]

The question is would anyone have thought anything of PG's essays before he became "PG" that he is today? Not that people didn't read them but it seem now that anything that he has written or writes takes on such status that people are less likely to question or disagree with any conclusions.

[1] Also noting that PG's (at least the ones's I've seen) essays are always proofed by others it would be interesting to get a sense of the type of comments and changes that are made post that proofing.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#178

Post by JackFr »

EGreg wrote: post #132
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.

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…

I enjoy having my views continually challenged -- but I have begun to draw a line between those with whom I disagree and those who make me angry. I have less time for those who make me angry -- but I say that without judgement. I can't say they're arguments are empty if I refuse to engage them -- the most I can say is that it's not beneficial for me to engage them.

In terms of "people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know ... they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious", I would counsel toward assuming good faith on their part, and just not engaging them. If you'd like to benefit from what they know, it's fair that you should try to hear their arguments charitably and even entertain that what you consider "logically obvious" may be more cultural than logical.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#179

Post by jessep »

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…

Yeah, this comment is my favorite part of the story. Hilarious to have someone with such direct experience commenting. Assuming they are who they say they are :)

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#180

Post by JackFr »

crntaylor wrote: post #52
mtts wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One of his ideas is that the development of agriculture was "the worst mistake in the history of the human race"[0] contra the popular belief that agriculture improved food yields and freed people up to spend time developing science, technology and art -- and could therefore be considered one of the greatest achievements in the history of the human race. I'm not saying that his argument is wrong, but it definitely ru…

The bigger problem with "the worst mistake in the history of the human race" is that it ascribes a meaning and purpose to human existence. That is, there can be no mistake if there is no goal. What is the goal or purpose of human existence? There are many answers to that question, some more defensible than others, but there is no "scientific" answer to it.
Post reply on HN