Live data from Hacker News

Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

ksj.mit.edu

221–230 of 232 posts

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#221

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…

[deleted]

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#222

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…

[deleted]

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#223

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…

[deleted]

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is more about Gladwell than about his latest book.

No, the article is clearly about Gladwell's work.

Yes. This is what I meant.

Let me clarify: The article is more about Gladwell's approach/style overall than about his latest book, specifically.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#225

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…

I have read this elsewhere. "Interestingness" is a fine balance between familiarity and surprise.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#226

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…

I'm trying to think now what would be the opposite of this? Books that are completely counter-intuitive, that forces you to rethink your original Weltanschaunng in the first place - Niall Ferguson's "Civilization: The West and the Rest" and Nassim Taleb's "AntiFragile: Things that Gain from Disorder" comes to mind. Even rereading Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" can give you this counter-intuitive insight.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That boils down to reading purely for pleasure, in which case fiction may be more effective. The whole point of non-fiction is that it should NOT be fiction, which requires intellectual honesty.

No, I think it boils doing to engaging with whatever you're reading rather than just consuming it. For non-fiction you can encounter the same facts as the author and reach different conclusions. Take something like Outliers, you can read it and say that his conclusions are too broad, but still get something out of the book.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#229

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…

I believe it's unfair to include Diamond in this genre, as although he's popular, he's also a thinker (and prof) with an academic's consistency and attention to data. The Freakonomics guys are also closer to data, but episodically popularising rather than Diamond's coherent meta-narratives. The biggest argument you could level against Diamond might be one of leaning too heavily on "geographical determinism", which he…

Diamond is very much in the same camp. In the introduction to Guns, Germs, and Steel he stated that his motivation for the work was to come up with evidence with which to counter an Occam's Razor assumption (basically, that certain groups had done more smart things because they were smarter) that contradicted his campus political theory. The "academic's consistency" is the lawyer's consistency of only making the arguments that support what he has decided in advance to support, and the "attention to detail" is attention to only those details that support his case. The fact that his book presented no evidence in favor of the Occam's Razor position (the reason certain groups do more smart things is because they are smarter) but only a list of possible counter-arguments makes it not an investigation of an issue, but an attempt to defend a pre-existing political position.

Even anthropologists sharing the same campus politics have been unwilling to endorse Diamond's arguments with any real enthusiasm.

Re: Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell?

#230

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 problem I have with your comment is that you describe something auspicious and then slap a derogatory label on it and thus unfairly decry it as problematic. If insight equates to truth, and counter-intuitiveness equates to challenging our flawed assumptions, and 'face-value' equates to lucid and well-argued, then what exactly is there to complain about? Just because you find a formula behind something, doesn't make it a problem.
Post reply on HN