Hacker News Reader

Comment by efsavage | Hacker News Reader

Gladwell is a fantastic storyteller.

Unfortunately, this isn't obvious to many people, who seem to think he's a scientist or a journalist, despite no claims on his part for these qualifications or assertions that his work stands up to the rigors of those disciplines. They have decided that he is one or both of these things, and since he isn't, he does not fare well when assessed along those lines.

He writes very well, his books are interesting, his anecdotes are carefully selected and edited. His conclusions are meant to spark conversation, not end them.

Lighten up.

View on HN

I despise arguments of this nature. You hear them all the time. "Gladwell isn't a scientist and doesn't claim to be. Glen Beck isn't a politician and doesn't claim to be, he's an entertainer."

It's bullshit. The unstated claim is the basis of their success. Gladwell might not claim to be a scientist, but his success exists entirely because average readers can't tell the difference.

Gladwell uses "science" and "journalism" wherever it suits him and ignores them where it doesn't. He gets lots of professors and data and high quality sources to back up his points, even if the overwhelming majority of them point to the contrary. He tells "stories" that anyone with even a modicum of integrity would discover to be somewhere between tenuous at best and false at worst as if they're scientifically proven facts.

It's not ok to use science selectively. If you want to tell a story, tell a story. If you want to make a point and back it up with in-depth data and expert commentary, do that then. Either is acceptable.

But don't masquerade "stories" as pseudo-science and journalism. It's misleading, and disingenuous. He does write well, but what he writes is nothing more than dangerously convincing pseudo-science.

Pseudo-science or not, Gladwell's work always incites discussion. This is, I believe, the real value of his work. Most people I know don't take his word as truth, but they love to use his anecdote's as seeds for delving into a subject further.

Besides, this type of bullshit is perfectly suited to starting random conversations with strangers. It's rememberable and entertaining and loosely intellectual. It doesn't alienate people based on their personal beliefs like religion or politics would. In the vast spectrum of bullshit out there, I think Gladwell might be the best kind.

The title "essayist" would suit almost everything Gladwell sets out to do, so can we just stipulate that that's the right thing to call him?

His conclusions are meant to spark conversation, not end them.

Gladwell has said so explicitly in interviews:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122671211614230261.html

"Q: Do you worry that you extrapolate too much from too little?

"A: No. It's better to err on the side of over-extrapolation. These books are playful in the sense that they regard ideas as things to experiment with. I'm happy if somebody reads my books and reaches a conclusion that is different from mine, as long as the ideas in the book cause them to think. You have to be willing to put pressure on theories, to push the envelope. That's the fun part, the exciting part. If you are writing an intellectual adventure story, why play it safe? I'm not out to convert people. I want to inspire and provoke them."

After edit: On the general issue of easy best-selling nonfiction writing, both Malcolm Gladwell and Michael Lewis are examples of conspicuous success. Both evidently work very hard at crafting their stories. If you think what they do is easy, try writing a book that gains as many willing, paying readers as any of their books.

The problem with Gladwell is he will be read by literally millions of politicians, school administrators and middle management drones. They will read it as science, and because they do not understand science, they will use the easy approximation of science=truth (especially if they can fit it into their worldview (which Gladwell is extremely good at assembling an argument to do)). From the propositions "Gladwell uses science" and "science=truth", they will not "spark conversation" but instead will progress to "Gladwell=truth".

This leads to two bad things:

1. People start spouting crap Gladwell has said at parties because it is "scientifically proven" as if it were the unvarnished truth.

2. Your boss will start new initiatives to find the customer "tipping point," hand out "maven" badges to favoured employees, or think because they have been doing something for years, Blink shows they don't need to learn anything new, listen to others or do any analysis.

These things are negative externalities. I'm not sure you could value them, but it is at least conceivable some CEO of a large company will make a stupid decision based on something he read in a Gladwell book. (Okay, maybe I should lighten up...)

I guess what pisses me off is he is using our work as scientists to generate a large profit for himself at the expense of both the public's understanding of science and the careful use of science in policymaking (e.g. supporting broken windows v.s. abortion as the reason for the '90s drop in crime.)

It is not reasonable to bag on Gladwell because some ignoramus cites him as scientific fact. Your problem is with your boss, not with the "negative externalities" caused by an author who writes something that makes your boss do something else dumb.

It would be a different story if Gladwell wrote an article exhorting bosses to hand out "maven" badges. But he did nothing of the sort.

It depends on your ethical theory I guess. To my mind, Gladwell's actions have predictable negative consequences and he should be held at least somewhat responsible for those consequences. Of course he's free to write what he likes, and I am not arguing for censorship or judicial intervention. But I think he has a negative impact on society and argue against him on that basis. He is the same as the "visualising higher dimensions video" or homeopathy, or any pseudo-science -- using the right words to get the answer you already thought of. I just love jerf's response to the video I mentioned (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1385736) and I'd like to misquote it here:

I can not anti-recommend Gladwell enough. He is anti-knowledge, convincing you that you know something when you actually understand it less well after reading than before.

Agreed!

Gladwell's work is entertaining and mildly thought provoking. Sure, his work can be broken down into a pattern or formula but his execution is fantastic.

Just like creating anything else in life:

Starting up a software business = think of a solution, talk to customers, write some code, repeat until you've built something of value.

Writing any essay = brainstorm some ideas, write them down, edit and proof-read, repeat until you've got a polished paper.

I guess success draws a lot of criticism.

I find his anecdotes interesting, because I treat them as such. I think the conclusion and original thought that Gladwell wraps around these anecdotes and stories is often off-base or outright wrong.

If you are not familiar with it, here is the original critical review of Gladwell from the NYTimes that caused an ongoing stir (Gladwell responded on his blog):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html...

Reading someone's prose because they are "such good storytellers" is a bit like introducing your sister to this* guy because he's such a charmer.

*http://mysterypua.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mysterypua....

I haven't read any of his books, though I got many recommendations from friends. Which one should I start with? (don't care much about relevance to startup/business, as long as its a good book)

Outliers is a good read that correctly represents a lot of new research about its subject.

After edit: I say this because I had read many of the primary and secondary sources cited in Gladwell's notes before his book came out. I still learned new facts from his book.

I enjoyed Outliers. I liked the fact that, while the premise of the book is that the ultra-successful tend to have quite a lot of luck on their side, he never fails to mention that it also takes hard work/talent.

I've read all of them (I think?) but The Tipping Point is still my favorite. Always thought it might be interesting to model the ideas in it using some sort of multi-agent system.

You would probably like Linked by Barabasi -- it is similar, but Barabasi is an academic (my barabasi # would be 2!)

Don't bother. Instead, go to his New Yorker archive.

http://www.gladwell.com/archive.html

Gladwell is best taken in small (or at least syncopated) doses, and he really has managed to write about a variety of interesting things. Go find the ketchup essay. It's awesome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com