Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jerry2 | Hacker News Reader

Gladwell's most famous book, 'The Tipping Point', suffered a similar fate. It was largely predicated on the 'broken window theory' [1] which too was proven not to be valid [2].

After his book 'David and Goliath' received numerous bad reviews for oversimplifying things and pinning causes on things that don't make sense, Gladwell lashed out at his critics and basically said that his books are not written for experts. [3]

Almost all of Gladwell's books are written in a style that categorically states that the subjects of his writing have a predetermined cause and effect. He doesn't leave much to chance, uncertainty or some other unknown cause. Everything is certain. His stories and narrations always imply a cause. That's the real secret of his writing.

[1] https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/11/14/the-tipping-po...

[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sorry-malcolm-glad...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/29/malcolm-gladwe...

View on HN

All of this is unsurprising, given Gladwell's process:

1. Take research findings in psychology, sociology, etc., all fields which are having big replication problems.

2. Pick out findings that are surprising enough to write a pop-science book about. These are less likely to be true -- that's why they're surprising.

3. Oversimplify for popular consumption, sound very confident, and omit things that don't fit the story. (This makes for a much better read, as epistemically sinful as it may be.)

Each step makes good commercial sense, and I can't hate him for it, but the resulting books are unlikely to be Actually True.

I definitely agree with this. I have to say though, I really enjoyed Blink and the storytelling around that. I visited the statue from the first chapter in the story and marvelled at how researchers "just believed" it was fake.

Sometimes pop-psychology, if it gets us more interested in subjects, may not be that harmful.

I think I read somewhere that he took speaking fees from tobacco and amphetamine companies and wrote positively about them.

I looked it up, and it may be so -- but every public figure has scandalous accusations, and these don't seem very strong. Is there something unusual in this case?

That’s a pretty serious accusation to make with zero attribution or sourcing.

Looks like someone found a link above, I think that is what I read in the past.

Yep. Read about it here: http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/

Shaming someone for taking speaking fees from Philip Morris, I can see a moral problem.

But calling a pharmaceutical company an "amphetamine company" seems a bit obtuse. For one, amphetamines are commonly prescribed by doctors and are used to successfully treat a lot of serious problems with patients. Secondly, those companies makes lots of other drugs too.

But I guess it doesn't sound as bad if you say he accepted money from "insulin companies".

Yup, Gladwell also wrote how “Korean culture” was the reason for the Asiana 214 plane crash.

What I find interesting is that people who discount most of Gladwell’s theories, will oftentimes agree with others, as long as it confirms their own biases.

From what I heard of the account of that, he wasn't wrong. I mean Korean airlines specifically changed their policy after that crash to make it easier for co-pilots to correct their pilots. I stand corrected if this isn't the case.

While what you say may be true, it doesn’t prove Korean culture was the primary cause of the crash.

To me Tipping Point is a kindergarten-level version of Chaos Theory. It was so bad I could not finish it.

He is a fair story teller but is closer to opinion than non-fiction.

He says if his books are too simplistic for you, don't read them. I am also likely to tell friends and family to not read them.

Choas theory? No, it is about marketing. It is about what makes one message be heard, and another not.

  was proven not to be valid

But your source doesn't say that. It claims (correctly or incorrectly) that NYC's drop in felonies was not because of the theory despite paralleling the theory's prediction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com