Malcolm Gladwell's Reponse to the Culturalism Post
askakorean.blogspot.com
askakorean.blogspot.com
It was thoughtful of the blog author to quote Gladwell's reply in full (as it appears he did). Gladwell is easy enough to misunderstand that I have had occasion to mention this on Hacker News before. Gladwell is a professional writer, and he does quite a lot of research on unfamiliar subjects that promise to include interesting story angles. In the subjects that I research for my own writing, I have more often than not discovered that Gladwell does a better than average job of finding and citing good sources. He originates few new scientific hypotheses himself, but he writes interesting and thought-provoking stories about leading scientists in disciplines facing tough problems. Any reader of a Malcolm Gladwell book (as I know, from being a reader of the book Outliers ) can check the sources, and decide from there what other sources to check and what other ideas to play with. Gladwell doesn't purport to write textbooks, but I give him a lot of credit for finding interesting scholarly sources that haven't had enough attention in the popular literature. He is equaled by very few authors as a story-teller who can tie ideas together in a thought-provoking assembly.
Gladwell has said in an interview by a journalist that he writes to try out ideas:
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."
"Malcolm Gladwell began as a college right-wing Reagan supporter, was trained by the tobacco-funded far-right National Journalism Center, and throughout his career has inserted pro-tobacco, pro-banking industry and pro-PHARMA messages into his books and articles. Gladwell can earn $1 million a year as a paid corporate speaker, sometimes from the very same corporations and industry groups he happens to promote and defend in print."
It is a bit pathetic to attack the person instead of the concepts they espouse.
You might find Gladwell's disclosure statement (or at least its length) revealing: http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html
Could you point to anything specific in his disclosure that would cast significant doubts on his ability to be objective?
Nevertheless, Gladwell doesn't seem to claim to be a rigorous logician or scientist. He makes a "brand" out of his style of "food for thought" reasoning and the merits of his overall approach are certainly up for discussion.
It seems like you're not understanding what he's saying.
That fact that he makes money as a paid shill is directly damning to his "facts and opinions" and means they should be dismissed. Sure, part of it could be true, but why waste time checking for the truth amidst spin?
What part of the:
"was trained by the tobacco-funded far-right National Journalism Center, and throughout his career has inserted pro-tobacco, pro-banking industry and pro-PHARMA messages into his books and articles. Gladwell can earn $1 million a year as a paid corporate speaker, sometimes from the very same corporations and industry groups he happens to promote and defend in print."
does not scream "shady practices", "conflict of interest", and "fabrications" to you?
That's all you need to know about his writing. Over-extrapolator of "trends" from some isolated fragments of information about fields he knows nothing about.
Read his book as entertainment... sure. Somewhat like how you'd guffaw at an acerbic observation by a standup comedian without trying to read too much into the scientific validity of said observations. Or how you'd treat the claims of "4 out of 5 dentists recommend our floss" type claims. That's about the right level of credibility for his output.
That they did so doesn't necessarily mean they found "Korean culture" as the fault with their "cockpit communication". Their reasoning could just as well be that their pilots where not that good trained, and they brought in some experts.
If a French software company is flailing and it brings in, say, Kent Beck and Martin Fowler to do some training, does that mean the company thinks it was their developers French culture that was the problem, or just that it thinks it was their lack of software process savvy?
>Whatever else you can say about an airline company owned and based in Korea, you wouldn't expect it to have an inherent prejudice against Korean culture.*
Why not? Lot's of countries have homeland-deprecating officials. Especially when the top dogs have studied abroad (they consider this makes them more worthy than the others, and tend to blame their culture for being backwards irrespective where they are right or wrong. In some sense they are like "adopted" --and brainwashed-- by the culture they studied in).
Don't know if this was the case here, but both of those things happen.
I wonder how the US military has changed culturally over the past few decades. As an outsider, I have presumed that the purpose of degrading training programs, continual demonstrations of the power of officers (parade reviews, etc.), and required social proof of the officers' power and authority (stand and salute upon the officer entering a room) all were designed to avoid argument, hesitation, or doubt when an officer tells his soldiers in battle to charge forth toward an enemy firing upon them. To win an infantry battle, such obedience probably is necessary. Imagine if only a small fraction of the soldiers were willing to advance -- they would likely be much worse off than if all the soldiers advanced at once.
However, this nearly blind obedience surely comes at a price. Can a junior guy tell an officer that he is unsure of a drone target's validity? It strikes me that a modern military operation is much more like a large scale construction project or perhaps software development than traditional trench warfare. In these civilian endeavors, the price of hesitation to consider alternative opinions likely is low compared to the cost of being wrong. Has the military changed?
My simple question to Gladwell is this: If Korean culture explains the bad safety record of Korean air, what explains the excellent safety record of the japanese airlines. All Nippon (No fatal accidents in more than 40 years) and JAL (last fatal crash in 1985 and even that due to mechanical failure) ? Does that record prove that Japanese culture is not only completely different from Korean culture (in-as-much as respect for elders and superiors is concerned) but it would also imply that Japanese culture is somehow better for air-safety than that of all the other national airlines of the world who've had a far worse safety record than those two airlines.
I'd be really interested in hearing how Gladwell's cockamamie, quasi-racist theories explain the above. Either directly from Gladwell or anybody else who might care to defend him in this matter.
The argument I've presented is that Korean and Japanese (and indeed, most Asian cultures -- and just to be clear, Asia includes India too.) are very similar when it comes to deference towards elders, teachers and other people considered socially superior. And yet there's a large gap between the airline safety record of these two cultures. The japanese airlines I mentioned are not just safer than their Korean counterparts, but actually two of the safest airlines in the world. Any theory pinning Korean airlines' safety record on the Korean (really, Asian) culture must also include an explanation of the exactly contrary observation seen in japanese airlines.
I don't know anything about the culture at Japanese airlines vs. the culture at Korean airlines. Obviously they are different? Maybe the deference becomes more of a problem in Korea due to other cultural issues. I agree that blaming it on deference alone doesn't make sense. Wild guess is that Japanese people are more perfectionist? But I don't have any evidence for this, not even anecdotal.
But I don't have any evidence for this, not even anecdotal.
In that case, may I suggest another wild guess? Maybe Japanese pilots are and have been better trained? You know, just to get away from another instance of unnecessary stereotyping.
As for "perfectionism" being an unnecessary stereotype, if you're looking for a cultural explanation you're necessarily dealing with stereotypes. It's just as stereotypical to argue that all of East Asia shares the same culture of deference, just this time it works to your advantage because it means it isn't a factor. It's even relying on stereotypes to talk about the training across an industry. Who's to say that the lives of the individuals in charge aren't fully responsible?
Stereotypes can be okay, as long as they are accurate and not applied indiscriminately. I know that Japan has a culture of perfectionism (Google "Japan perfectionism" to start), I just don't know about Korea and what the differences might be.
Who is looking for cultural explanations ? I pointed out the difference between Japanese and Korean air-safety records specifically to point out the cultural explanations are devoid of any credibility in this case.
Ahh right. I get it. You must be of white northern European ancestry. There seems to be a cumpulsive cultural need among your people to explain away performance difference between different human beings based on where they come from.
If you don't believe culture has an effect on behavior, why do you think my ancestry has anything to do with my behavior?
You're also picking and choosing bits of my posts to hear what you want to hear. I specifically asked, "Who's to say that the lives of the individuals in charge aren't fully responsible?"
This statement is basically devoid of any informational content. You can just insert the word "culture" in any similar statement. Watch:
"Google search is better because google has a superior culture oriented around search"
"Italian espresso is tastier because of the superior espresso-loving culture of Italy"
"If you don't believe culture has an effect on behavior, why do you think my ancestry has anything to do with my behavior?"
-----Whoosh----->
"I specifically asked, "Who's to say that the lives of the individuals in charge aren't fully responsible?"
Another nice sounding statement that's irrelevant for the topic at hand. The whole debate is about Gladwell specifically blaming Korea's national culture of deference on the airline's safety record.
What's your reason for continuing to insist on using the word "culture" after you had already agreed on the non-factor of deference and importance of training ?
I believe that culture is a poor explanation for events in some cases. As you pointed out, it is probably not a good explanation in the case of deference (although I am not well-versed in the differences between Japanese deference and Korean deference), but that doesn't mean that cultural explanations are invalid altogether.
In particular, a training program will have a certain culture (set of attitudes and behaviors that get inculcated in the trainees), partly influenced by the national culture (including financing levels, collaboration with foreigners, etc.), and partly evolved on its own.
If not for culture, how do you explain the differences in training? I'm not saying your view is invalid, I just haven't heard what you think about this yet.
There are, of course, a number of different ways for an airline to handle this. They can for example encourage an organizational, occupational or situational culture where the "normal" cultural "rules" are temporarily relaxed or suspended - making it ok to speak up to your superiors.
The vague point you seem to be making is that the Japanese pilots are trained to "suspend" the culture somehow. Soo... it's just training then, isn't it ?
Off-topic, there's no space between the last word of a question and the question mark. Also, you're being overly aggressive in many of your replies about this topic.
"That sounds like Japanese pilots are trained such that Japanese pilot culture overrides Japanese national culture."
I see an an insidious assumption implicit in that sentence. Do you spot it? Let me help you by changing the context a little bit.
"Qantas has an excellent flight safety record. Sounds like Australian pilots are trained such that Australian pilot culture overrides Australian national culture."
Those readers of this thread who're actually trying to understand the problems with "culturalist" explanations for professional performance should get my reasoning by now. For the others, I'm not going to waste anymore time going around in circles on this thread.
As for snide remarks, the bit about the question mark was correcting a repeated and minor punctuation mistake, and I genuinely thought you might want to know about it. However, in the context of this thread it was a bit of a passive aggressive cheap shot, and I apologize.
That said, you're still being overly aggressive and your incivility throughout most of this thread is against the guidelines.
FYI: Here is Gladwell's response to "The Korean"'s response to Gladwell:
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-thoughts-on-gladwe...
I actually find "The Korean's" posts on these matters to be pretty irritating. Culture is a collection of ideas, and like all ideas, they can be bad sometimes, and regardless they are all subject to criticism. While he claims to understand this, he seems hellbent on showing that such negative cultural outliers (if and when they exist), will have "negligible" effect (which he doesn't seem to realize is a totally arbitrary claim; how did he arrive at "negligible" vs, I don't know, any other quantifiable amount). The fact is, the effects can't be measured, but a case showing non-negligible effects can still be made.
">This pamphlet from the EPA, at pages 49 and 51, clearly states the hazard of using portable electric fans during high heat. It specifically says “Portable electric fans can … increase the circulation of hot air, which increases thermal stress and health risks[,]” and “DON’T use a portable electric fan in a closed room without windows or doors open to the outside.”
How exactly do you know that "they weren't actually"? Do you have an autopsy that states otherwise? [1]
That the EPA marks such use of fans as increasing "thermal stress and health risks" is an indicator that there ARE health risks associated with the use of fans. If those risks can involve death is up to dispute (without further analysis), but it's a first step towards this hypothesis.
You characterizing them as "random deaths" is a circular argument. It pressuposses what it's supposed to prove. I'd rather go with science and choose my words carefully.
[1] Oh, and to prevent any reading comprehension challenged idiot (tons of them on the intertubes) that would jump and shout: "the lack of an autopsy is not proof that they were indeed caused by fans", I never implied such. I only imply the reverse: that without an autopsy we cannot say they WERENT caused by it.
Which is kind of sad.
In these conditions, portable electric fans provide a cooling effect by evaporating sweat. The increased circulation of hot air and increased sweat evaporation can, however, speed the onset of heat-attributable conditions (e.g., heat exhaustion). http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf
EDIT: On further reflection I think his claim that 90F/31C ambient air with a household fan blowing on you (because it makes you feel cooler) is comparable in lethality to 140F/61C is outright absurd.
> Does getting the cause for Fan Death wrong mean Koreans live without critical thinking?
Who was making that accusation?! (Answer: basically nobody)
Basically lots of people. Idiots who commented on blogs, YouTube etc to ridicule Koreans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management#Commun...
So in this case, the proper action would be:
1) Get attention: "Captain ..."
2) State concern: "I'm concerned that a visual approach is too risky in this weather."
3) State the problem: "Visual approaches only work in low wind (or whatever conditions), and the weather report says we're not within those conditions."
4) State a solution: "I suggest we change plans and prepare for [alternate landing method], starting with [first step]."
5) Get buy-in: "Do you agree with that course of action, Captain?"
(Note that the pilot did just the first two ... or maybe only half of the second or third.)
It sounds like Malcolm Gladwell's publisher never bothered to fact check the piece with an actual airline pilot before publishing.
"Why did I fail to interview a Korean pilot? If you had bothered to ask me before your published your article, I could have answered that question for you. I researched that chapter over the course of many months. I spoke to numerous pilots, Korean and otherwise. I interviewed crash investigators and human factors experts I interviewed the pilots who ran the Korean Air training program. I read internal Korean Air memorandum, the audit by Delta Airlines, as well as every relevant NTSB document related to crashes involving cultural deference. The only thing I did not do was interview current Korean Air management. They repeatedly declined my requests for interviews. "
From: http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-thoughts-on-gladwe...
If I was to do fact checking with an actual airline pilot I certainly wouldn't choose Greenspun either, not with statements like "Unless the country is very large, there won't be any regional airlines"
But I can't help but wonder if these same cultural factors can go both ways and maybe we're obsessively focusing on just one effect. For example, it might be that deference to hierarchy and older people leads to children taking responsibility and care of their parents in old age more. It might even be that the elderly in these places live longer and more happier lives as a result and that this outweighs the (still tragic but rare) plane accident.
It reminds me a bit of the terrorism situation in the US. We obsess over these things which are relatively rare and spend great effort to eliminate. But what are we losing in the process?
Let's also say that it turns out babies that sleep in bed with their parents turn out to have a higher survival rate that those that don't, after the first year. These babies do better in school, have much lower suicide rates as teens and are happier in their life. Maybe a higher percent actually make to adulthood than the ones who sleep in cribs even accounting for the rare suffocations.
What would you think if the media ONLY discussed the rare infant deaths and not the other effects? Don't you think it would be a bit unfair and biased? You could even argue it might be harmful.
BTW, the example above is made up and I'm not claiming anything about parenting or Korean culture, good or bad. I'm just saying the media and public usually only look at horrific deaths and ignore everything else. This applies to terrorism, plane accidents, roller coasters, etc.
But (for once) we're not talking about that. Gladwell based his chapter largely on the conclusions of official investigations.
Where this process of introspection and change falls down is with expats and their children, who have detailed knowledge of and an exaggerated respect for the culture they left behind but are unable to play a role in changing it. Culture becomes a museum exhibit to these people. (I would be surprised if 'The Korean' lives in Korea.) As someone who knows lots of Koreans but few Korean Americans, I can say that after a few bottles of soju and speaking their native language, nobody is more aware of and passionate about resolving the problems in their own culture than a Korean.
I may have misunderstood the 2 posts. But I sort of understood that Gladwell was arguing that Korean cultural aspects, including the nature of the language, play(ed) a vital role in the airplane accidents.
And if that is the case, you could say that he is arguing that Koreans are bad pilots (Of course he is excluding Koreans who don't subscribe to the culture; but is that such a huge number?)
I probably completely misunderstood his original argument.
I think it should be obviously clear that all cultures have their weak and strong points, and sometimes cultures should change and fix these problems. This is true for corporate cultures and cultures of whole nations.
How is the second idea different from "racism"? The "fix" part?
If we believe (and it's a legitimate belief) that "all cultures have their weak and strong points", then we can also find that a culture (A) has more weak points than another (B).
If A's weak points are far more, or are in the more important aspects of life, then, can't we say that "A is inherently inferior to B"? In this case, I wouldn't call it racism, but a fair assesment.
I'd rather stick with the old definition of racism: "the belief that some people (members of an ethnic group) are genetically inferior to others".
It's not as broad a generalization as you make it sound, but I still find Gladwell's cultural reasoning highly specious.
Gladwell goes out of his way to refute any racist interpretation here. ("Cultural explanations are sometimes wielded with the same blunt force as genetic explanations—and that is a huge mistake.")
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/malcolm-gladwell-unma...
I was no longer able to take Malcolm Gladwell seriously on _any_ subject.
http://statspotting.com/malcolm-gladwell-meet-this-genius-ca...