I finished The Tipping Point last night (I know, I'm a bit late to the best seller list), and I had real problems with it. It strikes me as a particularly useless sort of writing. I hate the way he makes pat statements about human behavior. "From this anecdote, we learn that this process works this way." Oh really? Does it now? You may want to look into that.
It's the same problem I have with evolutionary biology. You can't apply basic rules of natural selection to the human brain and say "Well now we've figured out why men behave like jerks" or some such, because not only is the brain the most complicated THING in the entire known universe, it is also self-aware, ludicrously adaptive, constantly self-correcting. And indeed over and over throughout the book, he tells stories (interesting stories, to be sure) of people conducting experiments and learning something that they weren't ever looking to learn. And then of course Gladwell says, without a hint of irony, "And that's how we learned this new solid fact, which just so happens to fit my narrative." He's not interested in looking deeper, he's interested in his own book. Which requires, by the very nature of the subject, that he make some huge assumptions. A scientist would call these assumptions "hypotheses" and test them (in this case, likely to no satisfactory conclusion), but he is not a scientist, and not even a journalist.
He is a bullshitter. Coincidentally, because someone started a thread here about colorful words having to do with "shit", I pulled out Harry Frankfurt's little book On Bullshit last night and thumbed through it. His definition fits Gladwell like a glove. Gladwell is not a liar, because a liar believes he knows what the truth is, and acts in opposition to it. In this way, he respects at least that the truth is of consequence. Gladwell does not seem to care whether or not what he says is true, as long as it fits into the story he's making up about human behavior. Most of his hard facts are true, names and dates, studies conducted and their findings, but they are still bullshit because it does not MATTER to him whether they are true. They are used in service of his own motive, quite apart from truth or genuine curiosity.
His motive? I think he wants to sound smart and impressive. (Hey, don't bullshit a bullshitter.) The book is party conversation. Don't read it unless you think Malcolm Gladwell is cute and you think you might want to date him.
― a Gioconda kinda dirty look (kenan), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 20:40 (fifteen years ago) link
I know, I know, tl;dr
It's the same problem I have with evolutionary biology.
psychology, obv. Evolutionary biology is fine by me.
― a Gioconda kinda dirty look (kenan), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 20:44 (fifteen years ago) link
you could have just said this
He is a bullshitter.
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 20:45 (fifteen years ago) link
I have had a lot of caffeine.
― a Gioconda kinda dirty look (kenan), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 20:48 (fifteen years ago) link
Also, Gladwell is writing primarily about the world of 12 year-old girls basketball, where I gather this kind of aggressive play is still effective, but discouraged on bogus sportsmanship grounds.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:50 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark
So the desire to avoid a "win-at-all-costs" mentality is a "bogus sportsmanship ground"?
― the kid is crying because did sharks died? (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 20:50 (fifteen years ago) link
I've looked in vain for a Gladwell substitute, and there really isn't anyone writing in the same vein who doesn't bullshit and isn't boring (especially a lot of the source material Gladwell uses -- the one for his latest book is fantastically boring.) I mean, there's Oliver Sacks, but I get the sense he deploys narrative BS, too. Also, that movie Awakenings was shit.
I'm convinced that there is no entertaining way to write about these subjects without the lubricant of BS, just like documentaries are often edited and cut deceptively to heighten drama and arcs that might not really be there.
re: 'the desire to avoid a "win-at-all-costs" mentality is a "bogus sportsmanship ground"?'It's bogus because the Goliaths are complaining about this tactic because they started losing because of it, I'm guessing. That's the chronology suggested by the article. Maybe it's BS.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:02 (fifteen years ago) link
I've looked in vain for a Gladwell substitute, and there really isn't anyone writing in the same vein who doesn't bullshit and isn't boring (
well yeah the reason hes got this niche is bcuz hes basically doing somewhat reductive/somewhat useful distilling of the kinds of discussions happening in academic journals et al
― mustafa moe money (deej), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:10 (fifteen years ago) link
"So the desire to avoid a "win-at-all-costs" mentality is a "bogus sportsmanship ground"?"
Using a full court press /= win at all costs anyway. Sending your boyfriend to kneecap your rival with a tire-iron is "win-at-all-costs". The press is part of the game.
― He was only 21 years old when he 16 (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:11 (fifteen years ago) link
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:02 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
so you'd like oliver sacks' writing more if a movie made 20 years ago was better?
― canks: for the memories (s1ocki), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:12 (fifteen years ago) link
I wouldn't deny hardly any of what you say, but I'd say a lot depends on how important you think that is. Personally I don't think they are important, because what I'm looking for from him is: i) a plausible argument, and ii) great storytelling. The flaws don't matter because I kind of know I'm getting an unrigorous work and I'm pretty confident that I can see through it - I don't take it all that seriously and I can take what I need from it and enjoy the ride. If I want a scientific study of this stuff, I could read a sociology journal, but I'm not going to do that because primarily I want to be entertained. Could a single work do both? In theory yes, but I suspect the detail and footnotes needed to make such a work bombproof would seriously inhibit readability for the layman. When I'm a layman, I'll take the pop version every time, and let the experts do the dismantling.
I'd take issue with him being a bullshitter, however. To me that's someone trying to hoodwink me, using all sorts of irrelevancies to intimidate me into according him and his views more deference than they deserve. Gladwell isn't that to me, he's honest about his value and I feel like I can engage with it on my terms. Noam Chomsky, that's a bullshitter.
― Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:12 (fifteen years ago) link
I like Chomsky.
Gladwell is the world's most prominent dilettante.
― a Gioconda kinda dirty look (kenan), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:32 (fifteen years ago) link
Gladwell bullshits about bullshitting.
― sad-ass Gen Y fantasist (jaymc), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:40 (fifteen years ago) link
Although that Moth story is hilarious, if you listen to him deliver it.
― sad-ass Gen Y fantasist (jaymc), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:42 (fifteen years ago) link
"so you'd like oliver sacks' writing more if a movie made 20 years ago was better?"The movie felt icky and exploitive, and that ickiness retroactively tainted the book. It is a dark, malevolent prism!
If Moneyball the movie portrays Billy Beane as a slobbering OCD savant, I might just like the book a bit less. Oh yeah wasn't Michael Lewis unmasked as a BSer w/r/t Iceland or something?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:44 (fifteen years ago) link
xp Yeah but it not being true takes all the wind out of it.
― a Gioconda kinda dirty look (kenan), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:44 (fifteen years ago) link
Gladwell's articles always come off to me like "I just finished reading about fishing, which if you think about it, is one of the few single-minded pursuits, so I asked a neurologist about indirect concentration and its connection to tasks, which Maori tribesmen are actually really good at.."
It's all about finding something novel, or something that is so completely un-novel that you wouldn't normally use it as a data point, and then conjecturing around that while throwing in some cushy quotes.
― mh, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:47 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah it's probably like reading a goddamn 300 page book composed of ilx posts
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:48 (fifteen years ago) link
Gladwell's books could use more animated GIFs.
― Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:49 (fifteen years ago) link
"I like Chomsky."
what's his funnest book? I've been meaning to read some but they all look pretty dry.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:53 (fifteen years ago) link
http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Reader-Noam/dp/0394751736
― a Gioconda kinda dirty look (kenan), Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:58 (fifteen years ago) link
Steven Pinker:
Readers have much to learn from Gladwell the journalist and essayist. But when it comes to Gladwell the social scientist, they should watch out for those igon values.
― Jeff, Monday, 16 November 2009 13:30 (fourteen years ago) link
^That link reads like an Arts and Letters Daily blurb!
― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Monday, 16 November 2009 14:15 (fourteen years ago) link
hard to argue with though. i find gladwell entertaining but hard to take seriously, he's always looking for some neat simple solution.
― Maria, Monday, 16 November 2009 14:43 (fourteen years ago) link
exactly
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 16 November 2009 14:44 (fourteen years ago) link
Ultimate nerd battle: Steven Pinker vs. Malcolm Gladwell.
― o. nate, Monday, 16 November 2009 18:48 (fourteen years ago) link
The original New Yorker article actually spelled "eigenvalue" correctly:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/IgonValue2.png
― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Monday, 16 November 2009 18:50 (fourteen years ago) link
i was wondering abt that! thought it was weird the fact checkers wouldnt have caught it
― just sayin, Monday, 16 November 2009 18:51 (fourteen years ago) link
Yeah, it suggests that for the book, Gladwell just put in his pre-copyedited draft. But why?
― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Monday, 16 November 2009 18:53 (fourteen years ago) link
How do we know the misspelling originated in Gladwell's draft? Couldn't it have been inserted into the book version by some over-eager spell-check program or sloppy proofreader?
― o. nate, Monday, 16 November 2009 18:55 (fourteen years ago) link
it's wrong on his website
http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 16 November 2009 18:56 (fourteen years ago) link
Oh, well, I guess that's pretty damning then. Or would be if anyone really cared whether or not Gladwell knows what an "eigenvalue" is.
― o. nate, Monday, 16 November 2009 18:58 (fourteen years ago) link
http://velvetpenguin.blog.friendster.com/files/egon.jpgMaybe he means egon value
― Philip Nunez, Monday, 16 November 2009 19:00 (fourteen years ago) link
I still think this is the essential Gladwell profile:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-13/the-love-guru/
― o. nate, Monday, 16 November 2009 19:01 (fourteen years ago) link
Gladwell's response to Pinker:
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2009/11/pinker-on-what-the-dog-saw.html
― o. nate, Tuesday, 17 November 2009 18:50 (fourteen years ago) link
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/10/100510crat_atlarge_gladwell
― Mordy, Sunday, 9 May 2010 04:37 (fourteen years ago) link
Interesting, grumpy essay in the latest New Yorker about why social-media "activism" is a pisspoor substitute for real, risk-inviting activism. More like a long newspaper column than his usual research-heavy pieces - the closest you can get to a rant while still meeting New Yorker style guide, I'd say. But hard to argue with. Just a shame he didn't mention the fucking twibbon - the acme of meaningless protest.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
Have we covered this on another thread? Apologies if so.
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Friday, 1 October 2010 17:48 (thirteen years ago) link
why social-media "activism" is a pisspoor substitute for real, risk-inviting activism
has anyone ever said any different? i didnt even bother reading this article because i couldnt really understand why it had been written
― just sayin, Friday, 1 October 2010 18:30 (thirteen years ago) link
i like this piece bcuz usually i see him advocating in 'chill out, bros' kinda rhetoric & it was nice to see him a lil :-( tense
― HOW I FOLD MY BANDANA (deej), Friday, 1 October 2010 18:54 (thirteen years ago) link
Hey, I met Lois "Six Degrees" Weisberg last night.
― Excluding Skits and Such (Eazy), Friday, 1 October 2010 19:29 (thirteen years ago) link
The TweakerSteve Jobs and the nature of innovation.by Malcolm Gladwell
― Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Monday, 7 November 2011 10:46 (twelve years ago) link
Didn't he just write a piece on basically that (Xerox and PARC) a couple of months ago?
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Monday, 7 November 2011 14:01 (twelve years ago) link
The TweakerSteve Jobs and the nature of innovation (meth amphetamine).by Malcolm Gladwell
― ice cr?m, Monday, 7 November 2011 14:17 (twelve years ago) link
imagine he pulled a few all nighters to get that piece out the door asap
― ASPIE Rocky (dayo), Monday, 7 November 2011 15:10 (twelve years ago) link
piece is an extended metaphor comparing SJ to other guys who stayed up all night in their garage perfecting a new product
http://www.applegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/jobs82.jpg
where is all my shit
― Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Monday, 7 November 2011 15:16 (twelve years ago) link
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/bank-of-america-hired-malcolm-gladwell.html
― iatee, Thursday, 17 November 2011 00:29 (twelve years ago) link
Steven Pinker writes that Gladwell is a writer of "many gifts... He avoids shopworn topics, easy moralization and conventional wisdom, encouraging his readers to think again and think different. His prose is transparent, with lucid explanations and a sense that we are chatting with the experts ourselves."[46]
― The Triumph of the Will High (nakhchivan), Thursday, 17 November 2011 01:18 (twelve years ago) link
an intriguing amalgamation of david brooks and xhuxk eddy
― mookieproof, Thursday, 17 November 2011 06:40 (twelve years ago) link
gladwell is all lolz until he writes abt something you know http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/getting_steve_jobs_wrong
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 19 November 2011 00:27 (twelve years ago) link
mark ames gunnin for u
http://shameproject.com/
― goole, Wednesday, 6 June 2012 18:54 (twelve years ago) link