

What Makes Malcolm Gladwell Fascinating - webhat
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131007120010-69244073-what-makes-malcolm-gladwell-fascinating?trk=NUS_UNIU_PEOPLE_FOLLOW-megaphone-fllw

======
lutusp
> In 1971, a sociologist named Murray Davis published a groundbreaking paper
> that opened with these two lines:

> "It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his
> theories are true, but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not
> because his theories are true, but because they are interesting.”

The above aphorism only applies to sociology theorists, not scientific ones.
It aptly exposes the central problem with sociology -- an indifference to
science and evidence.

Malcolm Gladwell is certainly interesting. But 100 years from now, when
Gladwell's name had been completely forgotten, people will still remember
Einstein, Hawking and Higgs.

~~~
triplesec
This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology. Gladwell is a journalist,
not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims siciology expertise.

Incidentally, Gladwell popularises psychology, sociology and other human
action theories, adding in his own hypotheses (untested, but plausible) for
good measure. He ought to differentiate more between his hypotheses and the
things he gleans from others, but his work at least raises awareness in the
wider public that there is a lot of useful work done in studying humans. It's
useful journalism, if taken as such.

Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology, which has a wide range of
qualitative and quantitative methods. As in many academic arenas, there are
good, mediocre and bad practitioners. Only the most naive of epistemologists
assumes that a whole academic discipline-set is bad because not all of it
requires mathematical assistance.

~~~
lutusp
> This is a trite and strawman attack on sociology.

No, it's a comment about an article written by a sociologist, commenting
favorably about another sociologist. Neither of them are straw men. Both of
them are typical sociologists.

> Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims
> siciology expertise.

The article I quoted from wasn't written by Gladwell, it was written by a
sociologist.

> Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology ...

I didn't. The author of the inked article might have, and that's why I
commented as I did.

> which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods.

Yes, but not remotely scientific.

[http://xkcd.com/435/](http://xkcd.com/435/)

~~~
triplesec
Again with the patently absurd assertions. The author Adam Grant is a
professor of Management. Gladwell is a Journalist. Now, I see that your use of
the pullout quotation (from an old philosophy of sociology paper) is what you
decided to base all your comments on. That is not entirely clear from the
rant. OK, so what's wrong with an insight that, given a universe of true
papers, we ape-humans don't realise that we ascribe greatness to the
'interesting' theorists, regardless of other merit.

Human frailty of attention exists in all fields, and this does not negate a
field because of it. This human ape-weakness happens in physical sciences too:
sexy theories (relativity, quantum physics) or outgoing professors (Feynman)
receive a lot more public plaudits than the more boring but equally useful
work, say on planetary physics, pulsars, telescope or accelerator design, new
materials. Sociology is barely 100 years old, and it takes time to iron out
the _cultural_ problems in any community of practice. Physical sciences have
had centuries. And still they make mistakes: see the peer review issue right
now, a hot topic about the publication Science. This a critique of how science
is judged, but I don't see people negating the validity of the fields just
because there are a lot of bad humans out there in those very fields.

Sociology lives only on evidence. It is not science, because it deals with the
mostly stupid human apes' behaviours and activities; humans who do things like
make gross generalisations, and cannot see where they are hugely biased, due
to emotions such as pride and unwarranted arrogance.

Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because
of the subject matter. Would you copmlain at chemistry for not using partical
accelerators, or biologists for sitting in trees observing birds? If you
complain about sociologists using sophisticated but different tools from
science, then you are doing the same thing.

And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. It's the
perspective of the most reductionist, old-fashioned blinkered Sheldon Cooper
from that TV show. Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that
variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah.

So, think carefully about your own frailties and biases before you decide that
you are "pure".

~~~
lutusp
> Again with the patently absurd assertions.

If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims.
Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on
repeatable, objective evidence.

> And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons.

That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere.
[https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd](https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd)
yields over 30,000 hits.

> Sociology lives only on evidence.

Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on
you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in
the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even
after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they
told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field.

The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology
ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences.

> Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because
> of the subject matter.

There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing
a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science.

> Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is
> meaningless except by nee-naah.

You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism.
But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your
education. That would be an unrequited charity.

Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature
of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to
prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are
no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public
schools.

~~~
triplesec
I love science. I sometimes practise science too, and my education in it is
greater than most. Science is useful due to its empirical leanings and
attempts to create ordered thought from this. I think you misunderstand my
arguments, in that I appreciate and engage in activities which are scientific,
and artistic, and aimed at human understanding, and understand that we need
different methods depending on what we're trying to discover. And that not all
methods are science. You appear OTOH just to wish to say "this is my hammer
which I am going to use for everything."

So:

>If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims.
Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on
repeatable, objective evidence.

Then why are you arguing with bald assertions and no facts, if that is all you
care about? why aren't you being scientific about your claims here? You are
hoist by your own petard, I'm afraid.

>> And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. >That
would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere.
[https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd](https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd)
yields over 30,000 hits.

You are saying that popularity = truth? Seriously? Especially given the skewed
population which "likes" that particular one? Ah, you really are a sophist.
That's really poor argumentation, poor thought and you really ought to
understand this.

>> Sociology lives only on evidence. >Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the
Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career
hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa",
became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed
confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete
fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field. The Mead story is
completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below
psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences.

Mead is not all sociologists. She's an outlier anthrolologist, for starters,
and nothing like, say Thorstein Veblen. I could equally say "Science is
fraudulent" because scientists used to believe in Phlogiston. Absurd. You love
the Straw Man!

>> Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences
because of the subject matter. >There is one scientific method, not two or
six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing
any kind of science.

Oh dear. There is only one scientific method, you say? You really have no
clue. Start with Popper, and then Kuhn's response, and google from there. And
see the arguments between experimental and theorietical physicists while
you're at it, for fun. And then talk to some of the better professors in the
different departments at you local university and see how much more
sophisticated than you are at epistemology.

Even if there is only one 'scientific method' (please define that, ha!) it
remains that that statistical scientific method is not the only way to
understand the world.

>> Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is
meaningless except by nee-naah. You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw
at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to
correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited
charity. >Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants
the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the
law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all
opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious
teaching into public schools.

To say there are more ways to understanding than one single method does not
equal saying that all ideas are relative. That's a false binary, and again an
appalling straw man.

Get reading in the philosophy of science. You manifestly feel the need for
certainty where actually there are interesting questions to be asked. None of
my arguments are postmodern. Nor do I claim that sociology is the same as
science. All I claim, quite plausibly given the evidence of the past 50-100
years, is that sociology is useful, it has empirically-verifiable methods, and
that it does not need to be physical science to be useful.

Here's a useful way to see the world:
[http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-
Park](http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park)

~~~
lutusp
> Get reading in the philosophy of science.

Wait, what? You think sociology is science. That means it's you who seeds to
find out science's philosophical underpinnings. Science is noteworthy more for
what it excludes than for what it includes. The reasons for that are worth
learning.

> To say there are more ways to understanding than one single method does not
> equal saying that all ideas are relative.

Yes, and I never said or implied it. This is (or was) a discussion of science,
not a comparison of science with other ways of apprehending reality.

> ... and again an appalling straw man.

Yes -- your straw man. You've long since stopped paying attention to my views,
happily replacing them with your own.

------
godisdad
See also: [http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-
int...](http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-into-the-
life-work-of-america’s-most-successful-propagandist/)

