

Malcolm Gladwell's Reponse to the Culturalism Post - curtis
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2013/07/malcolm-gladwells-reponse-to.html

======
tokenadult
The response by Malcolm Gladwell is very thoughtful. The key point is that
when the airline company Korean Air (which had already had to change its name
after an earlier pilot error disaster) went into problem-solving mode, the
airline itself identified changing cockpit communication culture as a step in
solving its pilot error crash problem. 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.

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](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."

~~~
482924
[http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-
gladwell-2/](http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/)

"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."

~~~
paul_f
If I am understanding what you are saying, since MG's career and how he makes
money is in a way you disapprove, then both his facts and opinions should be
dismissed? Discuss.

It is a bit pathetic to attack the person instead of the concepts they
espouse.

~~~
gammarator
It's not the concepts, it's the conflict of interest: We assume Gladwell is
telling us the unvarnished truth in a journalistic manner.

You might find Gladwell's disclosure statement (or at least its length)
revealing:
[http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html](http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html)

~~~
paulsutter
That's an interesting link. Reading it improved my opinion of Malcolm Gladwell
(not easy - I've generally held him in low regard).

Could you point to anything specific in his disclosure that would cast
significant doubts on his ability to be objective?

------
ShabbyDoo
Gladwell notes how military culture differs from civilian culture in Korea.
Surely, differences of similar magnitudes exist in the US.

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?

~~~
w1ntermute
I would guess that there's a much greater difference between the military and
civilian cultures for the US than for South Korea, simply because the SK
military conscripts all able-bodied males.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
An interesting lack of selection bias which I had never considered. I presume
that those choosing to be career officers opt-in or at least are chosen based
on desire/talent/etc.?

~~~
w1ntermute
The vast majority of conscripts obviously have no interest in continuing after
their mandatory period is up, so yes, the ones who want to be career officers
probably go in with that intention. There are probably some who develop an
interest after joining, though.

------
chetanahuja
I'm surprised by the supposedly ultra-rational hacker news crowd to be swayed
by this feeble defense of a theory, charitably being called "culturalism"...
(but which is basically a rehashed version of oriental exoticism made slightly
more palatable for the highly educated, western upper middle classes he's
pandering to.)

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.

~~~
foobarbazqux
I'm not a Gladwell fan, but surely the idea that people in different cultures
behave differently is not too surprising, is it? After all, you said yourself
that the HN culture is ultra-rational. Or maybe I misunderstood what you are
upset about.

~~~
chetanahuja
The idea that I'm objecting to is that the culturally prescribed behaviour is
somehow the root cause of so many plane crashes.

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.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Ah okay. Well, Asia is a really big place so let's just say East Asia.

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.

~~~
chetanahuja
_Wild guess is that Japanese people are more perfectionist?_ ...

 _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.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Well it's obvious that they are better trained, because there are less
crashes. The question is, what factors lead to them having better training?
More money? Japan's relationship with America?

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.

~~~
chetanahuja
_" As for "perfectionism" being an unnecessary stereotype, if you're looking
for a cultural explanation..."_

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.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Training programs are cultures. Japanese pilots are better trained because the
culture of their training program is different. What other explanation do you
have?

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?"

~~~
chetanahuja
_" Japanese pilots are better trained because the culture of their training
program is different"_

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.

~~~
foobarbazqux
I agreed with you about Gladwell and deference. I agreed with you about the
Japanese having better training. I'm not sure what you want out of this. It
seems like the idea that culture influences behavior is deeply offensive to
you. How come?

~~~
chetanahuja
My reason is that I just don't like sloppy reasoning to spread dangerous
tribalist memes.

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 ?

~~~
foobarbazqux
I believe culture is a real thing that influences behavior. The word simply
refers to group norms around behavior and attitudes. Any group of any size
will have a culture.

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.

------
jamesaguilar
I'm not a huge Gladwell fan, but it is always a pleasure to read a considered
and respectful reply that shows a depth of research, no matter who the reply
is coming from or going to. I only wish I was an expert at everything so I
could actually judge whether Gladwell is right or wrong.

~~~
w1ntermute
Since "The Korean" (the author of the linked blog) is not an aviation expert
either, but is a well-known cultural apologist (see his (admittedly quite
well-written) post rationalizing fan death, a widely held Korean superstition:
[http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/01/fan-death-is-
real.htm...](http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/01/fan-death-is-real.html)),
I would give Gladwell the benefit of the doubt for now.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Yeah, defending the belief in fan death is really damaging to his credibility
in my eyes.

~~~
coldtea
Does the same hold for EPA?

"> _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._ ”

~~~
jamesaguilar
If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they
weren't actually? Yeah. It would.

~~~
coldtea
> _If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they
> weren 't actually? Yeah. It would._

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.

~~~
coldtea
Donwnvotes? It seems some people hate the scientific method, and only pay lip
service to science as some kind of religion ("who needs experiments and
proofs").

Which is kind of sad.

------
bjourne
Eh, I think Gladwell has a point here. "Captain, Guam condition is no good."
doesn't count as "speaking up" when a situation is potentially life-
threatening. Then you say something like "This approach is very dangerous, _I_
think we should try something else."

~~~
SilasX
The set of practices known as Crew (or Cockpit) Resource management formalize
this:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management#Commun...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management#Communication)

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.)

------
jplewicke
I would like to see his response to this article by Phillip Greenspun that
argues that the real reason why American airlines have a better track record
than Korean ones is that American pilots have roughly 30 times more hours in
the air by the time they become a pilot at a major airline:
[http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/foreign-airline-
safety](http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/foreign-airline-safety) .

It sounds like Malcolm Gladwell's publisher never bothered to fact check the
piece with an actual airline pilot before publishing.

~~~
conroy
> 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...](http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-thoughts-on-gladwells-
response.html?showComment=1374062410180#c2015340896628841675)

------
robotcookies
I think Gladwell makes some good points and that cultural factors can play a
role in these things.

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?

~~~
marshray
But no one is talking about whether or not Korean culture is superior or
inferior _in general_ , we're talking about whether it's optimal for the very
specific situation of airline cockpit communications when the more senior
pilot has made an error in judgement.

~~~
robotcookies
Let's say a country had a higher than average rate of infant mortality. Let's
also say that it was speculated the cause was cultural... due to parents in
this imaginary country allowing their babies to sleep in their beds. And
although very rare, a story gets out in the news about a baby that suffocates
in bed. Thousands of articles come out speculating about how this cultural
habit is killing innocent babies.

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.

~~~
marshray
I'm sure if you wanted to find examples of systematic bias in the media and
public perception you wouldn't have to look far.

But (for once) we're not talking about that. Gladwell based his chapter
largely on the conclusions of official investigations.

------
Avshalom
I don't really have a dog in this fight but as a response "Lots of people
thought Koreans make terrible pilots" sort of ignores the fact that racism
kinda by definition involves a widely held systematic bias.

~~~
hannibal5
Racism is the belief that some people or cultures are inherently inferior.

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.

~~~
coldtea
> _Racism is the belief that some people or cultures are inherently inferior.
> 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._

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".

------
marrusl
After I read:

[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/malcolm-gladwell-
unma...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-
look-into-the-life-work-of-americas-most-successful-propagandist.html)

I was no longer able to take Malcolm Gladwell seriously on _any_ subject.

~~~
swinnipeg
How does your ad hominem attack add to the discussion of this article?

~~~
marrusl
I'd say it adds to the discussion by pointing out that widespread respect for
anything Mr. Gladwell has to say is misplaced. Though I can't deny it's at
best tangential to the specific point at hand. Well spotted. [no really,
guilty as charged.]

~~~
Gigablah
In any case, commentators above have done the exact same thing by pointing out
the askakorean blog author's post in defense of fan death.

------
npguy
Gladwell also needs to learn a few things from the Indian parent -

[http://statspotting.com/malcolm-gladwell-meet-this-genius-
ca...](http://statspotting.com/malcolm-gladwell-meet-this-genius-called-the-
indian-parent/)

