
Why Malcolm Gladwell Matters and Why That's Unfortunate - jamesbritt
http://blog.chabris.com/2013/10/why-malcolm-gladwell-matters-and-why.html
======
tuke
If you ask me . . . :-)

The rhetoric of Malcolm Gladwell's work represents that of the "new
historicism" in literary studies, which emerged in the 80s.

There is a common style to these works:

\-- They start with a startling and interesting anecdote, and, basically, tell
a story.

\-- They leverage finding from various articles.

\-- They use a lot of argumentative ju-jitsu. For example, when the author is
going to basically attempt a kind of whopper, they will admit that there are
some failing to the argument. The rhetorical tic for Greenblatt is to write:
"To be sure . . ." to make the reader feel that, yes, there are other
opinions, but I'm kind of right. Then they go barreling ahead with a highly
contentious argument.

For Greenblatt and the literary historians who write about the past: Their
claims are rarely falsifiable. Sometimes other scholars will say that the new
historicists are "wrong," but it is not uncommon for the critics' basis for
their own claims to be equally frail.

If you asked Greenblatt, he might not claim that what is describing is "true,"
but, rather, "good to think with." For the past, maybe that's reasonable.

But:

Gladwell is almost always talking about the present, and making claims that
should be testable with a robust experiment. Very frequently, he will cite
incredibly thin research (as Chris Chabris notes).

I think this is the essential problem:

Gladwell's style is OK if you can't really test the hypothesis (new
historicism). But if you're talking about the here-and-now, you have to answer
to a higher standard of argumentation.

~~~
aaronem
> [Greenblatt] might not claim that what is describing is "true," but, rather,
> "good to think with."

Ah! _Gleichschaltung._

~~~
tuke
Bwa ha ha! Right you are.

------
GVIrish
The problem I have with best-seller pseudoscience is that it gets used by
people to justify assinine decisions in the workplace and even worse, in
public policy. In that respect, people like Gladwell can do real harm, rather
than advancing scientific literacy or spreading knowledge.

Gladwell gets rich with his writing, so good for him. But his dubious
counterintuitive "insights" are really close to snake oil in some cases.

That said, maybe there's money in writing books to take down Gladwell.

~~~
benched
I have a hard time imagining that the decisions people would have made, if not
for reading Gladwell, would have been of higher quality, generally.

~~~
GVIrish
You make a good point. A manager who would take Gladwell's advice of making
the font more difficult to read would probably be the type of person who
would've made many other ignorant decisions on his/her own.

The problem is, the more popular the pseudoscience is, the more likely it is
that you'll run into it.

------
bluecalm
I like him. Lively writing, interesting anecdotes, bold (to say the least)
explanations of described phenomena. It's a fair point that he/his publishers
often hype it as the real thing (like in real science) but that's how
promotion is done these days. I don't see the case of Gladwell as especially
abusive in this respect and again the guy has a lot of
interesting/entartaining things to say.

Comparing it to Oprah and The Secret hype (as some other commenters did) which
is snake oil in the purest form is not fair imo.

~~~
onebaddude
I'm with you.

I've read and enjoyed Mr. Gladwell's books, and may even prefer his essay
writing[1].

The guy isn't writing a dissertation; this is lightweight pop-science from a
fairly good writer and presenter, with a knack for inductive reasoning (albeit
sometimes controversial). The fact that the masses misjudge the scientific
efficacy of his arguments is not a real issue. It's not like the guy is
selling hate-speech. He should be WAY down the list of authors requiring a
scientific debunking.

[1][http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-
archive/](http://gladwell.com/category/the-new-yorker-archive/)

~~~
corresation
"The guy isn't writing a dissertation; this is lightweight pop-science from a
fairly good writer and presenter, with a knack for inductive reasoning"

Gladwell's angle is that he's done the heavy lifting and read those
dissertations for you, in the end democratizing these counterintuitive tidbits
of intellectual shortcuts that will allow everyone to understand the world
better. His audience listens to him because there is a belief that he is
simplifying hard material.

Only he isn't. The conclusions he draws seldom have any legitimate supports,
though Gladwell writes as if he does. Indeed, I have to disagree that he has
any knack for inductive reasoning -- his real knack is to identify those
conclusions that will get him PR, which in turn will make him rich and
important.

 _The fact that the masses misjudge the scientific efficacy of his arguments
is not a real issue_

This is unfair to every reader of Gladwell. Unfair to everyone who quoted his
various assertions in blog posts or infographic form. Because they did it
based on the idea that there is a reasonable probability that his claims are
valid. But they aren't. They might be randomly generated with as much
legitimacy.

Gladwell is a fantastic writer, but scientifically he operates with the same
behavior of a million snake oil salesman.

------
casca
I believe that the biggest problem with Malcolm Gladwell's writing is that one
may be left with the impression that it's journalism. To understand why he
does not provide critical analysis of the topics he writes on, this quote from
last week's NY Times Sunday Book Review is enlightening:

 _I also like to steer clear of writing about people whom I do not personally
like. My rule is that if I interview someone, they should never read what I
have to say about them and regret having given me the interview.[1]_

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/books/review/malcolm-
gladw...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/books/review/malcolm-gladwell-by-
the-book.html)

------
carsongross
Gladwell is a meme-optimizer, and he's got it dialed in perfectly for his
audience. Same with Ferriss, but for a different audience. Kiyosaki, same.

The techniques are amazingly well executed, even if (or especially because)
the practitioners are sociopaths. That doesn't mean they are always wrong or
offering bad analysis, but it does mean that meme-optimization (certainty, in-
group/out-group creation, etc.) will trump the truth.

~~~
innino
Do you think Gladwell and Ferriss are sociopaths? Why?

~~~
icelancer
Ferriss is obviously a borderline scam-artist. Just read the titles of his
books.

For more detailed information, you can search out blog posts by others (or by
him!) where it's blatantly obvious he spammed Amazon, blogs, and other
services with MTurk-like workers to promote his brand.

Not to mention cheating the push-hands tournament (if in spirit and not law
necessarily), etc.

~~~
innino
I was already aware of a lot of this, didn't mean to appear like I was
doubting the claim - I mostly wanted to hear this stuff from a fresh mouth.

------
zeteo
>I think the effect is the propagation of a lot of wrong beliefs among a vast
audience of influential people

You mean like politics? sports? Hollywood? Yes, maybe Gladwell's writings
don't pass muster for publication into an academic journal. But in a world
obsessed with 30-second clips, I'm sure glad he's peddling his "gateway
drugs". Maybe he's not good with qualifiers, but at least he's working hard to
research complex issues and, for goodness sake, even uses references! In light
of the _usual_ quality of information that the public is exposed to these
days, intellectuals telling Gladwell to shut up is an incredibly self-
defeating attitude.

~~~
joe_the_user
_He 's not good with qualifiers, but he's at least working hard to research
complex issues and, for goodness sake, the man even uses references!_

I'd say no reference it pretty much better than distorting the overall state
of research. (Edit: Also Gladwell isn't researching at all, he's reading
research and presenting it, just FYI).

Sure, everyday debate and everyday judgement involves continuously formulating
and using unproven, unscientific beliefs. But at least we should be aware when
someone is doing that. Arbitrary judgement that just presents itself as
arbitrary judgement, that you have strong to examine yourself, it better than
dubious positions that present themselves as Proven By Science.

~~~
zeteo
Well, I'd say everyone tries to overstate their case a bit, don't we? But if
we care about the state of everyday debate and judgment then we should also
accept improvements. And it could be considered improvement if a politician /
manager / director gets their knowledge of science and psychology from
Gladwell than from _CSI_ or _ESPN Live_ respectively (which they would
otherwise).

~~~
pnathan
Actually, this is a specific case of the bad is worse than the none (as
opposed to the bad being better than none. I.e., half a loaf of bread is
better than no bread if you're hungry, but a half-finished boat hull won't
float, if you take it out it'll sink under you).

In this case, your friendly PHB looks at Gladwell or other pop sci author,
decides its true (a falsehood), and then makes policy based on the _illusion_
of correctness. Now you, in your quest for truth, have to defeat Gladwell as
well as spread truth. See how it gets worse than your PHB just derping it up
on his own?

------
wmeredith
People like Malcolm Gladwell and Oprah (her gross promotion of The Secret was
pretty bad) are basically snake oil salesmen or con-men. They'll tell you
something you like to hear for a small fee, but you'll be no better off for
it. In fact, depending on what level of credibility you assign their claims,
you may be worse. It's frustrating, but part of the human condition. I imagine
it wasn't too long after language was invented that the one human looked at
another and made up a story that was credible because the audience was scared
or frustrated at being saddled with the human condition.

~~~
bluecalm
So I am not familiar with all of his books and it was some time I've read the
last one (Outliers) but he doesn't give (at least not much) direct possibly
harmful advice to people. He just describes some phenomena and some bold
theories to explain those. It's not like you will hurt yourself committing to
10k hours of deliberate practice in your field or something.

On the other hand Oprah with her promotion of The Secret which is potentially
very harmful if you start applying things it advocates or Kiyosaki with his
books/mlm promotion are better candidates to put into scam category.

~~~
NoPiece
I mostly agree, but one thing I saw was multiple 7 year olds in my kids'
kindergarten classes. They were "red shirted" by their parents because after
reading Outliers they thought it would give them an advantage. I think it
ended up hurting those kids because they were bored. It also hurt the youngest
kids (some nearly two years younger) who were physically and mentally
outmatched. And it hurt the class because the teacher had to split attention
between kids who were very different in maturity and ability.

~~~
gregpilling
I have seen a fair bit of 'red shirting' also. It seems quite strange to me -
but then I graduated high school at 17 (no skips) and many high school
students in my town are 19 when they graduate now. The inevitable result of 7
year old kindergarten students I guess (btw one of my sons is 6 and in first
grade).

After reading Outliers at least I have a theory of why I was a crappy hockey
player with my October birthday.

------
innino
I think the real reason why people like this author don't like Gladwell is
because he bypasses this writer's academic community to deal directly with the
masses. He gives normal people what they want, makes them feel smarter and
more confident analysing the world, and, most insultingly, does it without
respecting the rules of conduct developed by academics. This really stings
because the community itself has failed to communicate with normal people, but
its members still feel like they deserve to be listened to because they _know_
they are right. Its playground jealousy - they can't accept the fact that they
don't know how to compete with Gladwell, so they sit around wagging their
fingers about the hidden dangers of his writing.

~~~
milesskorpen
"Hidden dangers"? The review doesn't say Gladwell is dangerous, just that he
doesn't actually PROVE anything, but people take his claims as if their solid
& settled science. There are scientists & researchers who can communicate
clearly — Einstein did, Bill Bryson does for astronomy, etc. — without going
too simple.

------
djdj123
Another criticism of Gladwell's writing by Steven Pinker some years ago:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?pagewanted=all)

------
tokenadult
Thank you for the very interesting submission. Christopher Chabris, the author
of the blog post submitted here, is a good friend of several of my friends
around the country, and I have interacted directly with him in online
communities of human behavior researchers. So I take Chabris's criticisms of
Gladwell's writings, especially his most recent book, seriously.

Gladwell is indeed on record saying that he doesn't write to be true in the
scholarly sense, but to be thought-provoking. He has said in an interview 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."

And Gladwell is good, while trying out ideas, at crediting his sources. 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. And in particular, I recommend Gladwell's
"Disclosure Statement," an essay about conflicts of interest for professional
writers,

[http://gladwell.com/disclosure-statement/](http://gladwell.com/disclosure-
statement/)

which I learned about from another HN submission. Gladwell has strong
integrity of a kind, but it is not the integrity of a scholar of psychology
like Christopher Chabris.

Regarding the new book under review, I am particularly worried about claims
that dyslexia is any kind of advantage for anything. Many cases of dyslexia
are the woeful result of poor practices in teaching reading,

[http://learninfreedom.org/readseri.html](http://learninfreedom.org/readseri.html)

[http://learninfreedom.org/readbook.html](http://learninfreedom.org/readbook.html)

and it would be very regrettable to drop efforts to improve initial reading
instruction on the flawed theory that dyslexia provides advantages to young
learners. Gladwell says he is "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," and definitely we should all think each time we read anything.

~~~
ctl
If, in my nonfiction book, I write, "Under normal circumstances, water boils
at 80 degrees celsius," then I am a liar, and there is nothing I can say after
the fact that will excuse my behavior.

Malcolm Gladwell often writes lies in his nonfiction books. I have found
myself personally deceived by some of his lies. For instance, on page 39 of
_Outliers_ , he writes:

 _The striking thing about Ericsson’s study is that he and his colleagues
couldn’t find any “naturals”, musicians who floated effortlessly to the top
while practicing a fraction of the time their peers did. Nor could they find
any “grinds”, people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didn’t
have what it takes to break the top ranks._

The first time I read this passage, I thought it was one of the most
extraordinary pieces of information I'd ever encountered. It meant that
practice almost completely determines ability! I mostly believed that for more
than 4 years. (And so did the rest of the world -- that's the core of the
10000 hours meme.)

It turns out that the passage is completely false. Ericsson's study did not
actually say anything about individual violinists at all -- it only ever
reported average statistics of groups of violinists.

Other studies of the relationship between total practice time and ability have
found that different people may reach a given level of ability with enormously
different practice totals. For instance a study of chess players found that
the average amount of practice time needed to reach the Master level is ~11000
hours -- but the standard deviation of the distribution is more than 5000
hours. One person only took 3000 hours to reach Master level. Another took
23000 hours. [1]

Calling this kind of deception "being playful with ideas" is absurd.

[1] Note: I have not read the study in question. My info comes secondhand,
from [http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-
and-...](http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-
performance-secrets.html?m=1) and [http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-
adventure/media/books/H...](http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-
adventure/media/books/How-Athletes-Get-Great.html?page=all).

~~~
beambot
Water does boil at 80 deg-C... depending on pressure (see its phase diagram).
Of course "normal conditions" is the hedge. It's still useful to think about
other facets of the "truth." Critical thinking is, indeed, the key.

~~~
r00fus
Where do you expect to find humans at significantly high elevations like say,
the peak of Mt Logan, BC, Canada (which is ~6km or 19k ft above sea level,
where water does indeed boil at 80 deg C)?

I certainly wouldn't call that normal. Noone lives at those altitudes.

~~~
beambot
It's normal when you work in a physics or chemistry lab using vacuum chambers.

------
Zigurd
If his TED Talk on the David and Goliath story
[http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_of_david_and_goliath.html)
is any indication, his book is for people who find Sun Tzu too subtle.

Much of his previous writing and public speaking are, at least, literate and
entertaining. Listen to the whole TED talk, I dare you! I could not finish.
The treacle was too thick, the grinding of clashing unapt analogies too loud.

It may be easy and popular to slag Gladwell, but man he set himself up for it
this time.

------
languagehacker
The whole Googling "proved" vs "showed" thing is junk science at its finest.
Not really an effective way to illustrate your point, dude.

~~~
pm90
He admits it rather openly that its not a rigorous method. So the question
really is: is it even slightly rigorous? To which I would say, yes, its ok.

