

Joel on Software: Anecdotes - twampss
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/18.html

======
DaniFong
The book review is impressively hypocritical. She ruthlessly disdains Malcolm
Gladwell's use of selectively chosen biographical examples and anecdotal
evidence, and then proceeds to selectively cherry-pick examples, to optimally
infuriate politically correct sensibilities. She then lampoons him for
incompleteness.

She mentions only one of the many larger studies that he cites, the Terman
study. Was the Terman study wide ranging? Yes. Does it fit Gladwell's
hypothesis that the opportunities one is offered matter? Yes. Does she show it
to be incorrect? No. Does she attack any part of it? No. Does she mention any
of the other studies that Gladwell mentions? That major hockey players are
nearly all born in the first three months of the year? Ericsson's studies on
expertise? Flynn's analysis on historic chinatowns? No!

If I present a theory, and back it up with a bunch of other data points, one
should not be able to pick out a single data point, claim that I am basing my
loose hypothesis on anecdotal evidence, and say I am irresponsible. This is
what is being done.

~~~
timr
_"The book review is impressively hypocritical. She ruthlessly disdains
Malcolm Gladwell's use of selectively chosen biographical examples and
anecdotal evidence, and then proceeds to selectively cherry-pick examples, to
optimally infuriate politically correct sensibilities. She then lampoons him
for incompleteness."_

You've pretty much described 95% of the fun of reading the New York Times'
book review. It's a public forum for less-famous writers to snipe at more-
famous ones -- it's practically the first blog.

~~~
astrec
Indeed. And Michiko Kakutani happens to be somewhat famous for her negative
pieces on famous writers.

------
pg
A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil
form. You just have to do it right.

~~~
spolsky
If you have real data, and used the anecdote to illustrate it, you're doing it
right.

If you give us the anecdote, but don't extrapolate to wild grand theories,
you're doing it right... simultaneously telling an interesting story and
giving people more data points to build up their own understanding of how the
world works.

If you give us an anecdote, then tag on some theory so that the anecdote isn't
mere storytelling, trying to make the anecdote more than it really is, it's
deception (at best), or, at the very least, talking about something you know
nothing about.

And all these anecdotes and know-nothing books, blog posts, and articles are
crowding out real, genuine stories and useful knowledge.

~~~
DaniFong
There are many theories that Gladwell's book ties together, and there's some
pretty serious data on each of them. I know three, and all of this book I've
read are excerpts. Each of his books includes a reading list and citations,
and I don't think this will be any different. In particular, page 10 of
Flynn's book is worth reading. It is not merely Gladwell's hypothesis.

Terman et. al's studies of gifted children
([http://books.google.com/books?id=MXwVAAAAIAAJ&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=MXwVAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=terman&lr=&ei=-6IjSaSSD4L8lQSjubSUCA))

Sherar et. al's study of physical maturity in hockey player development
([http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778078133~...](http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778078133~db=all))

Flynn's book "On Intelligence" and review of the growing IQ of the worldwide
population and ethnographic studies of Chinese.
([http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvBipuypY...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qvBipuypYUkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=flynn+chinese+intelligence&ots=dI5FSqQ_c4&sig=SzsQ7umFTljNiYyaAkxhx7z04UI))

I don't think one should claim an insufficient justification of his hypotheses
without actually _examining_ the justification thoroughly.

Oftentimes, for Gladwell in particular, people claim that he's being
unrigorous, imprecise, or incomplete. He's not being incomplete. He's being
concise. If he weren't concise, almost nobody would pay any attention. Almost
nobody would learn anything from him. And almost nobody would, wanting to
learn more, have the opportunity to follow the reference list that he
carefully puts out. Which I guess few people do, anyway.

~~~
jimbokun
I believe in one of his interviews (the New Yorker?) Gladwell kind of
sheepishly admitted that people think he's a genius while really he's just
packaging up other people's work with a more engaging presentation.

~~~
andreyf
_he's just packaging up other people's work with a more engaging presentation_

Since it's pretty so rare to find someone who both (1) spends the time to find
and understands that work, and (2) has the literary ability to engagingly
present it, by some definitions, that can be considered genius.

------
mattmaroon
This hit the nail on the head as to why I don't care for Gladwell's writings.
I'm tired of telling smart friends that I think his books are largely useless
(and incredibly boring) and getting the same look I would if I said that Jesus
and L Ron Hubbard came to me in a dream and gave me a great recipe for chicken
chili.

Though unlike Chris Anderson, at least the anecdotes Gladwell bases his
stories on are true, rather than mistaken third-party analysis.

~~~
markessien
What writing then would you say was similar enough to Gladwells to be in the
same genre, but better in your opinion?

~~~
mattmaroon
Michael Pollan.

~~~
rodrigo
Thanks for the lead. For me, this is what makes HN great (and make Slashdot
great, o'right not as great as back in the day), smart, brigth, curious people
sharing knowledge. Thanks again.

~~~
mattmaroon
Any time. Both In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma are great. My
wife also swears by The Botany of Desire but I haven't read it yet.

------
markessien
A lot of the advances we have in science came not because people rigorously
studied data and then came to conclusions, but because people had flashes of
insight, and then looked for data to validate or invalidate their opinions.

We need this variety of uninformed opinion because it is from one of those
nuggets that new things will be invented.

Science is just philosophy combined with statistical data.

------
shabda
Isn't most of what most of Gladwell writes a genralised case of "Alien's cause
global warming." [http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-
alienscauseglobalwarmi...](http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-
alienscauseglobalwarming.html)

~~~
lutorm
I was surprised to discover that who we have to blame for all pseudoscience,
according to Crichton, is Frank Drake, whose office I happen to be borrowing!
;-)

------
run4yourlives
_On Sunday Dave Winer defined "great blogging" as "people talking about things
they know about, not just expressing opinions about things they are not
experts in." Can we get some more of that, please? Thanks._

Irony, defined. :-) I kid.

I think Joel's problem here is that he missed the point where any of these
guys claimed to be doing anything more than making a bunch of observations.
Galdwell certainly isn't science, but I don't think he proclaims to be either.

I haven't read his newest book, but certainly his thesis is at odds with the
idea (the one we truly want to love) that the only thing separating the haves
from have nots is desire and work ethic. We're all over saying this is common
sense, but then we find it outrageous that this could have an affect on any
one particular outcome.

Gladwell's ultimate theory I suppose is that his observations should make us
question how our society functions overall (again, haven't read the book yet).
I guess that forces us to look at things in a way we often don't enjoy.

~~~
Tichy
"Galdwell certainly isn't science, but I don't think he proclaims to be
either."

The problem is that the majority of people will think it is science. It is
written in a book, so it has to be true.

~~~
wensing
_isn't science_ must be the new intellectual attack cliché.

Would someone care to define this proper science?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Here's a working definition for you: the construction of interlinked models
that are proven/disproven by repeatable independent experiments. Science is
tentative and falsifiable. The normal day-to-day scientist usually deals with
somewhat boring measurements and experiments inside of a _paradigm_. Every now
and then the paradigm is shown to be broken and a new paradigm takes its
place.

Usually to call something "not science" is to say it is not based on 1)
testable, falsifiable hypothesis, 2) accurate data, or 3) an inability to
replicate/verify

------
JacobAldridge
An Anecdote can have a place and a purpose - heck, that's most of my blog.

But the plural of 'Anecdote' is not 'Data'.

~~~
aswanson
What is data more than a plurality of anecdotes?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=239392>

~~~
hugh
A plurality of anecdotes sampled without bias?

That's the problem: interesting data points become anecdotes while
uninteresting data points don't, which is why you can't reconstruct the data
from the anecdotes.

~~~
aswanson
Right, but people always make the statement without qualification. So just
saying "the plurality of anecdote is not data" is simply not true. You can say
"may not be scientific" or "may be incomplete" but to say it is not data is
incorrect.

------
petercooper
This is about as dumb as picking holes in Mythbusters episodes. These sorts of
books are not designed to be "hard" science, packed with raw data, and
reliable, but dull, outcomes.

Books like those you see in the airport, the type that Gladwell, Godin, and
the like write, are designed to be _science-entertainment._ It's just science
(or marketing, in Seth Godin's case) as entertainment.

If these sorts of books actually get people interested in and reading about
science in the first place, it's awesome! There's no way the general public
will read dry academic papers, no matter how scientifically valid they are. If
people build up an interest from somewhat exaggerated but entertaining books
that introduce certain scientific principles, we are improved as a society.

------
bluishgreen
Ummmm..Gladwell is not Friedman and we know Joel likes to rant. Blink opened a
lively conversation, so did Tipping point.

------
jimbokun
"Such assessments turn individuals into pawns of their cultural heritage, just
as Mr. Gladwell’s emphasis on class and accidents of historical timing plays
down the role of individual grit and talent to the point where he seems to be
sketching a kind of theory of social predestination, determining who gets
ahead and who does not — and all based not on persuasive, broadband research,
but on a flimsy selection of colorful anecdotes and stories."

1\. We have just spent an entire presidential campaign during which we were
reminded at every turn (and rightfully so) that the gap between rich and poor
is growing, and this seems to dovetail nicely with a "theory of social
predestination." Having anecdotes and data to try to explain the mechanism for
how this works seems a worthwhile undertaking.

2\. Why does she want Gladwell to research high speed Internet connections?

------
DenisM
The shoe is on the other foot now, isn't it?

Joel written many an essay with sole basis in anecdote.

------
KWD
From his quote of Kakutani: "Much of what Mr. Gladwell has to say about
superstars is little more than common sense"

This is what has always bothered me Gladwell's writings, and when I see
someone list 'Blink' as one of their favorite books it pretty much tells me
they are someone of little substance. Gladwell is simply a formula writer (and
his speeches follow a similar format) and I find it amazing he has extended
his popularity this far.

~~~
gjm11
I haven't read any of Gladwell's books, so can't comment on how formulaic he
is; but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if being a "formula writer" were
an _advantage_ in becoming popular.

------
ojbyrne
The 4 Hour Work Week is when this whole genre jumped the shark. And I have not
read that either. I've met Tim Ferris in bars. That was enough.

------
arnorhs
now, that's just funny :-) LMAO

------
sharkfish
It kills me how the Gladwell book brought this out of Joel. Nobody wants to be
told their success is a good part luck and timing. They all want to believe it
is because they are smarter and worked harder.

So suddenly the software world's number one anecdotal blowhard decides to slam
another blowhard. Okay. Whatever.

~~~
spolsky
Um, lemme see if I understand here, what you're saying... Are you claiming
that (a) I'm successful, and (b) I think that I'm successful because I'm
smarter and worked harder and (c) Malcolm Gladwell thinks I'm successful
because of good luck and timing and that (d) therefore I'm mad at Gladwell's
new book and that (e) therefore I decided to slam it? Is that your theory?

~~~
sharkfish
1\. I'm saying your timing is suspicious. 2\. My own anecdotal experience
tells me successful people want to believe they earned their success through
brains and hard work 3\. Gladwell states that a good portion of success is due
to hard work but that you have to be lucky enough to be able to put in the
10,000 hours at the right time and of course, have the luxury of putting in
that kind of dedication

So bottom line, he really flatters successful people on the surface, while
making the successful folk equal to the rest of us.

I don't think you are "mad" at Gladwell. I just think the motivation is strong
and possibly an unconscious aversion to accepting that your success may be in
huge part due to luck.

But then. Take with a huge grain of salt some asshole spouting off on a forum.

Believe it or not, you are one of my heroes, and I never seriously expected
YOU of all people to be reading this.

Cheers to you and don't stop doing what you do. We are a better field because
of it.

~~~
gjm11
Consider the following two propositions.

1\. When someone "successful" criticizes Gladwell's thesis, it's suspicious
because maybe they just don't want to hear that they weren't really smarter
than everyone else.

2\. When someone "unsuccessful" criticizes Gladwell's thesis, it's suspicious
because maybe they just don't want to hear that their lack of success simply
shows that they didn't work hard enough.

#1 is your argument; presumably you find it plausible. It seems to me that #2
is about equal in plausibility to #1; and #1+#2 would say that _anyone_ should
be viewed with suspicion, as probably motivated by something other than honest
intellectual inquiry, if they criticize Gladwell's book. Which seems ...
unhelpful.

It also seems curious that you describe someone as (a) "the number one
anecdotal blowhard" and (b) "one of my heroes". Why should the rest of us take
any notice of someone who knowingly takes an anecdotal blowhard as a hero?

------
projectileboy
Holy fucking crap, are you kidding me? Joel, you _really_ want me to choose
between your writing and Gladwell's?

