
How to Write a Malcolm Gladwell Book - bretthopper
http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=1497
======
tokenadult
Malcolm Gladwell, who has said in an interview that he writes to try out ideas

<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."

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.

~~~
hristov
That is a clever way of saying he just makes shit up.

~~~
alttag
I'm not quite understanding all of the hate on Galdwell, in the parent, the
OP, and generally.

You (parent) have glossed over one of the GP's points: Galdwell shares some
credible scientific research via the popular press. Yes, there is undoubtedly
some spin on it, but chucking out the entirety of Gladwell also dismisses, as
just one example, implicit cognition research done at Harvard.

As techies and scientists we can gloat all day that we know correlation
doesn't equate to causation, but exploring the stories behind correlations can
help uncover the causal chain.

Goodness knows a great deal of qualitative academic research (in top journals,
no less) suffer some of the same criticisms Gladwell is enduring. Social
sciences accept different ontologies and epistimologies [e.g., 1], and
postivism is only one such, albeit the most common. Properly done,
interpretivism, too, is accepted.

I think my biggest frustration with the Gladwell-bashing is that even though
Gladwell's connections between research and anecdote are sometimes tenuous,
those engaging in the critique don't first demonstrate an understanding of the
epistimological/ontological standards in social research.

1: <http://misq.org/misq/downloads/download/editorial/25/>

~~~
saint-loup
Oh please, don't go all epistemelogical on us. The debate on the good approach
to study human and social phenomena is barely relevant here.

------
tptacek
It's plainly evident that as journalists and pop- social- science writers go,
Gladwell is spectacularly successful. This article posits that the reason for
that success is that he has hit on a formula of catchy titles and appeals to
lucrative audiences.

Do any of you actually believe this? If so, square that belief with the fact
that the author of this blog post could clearly apply the same formula. Why
isn't he spectacularly successful too?

My guess: however easy this blogger thinks it is to come up with the theme of
a Gladwell book, it is far, far harder to write that book as compellingly as
Gladwell does. Put differently: Gladwell is just an extremely talented writer.

Jab at him all you want for the superficiality of the ideas he's trafficking
in, or for being beholden to corporate sponsors. I'm not sticking up for what
he writes. But what he writes isn't the key to his success. Gladwell could
write the phone book and it'd be more convincing than this post was.

~~~
telemachos
> Jab at him all you want for the superficiality of the ideas he's trafficking
> in, or for being beholden to corporate sponsors. I'm not sticking up for
> what he writes. But what he writes isn't the key to his success. Gladwell
> could write the phone book and it'd be more convincing than this post was.

Maybe this will seem snobby, but isn't such success a problem itself? That is,
I wouldn't be particularly proud of writing something that succeeded almost
entirely because of its style and _despite_ its subject matter (or truth or
information, however you want to put that).

Being a great writer is a tremendous skill. No question. But don't you find it
weird to be _defending_ someone while saying his ideas are "superficial" and
he's "beholden to corporate sponsors"?

~~~
tptacek
No? I don't? I listen to Wilco, and their music is being used in Sprint
commercials. Do they need "defending"?

~~~
mechanical_fish
For that matter, do I have to defend Beethoven and Mozart? They wrote most of
their music for money. Is it somehow purer to make art designed to appeal to
an audience of rich aristocratic patrons and their friends than to make art
designed to appeal to rich corporate patrons and their friends? Because I
can't really tell the difference. [1]

The text and subject matter of Beethoven's seventh symphony's are not merely
"superficial": They're entirely absent. The work has no words. Therefore it
doesn't express any ideas but abstract musical ones. I guess I should feel
ashamed for liking it?

Of course, a musicologist would insist that Mozart and Beethoven's stylistic
and formal innovations were anything but "superficial". But to be fair we must
apply the same standard to Gladwell, and note that he is himself a gifted
stylist and a master of his own form.

\---

[1] Actually, this isn't quite true: I tend to prefer corporate art to
aristocratic art. A lot of corporate art gets _reproduced_ and spread around;
that's what most of it is for. Even non-aristocrats get a chance to enjoy
Wilco albums, and we even get to hear their Sprint commercials for "free".
Whereas history is replete with great art that was written for aristocrats,
but then was kept out of public view, and sometimes even lost entirely, for
decades or centuries. A fine example is Bach's Brandenburg Concerti:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_concertos>

…"widely regarded as among the finest musical compositions of the Baroque
era", composed by Bach, gifted to a margrave in 1721, who apparently never had
them performed. The scores sat around in his library. When the margrave died
the manuscripts were sold for about $20 (in 2008 dollars). They were
eventually rediscovered in Brandenburg's archives in 1849 and published in
1850. Mozart never heard them. Beethoven never heard them.

How I digress. Let's drive this footnote back towards the point: I, for one,
would rather have my life's work superficially glossed by Malcolm Gladwell in
an artfully-written and wildly popular book than have it sit in a trunk unread
until someone throws it away.

------
paulsutter
Hilarious and accurate.

The biggest benefit to constructing Gladwell books is that everyone is able to
discuss the book at cocktail parties even if they haven't read it. This means
that people can put the book on their shelf and feel as if they've read it,
without actually having to do the work of reading it. Genius, really.

~~~
pessimizer
Not only that, but the concepts as stated are 1) so bad that people can
already hate the books without having read them - so it's not only part of the
conversation at parties, but also the loudest, most contentious conversation
at parties, and 2) so vague that they have to be referred to by their short,
pithy names, loudly and repeatedly, or else everyone would forget what they
were arguing about, and 3) those names are also old tropes that everyone has
heard or the essential words in old tropes that everyone has heard, so people
feel like the books or concepts must have been around longer and have more
basis than they actually do.

Of course, this is really the list of the biggest benefits to _publishing_
Gladwell books:)

------
aaronbrethorst
I bet you could go through the same process with Thomas Friedman:

1\. Come up with a principle long-since scientifically proven false.

    
    
        "Hmm, how about 'The World is Flat'"
    

2\. Write a book called "My Dull, Platitudinous Travel Diary"

    
    
        "Indians in call centers can talk with Americans! Amazing!"
    

3\. Now change the title of that book to the long-since disregarded principle.

    
    
        "Everyone will want to read this because the editors at the NYT are
        inexplicably required to keep me on staff, offering me undeserved
        credibility for the rest of time!"

~~~
sramsay
The Friedman process goes like this:

1\. Take a massively complex, world-historical economic process.

2\. Ignore it.

3\. Write a story about a shoe factory in Bangalore that massively
oversimplifies, but overturns conventional thinking on, #1.

4\. Profit!

~~~
neilk
Overturned conventional thinking? Friedman?

Maybe his conclusions seem unconventional (or at least, mildly inhuman)
because Friedman always oversimplifies with the view from the boardroom. Never
the street. Otherwise your formula could well apply to Chomsky or Taibbi, on
their worst days.

------
orta
I'm glad to see that someone commented his S.H.A.M.E project link in the
comments down under the original article, to the point that it's worth re-
linking here: <http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/>

I read the Tipping point and found it quite an interesting book, but I've not
bought anymore of his books after I had read his profile/sources linked above.

~~~
kenjackson
I never saw the Shame Project, but after reading the above link I think
they're over-reaching way more than Gladwell's worst stories.

For example they say, "In 1990, a Gladwell article in the Washington Post
warned that laws banning cigarettes could “put a serious strain on the
nation’s Social Security and Medicare programs.”"

I read the article (as they link to it), and frankly it's not as inflammatory
as their quote would lead one to believe. Gladwell brings up a reasonable
point that smokers tend to die younger and hence may reduce total costs in the
health care system. And he, rightly IMO, says that we should move the anti-
smoking movement as a health issue rather than a cost-cutting issue (And 22
years after this article was written his position has been borne out. Few
people view smoking as a cost issue.)

Regarding the American Spectator -- this was apparently one of the few places
he was offered a job. This "3rd Party" list he's on also includes Penn
Jillette and I suspect many other names we know. Being an open ear isn't the
same as being a shill. John Gruber is a shill, while Nilay Pital is an open
ear.

~~~
danso
Not to comment on Gladwell specifically, but it seems to be well-accepted that
lifespans in excess of the average retirement age are a huge cost to the
system, particularly because of the disproportionate sums used in the very
last few years of treatment.

It may be cruel to say so, but it is logical that longer lifespans are costly.

~~~
aswanson
I dont believe that. It all depends on _how_ you die, not how long you live.
My grandfather died at home at 96 years of age, no nurse, no equipment. Just
my grandmom and him, at home. I'd bet his medical cost of passing away is far
lower than a type-2 diabetic in their mid-60s hospitalized for 5 years before
passing, or a lung cancer patient (vis a vis Gladwell's example) going through
chemo for 5 years before expiring. His analysis needs much more rigor, imo.

------
Yhippa
This was pretty funny. The concept of his books are pretty cheesy but I think
what makes him successful is that he actually writes the books vs. sitting
around and poking holes in it.

~~~
tomasien
I could not agree more. I'm pretty sure the author of this post spends the day
patting him/her self on the back.

~~~
songrabbit
The author of this post writes smbc [1], an extremely popular webcomic, among
a variety of other things.

[1] <http://www.smbc-comics.com/>

~~~
hackerpolicy
Just browsed some of the comics, and between Gladwell's popularity and smbc's,
I take the former.

------
swatkat
This reminds me of The Malcolm Gladwell Book Generator:
<http://malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com/>

------
nir
It's disappointing to have this as #1 story in HN. Hacking is about doing
stuff, not putting down (or hyping) people who do stuff. I never had any
trouble simply avoiding Gladwell when I wanted to.

~~~
NeilRShah
I completely agree with this sentiment. If you don't like him - then don't
read him!

~~~
masklinn
If only that was the limit of his nefarious influence it would be a fine
recommendation.

------
drumdance
Pro tip: pretty much all of Gladwell's books started as an article in the New
Yorker. If you read the article, you can pretty much skip the book.

~~~
danso
Pro-tip: virtually all non fiction books start off as articles, though the New
Yorker has a much higher rate than other news orbs.

Typically, in a long form story, the printed matter is directly dependent on
just about 1% of the body of research and interviewing you actually did.

To put it another way, think of how much the LOTR movies left out.

~~~
drumdance
I was talking about Malcolm Gladwell specifically.

------
ericdykstra
Gladwell says himself, in his own books, that he writes not to change the
minds of his readers, but to make his readers think.

The stories he presents alongside the ideas he presents are just
illustrations. Every situation, whether it's Bill Gates' success, the problem
of choosing NFL Quarterbacks, or the rise of Hush Puppies has an incredible
amount of variables that can never be fully grasped.

The common theme of Gladwell bashers seems to be that they take every idea
presented as if he were presenting it as unilateral truth. I mean, just take a
look at this Quora page: [http://www.quora.com/Malcolm-Gladwell-author/What-
are-some-c...](http://www.quora.com/Malcolm-Gladwell-author/What-are-some-
claims-by-Malcolm-Gladwell-that-are-incorrect)

If you look at the top answer there, the writer is clearly missing the point
of Gladwell's writing on a number of issues. The one complaint about his
writing I've seen the most often is about the 10,000 hour rule. The writer of
the Quora answer puts it this way: "[Gladwell is wrong in saying] That 10,000
hours of practice will turn you into a genius on the order of Mozart or
Michael Jordan".

He never says anything like that in Outliers! The main arguments that I got
out of the 10,000 hour rule is that the most successful people of any area
tend to follow a similar trend: born into an exceptional situation to lead to
greatness in that area, dedicated practice for thousands of hours, above
average IQ (but IQ past ~120 is not too important). Saying that dedicated
practice alone will turn anyone into the top 0.001% of a given profession is
absurd, and Gladwell doesn't say that at all.

Maybe if Gladwell bashers stopped taking everything he writes as if he were
prescribing ideas of thought, they could enjoy his compelling writing and
thought-provoking ideas.

------
incision
Amazing how you could change a few phrases here and there and turn this
straight into a Michael Lewis how to.

Just trade business for high finance with a pinch of major league sports and
spend your anecdotes on overwrought descriptions of your main character's
idiosyncrasies.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lewis>

------
danso
I had never heard the last aphorism in the OP before; it got the biggest laugh
out of me:

 _Remember the old joke among social scientists – “Predict the future? It’s
hard enough to predict the past!” However, those social scientists haven’t
realized that it’s easy to predict the past as long as you’re talking about
one story at a time._

------
appleflaxen
I /kind of/ respected Malcolm Gladwell until I found out he is just a shill
for big tobacco.

<http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/>

~~~
blakestein
Thanks for posting this. I was amused by the other conversations going on
here, but this actually changed my mind about him.

~~~
mrobataille
I wonder what your friends would think about you if there were a website
exposing inconsistencies between your public and private persona.

------
utopkara
I had my own hypothesis of a Gladwell recipe: he takes a well-executed
research paper, and expands on the references, and their references, and then
adds links to other pop-science books. The original idea could be told more
precisely within 15 pages, as exemplified by the journal article, and his 300
page books give little glimpses of that clarity when they are verbatim from
the original, and mud the water elsewhere.

------
shuri
I liked outliers. It could have been more direct but I liked it.

