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.
"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.
I generally agree with what you're saying, and it's amusing how she proceeds to do something that is essentially what she is criticizing Gladwell for doing himself, but I give benefit of the doubt to the critic, because there is a remarkable difference in medium. It's a book review, not a complete refutation. She has about a dozen paragraphs to summarize and critique 300+ pages. Is there enough space to complete address even one of the cases brought up in the book? I think not.
I've read the book. It's entertaining, but I don't think it's as well-developed as Blink or The Tipping Point. I think Gladwell is a good writer who serves a previously unfilled role as a popular popularizer of academic work. However, every time I read his work, I wish that experts of the fields he reports on would also write popular expositions that could be consumed by an audience like that of the New Yorker.
I know that the evidence backing some of what I was reading was sketchy at best. Asian children score higher on math tests because their ancestors labored in rice fields? Please. It doesn't detract from the entertainment value of the book, but I would think twice before believing what I read in the book was indicative of reality.
As for your theory argument, I would have to disagree in many different cases. Suppose that you only chose to include data points that support your argument. Then people have every right to pick an alternate data point, claim that your study is faulty and that you're being irresponsible. This is exactly what many of his detractors are pointing out, and it is a point that is often missed.
The primary argument against the book and the Gladwell style of investigation is that he tends not to include or even discuss studies or points or examples that do not support his argument. This is understandable, since he is attempt to speak to a popular audience and does not have the space to discuss every relevant study if he wants to run through all of his cases, but by doing this, he makes many smart people feel like he is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
I'm coming around to the point of view that when somebody complains about simplification or incompleteness, that they should simply be ignored. As long as the simplification isn't actively wrong and the incompleteness isn't deceptive by leaving out contrary evidence, one must be aware that all forms of work are limited.
Jeff Atwood took a lot of flack in his recent NP post simply because he dared describe the problem in non-mathematical terms. He may also have been wrong, but I am inclined to think his explanation was (correctly) too simplified to really be wrong... but still, right now I'm talking about the people who flamed him for failing to include a complete computer science textbook in his blog post.
Yes, I am so sorry that in my blog post ruminating on how unit testing seems to affect my Python coding that I did not include a complete, correct Grand Unified Theory of the universe complete with how to apply it at the macroscopic level and use it to predict who will win the Presidential election in 2016 and create a superhuman-intelligent AI. At some point you to understand that any given work has boundaries.
I've become sensitive to this because I actually have fallen for the trap of trying to be too inclusive, and it's worthless. Stop complaining about it. Or, at the very least, when complaining that work X should have included Y, you should say what should have been cut instead and why it would be an actual improvement in the end product, preferably beyond "I would like it better".
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.
But it seems that to "do it right," the writer must be able to pick the right anecdotes and draw the right conclusions from them. This is probably close to impossible if he's not an expert in the area. And if the writer's an expert, then he should be able to provide other (non-anecdotal) evidence to support his claims as well.
I think that's why many of these books are so frustrating to read -- they seem to rely almost completely on anecdotes, without any sort of underlying data to look at long-term/overarching trends/themes. Thus, instead of saying, "here are various data, including these representative anecdotes about some of them, and so we can see that my theory is true," these writers usually say "this is my theory, and look how well these carefully chosen anecdotes match it!"
You mean, "I was on a bus, complaining about Thomas Friedman, when the driver looked back and said, 'A lot of essays are extrapolated anecdotes. It's not an intrinsically evil form.'
And I realized it was true. You just have to do it right."
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.
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.
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! ;-)
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.
> 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.
Well I'm going to compound it by adding my observations :)
I've got to say, in my own experience, I like anecdotes that are war-stories best. A critical self-analysis often is full of insights for others... The most gripping, amusing and insightful talks I've seen have often been "here's how a large project detonated on us".
Unfortunately, in my experience (I end up at a lot of SOA, Cloud, Web/2.0 type events) these are quite rare for a variety of reasons . You tend to get more of the hypothesis/external critique - which by and large I find a lot less valuable.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Your data is correct, but you've got it backwards. People who believe they can be successful by working harder generally do become successful. The inverse holds as well.
Aside: watch for when people say "whatever." It means they care very much about something.
[+] [-] DaniFong|17 years ago|reply
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|17 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] antiform|17 years ago|reply
I've read the book. It's entertaining, but I don't think it's as well-developed as Blink or The Tipping Point. I think Gladwell is a good writer who serves a previously unfilled role as a popular popularizer of academic work. However, every time I read his work, I wish that experts of the fields he reports on would also write popular expositions that could be consumed by an audience like that of the New Yorker.
I know that the evidence backing some of what I was reading was sketchy at best. Asian children score higher on math tests because their ancestors labored in rice fields? Please. It doesn't detract from the entertainment value of the book, but I would think twice before believing what I read in the book was indicative of reality.
As for your theory argument, I would have to disagree in many different cases. Suppose that you only chose to include data points that support your argument. Then people have every right to pick an alternate data point, claim that your study is faulty and that you're being irresponsible. This is exactly what many of his detractors are pointing out, and it is a point that is often missed.
The primary argument against the book and the Gladwell style of investigation is that he tends not to include or even discuss studies or points or examples that do not support his argument. This is understandable, since he is attempt to speak to a popular audience and does not have the space to discuss every relevant study if he wants to run through all of his cases, but by doing this, he makes many smart people feel like he is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
[+] [-] jerf|17 years ago|reply
Jeff Atwood took a lot of flack in his recent NP post simply because he dared describe the problem in non-mathematical terms. He may also have been wrong, but I am inclined to think his explanation was (correctly) too simplified to really be wrong... but still, right now I'm talking about the people who flamed him for failing to include a complete computer science textbook in his blog post.
Yes, I am so sorry that in my blog post ruminating on how unit testing seems to affect my Python coding that I did not include a complete, correct Grand Unified Theory of the universe complete with how to apply it at the macroscopic level and use it to predict who will win the Presidential election in 2016 and create a superhuman-intelligent AI. At some point you to understand that any given work has boundaries.
I've become sensitive to this because I actually have fallen for the trap of trying to be too inclusive, and it's worthless. Stop complaining about it. Or, at the very least, when complaining that work X should have included Y, you should say what should have been cut instead and why it would be an actual improvement in the end product, preferably beyond "I would like it better".
[+] [-] pg|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spolsky|17 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] apu|17 years ago|reply
I think that's why many of these books are so frustrating to read -- they seem to rely almost completely on anecdotes, without any sort of underlying data to look at long-term/overarching trends/themes. Thus, instead of saying, "here are various data, including these representative anecdotes about some of them, and so we can see that my theory is true," these writers usually say "this is my theory, and look how well these carefully chosen anecdotes match it!"
[+] [-] jackchristopher|17 years ago|reply
Essays make you generalize; they're short. But generalizations need interpretation.
And if you really want to know something, you read a technical paper or do it yourself.
I could go on about this in comment but won't; Comments want to be witty.
[+] [-] Agathos|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmaroon|17 years ago|reply
Though unlike Chris Anderson, at least the anecdotes Gladwell bases his stories on are true, rather than mistaken third-party analysis.
[+] [-] markessien|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markessien|17 years ago|reply
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|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lutorm|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cousin_it|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] run4yourlives|17 years ago|reply
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|17 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jwilliams|17 years ago|reply
Well I'm going to compound it by adding my observations :)
I've got to say, in my own experience, I like anecdotes that are war-stories best. A critical self-analysis often is full of insights for others... The most gripping, amusing and insightful talks I've seen have often been "here's how a large project detonated on us".
Unfortunately, in my experience (I end up at a lot of SOA, Cloud, Web/2.0 type events) these are quite rare for a variety of reasons . You tend to get more of the hypothesis/external critique - which by and large I find a lot less valuable.
Anyway, that's my anecdote on anecdotes :)
[+] [-] petercooper|17 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] JacobAldridge|17 years ago|reply
But the plural of 'Anecdote' is not 'Data'.
[+] [-] aswanson|17 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=239392
[+] [-] bluishgreen|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbokun|17 years ago|reply
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|17 years ago|reply
Joel written many an essay with sole basis in anecdote.
[+] [-] KWD|17 years ago|reply
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|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ojbyrne|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arnorhs|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharkfish|17 years ago|reply
So suddenly the software world's number one anecdotal blowhard decides to slam another blowhard. Okay. Whatever.
[+] [-] spolsky|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] planzero|17 years ago|reply
Aside: watch for when people say "whatever." It means they care very much about something.
[+] [-] projectileboy|17 years ago|reply