Readers know that I admire Malcolm Gladwell's writings. Many scientists do not like him. This article explains the issue well – Malcolm Gladwell and Steven Pinker duel over balancing scientific rigor with relatable narrative, while the future of personal genomics goes under the microscope.
Malcolm Gladwell is a rare figure: A science journalist who is loved by everyone except scientists and journalists. It’s easy to see where the love comes from. The prolific New Yorker contributor and sure-fire bestseller author has made a cottage industry out of translating the latest sociology, psychology, and neuroscience research into easily graspable nuggets of folk wisdom, all with a clear, effortless style. Is that so bad, really?
The resentment bubbling just below the surface of both scientists and journalists seems to have recently overflowed, mostly in response to Gladwell’s greatest-hits compilation of New Yorker stories, What the Dog Saw. Faced with such concentrated success, the backlash began at Vanity Fair with a parody, and continued at The Nation, The New Republic and elsewhere. If there were only a glib term to concisely describe this phenomenon.
For the journalists, it would be easy to describe this resentment as simple jealousy. An early example of the Gladwell Tipping Point from The Daily Beast captures that envy; the idea of a magazine writer not named Hunter S. Thompson having honest-to-goodness groupies is just too much, especially when that journalist is rocking the Sideshow Bob look.
For scientists, jealousy may also be a factor. There’s the perception that Gladwell’s writing is simply much easier to read (and write for that matter) than that of his scientific counterparts, and any one example will almost certainly garner the former more fame and fortune than any journal article published by the latter. But wrapped up in that question of difficulty is one of rigor: Gladwell can hold forth on all branches of social science without having to do a single regression analysis—or without even understanding what one is.
Malcolm Gladwell writes well. As you read his essays or books, he explains complex ideas in terms that work. He avoids the Curse of Knowledge.
I admire him, even though I am a bit jealous of his writing skills. I want to be a great writer, but unfortunately I am only a decent writer.
Many scientists should admire Gladwell because he takes their research and provides context and interpretation. He may miss an occasional fact, but he more than makes up for those lapses through his ability to expose lay readers to exciting and important ideas.
Gladwell is an idea connector. I suspect he also is a people connector.
I find his work important because he recognizes how varied ideas connect. He paints a word picture of a world that makes more sense after you read his work than before you read it.
Scientists may disagree with some of his writing. Scientists are great at "poking holes" in each others' works. Too often scientists worry about the trees, while Gladwell has beautifully described the forest.
So I am a fan. I enjoyed the talk I had with him several years ago. He is as pleasant at a cocktail party as are his essays.
I thought of him yesterday as I was doing an interview about sore throats (it will be available on Monday). I know so much about sore throats that I had to work to avoid the Curse of Knowledge – honing down on that knowledge to discuss the important essence of the thing rather than the interesting nuance.
So bravo to Gladwell. I am not surprised of the critics, they clearly miss the point.
Related Posts B
- Of puzzles and mysteries – thoughts Malcolm Gladwell stimulated
- Defeating a sticky message – not so easy
- 7 years of Medrants
- The curse of knowledge and presentations
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Out of curiosity, where did the opinion that scientists don't like Malcom Gladwell come from (in other words, do you have a reference backing up the statement)? As a scientist, I love Gladwell's work. Other scientists that I lend my Gladwell books to also express their appreciation for his articulate insights.
Read the linked article – that was my impetus
"Gladwell's books and articles often deal with the unexpected implications of research in the social sciences and make frequent and extended use of academic work, particularly in the areas of sociology, psychology, and social psychology." [From Wikipedia]
FWIW – my husband and don't consider these areas "science" – and we refer to them privately as "worthless studies" in an academic context. So we pretty much don't care who is fighting with whom. On my part – I'm glad you work in a real area of science like medicine – and can interpret lab reports. Robyn
It's not my position to tell anyone else who to read or who to appreciate. but I will tell you this and Pinker's criticism brought it home.
In one of Gladwell's books on medicine he wrote of a person and an incident of which I had first hand knowledge. I won't identify the person, incident or book sufficed to say that Gladwell was completely off-base on what happened. It was a great story and made for great reading except that he had mischaracterized what happened and drawn erroneous conclusions about the incident. Out and out wrong, not subject to interpretation – and I was there.
OK- since I won't identify the particulars there, I will point out another egregious error. In a recent New Yorker article on glrls basketball Gladwell discusses how if more girls teams used the full court press, they could beat better teams. HAving seen and coached girls basketball, this si a comlete oversimplification. IT may be an underused strategy but it will not defeat clearly superior teams and in fact will often increase the disparity between them. But the most telling point of his piece is his interview with Rick Pitino, an advocate of the press who has had considerable success with it- in college. not in the prso when the talent differential was minimized. the biggest howler in the article, something Gladwell writes but never checks, is when Pitino tells him how his 1996 Kentucky NAtional champions won because of the press, not their talent. He goes on and says the team had only true bona fide star, aNtoine Walker. The facts are that team had nine players drafted for th eNBA. No team has ever had more.
Malcolm Gladwell is, as you say, a superb writer. But that writing often blinds people to the misinformation and facile conclusions he draws on technical subjects, as Pinker aptly describes.