Comments on: On Malcolm Gladwell

By: cory

cory — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:57:52 +0000

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.

By: Robyn

Robyn — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:21:18 +0000

"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

By: rcentor

rcentor — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:15:36 +0000

Read the linked article – that was my impetus

By: Shirin

Shirin — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:08:54 +0000

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.