When studying sculpture a tutor talked to me about people making “things that look like art”, which really stuck with me - they made objects that mimicked what they thought art should be like, but had a kind of conceptual hollowness. I think Malcolm Gladwell is similar in that he produces content that has the appearance of science, but once you start digging it doesn’t hold up. A bit like a version of “truthiness”, except that in his case it’s “scienciness”.
"Scientism" is a pretty common term for this. I.e. superficially coating arguments in a veneer of rigor and data, for the sake of riding on the epistemic prestige of empirical science.
Oh right, art elitism as counter example, great. Who gets to define what I see as art? "conceptual hollowness" - that sounds nothing but esoteric to begin with. Reminds me of the (German) "Hurz"... event (https://youtu.be/MJ7jbQJXF68).
I hate posting anything negative but sorry, this was just too much.
Oh and I admit I actually didn't dislike the third of one Gladwell's book I once read, as well as a presentation he gave somewhere about the Norden bombsight. Every single one of the HN haters of him on the other hand remain exceedingly vague and don't really have anything of substance to say, only very over-styled ways to express that they dislike them, or even the man himself.
"Remained exceedingly vague" isn't exactly fair. How much do you expect from a comment on a discussion board? If you want more specifics, ask for them! You're in attack mode here right out the gate.
He has admitted to "mak[ing] trouble" rather than believing everything he writes.[0] He acknowledges that his books are not "ends in themselves."[1] He cherry-picks supporting studies and leaves out their failure to replicate.[2] He throws around scientific terms but uses them incorrectly. [3] He offers ill-considered off-the-cuff "solutions."[3]
One reason HN comments might be "exceedingly vague" is because the specific criticisms have been laid out extensively over the past decade.
Leave aside the art metaphor if that's not to your taste, and perhaps a less metaphorical way of looking at it is that Gladwell is a storyteller, not a scientist. He creates coherent narratives, but they obey the logic of stories, not science. Other people have written detailed criticisms of his scientific writing - if you want to read them they're pretty easy to find. I genuinely think it's worth your time.
I listened to his podcast history of napalm, and found it compelling and interesting (but then I'm not a historian, so perhaps it's Murray Gell-Mann amnesia!) So I have more time for his historical work, partially because history is a kind of storytelling.
Science is not the same as history, and needs to be judged by different metrics. This is where he falls down.
Thank you for making my point. Your comment is as vague and nebulous as you say Gladwell's stories are. Neither does he claim to publish scientific papers, last time I checked those were "popular science" category books like millions of others. I'm not sure what value there is in singling out one guy, or to point out the gigantic discrepancy between a scientific paper and a popular book, especially when it's done worse than the latter and even farther from any rigor.
The vitriol, downvote-happiness and almost zealotry of "commenter movements" like anti-Javascript, or, here anti-Gladwell, to me signals that this is more a self-perpetuating fad driven by group think (trying to fit in and proof one is part of the core). If it was merely fact driven such as mine would be ignored - or not be given cause to exist in the first place. It's not like I care one iota about Gladwell, as I said, I never managed to read more than a small part of one book. What I did notice though and why I even paid any attention at all was the amazing level of effort - coupled with an equally amazing level of vagueness - some people put into this.
If one were to think logically, even if you conclude all of Gladwell's books are really really bad, you would just ignore the whole thing. That call to arms anytime anyone dares mention Gladwell - or Javascript - is scary and as far as I can see far worse than anything Gladwell may ever have written. It reminds me more of high school "cool kids" group dynamics.
Your characterisation of my arguments is not fair. I specifically said I appreciated his historical podcast, so I'm certainly not a zealot. And to remove doubt, I'm not an artist critiquing science from a point of ignorance, I have a scientific background too, indluding a masters in neuroscience. Gladwell's mischaracterisations of science are widely distributed, and I think that's why he comes up so often - if he was a relatively unknown blogger nobody would care. It's frustrating to see this kind of scienciness get so much attention when the people who do the science he writes narratives about, and whose work he piggybacks on, are much more circumspect about how widely their work generalises.
Again, I have said there are multiple critiques which go into detail about what is wrong with Gladwell's writing, so if your problem is the "nebulousness" of a comment on Hacker News (which is no place for a detailed critiqe), then I suggest you look for them if you're genuinely interested in why people have a low opinion of his science writing.
Sorry to have scared you. I don't think pointing out the scientific illiteracy and anti-knowledge in his books is far worse than the books themselves, but YMMV.
I commented on a relevant thread in the hope of saving someone else the time wasted reading them, and if I'm honest, because I'm still salty about the money and time he stole from me.
I criticise it in the same wa as if someone was expounding homeopathy or a fruit-baswd diet for cancer, or horoscope-based hiring.
Thank you for supporting my point! You demonstrate the very low level very well. Badly hidden snark akin to personal attacks instead of arguments. Exactly my point about that.. "criticism" of that author, far worse than anything I ever read or heard from him and at least an order of magnitude lower level intellectually, if not more.
