The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
The dumb, dumb world of Malcolm Gladwell
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/30/malcolm_gladwell_no/
59 コメント
"Gladwell, Godin, 37signals, Merlin Mann, pg, Hugh MacLeod and 1001 other well known pundits and 'idea spreaders' do not claim to be making significant scientific discoveries."
I think you do a disservice to these guys by your description. PG et al aren't idea spreaders, they're people who actually have good ideas and write them down. Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment and run statistical tests afterward.
I think you do a disservice to these guys by your description. PG et al aren't idea spreaders, they're people who actually have good ideas and write them down. Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment and run statistical tests afterward.
PG et al aren't idea spreaders, they're people who actually have good ideas and write them down.
If by "good ideas" you mean "good insights" then I totally agree.
However, very few of the ideas that these people have popularized were truly original (in a sense that I feel a "new" idea should be). My original point was that this doesn't matter anyway - if their good presentation highlights a point, that's awesome. These people all know how to connect dots in an interesting way and then relay these ideas. They are (for the most part) not coming up with wildly new concepts and inventions (pg's founding of Viaweb being a good exception to this, of course!)
For what it's worth, a lot of people have "good ideas" and write them down. Many of these people go unheralded. This makes those I mentioned successful "idea spreaders" in my book.
Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment and run statistical tests afterward.
Since the insights people have often depend on the hard and boring science and studies to be completed, that strikes me as an odd (or perhaps it was satirical?) statement. Without the lab equipment and "statistical tests" there would be few new confirmed discoveries for us to make these connective insights about ;-)
If by "good ideas" you mean "good insights" then I totally agree.
However, very few of the ideas that these people have popularized were truly original (in a sense that I feel a "new" idea should be). My original point was that this doesn't matter anyway - if their good presentation highlights a point, that's awesome. These people all know how to connect dots in an interesting way and then relay these ideas. They are (for the most part) not coming up with wildly new concepts and inventions (pg's founding of Viaweb being a good exception to this, of course!)
For what it's worth, a lot of people have "good ideas" and write them down. Many of these people go unheralded. This makes those I mentioned successful "idea spreaders" in my book.
Which is way more difficult and valuable than being able to work the lab equipment and run statistical tests afterward.
Since the insights people have often depend on the hard and boring science and studies to be completed, that strikes me as an odd (or perhaps it was satirical?) statement. Without the lab equipment and "statistical tests" there would be few new confirmed discoveries for us to make these connective insights about ;-)
"Many of these people go unheralded. This makes those I mentioned successful 'idea spreaders' in my book."
I agree with this, but I guess I would differentiate between someone who comes up with an insight on their own (even if someone else has come up with something similar before), and someone like Gladwell who just reads books and then rewrites the good parts to make the ideas spread.
I agree with this, but I guess I would differentiate between someone who comes up with an insight on their own (even if someone else has come up with something similar before), and someone like Gladwell who just reads books and then rewrites the good parts to make the ideas spread.
I swear I don't say this for brownie points, but honestly, I wouldn't put pg in the same category as the other names you mentioned (though I admit I don't know them all, but most). I value pg's essays much more - he is not going for the daily quip, rather, his essays always treat something new in perfect fashion. Gladwell and Godin could be writing daily columns for womens/mens magazines, saying the same things we all already know over and over (yet we like to read them for our daily motivational boost). PG explores new things (or makes them accessible).
There are several pg essays that I wish everyone would read (not only geeks). Can't say that for the other names you mention.
There are several pg essays that I wish everyone would read (not only geeks). Can't say that for the other names you mention.
I think you're arguing a slightly different point.
I think the original poster's point was that the ideas of those people are editorial essays, with a largely motivational function. I think that's true.
But they're different kinds of motivational material. I think the primary difference is that Paul's writing usually builds to some point or collection of points of advice rather than the abstractions being the point. This isn't really surprising because basically his job is being an advisor.
Also, I'd be pretty careful in calling it perfect. Referring to almost anyone's ideas as perfect sets off the bullshit alarms for me. Paul's a smart guy and he's got some good insights, but he's sure to get a lot of stuff wrong. The converse would be to assume that he's stopped making mistakes and learning from them, which I think is the opposite of what smart people shoot for.
I think the original poster's point was that the ideas of those people are editorial essays, with a largely motivational function. I think that's true.
But they're different kinds of motivational material. I think the primary difference is that Paul's writing usually builds to some point or collection of points of advice rather than the abstractions being the point. This isn't really surprising because basically his job is being an advisor.
Also, I'd be pretty careful in calling it perfect. Referring to almost anyone's ideas as perfect sets off the bullshit alarms for me. Paul's a smart guy and he's got some good insights, but he's sure to get a lot of stuff wrong. The converse would be to assume that he's stopped making mistakes and learning from them, which I think is the opposite of what smart people shoot for.
OK, what I meant is "relatively perfect" ;-) It is just that in many cases, pg's treatment of a topic is the most succinct and accessible one I have seen.
I'll put Godin's fifteen best ideas against the fifteen best ideas of anyone else. Anyone who really believes in judging talent by the high points should agree that this is a better metric than his daily blog posts, which admittedly have mostly sucked for the past year.
Would you mind sharing his best 15 here, succintly, for us?I haven't read his books; from the blog posts I haven't distilled anything earthshattering.
It would take a few weeks to compile a list like this, but a few things that would definitely be up there:
1) The idea behind the book All Marketers Are Liars
2) His idea that ideas that inspire people to talk about them are the ideas that spread. This idea is spread out across three books (Purple Cow, Free Prize Inside, and The Big Moo).
3) His collection of ideas about what is and isn't worth measuring. C.f. his blog post on Clean Firetrucks, his blog post on holding the sides of the treadmill, etc.
1) The idea behind the book All Marketers Are Liars
2) His idea that ideas that inspire people to talk about them are the ideas that spread. This idea is spread out across three books (Purple Cow, Free Prize Inside, and The Big Moo).
3) His collection of ideas about what is and isn't worth measuring. C.f. his blog post on Clean Firetrucks, his blog post on holding the sides of the treadmill, etc.
Thanks, the best one I could think of off hand was him advising giving something away free to lock in upsell merchandise...was it a book? It was posted here not too long ago. He seems to have some good ideas so I need to read some of his books.
[EDIT: found a link for All Marketers: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6909078385965257294 ]
[EDIT: found a link for All Marketers: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6909078385965257294 ]
He talks about this in Permission Marketing, the idea of selling something cheap or giving something away in order to get permission to sell something more expensive later.
Heartily agree. Godin has made me pause and think which is more than I can say for most people
I don't doubt the value of good ideas. But they're pretty cheap. The hard part is testing them for some truth value. Merely writing them down doesn't do that.
But, sure, working the lab equipment and running the tests is a waste if you're not testing good ideas. Problem is, I'm the worst judge of what's a good idea especially if it seems good to me.
I'll venture so far to say that good ideas are the ones that work. The difficulty is predicting ahead of time whether they will.
But, sure, working the lab equipment and running the tests is a waste if you're not testing good ideas. Problem is, I'm the worst judge of what's a good idea especially if it seems good to me.
I'll venture so far to say that good ideas are the ones that work. The difficulty is predicting ahead of time whether they will.
I don't doubt the value of good ideas. But they're pretty cheap. The hard part is testing them for some truth value.
Really? Would you say this is true for Newton's work, or Einstein's?
I find that new ideas in the sense of new insights about how the world works are extremely rare, and that having them is much harder than testing them, because having them requires you to change the way you think.
Perhaps you are influenced here by the situation with startups, where ideas are cheap and execution tends to count for more. But this is a different kind of idea. The reason startup ideas are cheap is that they tend not to be discoveries, but merely hunches about where to look for discoveries. E.g. the startup idea equivalent of Newton's work would be "Explain mathematically why planetary orbits have the shape they do."
Really? Would you say this is true for Newton's work, or Einstein's?
I find that new ideas in the sense of new insights about how the world works are extremely rare, and that having them is much harder than testing them, because having them requires you to change the way you think.
Perhaps you are influenced here by the situation with startups, where ideas are cheap and execution tends to count for more. But this is a different kind of idea. The reason startup ideas are cheap is that they tend not to be discoveries, but merely hunches about where to look for discoveries. E.g. the startup idea equivalent of Newton's work would be "Explain mathematically why planetary orbits have the shape they do."
Absolutely. Newton only became Newton when it was shown the ideas worked, and better than Leibniz, for instance. Same deal with Einstein. Their contemporaries knew they were onto something, but a healthy dose of skepticism was reserved until the ideas gained empirical weight. Still not all of their "good" ideas were validated.
Testing ideas, to me, is the best way to change how we think, especially when we're proven wrong. If we know how the experiment will turn out, there's little point in actually running it. And there, I think the process you describe for startups isn't so different than the process for science. In each, the hunch points the direction but the apparatus must be built to verify or reject it. But it's hard for me to see one hunch, rather than a tested series, leading to a true discovery.
Testing ideas, to me, is the best way to change how we think, especially when we're proven wrong. If we know how the experiment will turn out, there's little point in actually running it. And there, I think the process you describe for startups isn't so different than the process for science. In each, the hunch points the direction but the apparatus must be built to verify or reject it. But it's hard for me to see one hunch, rather than a tested series, leading to a true discovery.
If your ideas are only valuable when other people believe them, then if everyone else died of some plague that you happened to be immune to, it would suddenly be impossible to have good ideas. That doesn't seem right.
If this happened to Newton or Einstein it wouldn't matter how good their ideas were. They'd starve because their ideas would be worthless. It takes a community to make use of good ideas, not just validate them. In the former you get the latter. Sure, sometimes a community has to be shaken free of their assumptions. But I'm not sure it's ever apparent by virtue of the strength of a lonely idea. It takes some powerful proof of concept. That's the apparatus.
To put it another way, in merely writing an idea down it may exist all by itself in some Platonic ideal. Not surprisingly, the Greek philosophers often left it to others to validate (or invalidate) what they produced. Running tests wasn't truly valued. I'd argue those ideas that have stuck with us the longest are those that engendered the greatest utility.
Then there's Heraclitus.
To put it another way, in merely writing an idea down it may exist all by itself in some Platonic ideal. Not surprisingly, the Greek philosophers often left it to others to validate (or invalidate) what they produced. Running tests wasn't truly valued. I'd argue those ideas that have stuck with us the longest are those that engendered the greatest utility.
Then there's Heraclitus.
As well as the undercelebrated Epicurus:
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=362
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=362
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
"I don't doubt the value of good ideas. But they're pretty cheap. The hard part is testing them for some truth value. Merely writing them down doesn't do that."
Almost all of the most important intellectuals in the history of western civilization have had one thing in common: their ideas were wrong. Plato, Piaget, Copernicus, Einstein, Lamarck, Chomsky, Adam Smith, etc.
If testing ideas for truth value were really the hard part then scientific experiments wouldn't be replicable and science would have no more weight than astrology. Furthermore, scientific beliefs wouldn't run in S-Curves and progress would be linear and continuous.
Almost all of the most important intellectuals in the history of western civilization have had one thing in common: their ideas were wrong. Plato, Piaget, Copernicus, Einstein, Lamarck, Chomsky, Adam Smith, etc.
If testing ideas for truth value were really the hard part then scientific experiments wouldn't be replicable and science would have no more weight than astrology. Furthermore, scientific beliefs wouldn't run in S-Curves and progress would be linear and continuous.
Replication is trivial once someone else has already shown you how to test the idea. But only if they're right will you be too.
Figuring out how to test an idea is a "tame" problem, in that the problem has a definitive formulation and stopping rule.
Coming up with an entirely new paradigm is, if not exactly a "wicked" problem, some other type of complex problem so difficult and uncommon that we don't even have a vocabulary to describe it.
So when I say that coming up with ideas is more difficult than testing them, what I mean is that coming up with an idea belongs to a more difficult class of problem, even if it is occasionally easier to create a specific idea than to test that specific idea.
Coming up with an entirely new paradigm is, if not exactly a "wicked" problem, some other type of complex problem so difficult and uncommon that we don't even have a vocabulary to describe it.
So when I say that coming up with ideas is more difficult than testing them, what I mean is that coming up with an idea belongs to a more difficult class of problem, even if it is occasionally easier to create a specific idea than to test that specific idea.
See, to me, an idea is a mere belief without some test to see it through. Like this argument, for instance...there's no logical conclusion one way or another. We're just stating beliefs back and forth.
Most people on Hacker News have this view of the role of science in epistemology. It seems to me that there is something wrong with this, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
I don't think you can equate "being able to work the lab equipment and run statistical test afterward" with "making significant scientific discoveries". You're putting any lab tech in the same league with the founders of quantum mechanics, etc here. And for all the good they do I don't think you can put the above-mentioned authors/bloggers anywhere near the people who lay foundations in scientific fields.
I wouldn't lump Godin with PG & 37signals.
In terms of developing products and services, neither would I. I was joining them for the insights and concepts they all come up with (i.e. pg's essays, 37signals methodologies, Godin's marketing concepts).
[deleted]
Hmm. I can spot an Orlowski article from the title these days; he's made something of a career of detracting from popular organisations (Google, Wikipedia, etc.) and persons.
I dislike the approach partly from a distaste for the tabloid savaging of the successful but mostly because it seems to lead to rather thin regurgitations of existing critiques. I believe that is the case with this article.
I dislike the approach partly from a distaste for the tabloid savaging of the successful but mostly because it seems to lead to rather thin regurgitations of existing critiques. I believe that is the case with this article.
Orlowski is the sole reason I unsubscribed from the Register. I hope he will not be frequent here.
"... For good measure, Milgram's Six Degrees theory, has subsequently been debunked since Tipping Point appeared. Gladwell couldn't have done that himself using a bit of investigative research of his own ..."
Don't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story. Well that's the way 'theregister' likes to tell it.
The ideas behind the "6 degrees of separation" are measurable and form a new type of science, not surprisingly called Network theory. The ideas behind them instead of being debunked are strengthening. In '99, "Duncan Watts" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Watts and "Steven Strogatz" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Strogatz wrote a paper submitted to Nature working on the "Small World theory" problem called "Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks" . Their results tend to support the idea that there is a measurable, finite, minimum number of links in a network between nodes and that clustering of node links does occur. The idea applied to various other natural networks (Actors in Hollywood, neural networks in the brain, Transmission lines across the US) also support the conclusions.
I don't just believe the ideas of Watts, Strogatz and Barabási because of who they are but what their experiments reveal.
Don't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story. Well that's the way 'theregister' likes to tell it.
The ideas behind the "6 degrees of separation" are measurable and form a new type of science, not surprisingly called Network theory. The ideas behind them instead of being debunked are strengthening. In '99, "Duncan Watts" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Watts and "Steven Strogatz" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Strogatz wrote a paper submitted to Nature working on the "Small World theory" problem called "Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks" . Their results tend to support the idea that there is a measurable, finite, minimum number of links in a network between nodes and that clustering of node links does occur. The idea applied to various other natural networks (Actors in Hollywood, neural networks in the brain, Transmission lines across the US) also support the conclusions.
"... a scale-free network is a network
whose degree distribution follows a
power law ..."
I don't just believe the ideas of Watts, Strogatz and Barabási because of who they are but what their experiments reveal.
This article is kind of amusing, but it's clear the author didn't actually read Gladwell's newest book. While in general I think it'd be fair to describe Gladwell's writing as intellectual comfort food, Outliers is pretty good. The last chapter on KIPP was pretty dubious, but not in a way that detracted from the thesis.
It was a lot better than I thought it'd be, and certainly better than Blink, but Gladwell seems to have this habit of using multiple anecdotes as data, which really bugs me. It's especially dangerous because he shifts between using empirical analysis to anecdotal-based logic.
I hope he doesn't turn in to Seth Godin.
I hope he doesn't turn in to Seth Godin.
When Gladwell uses anecdotes he's not using them as data, but rather to give the facts an emotional valence.
But then he jumps to conclusions based on them and so do his readers.
A counter viewpoint: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/122/is-the-tipping-point...
A counter viewpoint: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/122/is-the-tipping-point...
Dunno about that.
I read the first seven (I think) chapters of Outliers, and I can only remember Gladwell using two statistically relevant pieces of information: that sports players are born close to the cutoff line for their sport, and that violinists who have a chance to become virtuosos have uniformly practiced about 10000 hours, while the merely "good" ones have practiced about 8000 hours and the bad ones have practiced 4000 hours. (Incidentally, I don't really believe the second one -- because it implies that all kinds "effortful practice" are exactly as efficient as one another.) I'm not saying that there weren't others, just that I can't remember them.
I can remember at least eight statistically irrelevant anecdotes, though, and certainly I think anecdotes (and boilerplate) made up at least 80% of those first seven chapters. Plus his anecdotes kind of sucked. The Beatles prove the 10000 hour rule? Okay, I guess. Bill Joy? I don't really think so. Bill Gates? Hell no.
I read the first seven (I think) chapters of Outliers, and I can only remember Gladwell using two statistically relevant pieces of information: that sports players are born close to the cutoff line for their sport, and that violinists who have a chance to become virtuosos have uniformly practiced about 10000 hours, while the merely "good" ones have practiced about 8000 hours and the bad ones have practiced 4000 hours. (Incidentally, I don't really believe the second one -- because it implies that all kinds "effortful practice" are exactly as efficient as one another.) I'm not saying that there weren't others, just that I can't remember them.
I can remember at least eight statistically irrelevant anecdotes, though, and certainly I think anecdotes (and boilerplate) made up at least 80% of those first seven chapters. Plus his anecdotes kind of sucked. The Beatles prove the 10000 hour rule? Okay, I guess. Bill Joy? I don't really think so. Bill Gates? Hell no.
I can only remember Gladwell using two statistically relevant pieces of information...
I can remember at least eight statistically irrelevant anecdotes...
Which is precisely why authors use "statistically irrelevant" anecdotes. Because they help you emotionally connect to the material and remember it better.
I can remember at least eight statistically irrelevant anecdotes...
Which is precisely why authors use "statistically irrelevant" anecdotes. Because they help you emotionally connect to the material and remember it better.
I think The Register can be hilarious. I found that about a 6 out of 10, 1 being "oh my god that's so bad my ears are bleeding!" and 10 being "oh my god I laughed up a lung!". It just wasn't funny and like hell I'm reading like 6 printed pages worth of mildly amusing drivel.
Gladwell undoubtedly isn't the greatest scientific writer, he just points out that we have to think about things more than we do. The message I got was that on one hand organizations like the military don't act fast enough, while police officers are encouraged to think so fast that they stop reevaluating the situation.
Gladwell undoubtedly isn't the greatest scientific writer, he just points out that we have to think about things more than we do. The message I got was that on one hand organizations like the military don't act fast enough, while police officers are encouraged to think so fast that they stop reevaluating the situation.
I think it's so easy to critique someone's piece of work. But quite frankly, it's pretty petty and childish to openly bash an author with such an article.
If people like what he's saying, if people find that Malcolm resonates with their perception of reality, then all the better. It should be a personal choice as to what we find interesting and not interesting, rather than some omnipotent pundit at the "Register" dictating it to us.
I think that the author of the article is just jealous that he cannot personally derive anything of interest to say without belittling a colleague.
If people like what he's saying, if people find that Malcolm resonates with their perception of reality, then all the better. It should be a personal choice as to what we find interesting and not interesting, rather than some omnipotent pundit at the "Register" dictating it to us.
I think that the author of the article is just jealous that he cannot personally derive anything of interest to say without belittling a colleague.
I've learned a lot more from reading Gladwell than Orlowski. In fact, I can't think of anything I've learned from reading Orlowski.
Orlowski isn't the only one jumping on the "let's hate on Gladwell" bandwagon:
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2008/11/naked.html
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2008/11/naked.html
this thread is a perfect example of why these "dumb dumb" people are insanely popular. they make statements simple enough to polarize people. as soon as you hear their latest tidbit you instantly know whether you agree or disagree.
This is one of the secrets of politics.
I'm not sure this article rises to a level sufficient enough to label it as "journalism"
I hate rants with misspellings. One I found was "breaktaking". I'm sure he meant "breathtaking". Get an editor, you twat.
I see I'm being modded down by programmers who also can't spell.
No, you are being modded down for being crude. That kind of thing might be common on other forums, but not here.
Sometimes it takes an (admittedly erroneous) crude approach just to bring what should be an overt point to fruition. While this wasn't one of them, there are certainly times.
And on that point, that's the feeling I get when I read this article. The writer is trying to be direct and ride the fence of "condemnation by realization" but only comes off as wrongly crude. While I haven't read any of Gladwell's book, I've seen him speak and he's got his wits about him regarding these things. Let's put it into perspective: how many of us can effectively lecture on the things he does?
And on that point, that's the feeling I get when I read this article. The writer is trying to be direct and ride the fence of "condemnation by realization" but only comes off as wrongly crude. While I haven't read any of Gladwell's book, I've seen him speak and he's got his wits about him regarding these things. Let's put it into perspective: how many of us can effectively lecture on the things he does?
I don't think it's a very good article, but I agree with its premise. Gladwell is not scientifically rigid. His books are interesting and make me think, but I would not take any statistic he gave me as anything other than an interesting fiction. He's too selective about data.
sharkfish(1)
For taking up space on HN with nothing.
It's probably for your language.
[deleted]
Specifically, you're mainly being downmodded for your last phrase: "you" and the following 4-letter word. If you left that off, you would've gotten a few points down at most. (And I would've up-modded you, as I also dislike spelling mistakes.)
Gladwell, Godin, 37signals, Merlin Mann, pg, Hugh MacLeod and 1001 other well known pundits and "idea spreaders" do not claim to be making significant scientific discoveries. They are the lubricant of science, programming, design, management strategies, creativity, or whatever their respective niche is. They give us ideas that are easily digested but then force us to consider our own positions and ideas on their ground. This is valuable in itself.