Malcolm Gladwell's "What The Dog Saw": Great Writing, Suspect Science

The New York Times:

Fortunately for "What the Dog Saw," the essay format is a better showcase for Gladwell's talents, because the constraints of length and editors yield a higher ratio of fact to fancy. Readers have much to learn from Gladwell the journalist and essayist. But when it comes to Gladwell the social scientist, they should watch out for those igon values.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[Entitlement]

For Gladwell, "suspect science" may actually be one of his many points. Gladwell wants to make us think. He wants us to engage. And, he never says for a second that he is the end all be all. I find him to be predictably courageous. He might actually help us understand ourselves. He's definitely not so conceited that he's going to tell us what he thinks the answer might be. He changes perspectives for us. He causes us to have to shift our comfortable little views from time to time.

He has helped me and my causes. So, I admit bias. But, he also came through where no one else had. He dared to champion the poor, the homeless and a common drunk. He showed us how we will spend a great deal of money to turn our backs. It is also apparent that Gladwell's conversation with us goes on as I hope that it does. There aren't very many left in the world willing to listen and discuss. He obviously also meditates on his thoughts. We are lucky he will even share since we are so quick to judge. Go Malcolm!

[hbobrien]

The problem is, in a variant of McKean's Law ("Any correction of the speech or writing of others will contain at least one grammatical, spelling, or typographical error."), Pinker appears to make an even worse flub.

Pinker writes, "It is simply not true that (a list of items Pinker provides no support for)... or (the major claim in “Outliers”) that above a minimum I.Q. of 120, higher intelligence does not bring greater intellectual achievements."

According to Pinker's page at Harvard (http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/index.html), "He conducts research on language and cognition." If so, then he should be well aware the position he's describing is called, ""threshold theory." It originates not with Gladwell but a number of colleagues in Pinker’s field (Barron and Harrington 1981, Heilman 2005, McCrea 2008). It is widely regarded an open issue.

This leaves us two possibilities: A) Pinker is ignorant of this work in his own field, or B) Pinker is using the "New York Times" to conduct "science by press release" just as grievous as anything by Pons and Fleischmann during the cold fusion brouhaha.

I'm aware of the limits of rigor in an op-ed for the general public. But that flat-out denial of even the *possibility* of others in his field being right pretty much washes up Pinker as a credible source, to me. (All it would've taken was replacing "simply" with "probably" in the problem sentence.)

[TheBaffler]

What a wonderfully devastating review. I've always thought Gladwell was a fraud, a pop-psych huckster.

[Shawn de Montaigne]

What a sniffing, pretentious, conceited review. Horribly written.

Looks like Pinker needs to climb back into his ivory tower. He'll get a more receptive audience there.

[c-tom]

Don't you hate it when someone writes "it is demonstrably false" and then fails to make the demonstration?

[amdezurik]

well for that it takes a tiny bit of work on your part, to hit the button that goes to the next page...

[hbobrien]

...where Pinker doesn't demonstrate anything, but makes idiosyncratic assertions. What else have you got?

[Mixpixlix]

I enjoy Gladwell. More importantly I find his research fascinating and his insight about who suceeds and why are a life lessons that sorely need to be learned. As someone who "did all the right things" to find few doors open and opportunties limited, I know it takes more than brains and ambition. The right opportunity at the right time can make all the difference.

[maxwells]

Maybe it's just that I too view many of Gladwell's points as facile rather than substantive. But contra Pinker, I also find Gladwell's prose rather flabby. So, his sudden stardom mystifies me. At best, I'd say he has a knack for finding, spotlighting, and exploiting seeming paradoxes in the MSM.

[efmo]

I didn't get the impression from Outliers that Gladwell was saying hard work doesn't factor into success as this psychology professor states.

[Tulka2]

Gladwell doesn't presume anything. I enjoyed this review, but the Harvard man doesn't really "get" Gladwell if he says Gladwell is into "pretentious naming". It's funny. It's supposed to be funny. I would rather be stuck in an elevator with Gladwell than with a Harvard Professor... or a life raft.... or the corner of a holiday party.

[Jimboy17]

I'll pass on both Pinker and Gladwell, although I have begrudging respect for the former...even if I do not follow most of what he has to say about anything.

[dbushik]

Cool. I can spell things wrong too even when pointing out a spelling error. Oh, the folly of man...

[dbushik]

I'm familiar with eignen values; what's an "igon value"?

[efmo]

It must be a mistake in Gladwell's book, this professor says its supposed to be eigenvalue, the algebra reference.