This, from a pretty harsh review of Gladwell’s new book, is an EXCELLENT lesson on why you should always track down the original source of seemingly-unlikely statistics. Because often secondary sources launder really bad counting. The review is here:
This is a very good review. One of the things that is so frustrating about Malcolm Gladwell, pop social science, and the BSier sides of social psychology (and other social sciences) is that they give the whole enterprise of social science a bad name.
Andrew Ferguson's review for is incredible. Look at this baller fact-checking skill right here.
This great review also includes this astonishingly brutal five-word summary of the entire Gladwellian oeuvre:
In one flawless paragraph, Andy Ferguson demolishes an entire academic sub-field
Some of my favorite days on the Atlantic are the "let's eviscerate stupid uses of social science" days and boy is today one of them
This is absolutely savage, stay until the last line
Since Gladwell is unavoidable, this by Andrew Ferguson is not to be missed.
This Malcom Gladwell takedown is brutal To be fair, writing your 4th or 5th book with original ideas is exponentially harder than writing your 1st
Man, this ⁦⁩ review by Andrew Ferguson is superb: Malcolm Gladwell's 'Talking to Strangers' Doesn't Say Much - The Atlantic
Here's the review if you missed it.
Well, I read this well-written takedown of Malcolm Gladwell's work, and even if I agree with some of the critique, I still don't find anyone as consistently interesting to read as Gladwell!
Malcolm Gladwell's 'Talking to Strangers' Doesn't Say Much - The Atlantic // this is brutal, brutally fun.
"This is thin soup." 🤣
Ouch! I wonder if Gladwell's skin is thick enough for this take-down? I know mine wouldn't be
Fact check stats, especially before putting them in a book. MT : An EXCELLENT lesson on why you should always track down the original source of seemingly-unlikely statistics. Often secondary sources launder bad counting:
An NYT piece highlights errors that creep in when only authors and not publishers are responsible for the accuracy of their texts. This needs correction: publishers must vet. There's a real howler in Malcolm Gladwell's new book.
An NYT piece highlights errors that creep in when only authors and not publishers are responsible for the accuracy of their texts. This needs correction: publishers must vet. There's a real howler in Malcolm Gladwell's new book.
Hard hitting criticism of the new Malcolm book 'Talking to Strangers' with broader commentary on his approach
Here’s the link to the article
I not a Gladwell fan, and am ready to believe his new book kinda sucks, but this article contains some truly dumb criticisms of social psychology.
Has Gladwell’s catchphrase factory has shut down?