Malcolm Gladwell loves Letsrun - In fact, it's his favorite website

When old school neo-cons like Dinesh D'Souza deployed the term "political correctness" in the culture wars of the late 80s and 90s, what they were implicitly contrasting it with was their own version of the "truth" about things like race and gender-- call it "actual correctness". It turns about that the source of this "actual correctness" was the racist and sexist claptrap and low level "common sense" gleaned from things like one's personal experiences and "gut instincts" (and here someone like Colbert is brilliant in his parody); or, when "common sense" proved to be faulty, the racist pseudo-science of books like "The Bell Curve" and the research of crypto-Nazis like Philip Rushton. "Actual Correctness" was simply reactionary backlash mobilized against the unequivocal winners of the political struggles and culture wars of post-war period-- the civil rights and women's movements (and, whatever their faults, these movements and the ideas behind them most certainly won the day). The Neo-cons, of course, will never give up, even as their core notions, as basic truth claims, are consigned one-by-one to the shit-pile of history, as freedom continues it relentless, though tortured, forward march. But we should have known they were in trouble when they started portraying themselves and their movements as victims of some kind of left-wing tyranny (would that the "left wing" actually had this kind of unity and power).

Actually, when conservatives accuse someone like Gladwell of being "politically correct", they give the lie to their own blather about "freedom", and reveal the real roots of their politics. How can someone who talks about the importance of hard work and focus be considered "politically correct"? Aren't conservatives the ones who love to say social and economic success is based on hard work and character? If this notion is "politically correct", what is its "actually correct" counterpoint?: That there are natural and immutable hierarchies among human beings (racial, gender-based, intellectual) that designate some people "winners" (and therefore natural rulers of the social and economic order) and others "losers". This is what many conservatives actually believe, but you'll rarely hear them openly admit it (or campaign on it)! Who's "politically correct" now!?

This is absolutely a fair point, but it's not a defense of political correctness. Just because some people who attack political correctness have their own objectionable agenda doesn't make political correctness a good thing. Right wing "common sense" and left wing political correctness are both enemies of enlightened discourse.

Many of the people I admire the most are those who refuse to give people a free pass simply because they share the same general political predilections.

800 dude wrote:

This is probably the biggest problem I have with his work. I think it is provocative, and it does make for a good conversation starter. Unfortunately, most readers aren't critical enough to view it in that light.

Well said and my thoughts exactly. A coworker decided to hold his daughter back from Kindergarten because he read in Outliers that youth hockey players born in January or February fared better in the long term than those born in November or December.

SB wrote:

It turns about that the source of this "actual correctness" was the racist and sexist claptrap and low level "common sense" gleaned from things like one's personal experiences and "gut instincts"

Have you read Blink?

You are ignorant of left wing power. The media establishment is most definitely left wing and is most definitely organized. There are also many other left wing lobbying groups and other organizations promoting a liberal agenda.

As for the Bell Curve, though controversial and subject to debate, it is well researched by two Harvard professors.

Also, what is an "old school neo-con?" Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Your characterization of neocons seems a bit off-base, as most neocons that I am aware of embrace "political correctness" when it comes to most issues. They are not the same as social conservatives.

Yes, but the context in which these notions were used in the book was that of narrow, technical expertise operating under pressure. And experts like Dr.s, being scientists, rather than people looking for reasons to cling to their own prejudices, are generally more inclined to test their hunches and gut instincts against the facts when time permits (although experts, being human being like the rest of us, are far from perfect in this regard). Ideologues, on the other hand, tend to prefer their "common sense" to the facts when there appears to be a discrepancy.

bvcx wrote:

geronnnnimoe wrote:

Actually, you are one of the classic types that fit in here.

You act like you are somehow intellectually above the banter on the messageboard, question others intelligence and try to act like you are repulsed, yet you are here posting.

If you don't like his writing, don't read it. If you feel letsrun is beneath your self perceived superior intelligence, stay away.

There are some juvenile and trolls that post here but I'll take them over a phony bullsitter like you any time.

It is obvious that I struck a nerve here, as it seems this one hits too close too home for you. Well, the masses do tend to be morons, and Gladwell writes for them. That is how to be successful. Gladwell is a marketer of rather pedestrian ideas, notions which a smart person doesn't need to read because he intuitively comprehends, so if you are actually intelligent with powers of analysis, you don't need some pamphleteer to convey to you the notion that having talent and nurturing that talent with (10,000 hrs, make me vomit) hard work is the recipe for competence and "success." Gladwell has been spending that 10,000 hrs marketing these pedestrian notions, and there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make him a fool, perhaps just the opposite, but he is writing for people who aren't particularly brilliant, which of course is the recipe for commercial success as an author.

Of course there is an organized liberal left, but I hardly think it has, or ever had, the power to do what the term "politically correct orthodoxy" originally suggested. I think conservatives have been doing pretty well in the freedom of speech department since the term was coined, wouldn't you agree? Or maybe they won't feel truly free until people stop criticizing their views entirely. They're a sensitive bunch!

Old school neo-con= intellectual contributor to the resurgence of the U.S. right associated predominantly with the rise of Ronald Reagan. This is what they called themselves, to distinguish themselves from an older, more aristocratic tradition that emphasized "social order" based on "natural" human hierarchies (think: E. Burke and "organic" conservatism). Neo-cons weren't, and aren't, out to actually "conserve" anything; they were and are fine with change, as long as it doesn't entail any serious redistribution of wealth or power. They coined the term "political correctness" as part of an offensive against their perceived enemies in the academy, whom they saw as a barrier to the dissemination of the new right wing common sense they were peddling (esp. that social inequality was a natural outcome of free and fair market competition, and was therefore "economically efficient").

As for "social conservatives": talk about the sh-t-pile of history!

There's a difference between being brilliant, having average intelligence, and being a moron. What's interesting about your statement is that you automatically equate average intelligence (hence, the masses) with being a moron. You're certainly entitled to think this way, but man, that's pretty arrogant.

Just curious if you read the book because based on your post, you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it at all.

Show me how and where I did not comprehend it. Of course I wasn't comprehensive in my synopsis, as it is equally obvious to anybody with intelligence that forces well beyond one's control will play a huge role in whether one is Bill Gates or not. As an example, forces beyond their control (hello Captain Obvious) have contributed to the brojos having this website, for better or worse. These notions are painfully obvious to the intelligent, so perhaps I should just stop rubbing this into the faces of those who are not gifted intellectually.

geronnnnimoe wrote:

Show me how and where I did not comprehend it. Of course I wasn't comprehensive in my synopsis, as it is equally obvious to anybody with intelligence that forces well beyond one's control will play a huge role in whether one is Bill Gates or not. As an example, forces beyond their control (hello Captain Obvious) have contributed to the brojos having this website, for better or worse. These notions are painfully obvious to the intelligent, so perhaps I should just stop rubbing this into the faces of those who are not gifted intellectually.

Not "comprehensive in your synopsis"? Synopsis? All you said was that Gladwell writes for morons (and many thanks for that, BTW).

akdce wrote:

800 dude wrote:

[quote]:

I think you have this backwards. Being polite used to mean there was a time and place for certain discussions. Now, political correctness is used as a tool for avoiding serious discussion altogether. If you can say that some ideas are beyond the pale, then you don't actually have to defeat them on the merits. When someone says something politically incorrect, they get set straight by being told they're not allowed to think or say certain things, not by being challenged to understand why what they said was incorrect or offensive. Political correctness is a retrograde and unintellectual cancer growing on a generally enlightened society.

Nice post 800 guy.

Political correctness is a classic example of an idea corrupted by self interests who use it to shift accountability and dumb down debate.

Can you provide two classic examples of "political correctness" that you object to?

SB wrote:

geronnnnimoe wrote:

Show me how and where I did not comprehend it. Of course I wasn't comprehensive in my synopsis, as it is equally obvious to anybody with intelligence that forces well beyond one's control will play a huge role in whether one is Bill Gates or not. As an example, forces beyond their control (hello Captain Obvious) have contributed to the brojos having this website, for better or worse. These notions are painfully obvious to the intelligent, so perhaps I should just stop rubbing this into the faces of those who are not gifted intellectually.

Not "comprehensive in your synopsis"? Synopsis? All you said was that Gladwell writes for morons (and many thanks for that, BTW).

If it is important to be precise in one's understanding and subsequent regurgitation to aid clarification in communication, I NEVER "said" that Gladwell "writes for morons," as I wrote that Gladwell writes for the masses, who tend to be morons. There is a difference and it is not simply splitting hairs, which you appear to enjoy doing. As for the synopsis comment, perhaps it lacked precision, but I had pointed out something in relation to the nature/nurture synergistic effect, in essence, which, although not a synopsis of Outliers, was one idea within it which I addressed, and having done so, was questioned regarding my understanding of the book.

SB wrote:

geronnnnimoe wrote:

Show me how and where I did not comprehend it. Of course I wasn't comprehensive in my synopsis, as it is equally obvious to anybody with intelligence that forces well beyond one's control will play a huge role in whether one is Bill Gates or not. As an example, forces beyond their control (hello Captain Obvious) have contributed to the brojos having this website, for better or worse. These notions are painfully obvious to the intelligent, so perhaps I should just stop rubbing this into the faces of those who are not gifted intellectually.

Not "comprehensive in your synopsis"? Synopsis? All you said was that Gladwell writes for morons (and many thanks for that, BTW).

Although I never wrote that "Gladwell writes for morons," since you appear to take offense to this notion (and I've explained that my thought was more nuanced than that), you either take offense because you ARE Gladwell or you feel as a reader that I have painted you as such (a moron), when a closer reading of my post could have only led to the notion that as a reader of him, you are not necessarily a moron (not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative).

Wow, for someone who considers himself (or herself) so intellectually gifted, you completely missed Gladwell's purpose and point regarding the Gates anecdote (taking into account what you've written so far). Thanks for confirming my suspicion. Please carry on.

Yikerz wrote:

Wow, for someone who considers himself (or herself) so intellectually gifted, you completely missed Gladwell's purpose and point regarding the Gates anecdote (taking into account what you've written so far). Thanks for confirming my suspicion. Please carry on.

The point of Gates being included in the book was that it supports the notion of the 10,000 hr rule (Gates practicing programming, for example)and that forces well beyond one's control (the fact that Gates had access to a computer at a time when that was not common) combined to lead him, among with many other factors which inevitably contribute to one's success (genetics, family upbringing, cultural and societal forces, luck of meeting certain people, etc.), to become who we know as Bill Gates, who otherwise might have become, due to high intelligence, somebody who might have been reasonably successful but not one of the richest men in the world. I have simplified this for the masses...

subfive wrote:

Can you provide two classic examples of "political correctness" that you object to?

1. There are no meaningful biological differences between the races when it comes to matters of intelligence.

2. A homosexual sexual orientation is entirely, 100% biological in its underpinnings.

3. Genetically modified food is something to be actively feared and lobbied against.

4. By contrast, organic food is much healthier for human beings.

5. Recycling is a cost-justified, environmentally conscious practice.

6. Nuclear energy is bad.

7. Criminality is a product of social institutions and criminals are merely symptoms of a sick society. Broken windows theory is wrong and merely plays into cops' institutional racism. It is counterproductive to use race and socioeconomic status to profile potential criminals.

8. Torturing someone produces information no faster than mild interrogation that involves little discomfort.

9. Teacher performance cannot and should not be measured. Great teachers should not be rewarded, mediocre teachers should not improve and poor teachers should not be eliminated. All teachers (and really, all workers) should be hired, paid and promoted in lockstep with their age/experience cohort.

10. Pit bulls are completely friendly, docile dogs. Their negative reputation in the white community is purely due to their association with low-culture blacks and hispanics.

Pit bulls are friendly and docile, except for the fact they represent 5% of dogs and 60% of death by dog. With 4.5 million dog bites a year in the states, the discussion should be why not ban all dogs.

Does anyone know what place Gladwell was in the midget xc race in 1977? I want to figure out if I beat him. I saw him beat Dave Reid at ofsaa in 1978. Great race, freshmen running 4:05 for 1500 almost a dead heat.

ecole wrote:

subfive wrote:

Can you provide two classic examples of "political correctness" that you object to?

1. There are no meaningful biological differences between the races when it comes to matters of intelligence.

2. A homosexual sexual orientation is entirely, 100% biological in its underpinnings.

....

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html

So-- is "political correctness"

a) some sort of mush of liberal ideology or

b) it an irrational suppression of other viewpoints for political reasons?

For example, 99% of the world's Ph.D. climatologists assert global warming is real. 1% disagree.

Nearly every moneyed interest in the world disagrees and have bought enough airtime and a major political party so that the general US populace actually believes that there is some legitimate scientific doubt as to whether global warming is real.

Is it "politically correct" to believe in global warming or is it "politically correct" to require members of your party to hold a certain view so that the money keeps flowing?