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

rojo wrote:

PPS. Maybe we'll do a Q&A with gladwell and epstein after we get back from Worlds. Maybe we should do a live Internet show pre-worlds where they give us their picks.

Forget picks, put them in the same room to talk about the differences between their books. It would be fascinating to hear the inspirations that pushed them to write the books that they did. Get a debate going about nature-nurture as it applies to athletics and you could have something great.

John O'Donnell wrote:

This isn't really on topic, but whatever the history and original definition of "political correctness," it's well past the point where it should have been retired. Congrats to this poster for coming up with the best contemporary definition I have heard. I've often said that what is now derisively referred to as "politically correct" is what we used to call "being polite."

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.

Please Malcolm reveal to us the user id you post under. I'm a big fan of your books man. Would love to chat it up with you on here.

OhReallyNow wrote:

Please Malcolm reveal to us the user id you post under. I'm a big fan of your books man. Would love to chat it up with you on here.

I believe he posts under the name "Flagpole"

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.

I run in college wrote:

Forget picks, put them in the same room to talk about the differences between their books. It would be fascinating to hear the inspirations that pushed them to write the books that they did. Get a debate going about nature-nurture as it applies to athletics and you could have something great.

It's been a while since I read Outliers and I haven't read Sports Gene yet but I'm pretty sure Gladwell never argued that you only need 10,000 hours to be good.

I think he would agree that genetics are super important. His argument is that you need good genetics AND 10,000 hours to be great. More nature+nurture than nature v. nurture.

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.

You are obviously not politically correct.

geronnnnimoe wrote:

Exactly. Gladwell writes for the masses who tend to be morons. Consequently, he would actually fit in here, and it makes sense that he loves this site.

This is crap. Gladwell doesn't write for morons. Not all interesting or serious writing has to be academic. I should also academic rigorous standards can be fairly bollocks. A group of old men who get a theory that might undermine or contradict their own life research ideas will not approve it regardless of evidence (Probably another mechanism we haven't uncovered). Tons of politics involved and in many areas of human study barely any results are ever repeated and even some top academics have been outed as rigging their results in peer reviewed papers.

In that context Gladwell's work stands up and no more or less smart. If I have a problem with his work is he very much reports from a survivors perspective. The 10,000 hours idea is great and has some degree of honesty, but it doesn't go into the many people who also committed 10,000 hours to a skill and didn't succeed.

OhReallyNow wrote:

Please Malcolm reveal to us the user id you post under. I'm a big fan of your books man. Would love to chat it up with you on here.

Big fan, too.

If Gladwell turns out to be A Duck I will ban myself for life.

geronnnnimoe wrote:

:

[quote][B:

Exactly. Gladwell writes for the masses who tend to be morons. Consequently, he would actually fit in here, and it makes sense that he loves this site.

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.

National Assillyations wrote:

Anyone who uses the term "politically correct" is an idiot, whom, I'm betting cannot define the term nor pinpoint the origin of the term. It is nonsensical at this point. Just like saying, "meh." No one says "meh," in real life, but idiots. And no one uses the term "politically correct" in real life except idiots.

Gladwell promotes ideas that are palatable. His bestseller, Blink, tells us to trust our gut reactions and first impressions. Later he wrote an article for the New Yorker analogizing anti-pitbull laws to racial profiling with the upshot being we can't trust our gut reactions or first impressions. Of course readers of the New Yorker are champing at the bit to vitiate racial profiling so they either ignore or rationalize the obvious discrepancy.

This is what I meant when I said he affirms political correctness at the expense of a more rigorous (but likely more unpopular) analysis. Care to offer a better term? If you have one I'd like to hear it.

There are actually some pretty smart guys that follow track and field. I wish we had some of these guys helping promote the sport. I think that Epstein using tons of examples of track and field will help exposure to the sport, but conversely it could scare some young American kids away from it haha.

He beat Dave Reid, here's Malcolm himself writing about it:

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2010/06/my-greatest-triumph-.html

Close to the best hair in T&F!

Yeah, the scared thing is right. I don't know how to do this. All I can fall back on to guide me is my experiences. I am not one of the traditional ice cream flavors and that's okay. If I keep it honest and real, I'll know if he likes me after the first few tastes. If not, someone else will....

Okay, I'm not really sure what I wrote in the email that was wrong

I don't think Gladwell's theories are all that politically correct because he counters the most common rationalizations that people use to explain why they aren't as successful as others: natural talent and luck. I can't count how many times I've heard kids claim that the runners that beat them are "lucky." They are lucky because they have long legs, or they're tall and skinny, or have a low center of gravity or whatever. Luck has so little to do with it. I also love how just because someone's sibling was a good athlete, people think that younger brother or sister came by their success by magic. They somehow convince themselves that the person didn't have to work really hard and put in the long hours to excel.

Huge fan of Gladwell, but I have to point out that the 10k hours rule is from Ericsson.

As a side note, as soon as I heard about the Asiana plane crash, I immediately thought of Gladwell's Outliers.

In actuality, I often use "meh", in every day conversation.

Granted I'm a college student; so, I don't live up to the same standard as all of the Doctors, CEOs, high profile journalists, and high school trolls that constitute the regulars of this message board.

Pretty decent piece about Gladwell: http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/A few interesting nuggets:

“It was a sending a man to do a boy’s work,” he says of Posner’s review. “The guy’s like this legal Einstein, and he’s slumming it with Blink?”

Apparently he doesn't even take his work that seriously.

Gladwell retreats to the defense that his writing is merely meant to be provocative. “I don’t think it’s proper for someone in my position to be a definitive voice,” he says. “These books and New Yorker articles are conversation starters.”

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.