RoR: Forum

Ed,
Really well done. Based on what I've heard about this book, you've captured the spirit, if not the substance, of it. However ... you neglected one important point in your example: Land Sharks.

Post 1

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 10:07am

I enjoy reading bad reviews of things that suck, like some movies and books. Here is a great one from Amazon, which can have some very entertaining reviews (IMDB is good for the ones on movies):

Gladwell is Incapable of any form of speech higher than babble., January 17, 2009

By	Se�or Wences "Chappottini" - See all my reviews

I understand why someone would pay money to hear a child babble incoherently into a microphone. Children are cute and sometimes say the darndest things to boot! As for Gladwell, well if the red 'fro is your thing then feel free to attend one of those speaking tours for which he commands five-figure sums of money per engagement. I warn you , however, that Gladwell does not say the darndest things. He says the dumbest things. Over and over again. It's not that his arguments are poor; it's not even that he does not know how to construct an argument. He does not even consider arguing. For example, take his argu...er...contention that East Asians do well in math because of the cultural legacy of rice patties. A person of normal intelligence would understand that an immensely outlandish claim such as this requires convincing evidence and persuasive reasoning, and that without this evidence, there would be no more reason for anyone to accept it (or to even register it as a possibility) than there would be to accept an equally outlandish theory that they get their math skills from a secret society with Panda Bears.

But no evidence is presented. All that Gladwell gives is some scenario that describes how this could be the case (and all of these are implausible in the extreme, and betray on Gladwell's part a startling degree of ignorance as to how things really operate in the real world) and then he moves on to the next fanciful speculation. Gladwell has no clue that there are methods and documents available to test these theories. He seems uninterested in investigating his notions through, even at a superficial level. Like a Seinfeld routine, he takes a subject that intrigues him, muses upon it for a page, and moves on to the next. Unlike Seinfeld, there are no clever twists to redeem what is essentially a non-book about nothing.

Malcom, write a book on how you managed to con this many gullible, mindless people into taking you seriously, and I'll pre-order it. How did you become a post-modern PT Barnum who's biggest dupe is your own self?

Post 2

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 4:43pm

Thanks, Glenn.

Kurt,

I enjoy reading bad reviews of things that suck ...

Heyyy. Wait a second. Do you mean "bad review" as a (possibly good) review of something bad -- or the other way to think of bad reviews? I'm pretty sure that -- while my review really is pretty bad (as far as reviews go) -- that you just mean that it's a rant-and-rave review against something bad. Right?

:-)

On a related topic, you should see read Nagel for more of said kind of thing ...

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/22, 4:46pm)

Post 3

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 6:03pm

Chappotini's review of Friedmann is funny. Wierd how the liberal Friedmann, a constant critic of Bush and apologist for Clinton is described as a neocon.

Post 4

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 6:04am

Yes Ed I meant to say, funny reviews of how bad "X" is - assuming I agree that it is bad. Yours, not having read the book, I can't judge too well. I think maybe it needs some work still :)

Post 5

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 2:37pm

:-)

Thanks, Kurt.

Ed

Post 6

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 6:25pm

I've started on this book, and while there are a few things that an Objectivist can read and say "ok," it's more than likely to be qualified with "but" or "what about this?". It's clear that the author's goal, especially from the introduction alone, is that the goal is to go "beyond" the individual to the importance of groups and community. The assumption is that the best don't succeed because they are the best, but because of their ability combined with opportunity (really? wow!). But does the author ever stop to consider whether or not one is owed an opportunity? I don't see this in the book, nor do I expect to...and among his case studies, I don't see examples of people who've made their own opportunities...

Anyway, here's a link to a review: Malcolm Gladwell Versus Ayn Rand

Judge the review for yourself, I just posted it because of the title. ;) But it does show in microcosm the stakes of this debate; what other writer/thinker but Ayn Rand could be named in this title? The author of the review, at the end, asks "Who is right, Gladwell or Ayn Rand?" Funny, because all I kept thinking of, as I was reading the book, was that if this book is right, Rand would be wrong, blah blah blah. But she's not wrong. She never denied the need for community, or opportunity, etc.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/27, 6:29pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/27, 6:31pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 7:08pm

From Joe's link:

Bill Gates
As a kid growing up in Seattle in the late sixties and seventies, Gates had extensive access to a state-of-the-art computer lab, the likes of which very few in his generation would know anything about until years later.

The Beatles
In the early years, when they took up residency in the clubs of Hamburg, Germany, they had to play very long sets, in a wide variety of styles, forcing them to be creative and excel at experimenting.

Chinese Students
They work much harder at their studies and exhibit greater patience in problem-solving than their American counterparts thanks to their cultural legacy of long days toiling in rice paddies.

Youth Hockey Players
Kids born in the early months of a year are put in the same league as kids born later in the year, a slight edge in physical maturity that gets compounded over the years into a decisive advantage in skill.

As a "solution" to this "problem" the blogger says it is obvious that we need to break hockey leagues into six month increments, rather than 12 months. (As if that wouldn't just lead to an "advantage" for the people born in the first three months of each semester. And if being forced to work hard - rice paddies - is an advantage, isn't it the smaller kids who benefit from competing with the older ones?) As for the other "advantages" I suppose we should all be forced to cultivate rice in computer labs in Hamburg. Or something.

What an incredibly laughable load of crap.

Post 8

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 8:01pm

"What an incredibly laughable load of crap."

And yet, that load of crap gets displayed on endcaps in bookstores with slobber guards installed to keep off drool from the salivating lefty illuminati who push it to the bestseller list :(

Post 9

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 8:34pm

Is he on the Left? His anecdotal nonsense (especially the rice paddies!) sounds more like what you might expect from some self-important idiot on the Right. Not ideologically, but rather stylistically. After all, he seems to imply that at least some hard work and effort is rewarded. I suppose I should read the Wikipedia article.

Post 10

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 10:32pm

I don't know if Gladwell is on the left, I'm just referring to the people I've personally seen in the stores who praise him. But the very uncertainty just goes to show how little substantial difference there is between the two sides anymore...

But there is a disclaimer on his site that makes this exchange that much more ironic, here's an excerpt:

"The perception�and fact�of objectivity is central to the mission of a modern newspaper. At the New Yorker, I'm under no obligation to be objective. I'm only under the obligation to be fair�and the difference between fairness and objectivity is considerable. The test of a newspaper article is that when a reader finishes reading it, he or she has no idea where the writer stands on the issues under discussion."

Fortunately, we do get disclosure:

"So let me start by making a few disclosures. You should know that in my early twenties, I was very conservative politically. I had a picture of Ronald Reagan on my wall in college. (Yes, I was that much of a geek). Today, if I could vote (and I can't, because I'm Canadian) I would vote Democrat. I am pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage. I believe in God. I think the war in Iraq is a terrible mistake. I am a big believer in free trade. I think, on balance, taxes in America�particularly for rich people�ought to be higher, not lower. I think smoking is a terrible problem and that cigarette manufacturers ought to be subjected to every possible social and political sanction. But I think that filing product liability lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers is absurd. I am opposed to the Death Penalty. I hate SUVs. I think many CEOs are overpaid. I think there is too much sex and violence on television. Of perhaps most relevance to my writing�because I write so much about health care�I have recently come to think that the United States needs to adopt a Canadian-style single-payer, government funded, universal health care system."

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/27, 10:35pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/27, 10:41pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 7:40am

Ah, the fascist middle.

Post 12

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 8:20am

I would think of his book as a variation of "It Takes a Village"...

Post 13

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 5:41am

Ed:

I enjoyed your parody, the tragedy of which is, the social engineers' solution is to even the playing field ... by moving more children closer to the coast.

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 9:42pm