Joel Spolsky Takes on Gladwell and "Pseudoscience"

Joel Spolsky, a programmer who is emerging as one of the more sane voices on how to not only program, but more importantly, organize a bunch of programmers to create good software took a shot at Gladwell.  Joel's thesis is that Gladwell epitomizes "pseudoscience", a trend where good writers define new scientific laws through witty turns of the pen and not through traditional research.

I half agree and disagree with Joel's rant.  On one hand, there is a proliferation of writers who are looking to define the new rules of social laws through the use of the "interest anecdotes".  It's a rising trend that I have ranted against before of writers believing that they should be integrally related to the content and should be "owner" or "creator" of the idea they are passing through (e.g. the trend of tv anchors interviewing journalists as experts on a topic).  I agree that many writers and journalism outlets are overreaching in an effort to aggrandize themselves.  They can't help it. You have to be somewhat self-centered to think that everyone wants to read your writing.  (Kind of like bloggers, right?)

But the flip side is that I think Gladwell is actually making counter-intuitive observations that actually do have a basis in sound social science.  I think Gladwell's dirty secret is that many of his ideas actually come from existing research that exists with the study of Communications, a formerly obscure social science that has gained exposure along with the rise of Marketing as a competence in our companies.

Regardless of what I think, it's a good read.  Joel's post is here.

Intellectual side-road: Brooks on Gladwell on Nature v. Nuture

Gladwell does a great job questioning existing paradigms and through inventive illustrations showing that a different, counter-intuitive scheme may actually be at work.  He did it with Blink, a book that discusses the source of intuitive understanding and decision-making and Tipping Point, another book discussing the idea of social networks and finding those ideas which reach critical mass.

Now he has a new book called Outliers in which he explores the root of success in certain people.  One of his conclusions is that much success can be attributed to a combustible mix of environmental factors, rather than the heroic archetype that is commonly mythified today.

Yes, Gladwell has a cookie-cutter to his insights (or at least the delivery thereof), but it's a good one.

Brooks' take on the Outlier argument is that it undervalues foundational characteristics that allow people to exploit the opportunities in front of them.  As part of his rationale, he points to the fact that many successful people talk about how they wanted to challenge all the people that "said it couldn't be done".  As a former investment banker who has advised and worked alongside some of these people, I would say that particular driving force is often one that is created after the fact as an easy to summarize the toil they went through in the early years of their struggle.  I'm more in agreement with Gladwell's initial assertion as I've seen a lot of people just be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.  How many times have I heard:  "I'd rather be lucky than right!" from successful business people?  Too many.

Gladwell's blog discussing Outliers here.  Brooks' analysis of Gladwell's book here.  Gladwell's response to Brooks' analysis here.