Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Malcom Gladwell is full of it

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:58:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://infoproc.blogspot.com...
http://infoproc.blogspot.com...

"It is simply not true that... above a minimum I.Q. of 120, higher intelligence does not bring greater intellectual achievements...The reasoning in "Outliers," which consists of cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies, had me gnawing on my Kindle. Fortunately for "What the Dog Saw," the essay format is a better showcase for Gladwell's talents, because the constraints of length and editors yield a higher ratio of fact to fancy. Readers have much to learn from Gladwell the journalist and essayist. But when it comes to Gladwell the social scientist, they should watch out for those igon values."

- Steven Pinker -

http://www.nytimes.com...
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:15:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It amuses me how often Gladwell criticizes both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how obvious it is that the man doesn't possess a great deal of either.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:17:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:15:10 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
It amuses me how often Gladwell criticizes both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how obvious it is that the man doesn't possess a great deal of either.

lol
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:22:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The themes of the collection are a good way to characterize Gladwell himself: a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning and who occasionally blunders into spectacular failures."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:27:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like his books, and believed what he said about IQs above 120, I'll have to read into that. I figured since my IQ was well above 120, and I am a failure in life, that there was some truth in what he was saying.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 10:34:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is Gladwell's response and Pinkers response
http://www.nytimes.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 10:53:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:15:10 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
It amuses me how often Gladwell criticizes both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how obvious it is that the man doesn't possess a great deal of either.

You obviously haven't read much of his works...
anything your heart desires
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:40:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:27:35 AM, Wylted wrote:
I like his books, and believed what he said about IQs above 120, I'll have to read into that. I figured since my IQ was well above 120, and I am a failure in life, that there was some truth in what he was saying.

People with 135 IQ are four times less likely to have a patent than people with 145 IQ. I imagine that theme extends well beyond patents.

Malcolm's claim that IQs above 120 don't matter is not even close to being true.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:47:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:40:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:27:35 AM, Wylted wrote:
I like his books, and believed what he said about IQs above 120, I'll have to read into that. I figured since my IQ was well above 120, and I am a failure in life, that there was some truth in what he was saying.

People with 135 IQ are four times less likely to have a patent than people with 145 IQ. I imagine that theme extends well beyond patents.

Malcolm's claim that IQs above 120 don't matter is not even close to being true.
I would imagine that they matter in that regard, but what about a guy that works at McDonalds with an IQ of 150 compared to a McDonalds employee with an IQ of 120?

He was not speaking of inventing or anything scientific. He was referring to things like becoming a Lawyer or a Doctor.

A doctor and a Lawyer's success has very little to do with intelligence and has more to do with creativity.

I don't even think he was trying to imply that in fields like science which require discovery, that a person with an IQ of 120 would be on an even playing field with somebody of a much higher IQ.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:52:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:47:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:40:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:27:35 AM, Wylted wrote:
I like his books, and believed what he said about IQs above 120, I'll have to read into that. I figured since my IQ was well above 120, and I am a failure in life, that there was some truth in what he was saying.

People with 135 IQ are four times less likely to have a patent than people with 145 IQ. I imagine that theme extends well beyond patents.

Malcolm's claim that IQs above 120 don't matter is not even close to being true.
I would imagine that they matter in that regard, but what about a guy that works at McDonalds with an IQ of 150 compared to a McDonalds employee with an IQ of 120?

He was not speaking of inventing or anything scientific. He was referring to things like becoming a Lawyer or a Doctor.

A doctor and a Lawyer's success has very little to do with intelligence and has more to do with creativity.

I don't even think he was trying to imply that in fields like science which require discovery, that a person with an IQ of 120 would be on an even playing field with somebody of a much higher IQ.

Sure, there are IQ thresholds for certain professions, IQs above which don't bring significant advantages. However, studies show that even among the cognitive elite, the higher one's IQ, the more money one makes, the more PhDs earned, etc. The advantage isn't enormous, but it's certainly not "nothing".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:54:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:47:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:40:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


I don't even think he was trying to imply that in fields like science which require discovery, that a person with an IQ of 120 would be on an even playing field with somebody of a much higher IQ.

He claims that a person with an IQ of 120 is just as likely to win a Nobel Prize as someone with an IQ of 200. Don't underestimate his ignorance.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:54:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:47:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:40:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


I don't even think he was trying to imply that in fields like science which require discovery, that a person with an IQ of 120 would be on an even playing field with somebody of a much higher IQ.

He claims that a person with an IQ of 120 is just as likely to win a Nobel Prize as someone with an IQ of 200. Don't underestimate his ignorance.

Lol, I missed that. That is a silly assertion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 2:53:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:57:47 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:54:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:47:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:40:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


I don't even think he was trying to imply that in fields like science which require discovery, that a person with an IQ of 120 would be on an even playing field with somebody of a much higher IQ.

He claims that a person with an IQ of 120 is just as likely to win a Nobel Prize as someone with an IQ of 200. Don't underestimate his ignorance.

Lol, I missed that. That is a silly assertion.

To be fair, he makes the assertion in one of his interviews. 7:20 https://www.youtube.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 2:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It' an especially ridiculous claim when you consider how few people have 200 IQ - if even one person at that level wins a nobel prize, he's literally off by a factor of 10,000.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 3:05:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 10:53:28 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:15:10 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
It amuses me how often Gladwell criticizes both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how obvious it is that the man doesn't possess a great deal of either.

You obviously haven't read much of his works...

I've read all of his books, and I mostly agree with him, soo.....
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 3:45:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For the record, I like Malcolm Gladwell in general, and think he has some good points to make. However, his treatment of the issues often lacks a strong scientific backing, which he makes up for by creating the impression that his points are so widely accepted that no justification is necessary, allowing the reader to feel comfortable taking what he says for granted. He's basically a "pop-scientist" whose unrigorous style allows him to connect with the general population. He's very skilled at making his writing appear more profound than it really is, which is the only reason he's so popular. None of his ideas are actually original, or all that profound either.
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 6:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:05:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:53:28 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:15:10 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
It amuses me how often Gladwell criticizes both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how obvious it is that the man doesn't possess a great deal of either.

You obviously haven't read much of his works...

I've read all of his books, and I mostly agree with him, soo.....

So you don't think Gladwell is intelligent?
anything your heart desires
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 6:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 6:17:16 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:05:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 10:53:28 AM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:15:10 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
It amuses me how often Gladwell criticizes both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how obvious it is that the man doesn't possess a great deal of either.

You obviously haven't read much of his works...

I've read all of his books, and I mostly agree with him, soo.....

So you don't think Gladwell is intelligent?

He's moderately intelligent.