Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Neuron Culture

David Dobbs on science, nature, and culture.

Search

Profile

dobbspic I write articles on science, medicine, nature, culture and other matters for the New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, Slate, National Geographic, Scientific American Mind, and other publications, and am working on my fourth book, The Orchid and the Dandelion, which expands on my recent December 2009 Atlantic article. In August 2010, I'll be moving to London for a year to work on the book. I'll also serve as a senior fellow at City University London's MA science journalism program.

You're encouraged to check out my third book Reef Madness: Charles Darwin, Alexander Agassiz, and the Meaning of Coral, which traces the strangest but most forgotten controversy in Darwin's career; subscribe to Neuron Culture by email; see more of my work at my main website; or track Twitter feed, my Google Reader shared items, or my Tumblr log, which gets it all.

Twitterature>

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter

    Worth Noting

    Recent Posts

    Recent Comments

    Categories

    « Team Meteotek: The kids who ballooned that camera (almost) to the stratosphere | Main | Who Me? Dept: Me & Eating Well v Gourmet & Saveur for James Beard Award »

    Epstein on Gladwell: The new is not true; the true, not new.

    Posted on: March 23, 2009 9:34 AM, by David Dobbs

    I've had mixed reactions to Gladwell's writing over the years: I always enjoy reading it, but in Blink, especially, when he was writing about an area I knew more about than in his other books, I was troubled not just by what seemed an avoidance of neuroscientific explanations of attention and decision-making, but by an argument that seemed to come down to "The best way to make decisions is the quick gut method, except when it's not." I was also troubled by ... well, I couldn't put my finger on it. But Joseph Epstein has:

    Too frequently one reads Gladwell's anecdotes, case studies, potted social-science research and thinks: interesting if true. Yet one feels naggingly doubtful about its truth quotient. So much Gladwell writes that is true seems not new, and so much he writes that is new seems untrue. Preponderantly, what he reports feels more like half- and quarter-truths, because they do not pass the final truth test about human nature: They rarely, that is, honor the complexity of life.

    This was certainly the case with Blink, as shows glaringly if you consider it side by side with Jonah Lehrer's How We Decide, which covers the same basic topic -- how we make decisions -- in a way that's just as fascinating, just as anecdote-rich, but much more cognizant of the breadth and course of the science on the subject.

    It's not just that Lehrer's book comes later and is more up-to-date. It's that he looks at the science harder and more fully. Someone observed of Gladwell -- I can't recall the writer or the publication -- that he seems avoidant of science that is at all technical, lest it gum up the fine simplicity of his sentences and smooth flow of his prose. I think there's something to that, and it explains why he came up with a relatively facile answer to the question of how to make good decisions (in a blink, except when that doesn't work) rather than showing, as Lehrer did, not only that the best mode depends on the situation but that the art of deciding well is the art of recognizing which decision-making strategies and tactics will work best in a given situation.

    There are strong lessons about science writing here, or about writing well on any complex subject.



    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/103753

    Comments

    2

    Well said, and I'm glad you said it. I've been concerned (particularly after "Blink") that Gladwell has established a precedent for 'soft shoeing' science. I enjoy his writing, but it's formulaic, almost as if designed to be quoted in business seminars and sprinkled throughout Forbes articles.

    When I read Robert Burton's "On Being Certain", in which Burton sternly takes Gladwell to task on his shallow treatment of neuroscience in "Blink", it was if someone shook me a few times to open my eyes. I realized that Gladwell is such a stylish writer that he casts a sort of spell on readers that allows him to gloss over the deeper aspects of a subject with charming anecdotes and well-placed prose. Hey, for a four-hour plane ride, nothing's better than that sort of writing -- but when it comes to really understanding a topic, Gladwell is at best a starting point. The problem is, most who read him will assume that he's covered the topic to its fullest extent (such is the 'spell' of his prose) and it's not until (and if) you come upon a Lehrer or other more trenchant writer that you realize how much of the topic has not only not been covered by Gladwell, but in a sense has been mischaracterized.

    That's part of why I enjoy the science blogging community so much; there's no shortage of thinkers here who always want to know more, and are not satisfied with approaches that make for good business fodder but don't nearly do justice to the underlying science.

    Posted by: David | March 23, 2009 10:43 AM

    3

    I would say that Jonah and Gladwell have two different purposes to their writing. Jonah is a scholarly writer seeking to accurately portray current thinking about the areas he addresses. Gladwell is more of a polemicist, seeking to seed the public intellectual sphere with ideas that he likes. They are both very good writers, and both very good at achieving their respective rhetorical goals.

    Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | March 23, 2009 3:47 PM

    4

    I agree in principle (I found BLINK entertaining but disquieting), with one caveat: are you writing for the standard "science savvy" book reading public, or a truly general audience? I love Lehrer's sharp yet nuanced writing, but I'll hazard a guess that, while his books sell very well (certainly better than mine!), they don't come close to the bestselling juggernaut that is the Malcolm Gladwell enterprise. The exact things you criticize -- validly so -- are precisely what makes him so palatable to John and Jane Q Public. Nuance, sadly, doesn't often sell...

    Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | March 23, 2009 3:49 PM

    5

    There's a continuum from easy, short read to in depth science. I think it's important to have all types of books on the continuum. But I also think it's possible to have a short easy read that is still truthful and points to science (ok, I'm saying that because that's what I tried to do with my latest book!). Blink got me thinking several years ago, and then I used the bibliography to dive deeper. That's useful.

    Posted by: Susan Weinschenk | March 23, 2009 11:37 PM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.