Malcolm Gladwell

HFFBALLfan123:

melvvvar:

chinese kids are better at math because of higher IQs. but gladwell attributes it to them spending a lot of time on it. let's go to chinatown and build the next jeremy lin based on the gladwell philosophy of mixing up correlation with causation.

Obviously someone didn't read the book, he says it has to do with the fact that their language for numbers is far easier to comprehend and he actually disproves the theory that they have higher IQ's. When we see 45, we read it as fourty five, they read it as four tens and a five, so adding 45 + 96 to them is four tens and a five plus nine tends and a six. Also, they can remember a far longer string of numbers due to how short their words are for numbers. Please re-read that section and then get back to me.

ah yes. i indeed did not read the book, or any gladwell work. i have two problemos with mr. gladwell:

1. he spelled eigenvalue as igon value. which tells me he is an idiot.
2. he ignores the vast literature on IQ which says plainly that east asian kids have higher iqs, whether they are in asia or the west, and corrected for socioeconomic factors. when i copied homework in school you better damn well believe it was off the korean kid.

i did have to read enough reviews on gladwell to get a sense of how this charlatan thinks though. thank you for reminding me about his thesis on how asian language renders numbers. how exactly does he quantify this moonbat theory? i can come up with insane non sequitur explanations too. western kids eat bread: there are usually no more than 20 slices in a loaf so white boys don't count too good. asian kids eat rice: usually 500 grains in a bowl so asian boys count real good!

come on man stop supporting this fraud's royalty income.

PetEng:

melvvvar:

chinese kids are better at math because of higher IQs. but gladwell attributes it to them spending a lot of time on it. let's go to chinatown and build the next jeremy lin based on the gladwell philosophy of mixing up correlation with causation.

This.

Gladwell is a hack of the highest proportions. He's an author that appeals to emotions and pop science. Any amount study regarding IQ eviscerates the central premises in his book.

to be fair to the gladwellians, i did mix up his violin virtuoso (spend a lot of time = be a virtuoso) theory with his asian kids are math whizzes because of their language theory.

but gladwell is a terribly destructive intellectual mountebank nonetheless for all the reasons stated.

PetEng:

melvvvar:

chinese kids are better at math because of higher IQs. but gladwell attributes it to them spending a lot of time on it. let's go to chinatown and build the next jeremy lin based on the gladwell philosophy of mixing up correlation with causation.

This.

Gladwell is a hack of the highest proportions. He's an author that appeals to emotions and pop science. Any amount study regarding IQ eviscerates the central premises in his book.

bigtool05:

tiger90:

I think the point of the book was that everything in life is total chance, and I don't particularly buy that.

He wasn't arguing that, he was just arguing that our analyses of outliers are too narrow in focus. We focus on the innate qualities of the outliers and not their environment

I thought he specifically stated that success was basically chance that assumed everyone (of relative standing) are all trying just as hard and series of good luck opportunities led to those people's success and not others.

I somewhat disagree with the premise that having the right family background is what gets you successful, I'll try to find the statistic but something like 90% of people of wealthy backgrounds come from the middle class and most wealth dissolves after 2 generations. It's why you don't see Washingtons and Jeffersons rolling around like bosses in Ferraris with Park Avenue apartments.