I've kept my receipt, and so may take you up on that.
But I think it behooves anyone doing stuff like he is to 1) hypothesize and then 2) test the hypothesis before telling people that they understand something about the world. That's a high bar, but they invite it by insinuating that they're someone to be listened to. The old "I coughed, and then lightning flashed. Therefore, I cause lightning!" story.
And, although picking on him, it's fair to apply it to podcasts: those things should be a lot fewer and a lot more thoughtful inasmuch as they're steering knowledge and culture of a lot of folks know. They say something stupid (see the topic of this particular forum) and it's hard to unring that bell. (Pontificate all you want about movies and music, but science is a bit more precious, to me, at least.)
So, yeah, his reputation - before his "apology/please buy this revised edition it's not a cash grab" tour - was already in the tank in my brain. Admitting it might be a sign of guts and morals, but it also seems like a bid to maintain his income stream.
I'd rather have an occasionally wrong, repentant Gladwell than a Joe Rogan. I'm sure there are 100% sources out there too, but I'm not bothered by a correction (I also haven't bought the follow up yet).
Isn't this what we want? Especially since his first book was so widely read. I agree that he does craft the story to fit the facts, but that is not out of line with other ways of interpreting our world - "here's a lot of data, can we come up with a story/model that fits?". The next piece should be "now let's see if the model is predictive". And I think it is especially noteworthy that a major author with a fair amount of clout was able to say "I got it wrong". That's not an easy admission, especially for someone so public, who's reputation has certainly taken a hit from it (noted by your response).
Hot tip: Anything broadcast on any podcast or written down might be wrong (especially anything said here*).
*My statements are all 100% correct. This is backed by a double your money back guarantee.
I've kept my receipt, and so may take you up on that.
But I think it behooves anyone doing stuff like he is to 1) hypothesize and then 2) test the hypothesis before telling people that they understand something about the world. That's a high bar, but they invite it by insinuating that they're someone to be listened to. The old "I coughed, and then lightning flashed. Therefore, I cause lightning!" story.
And, although picking on him, it's fair to apply it to podcasts: those things should be a lot fewer and a lot more thoughtful inasmuch as they're steering knowledge and culture of a lot of folks know. They say something stupid (see the topic of this particular forum) and it's hard to unring that bell. (Pontificate all you want about movies and music, but science is a bit more precious, to me, at least.)
So, yeah, his reputation - before his "apology/please buy this revised edition it's not a cash grab" tour - was already in the tank in my brain. Admitting it might be a sign of guts and morals, but it also seems like a bid to maintain his income stream.
I started out liking Gladwell. He came to speak at one of our annual conclaves, and besides his own stuff (right around the time of Tipping Point, IIRC) he held a brief discussion with the guy running Cisco at the time, moderated by our CEO. It was interesting, although I remember - shamefully - that when he walked out, since he was unknown to most, there was a lot of audible laughter at his appearance - small guy, moderate Afro. Shameful reaction by folks to their guest. These same folks laughed with Robert Reich, a few years later, walked out. He dealt with it gracefully: "I was 6'2" until the latest economy numbers got published." Smiles all around. Poor guy.
Anyway, having read more than a few of Gladwell's books, I find them to be the worst in pop psychology. He takes very interesting stories and painfully weaves them together to create a retrospective understanding of "why" those events occurred. None of it is ever PROspective, or predictive, so it's useless except as entertainment.
And, he's currently on an apology tour (!) for what he got wrong in his early book. That is, he blew it - but is still trying to stay relevant although he, himself, recognizes that he might not be the best in this arena.
Admittedly, I never bothered with RH since I have this knowledge that he can say stuff and not be right.
Isn't this what we want? Especially since his first book was so widely read. I agree that he does craft the story to fit the facts, but that is not out of line with other ways of interpreting our world - "here's a lot of data, can we come up with a story/model that fits?". The next piece should be "now let's see if the model is predictive". And I think it is especially noteworthy that a major author with a fair amount of clout was able to say "I got it wrong". That's not an easy admission, especially for someone so public, who's reputation has certainly taken a hit from it (noted by your response).
Hot tip: Anything broadcast on any podcast or written down might be wrong (especially anything said here*).
*My statements are all 100% correct. This is backed by a double your money back guarantee.
RH is one of the few podcasts I've stuck with for years. Almost always good.
I started out liking Gladwell. He came to speak at one of our annual conclaves, and besides his own stuff (right around the time of Tipping Point, IIRC) he held a brief discussion with the guy running Cisco at the time, moderated by our CEO. It was interesting, although I remember - shamefully - that when he walked out, since he was unknown to most, there was a lot of audible laughter at his appearance - small guy, moderate Afro. Shameful reaction by folks to their guest. These same folks laughed with Robert Reich, a few years later, walked out. He dealt with it gracefully: "I was 6'2" until the latest economy numbers got published." Smiles all around. Poor guy.
Anyway, having read more than a few of Gladwell's books, I find them to be the worst in pop psychology. He takes very interesting stories and painfully weaves them together to create a retrospective understanding of "why" those events occurred. None of it is ever PROspective, or predictive, so it's useless except as entertainment.
And, he's currently on an apology tour (!) for what he got wrong in his early book. That is, he blew it - but is still trying to stay relevant although he, himself, recognizes that he might not be the best in this arena.
Admittedly, I never bothered with RH since I have this knowledge that he can say stuff and not be right.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Mar 6, 2019 - 5:32am
Lazy8 wrote:
cc_rider wrote:
It could also be related to the chemicals that have become ubiquitous. Stuff like Round-Up, which has been found in practically every food product. Inflammation as a reaction to ingesting poisons.
I think the explosion of peanut allergies is related to the chemicals used in modern farming/agriculture. It's not that kids are 'more sensitive' or coddled or whatever, it's because their bodies are reacting to poison. That's my theory anyway. Peanut allergies were almost unheard of prior to the introduction of Round Up (1974). Unfortunately it's practically impossible to escape. Even organic produce and meat products have been found with traces of bad stuff. Even if all of it was banned tomorrow, it could take decades for that stuff to decay. c.
Could also be chemtrails. After all, anonymous people on the internet swear it's true.
If you are on social media at all you've seen breathless headlines claiming that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) has been detected in every food known to man. It's everywhere! We're all going to die!
Well, we are all going to die, but not from glyphosate—one of the most-studied chemicals ever made. People have been trying to pin diseases on it practically since it was first synthesized, and it hasn't happened. That article you saw on Facebook? Yeah, that's not actual science.
Studies showing trace amounts of glyphosate being detected in several things tested (that turns into "every food tested!!!" by the time it becomes a clickbait headline) means...we have very very sensitive detection technology. Detectable in no way equals dangerous.
It could also be related to the chemicals that have become ubiquitous. Stuff like Round-Up, which has been found in practically every food product. Inflammation as a reaction to ingesting poisons.
I think the explosion of peanut allergies is related to the chemicals used in modern farming/agriculture. It's not that kids are 'more sensitive' or coddled or whatever, it's because their bodies are reacting to poison. That's my theory anyway. Peanut allergies were almost unheard of prior to the introduction of Round Up (1974). Unfortunately it's practically impossible to escape. Even organic produce and meat products have been found with traces of bad stuff. Even if all of it was banned tomorrow, it could take decades for that stuff to decay. c.
Could also be chemtrails. After all, anonymous people on the internet swear it's true.
If you are on social media at all you've seen breathless headlines claiming that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) has been detected in every food known to man. It's everywhere! We're all going to die!
Well, we are all going to die, but not from glyphosate—one of the most-studied chemicals ever made. People have been trying to pin diseases on it practically since it was first synthesized, and it hasn't happened. That article you saw on Facebook? Yeah, that's not actual science.
Studies showing trace amounts of glyphosate being detected in several things tested (that turns into "every food tested!!!" by the time it becomes a clickbait headline) means...we have very very sensitive detection technology. Detectable in no way equals dangerous.
There is a theory about the cause of autism that seems much more likely and logical, but has yet to be studied: inflammation. We have a lot of inflammation from poor diets (too much carb/sugar/white food), stress and environment (chemicals, airborne toxins, et al). Some neuroscientists believe that if the mother has inflammation, especially in the brain (very common), it results in less myelination of neurons in the fetus. Translation: their neurons develop weaker coatings, and these coatings quicken/make more efficient connections in the nervous system. It's certainly a more logical hypothesis than vaccinations causing autism.
It could also be related to the chemicals that have become ubiquitous. Stuff like Round-Up, which has been found in practically every food product. Inflammation as a reaction to ingesting poisons.
I think the explosion of peanut allergies is related to the chemicals used in modern farming/agriculture. It's not that kids are 'more sensitive' or coddled or whatever, it's because their bodies are reacting to poison. That's my theory anyway. Peanut allergies were almost unheard of prior to the introduction of Round Up (1974). Unfortunately it's practically impossible to escape. Even organic produce and meat products have been found with traces of bad stuff. Even if all of it was banned tomorrow, it could take decades for that stuff to decay. c.
There is a theory about the cause of autism that seems much more likely and logical, but has yet to be studied: inflammation. We have a lot of inflammation from poor diets (too much carb/sugar/white food), stress and environment (chemicals, airborne toxins, et al). Some neuroscientists believe that if the mother has inflammation, especially in the brain (very common), it results in less myelination of neurons in the fetus. Translation: their neurons develop weaker coatings, and these coatings quicken/make more efficient connections in the nervous system. It's certainly a more logical hypothesis than vaccinations causing autism.
Vaccines are Not to Blame A decade before the measles vaccine panic, parents feared this vaccine could harm their children.
#1 this article has nothing to do with thimerosal and the documented demylination (sp?) that occurs as a know tabled vaccine injury event and direct effect of thimerosal exposure
#2 another article that falsely misrepresents the other issue of the effects from the MMR and the political and vilification of anyone questioning that sacred cow
#3 this article tries to blame genetics "oh it would have happened anyway" which is also a false assumption and playing liberal with that factor. just because someone has certain genetics doesn't necessarily mean they will be expressed. If anything this indicates that that vaccine was the environmental trigger for it to be expressed
#4 pertussis was not the first vaccine to be questioned and have problems. there were documented concerns about other vaccines before that most notably the polio vaccine which was found to not only cause polio but induce cancer (from "dirty" tissue samples that contained animal viruses).
#5 its not "anti-vaccine" its people who rightfully question safety
you don't call one who questions airline safety "anti-fliers"
It actually shows the roots of the Anti-vaxxer movement; which is based in peoples' tendency to confuse correlation with causation. Once one type of vaccine became wrongly associated with a neurological disorder, it's easy to see why people latched onto the bogus snake oil that charlatans like Andrew Wakefield were selling.
People who refuse to fly for safety reasons while regularly getting behind the wheel of an automobile to travel (some of them still don't wear seat belts) are in the same category as parents who buy into vaccine fear, even if their fear is not based on false concerns like the disproven MMR-ASD link, but on fear of known, legitimate side effects of vaccines: They are bad at assessing risk vs. benefit. The risks of flying are much lower on a per-mile traveled basis than the risks of driving. The risks of using vaccines pale in comparison to the risks of failing to vaccinate.
Vaccines are Not to Blame A decade before the measles vaccine panic, parents feared this vaccine could harm their children.
#1 this article has nothing to do with thimerosal and the documented demylination (sp?) that occurs as a know tabled vaccine injury event and direct effect of thimerosal exposure
#2 another article that falsely misrepresents the other issue of the effects from the MMR and the political and vilification of anyone questioning that sacred cow
#3 this article tries to blame genetics "oh it would have happened anyway" which is also a false assumption and playing liberal with that factor. just because someone has certain genetics doesn't necessarily mean they will be expressed. If anything this indicates that that vaccine was the environmental trigger for it to be expressed
#4 pertussis was not the first vaccine to be questioned and have problems. there were documented concerns about other vaccines before that most notably the polio vaccine which was found to not only cause polio but induce cancer (from "dirty" tissue samples that contained animal viruses).
#5 its not "anti-vaccine" its people who rightfully question safety
you don't call one who questions airline safety "anti-fliers"
