In my previous posting I noted that I have not infrequently found that I have benefited from points or arguments in critical reviews that I had not appreciated myself from my own reading of the book in question. For that reason I find myself uncomfortable with discussions that take almost as a starting point the supposed prejudices of the critic, rather than the arguments themselves. So:
On 28 January 2009 Joan Warmbold wrote: >My take on some of the negative reviews of his most recent book is that >he is threatening a cherish belief of us all--that being of the "self-made man." I think judgements should be made on the basis of examination of the best critical arguments, rather than seeing negative reviews as largely a consequence of the reviewer's beliefs being "threatened". (I think this may sometimes be the case, but I think it is too easy to fall back on such a position - one which can, of course, be turned back on the commentator.) > From what I have read of "Outliers," Gladwell provides plenty > of empirical support for his thesis and I personally am very eager > to read this book. >From what I have read his support, while occasionally empirical, is mainly anecdotal. > Such was the reality of also far more rigorous researchers who > provided 'unpopular' data, as per how much Skinner was disliked > in his day as well as how severely Belsky was criticized on day > care research. Neither were criticized for their impeccable research > but on what their data led them to conclude. Is there *any* research in social psychology that is "impeccable"? And is it the case that neither has been criticised for their research? A Google search would seem to refute this - though if you take the view that their research is "impeccable" then *any* criticism can be interpreted as based on prejudice, by definition. I think this rather exemplifies my concerns expressed at the beginning of this posting. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ******************************************* Subject: Re: Drop Kicking Malcolm Gladwell From: "Joan Warmbold" <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:57:42 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit http://www.fenichel.com/APAlive2008.shtml This URL will take you to information about Gladwell's presentation at APA last year. From all reports, I gathered he was very well received. My take on some of the negative reviews of his most recent book is that he is threatening a cherish belief of us all--that being of the "self-made man." His thesis is that a person's greatness or great accomplishments owe much to their fortunate circumstances. We know that such is absolutely NOT a popular notion. From what I have read of "Outliers," Gladwell provides plenty of empirical support for his thesis and I personally am very eager to read this book. But I also was not one bit surprised that it has not being well received by some . If we don't like the message, then we will slam the messenger. Such was the reality of also far more rigorous researchers who provided 'unpopular' data, as per how much Skinner was disliked in his day as well as how severely Belsky was criticized on day care research. Neither were criticized for their impeccable research but on what their data led them to conclude. Below is another critical review of Gladwell's book by the conservative columnist for the NYT's, David Brooks. I completely understand where he is coming from but believe his biases are strongly influencing his commentary. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=brook s%20review%20of%20outliers&st=cse Joan --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
