mea culpa

In the past year I have often been asked why I don’t have a blog. My answer was always that I write so much, already, that I don’t have time to write anything else. But, as should be obvious, I’ve now changed my mind. I have come (belatedly) to the conclusion that a blog can be a very valuable supplement to my books and the writing I do for the New Yorker. What I think I’d like to do is to use this forum to elaborate and comment on and correct and amend things that I have already written. If you look on my website, on the "Blink" page, you’ll see an expanded notes and bibliography, which mostly consists of copies of emails sent to me by readers. Well, I think I’d like to start posting reader comments for everything I write, and this is a perfect place for that.

There are also times when I think I’ve made mistakes, or oversights, and I’d like to use this space to explain myself and set things right.

Let me give you a small, immediate example. In my October 10th article for the New Yorker, "Getting In" I quoted from a fascinating study done a few years ago on the graduates of the elite Hunter College elementary school in Manhattan. But I didn’t get give the title of the book or its authors. Why? Well, the New Yorker is not an academic publication: we don’t footnote every source the way people do in scholarly journals. There are all kinds of things that any of us who write for the New Yorker read and that influence our writing but that we never acknowledge, because we don’t run bibliographies at the end of articles. That’s a constraint of the popular magazine business, and whether sources get mentioned is up to the judgment of writers and editor. In this case, though, I think I erred. I quoted from the book. I should have referenced it. So here goes. If you want to read a great account of what happens to those admitted to elite primary schools when they grow up, take a look at: "Genius Revisited: High IQ Children Grown Up" by Rena Subotnik, Lee Kassan, Ellen Summers and Allan Wasser.

     I also have a few amendments to the piece I wrote recently in the New Yorker about Pit Bulls entitled "Troublemakers." As soon as the article appeared, a dog trainer named Janis Bradley sent me a book she’s written called "Dogs Bite" (James and Kenneth Publishers, Berkeley CA: 2005). I wish I’d seen it before I wrote the article, because it is the most devastating and convincing indictment of the hysteria over dog bites that I’ve ever read. I won’t try and summarize Bradley’s arguments here. But if you’re interested in the issue I strongly recommend the book.

     One of my regrets in the piece is that I didn’t get a chance to discuss David Harris and his book "Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work." Harris’s book was the first thing I read when I started research on my article. I interviewed him at length, and his thinking had a big influence on how my article turned out. But he’s no where to be found in the piece. That happens all the time in journalism: a typical rule of thumb, at least for me, is that I interview at least ten people for every one I end up quoting. That fact doesn’t make it easier, though, particularly when the book is as good as Harris’s, and I wish I’d found a way to work him in.

     I also have some second thoughts about Frederick Schauer’s "Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes." Schauer’s book is actually the reason I ended up focusing on Pit Bulls. He devotes an entire chapter to generalizations and Pit Bulls—only he thinks that Pit Bull bans are a good idea. It was because I disagreed so strongly with him that I decided to write about why Pit Bull bans are a bad idea. I mentioned Schauer's book in the piece, and quote him. But I don't mention that he has strong feelings about Pit Bulls as well. Should I have? Should I have mentioned that my article was, in part, a response to his book? It's another one of those judgment calls, and I'm not sure, in retrospect, that I made the right decision. I think I should have devoted more time to Schauer, and I'm sorry about that. While I'm at it, I should also take the opportunity to say that  (with the exception of the Pit Bull chapter) Schauer’s book is really, really good. And even though I didn't agree with everything in it, It certainly helped me a great deal to organize my thoughts about generalizations. across. I recommend it highly.

In the past year I have often been asked why I don’t have a blog. My answer was always that I write so much, already, that I don’t have time to write anything else. But, as should be obvious, I’ve now changed my mind. I have come (belatedly) to the conclusion that a blog can be a very valuable supplement to my books and the writing I do for the New Yorker. What I think I’d like to do is to use this forum to elaborate and comment on and correct and amend things that I have already written. If you look on my website, on the "Blink" page, you’ll see an expanded notes and bibliography, which mostly consists of copies of emails sent to me by readers. Well, I think I’d like to start posting reader comments for everything I write, and this is a perfect place for that.

There are also times when I think I’ve made mistakes, or oversights, and I’d like to use this space to explain myself and set things right.

     I also have a few amendments to the piece I wrote recently in the New Yorker about Pit Bulls entitled "Troublemakers." As soon as the article appeared, a dog trainer named Janis Bradley sent me a book she’s written called "Dogs Bite" (James and Kenneth Publishers, Berkeley CA: 2005). I wish I’d seen it before I wrote the article, because it is the most devastating and convincing indictment of the hysteria over dog bites that I’ve ever read. I won’t try and summarize Bradley’s arguments here. But if you’re interested in the issue I strongly recommend the book.

     One of my regrets in the piece is that I didn’t get a chance to discuss David Harris and his book "Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work." Harris’s book was the first thing I read when I started research on my article. I interviewed him at length, and his thinking had a big influence on how my article turned out. But he’s no where to be found in the piece. That happens all the time in journalism: a typical rule of thumb, at least for me, is that I interview at least ten people for every one I end up quoting. That fact doesn’t make it easier, though, particularly when the book is as good as Harris’s, and I wish I’d found a way to work him in.

     I also have some second thoughts about Frederick Schauer’s "Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes." Schauer’s book is actually the reason I ended up focusing on Pit Bulls. He devotes an entire chapter to generalizations and Pit Bulls—only he thinks that Pit Bull bans are a good idea. It was because I disagreed so strongly with him that I decided to write about why Pit Bull bans are a bad idea. I mentioned Schauer's book in the piece, and quote him. But I don't mention that he has strong feelings about Pit Bulls as well. Should I have? Should I have mentioned that my article was, in part, a response to his book? It's another one of those judgment calls, and I'm not sure, in retrospect, that I made the right decision. I think I should have devoted more time to Schauer, and I'm sorry about that. While I'm at it, I should also take the opportunity to say that  (with the exception of the Pit Bull chapter) Schauer’s book is really, really good. And even though I didn't agree with everything in it, It certainly helped me a great deal to organize my thoughts about generalizations. across. I recommend it highly.

Comments

[Steven Johnson]

FIRST POST!

Welcome...

[Felix]

SECOND POST!

Welcome, welcome, come on in, the water's lovely. You'll learn how to do paragraphs in no time, I'm sure, and how to tweak your settings so that the full post is in your RSS feed.

As for the substance of this post, I think it's a great idea that you credit on your blog sources that you can't credit in TNY. It might even help in getting people to talk at length -- not that I think that's a major difficulty for you.

And welcome to the side of the angels w/r/t healthcare!

[Chris M.]

"tweak your settings so that the full post is in your RSS feed" -- yes, please!

Also, if you're reading this, please put your article "Tea and Sympathy" up on your site. It's one of my favorites.

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Malcolm, with you joining the blogging fray … looks like we are one step closer to 'tipping' blogging.

[Ben Casnocha]

Hi Malcolm, great to see you join the conversation! I enjoy your writings.

-Ben Casnocha
Entrepreneur, Writer, High School Student

http://www.casnocha.com

[Jonathan]

Malcolm - you rocked my world at the Catalyst Conference last year.

Welcome to the next frontier - the blogosphere!

[Anil Dash]

Welcome aboard -- as long as we're responding to your new effort by asking you to do more work, I can't wait to see what other links you put up on your sidebar. And of course, some shameless promotion of your own books.

[Jason Malloy]

Ok, Steven Berlin Johnson beat me then. Welcome Monsieur Gladwell.

[Jason Malloy]

Also, Malcolm, I don't know if you're set in your ways with your set-up here, but white text on black is generally a bad idea, because it's hard to read. It would also be easier on the eyes if you increased the font size a little bit. Also you should increase the leading.

http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/typespacing/a/leading.htm

Sorry, just trying to be helpful!

[Jason Malloy]

Oh yeah, I don't know how familiar you are with the "blog community" (or whatever), but Carl Zimmer's The Loom is another science blog you should definitely check out:

http://loom.corante.com/

Carl does the best job I've seen of using his blog as an extension of his science journalism. A fine example, if you’re sorta’ iffy on how to exploit the medium.

[sean coon]

methinks i'm getting dizzy, but you'll get this straightened up in no time i'm sure.

on a serious note, thank you for joining the writing 2.0 crowd:

http://www.seancoon.org/2006/01/writing_20.html

i'm looking forward to where you go with this...

[souris]

welcome to the party. i hope you'll stay awhile. and how about an accompanying flickr account?! i'm curious to know what visuals stimulate you.

[Steve Clackson]

Welcome! It's good to have another voice to keep MSM on its toes.

[Jason Wheeler]

Every genius needs a blog!!!

[john]

Seconding the comments about paragraphs, font size and white on black. Please make your blog easier to read.

Signing up for the RSS.

"But I didn’t get give the title of the book or its authors." is missing the word "to" surely?

Very pleased you've got a blog.

[Mary]

Ahh -- something new for my start page!

But yes, black text on white, please. And maybe a little more white space in posts like these.

[Melanie]

Yay! now we can link to your writing. So glad you've started blogging.

[hillaryjohnson]

I'll be very interested to see what kind of gills you grow as you adapt to these new waters. As a long-form magazine writer who started blogging last year, I've found that the main difference, for me, is that while writing an article is symphonic, blogging is more like mixing. The hardest (and most liberating) thing to learn about blogging is to embrace disruption.

[patti digh]

I've no delusions that you will remember me, but when you took Q&A after a speech you gave in Washington DC a few years ago, I asked you to marry me.

It wasn't to be, alas, but the speech was that good.

I look forward to reading a more accessible, immediate you.

As a relative of C. Powell, I thought you might find this story interesting - the experiences of a white woman who takes on a black skin avatar in an online game, and the reactions she experiences: http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2006/02/the_skin_youre_.html

[LeftyGrrrl]

Writing wouldn't be worth it if you couldn't constantly find things you wish you'd done differently or better, or perhaps omitted altogether. It just means that you are constantly improving and seeing things from different perspectives. Does knowledge after the fact really alter the work? In this case (as in most) no - this is purely armchair quarterbacking. Useful for next time, but futile for the game that has already been played.

[Dan Lockton]

Just to echo some of the other comments, I'm very much looking forward to reading your blog, and I think you'll find it invaluable in receiving examples and insights from readers who may have never come across your books or articles, but have perhaps had isolated thoughts along those lines without their ever having properly crystallised.

Both Blink and The Tipping Point, by skilful synthesis of examples and precedents from such a vast array of practical and academic fields, have given me a lot of inspiration to develop my own 'cross-disciplinary' ideas - in particular, 'Architectures of Control' (http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk ).

Good luck!

Dan Lockton
(designer, engineer and writer, UK)

[Tara 'Miss Rogue' Hunt]

Wow...yes...welcome....so much.

[Colleen Wainwright]

My, my. Christmas has come very early this year!

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

And welcome...

[john]

Much better layout, colour scheme and font size. Thank you.

[W.J.A]

>the experiences of a white woman who takes on a black skin avatar

Thanks for the plug, Patti-- I'm the author of the New World Notes blog and the embedded journalist in the online world Second Life. The place is rife with Gladwellian anecdotes, so I'm always grateful for his writing as a resource base.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Malcolm. You have an open invitation to be my guest in the virtual book club I host in Second Life. My last guest was Lawrence Lessig, for whom we created an avatar that looked exactly like him, and a completely readable virtual edition of his latest book:

http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2006/01/the_second_life.html

With autograph functionality!

http://secondlife.blogs.com/photos/nwn/lessig_autograph_for_babe_fan.jpg