On Criticism

A few more thoughts on yesterday's post:

I will confess to having a slightly reverential attitude toward academia. I'm the son of an academic. Much of my writing involves taking academic research and trying to translate it for a more general audience. And I've always believed that if you set out to write about the work of academic specialists, you have a responsibility to treat that work with respect-- to acknowledge your own ignorance and, where appropriate, defer to the greater expertise of others.

I don't always live up to this. And on other occasions, I"m sure, some would say that I take this reverence too far. But that's a criticism I'm more than happy to live with. In the case of the Ireland case study in The Risk Pool, I probably read a dozen studies or so in the literature on demographics and development,and talked to a fairly wide sample of researchers. I don't pretend that I completely understood all of it, or could follow the theoretical parts. I'm not a trained economist. But I did reach several conclusions:

1. That the scholarship in the area was deep and impressive, and I was won over by it.

2  More importantly, that it was really, really interesting--and that it had the effect of making me think about economic development (and pensions) in a way that I had never thought about them before.

In writing about this field, my intention is not--as it never is--to convert readers to my way of thinking, or have them abandon their own worldview for mine. It is simply to invite readers to share in the same wonderful experience that I had when I read through the literature--that is, to step inside a new way of thinking for a moment,  and be  challenged by it. What taking that step requires, though, is that you the grant the specialists involved some of this same deference--particularly if, like me, you are not an expert on demography. Canning and Bloom are not lightweights. They are scholars, who know more about this field than 99.9 percent of us, and it seems to me reasonable to listen to what they have to say.

The frustration I expressed in yesterdays post has to do with the fact that I don't think that some critics are always willing to offer this respect. One of the people I read regularly, for example, is the cultural critics of the The New Republic's, Lee Siegel. I find him really interesting. Sadly, he's not a fan of mine, and often attacks my writing. I have no problem with that, however. He and I are on the same level. We're critics and journalists, and give and take on that level is what journalism is all about.  A few weeks ago, though, Siegel wrote a very nasty piece about a New York Times op-ed written by the psychologist Dan Gilbert--and that piece infuriated me.

Gilbert is a really important figure in contemporary social psychology. He has published widely. He has had enormous influence on the way we understand human behavior and emotion. And as far as I can tell, Siegel launched an attack on him without making any honest attempt to read or understand or appreciate Gilbert's larger perspective and work. That's just wrong. If you want to tackle a giant, you've got to do your homework. Don't call yourself an intellectual journalist, if you are not prepared to take intellectuals seriously.

This was my frustration with some of the reactions of readers to the ideas of Canning and Bloom. It seems to me that when you are confronted with an argument made by two respected economists, you ought to measure your own response. If my trunctated description of their Celtic Tiger paper rings false to you, then read the Celtic Tiger paper for yourself. If you don't see the importance of dependency ratios, then spend a little time on the web, reading the many, many thoughtful papers that have been written on this subject in recent years. It's simply not fair to dismiss Canning and Bloom, purely on the basis of what I wrote about Canning and Bloom. And in point of fact some of the criticisms leveled at their work would have evaporated had the critics even read so much of the first few pages of the Celtic Tiger paper.

I didn't mean to pick on Jane Galt, by the way.  She  has now written a very gracious and thoughtful response . I just wish that she had written that the first time around.

Comments

[Huw]

To avoid criticism: say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.

Sometimes it's more valuable to be disliked than liked, as so often it is our adversaries from whom we learn the most.

Keep thinking, and keep up the good work, Malcolm.

[J]

"I will confess to having a slightly reverential attitude toward academia"

I spent several years as the only (US) American in an otherwise entirely European military unit station in the US. One observation I gained from that experience was that people from the US generally have a contempt for authority that Europeans (and probably at least some Canadians) can be taken aback, if not offended by. If you primarily associate with academics and journalists, it's possible you've been insulated from this attitude, but as the JG post demonstrated, appeals to authority don't work all that well with a lot of Americans.

That said, also keep in mind research suggests that the "tone" of an email is misinterpreted half the time, and that's probably true of blog posts. We all need to have a thicker skin here.

[MT]

Jane Galt does not find the research convincing, she however is an economist.

If you ask an expert to write an article about his or her area of expertise what you're likely to get is an opinion piece, not journalism. The latest theories and explanations in any field are bound to divide that field, and every player is a partisan. Notice TV news has all but abandoned the one-perspective story and instead splits the screen and lets liberal and the conservative trade fire. It's nice to have a view of the controversy from the air, such as only an outsider can provide. So when Malcom tells us how he works, I suspect his description is a little skewed, in that his personal independent assessment of the work by Canning and Bloom seems to have stood out sharpest in a lot of us, provoking replies ala "Malcom's not an economist." But that personal assessment was just an executive check or balance on a vastly more distributed assessment. Malcom reveals that he's attended to the reputation of these economists and their work among their peers. He knows that Canning and Bloom have tenure at prestigious institutions, and I bet he noted long lists of publications in prestigious journals too. If Malcom has heard of Google, I bet he noticed they get invited to speak anywhere by others experts in their fields. And given that he can say "Hi, this is Malcom Gladwell from the New Yorker, I was wondering if I could ask you a question," I bet he's been able to get a lot of pertinent opinions from other experts on the work of Canning and Bloom--and I bet these experts have impressive credentials themselves. Malcom's task isn't to decide whether Canning and Bloom are right about Ireland or GM or anything else. It's to decide whether they deserve space in the New Yorker and the attention of its readers.

[Miracle Max]

A useful perspective on the subject of the article may be gleaned from the literature on overlapping generations models. It provides an analytical apparatus that clarifies some of the issues MG discusses. The granddaddy of this was Paul Samuelson and his legendary paper on consumption-loan models.

It also contradicts MG in some ways. For instance, the models show what factors make a pay-as-you-go pension system (public or private) sustainable or imperiled. There is not necessarily any problem in a system without a reserve that begins by supporting some non-workers. It can be the population trends, as MG discusses, that can throw the thing out of whack.

[Twill00]

Classy end on both sides to a non-classy pie fight.

I wonder if Mr Gladwell has recovered his sense of humour enough to notice the unintentional irony inherent in the opening of his prior post?

[me]

Haha Twilloo. Well said! I think that is the perfect cap to this amusing snit...

[malcolm gladwell]

Believe me, I have. :-)

[HK]

I just want to say that I am a fan of your writing because of your ability to translate the work/language of academia so that I can grasp the concept of the idea at hand, and research it furthur if it is of interest. It is especially helpful as a student when I have SO much information to disect before I get to the gist of the matter.

Your books and writing make it quite evident that you are someone who does his research before writing which is more than I can say for many journalists of today. It is rare to find journalist who can remain neutral when faces with opposing view points, but you are one of that backs up your writings with legitimate research.

[Josh]

Malcolm,
I'm glad you brought up Lee Siegel. I also find him interesting but too often frustrating -- and his blog posts about your writing have been particularly annoying for the very reason you cite about his Gilbert piece.

In one of his posts, Siegel ripped into and basically mocked your using Paul Revere as an example in The Tipping Point. The post bugged me at the time, but I couldn't pinpoint why. Part of it was Siegel's unpersuasive attempt at arguing for the importance of two other Revere contemporaries (I can't remember their names, and his blog has just been removed from TNR's site).

But I recently reread some of Tipping Point, and it hit me why Siegel's post felt so off-target. Your information about Revere and your using him as an example of a Connector were based on the David Hackett Fischer book Paul Revere's Ride. Now, I don't know who Fischer is and I've never read his book. I have no idea if it's scholarly or pop history, or what Fischer's reputation is. But you didn't make up facts about Revere out of thin air. If Siegel wanted to rebut your assessment of Paul Revere, he needed to also have grappled with Fischer's book. By not even acknowledging the book's existence or the fact that you clearly attributed your information to it (in the text--it's not even buried in footnotes), I felt like his post was nothing more than a rant against you. Which apparently is what he did with the Gilbert column.

[Colin]

Josh,
William Dawes was one of the other messengers with Paul Revere.Petey;I'm a scientist.You can't comment in a scientific journal without attributing uless you use generally acknowledged facts.Thus ,one may say,four nucleic acids are used in DNA.To,say,"Jane Galt is a figure of rather limited intelligence" without attribution in effect says,"I don't like her."I'm not impressed.Now,one can say,"John Kerry is a figure of rather limited intelligence,because his
Naval intelligence testing correlates to an IQ of about 114,and cite the NYT's article in Oct 04 about this and that's acceptable.See?
Just for my limited enjoyment,how would you rate your intellect?

[Colin]

Josh,
William Dawes was one of the other messengers with Paul Revere.Petey;I'm a scientist.You can't comment in a scientific journal without attributing uless you use generally acknowledged facts.Thus ,one may say,four nucleic acids are used in DNA.To,say,"Jane Galt is a figure of rather limited intelligence" without attribution in effect says,"I don't like her."I'm not impressed.Now,one can say,"John Kerry is a figure of rather limited intelligence,because his
Naval intelligence testing correlates to an IQ of about 114,and cite the NYT's article in Oct 04 about this and that's acceptable.See?
Just for my limited enjoyment,how would you rate your intellect?

[Chris]

Speaking of Lee Siegel, sprezzatura! bwaahahahahah!

[Gary Farber]

Remarkably, no one has noted that Lee Siegel melted down and was suspended by The New Republic.

Although the last comment appropriate laughs.

Ah, no embedded HTML allowed. Well, that makes it hard to cite.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/09/sprezzatura.html

[Dude]

Gladwell says, "I will confess to having a slightly reverential attitude toward academia." I was taught very early in grad school to discount the conclusions in academic papers and concentrate on the methodology. I and the dozen other PhDs in my family work in various hard sciences, where it's much harder to stretch the truth, yet it happens all the time in small ways. There's much more wiggle room available in soft sciences (econ, psych), so their conclusions should be met with healthy skepticism. The non-sciences (polysci, sociology) publish position papers masked as objective scholarship. They are so envious of economists! ;-)

People toiling in academia are just like people everywhere. They fall in love with their pet theories. They suffer from confirmation bias. They get hostile when someone pokes at their work. I'm sure a write-up in The New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell is a heady experience for them. It instantly lifts their work out of obscurity. They become mini-celebrities at the next conference. I hope your editors don't let your reverence impair your critical thinking.

[BILL WEGMANN]

YOU SAID YOU BOTH ARE CRITICS AND JOURNALISTS. WHAT YOU NGLECTED IS THAT YOU BOTH ARE LEFT WING LIBERALS. YOUR POSTS SHOW THIS BIAS.

[Michael Sprouse]

I wonder Mr. Gladwell, if your research on dependency ratios and the effect contraception had on Ireland's economy might also have changed your view of Freakonomics and the effect of abortion on crime rates? Somewhat similar arguments aren't they?

Love your work by the way.

[John]

An earlier commenter remarked that, "Megan, an economist, is commenting on the same piece of paper."

I'm afraid that you misunderstand her credentials. An MBA degree is a terminal degree designed to prepare someone for business and management. It most certainly does qualify someone to be considered an economist.

At bare minimum, I would expect someone claiming to be an economist to hold an MA in Economics, and frankly a Ph.D. is expected, certainly to be taking the title for the purpose of serving as arbiter of economic research.

This isn't academic snobbery... while often (but not always) housed in economics departments, the curriculum and expectations for MBA programs are drastically different. They certainly don't prepare or qualify students on the matter of economic research (actually that's one of the most defining differences between terminal masters programs and others).

[John]

An earlier commenter remarked that, "Megan, an economist, is commenting on the same piece of paper."

I'm afraid that you misunderstand her credentials. An MBA degree is a terminal degree designed to prepare someone for business and management. It most certainly does not qualify someone to be considered an economist.

At bare minimum, I would expect someone claiming to be an economist to hold an MA in Economics, and frankly a Ph.D. is expected, certainly to be taking the title for the purpose of serving as arbiter of economic research.

This isn't academic snobbery... while often (but not always) housed in economics departments, the curriculum and expectations for MBA programs are drastically different. They certainly don't prepare or qualify students on the matter of economic research (actually that's one of the most defining differences between terminal masters programs and others).

[Reg Scheepers]

It amazes me the antagonistic approach so many people take to Malcolm. I mean, what a cure for insecurities: Disagree with Malcolm Gladwell and let him know how dumb his theories are because that must mean that you're smarter than what he is. Please. People who have posted, like Larry, Person, and Steve Sailer, get their self-esteem up this way. Didn't your parents give you enough love?

It's one thing to disagree, but to ATTACK someone else's views is pathetic and childish.

The Earth is round. That's obvious. Well, it wasn't obvious a couple of centuries ago. So those people who argue that Gladwell's material is somehow simplistic because it's obvious (only now that Gladwell has explained it) shouldn't post. The fact that it's obvious only goes to show how well Malcolm disected it.

When's the last time you published, as you call it, 'obvious' concepts, and made millions from it? Never done it? Still waiting on your first million? Come back and criticize when you have. Any other course of action would make you even more of a fool than what you've already displayed.

Half the ignorant folks on this blog are the same people who would have argued with Einstein about his theory of relativity even though he was a world renouned scientist and thinker. You just get people like that and it's hard not to be irritated by them. But hey, everyone needs to feel smart, so let's attack celebrated journalist Malcolm Gladwell, we'll feel smart afterwards.

[Nate]

I'm mighty late to this party, but I had to ask: what WAS it that infuriated Lee Siegel so much about your writing, Mr. Gladwell? He constantly accused you of promoting "business values," but the substance of your writing is often against the interests of big business. The only thing I can think of is that you have what he considers an unromantic worldview. Did you ever have any personal communication with him about it?