A Perspective with Malcolm Gladwell

[@carolspencer6915]

Thankyou for the sensemaking, and more. After seventeen years of mental health nurse practice, this wee shared discussion kind of matches my frustrations and more. With regards the too broad medical model! Thankyou for your candid sharing of knowledge. 💜

[@muthamiamugendi9911]

Malcolm is one observant chap. I've really enjoyed watching.

[@jonathandewberry289]

Sure but he didn't notice the spelling error of the most famous roster of his most famous team on his powerpoint :(

[@donbrogan3158]

Observant? Possibly. Intelligence. Absolutely not.

[@DrJoeyBean]

What he said about NIH grants is worth following up on. Everyone uses number of publications and citations to determine research success, but it isn't a good measure. You publish lots of papers and get citations by "schooling with the fish". You write the 101st paper on something that cites the 100 papers before it and get cited by the 100 papers after it. The person doing the break through work will go 5 years without a paper. SpaceX doesn't publish papers. It could be that the research the NIH funds is high risk, high reward meant to make genuine medical advances, not to validate existing ideas that are well known.

[@birhan2006]

DrJoeyBean, you probably know more than I do on this but setting aside the quiet breakthrough works, what would you say about the cited ones that are also breakthrough works and the non-cited dormant no-use research.

[@DrJoeyBean]

@@birhan2006 Hi Birhan. I admit it's not so simple. When the breakthroughs happen, they often come from unlikely places, and get published in not so good journals because the political connections aren't there. But then, over time, it is possible for the work to get recognized. The field slowly pivots and it is possible to gather up citations. I have seen it happen, but it's uncommon and it takes major time. What is more common is for big brand name universities to control editorial boards of journals, and to get published you have to have "an in". It's because so much money is involved in research, grants, donations, institutional money, etc. Anytime that much money is being moved around there is a power structure to control it, and in science it's the journals that are used by the big schools as the major means of doing that, via control of citations. The unfortunate effect of this is the well known "reproducibility crisis". Pot covid, much of this has come to light but it'll be 50 years before things really change. Or at least I hope they do.

[@birhan2006]

@@DrJoeyBean Ok, thanks for that, but to get back to the point one way or another there is a gatekeeper problem

[@DrJoeyBean]

@@birhan2006 agreed. Gatekeepers are usually bad. I think of them like a tax. They distort markets and create dead weight losses.

[@jillcrowe2626]

I was a secretary at a major biomedical research institute. A woman for whom I worked was struggling to get funding from the NIH. The head of her Study Section, a man from another country, told her that she should be home taking care of her daughters. She had over 300 publications at the time. He had 5. Only five. She had to move to a nearby university so she could apply for a Gates grant. Only then did she get the funding to be on the project that found the vaccine for malaria.

[@65Drums]

I love these types of talks

[@barbcarbon9440]

I just love Malcolm Gladwell so much. He’s like the non-fiction Mark Twain of our times.

[@cbcarlse]

It's fiction. Just check out the most recent Munk Debate. This fella could definitely use some fact checkers for his Strawman routine.

[@no.6243]

No point in responding to an obvious shill.

[@barbcarbon9440]

Lol ok

[@no.6243]

Your "mark twain" is about as sharp as a marble. 😂

[@jr8899]

​@@cbcarlse good old Malc ,he got destroyed in that debate for our viewing pleasure,what a champion 😁

[@elizabeths.8683]

I feel like Malcolm Gladwell had never talked to a lawyer or anyone who’s hired one. Most clients would prefer the hare, and most lawyers I know struggle with being the tortoise. Thoroughness and efficiency are in constant tension, and it’s vital to be able to balance them. Sloppy work is bad, but it’s better than late or nonexistent work. One of worst things you can do as a lawyer is miss a deadline.

[@seattlesonic]

The guess & error count on the Tortoise column of his slide should be on the Hare column. It is Hare who makes guesses quickly.

[@michaelowens5394]

That's what it seemed like to me! But Malcolm clearly read them as part of the Tortoise stats. I never took the LSAT so I guess there's some detail there I don't know about.

[@georgehugh3455]

@@michaelowens5394 @seattlesonic is correct - the Tortoise can't have a 97.5% "correct" percentage and guess wrong on 21 questions. Hopefully, the New & Improved Gladwell Replacement won't make that mistake....

[@lucilletousignant8821]

Bravo for a very interesting talk.

[@1PrinceWilliam]

Imagine how much more interesting this could’ve been if we weren’t living in pseudo-meritocracies!

[@sfkid57]

i have a question or comment? i am 65yrs old and have failed just all tested i have taken in my life. i have a learning disability or what ever they call it today, i tested at 35yrs old, you know the story. teachers always said i just didn't try, etc, how does it make sense that test are made by educationally coordinated people for other educationally coordinated people. to judge education level. they told that i just need to study differently to learn the information. that is like telling someone who is physically uncoordinated that they just need to train harder to make the team. as someone who is very physically coordinate i have learned that no matter how much i have worked with someone who is physically uncoordinated. they will still be physically uncoordinated. but yet in the education system tells people like me are told that we have to become educationally coordinated. how does that make sense to you educationally coordinated peolpe? if you are one of those physically uncoordinated people?

[@margaretmoro2331]

It's called the box!!! I don't fit in the box I don't like the box I think the box should exist

[@xiqueira]

A lot of times the follow up to how to study differwnt isn't provided. That is a real failure in our system of neuropsych tests. But just like you'd tell a person to stary doing push ups on the wall, you tell someone to read their text while also listening to its audio. Or using a colored film to read, or using different memory methods. What we need are learning disability coaches to follow up after one is told our defecits

[@beldonhuang]

What an interesting talk! His TED talks (like a couple of his that I summarise on my channel) are also highly recommended.

[@TheJoePokrifka]

At 11:40, should the vertical axis label read ‘mortality’ vs ‘morality’?

[@rockradstone]

Yes.

[@woodworkingaspirations1720]

Changing the system will not necessarily be a solution. It will simply be a new experiment, that some other researcher will find demerits after getting data over a 10 year period. Age may be a factor but may not be the most influential factor. There is some utility in timing the aptitude tests, just the same way we time a basketball game. We do not have an infinite amount of time to work with and neither do we have an infinite number of vacancies in the workplace. We could argue that the time is short, and increase it to 45 minutes, or have a series of tests and get the average. But as things are now many smaller universities are getting better and a good student in such a university will still make it. Companies seem to be more adventurous in looking for talent and no longer focus on only the elite universities, but also the talented students from different parts of the world.

[@KitagumaIgen]

When it comes to sports age is a factor during the growing phase, a January kid is approximately 10 % older and more grown than a December kid in the 10-12 age. Once they have grown up, that age-difference in growth have canceled out. Therefore it skews the evaluation of kids talent in sports.

[@donalodonoghue7554]

Does anyone have a reference for the Norwood paper he cited?

[@sutats]

19:26 You can sense his frustration.

[@tubeorip]

I could feel it in Denmark :) He is one second from flipping the bird to all of em !

[@aaronboor2818]

I love the freudian slip of the y axis of the surgery graph being mislabeled "odds ratio for morality" instead of mortality

[@davidwilkie9551]

Very convincing exposure of the difference between assuming a belief system has superhuman sustainability and the slow slog of Sciencing Re-search Analysis and development of techniques into effective management technologies. "Precision is not Accuracy" either in assessment or application.

[@teethompson7756]

It would be nice if he kept his voice loud and clear consistently. I had to use captions to make out a lot of this talk. That should not be necessary when he's wearing a face mic.

[@georgehugh3455]

The only quibble I _might_ have is with the LSAT - perhaps the time limit places a degree of stress on the candidates that is seen in some significant percentage (or maybe the "halo" trial-lawyer/judge roles) of the trade. _You don't get forever to answer a business client's question, or respond to a SCOTUS Justice._

[@gabrielstvore]

Exactly my thought on the LSAT example. The goal is to get a maximum score. All test takers know the time limit and prep accordingly. For this reason, different strategies evolve. I don't agree that removing the time limit would magically improve the talent pool at law firms. And yes, the world imposes time limits on us and we don't always have "all day" to get something right.

[@danielm5161]

@@gabrielstvore Removing the time limit constraint would certainly output a different score distribution. Whether that difference would be an "improvement" is hard to say but it is certainly the case that tweaks to the constraints on the test could create wildly different score outputs. Thus bringing into question the whole process.

[@danielm5161]

Answering a client or Justice's question in the moment is a very different skill set then what an LSAT test is testing you for. Plenty of people can fire back a witty and persuasive sounding response to a client/justice question that would absolutely bomb an LSAT test. They're called salesman.

[@gabrielstvore]

@@danielm5161 valid point. I don't claim that the LSAT is a good measure of future success in the legal profession. Just that it's objective, fair, and transparent. I would say the same about the GMAT as well for example. If someone can come up with a better way to gauge a student's future success in the legal profession, we should consider it.

[@georgehugh3455]

@@danielm5161 _Have you actually listened to a full SCOTUS hearing (not just the "witty" snippets)?_ It's vastly different from what you described and well above the relatively simple LSAT-level test question. But at least the LSAT, performed under pressure, might give an indication of a candidate's basic ability (to be developed) to perform in a court or Boardroom meeting environment.

[@tennisforever1282]

At 11:54 the Y axis on the graph says "Morality."

[@dancl8674]

Love how Malcomb Gladwell “bait and switched“ his reason as to why meritocracies are ultimately a good thing… he proceeds to say that they are good, because we are here and not people smarter than us! Very clever way to tell your audience that it’s good for “you”because it works very badly.

[@darylarmentrout252]

If the system was based on merit he would be at a fast food counter taking your order

[@anirbanc88]

gladwell is cogito ergo sum manifestation, love him so much!

[@-Gorbi-]

Hard to listen to him after his behavior at the recent Munk debate. He was not curious or open minded, used baseless ad hominems to attack the other side, and clearly lives in an elitist bubble

[@chrisclarke9999]

Trying to give this guy a chance but struggling to after his shameful words in the Munk debate.

[@nelsonang]

the hush when MG says none of us will be if meritocracy is fixed is the reason why it is not fixed...

[@sixman9]

I'm from the UK, my daughter was born 31st August, she was THE youngest student in the school, she bucked Malcolm's figures, she is gifted and talented. As an aside, I did too, I'm 23rd August, played Rugby and Basketball, but then I'm also 6'9" tall 😉

[@terrypatterson7992]

He cut his hair

[@woodworkingaspirations1720]

Some of Gladwell's propositions are too simplistic. Too many assumptions.

[@ryanalbrecht3331]

Mispelled Mortality as Morality and that was very funny in the context of what you were talking about.

[@richardnunziata3221]

he brings up interesting points and criticisms but it is not meritocracy but institutional framework and lack of causal data (counterfactuals) analysis that is the problem. Also there is definity some cherry picking going on here . And if I choose a individual who scores high on LSAT or just randomly pick a candidate who took the test I am sure there would be real implications going forward. One issue with meritocracies is that it often selects individuals who are disadvantaged due to lack of access to resources like tutoring .

[@murrayscott3513]

Coffee mugs, if it says you're the best and britest on your Coffee mug, it is so.

[@AllThatsGone]

A very meta conclusion to a google talk.

[@KL00100]

He has the intellect to point out the absurdity.

[@jeremyjernigan5018]

Odds ratio for morality? Our morals need work.

[@susabara]

and then the hare put a lovely "Odds Ratio for Morality" on the vertical axis at 11:50 and the tortoise is rolling her eyes while both marriages break apart...

[@michaelslott9896]

Citation counts are biased towards good ideas executed poorly. Who gets cited the most is someone you can most easily improve on. A proposal to do research in a less methodologically sound way would be downgraded, but the resulting work would get a lot of citations. This characteristic would lead to a poor correlation between proposal score and this particular (mis-)measure of quality of work. I would love to see this critique acknowledged, and I do love M.G.'s writings.

[@nathanngumi8467]

Word. Meritocracy is not what it seems.

[@pauljohnson6377]

Recognizing the phrase “meritocracy‘s are bad” instead of saying “ our meritocracy‘s have given us surgeons lawyers and elite sports professionals, but they could be improved” Shows the fallacy of “the critique” method used by Gladwell… and creates a corrosive way of thinking about the human and social systems in which we live in.

[@G11713]

Actually, it is the educational system that has given us lawyers, elite sports professionals, and whatnot. Though meritocratic screening claims to optimize the process it has only optimized for the convenience of the evaluators and the incidentally lucky candidates and apparently in a way that is resistant to self improvement.

[@pauljohnson6377]

​@@G11713 There is no education system without assigning someone who "knows" to educate those who "don't know". Our ability to ride trains that don't fall off the track, use wind power connected to a grid, or not allow Nazi Germany to invade England during WW2, was predicated on those who knew how to accomplish tasks, being enabled by those who do not know how to accomplish certain tasks. My statement was that "meritocratic systems should be aimed to be improved", not that "meritocratic systems are bad"... Just as our own values and aims and bad ideas need to be destroyed as we gather new information, and see what works and what does not work, being cognizant of what may have been learned at great cost to our ancestors, 2000-10,000 years ago as civilization began. My point is and was that Gladwell uses language, and a form of critique that points out problems, and seemingly is waiting for someone else to come up with the answers. Challenge, but with respect and tact and solutions, otherwise if we exemplify people like Gladwell, all we will get are generations that think way is the most virtuous thing to do.

[@ravindertalwar553]

CONGRATULATIONS AND PRAYERS 🙏💖💖🙏🙏💖 BY RAVINDER TALWAR JALANDHAR CITY PUNJAB INDIA

[@margaretmoro2331]

G A T E K E E P E R

[@rijzone]

perhaps not

[@ourworld1466]

Malcolm Gladwell hasn’t told the truth in years, this guy only says what’s bottle-fed to him

[@2894031]

Well this guy just never stops cherry picking statistics to sell his fairy tales. And Google is ready to pay for that time after time 😅😅😅

[@G11713]

Magical. He is in a good team... just saying.

[@ourworld1466]

Gladwell lies so much he doesn’t even know what the truth is

[@margaretmoro2331]

Int 💶 rest in GO!

[@margaretmoro2331]

This is all related to one thing... one goal!!!

[@margaretmoro2331]

🐢 and 🐇

[@margaretmoro2331]

Everyone's marriage falls apart, weddings cost $ and divorce costs 2X MORE!

[@DiamondLil]

Malc, you really beclowned yourself at the Munk debate. Why were you so unprepared to defend your position rationally? Were you too arrogant and smug to bother?

[@pasosdegigante7]

self deprecating at its finest

[@jae2686]

Gladwell just made me a skeptic of his prognostications, which I wasn’t before, and one who’s lost respect for him after the Munk Debate. He showed his true colors and it wasn’t pretty,

[@alexleeds2523]

It sounds like you were already a skeptic, long before this video. The Munk Debate was in 2015. In a debate, the two sides make arguments that they might not truly believe. It's an exercise. Hard to see how that could make you lose respect for him.

[@newtonwetter8802]

@@Rampton8810, main point was regarding debate being an intellectual exercise to shine a light on two opposing views, even if the proponents don't fully buy into the view they're expounding. Oh, and to entertain the listeners. Try not to get over-invested.

[@DiamondLil]

@@alexleeds2523 He's referrring to a Munk debate with Douglas Murray earlier this year (2022)

[@Leviajohnson]

Lol whatever

[@Mash-e1w]

Munk not better than Cunk.

[@keithallen6504]

Meritocracies according to Malcom: It explains that Trump is right - the system is rigged.

[@Head-Gein]

Race baiter

[@AndreaIdini]

As usual, Gladwell simplifies to the point of utter ridiculing the finding of research. The fact that the correlation between citation and grant grading is "small to non existent", already a debatable claim, doesn't mean that there is no point in review, even according to the simplistic rules of the idealized a stylized world Malcolm is picturing (which is far from reality). One explanation of a lack of correlation would be that all the grants founded are equally meritorious (as it should be, since they are founded roughly the same amount), and all the grants non founded are not. A perfect binary classifier of a perfect binary system would do exactly what Malcolm states is problematic. Even more so, if the number of grants is much much smaller than the number of meritorious applicants (as it is in truth) then of course there is little correlation because everyone that gets the grant is by far among the most promising candidates, and there are even promising candidates which are reject. Malcolm is a joke of a thinker, paradoxically that he is invited to talk to such an environment is the original gatekeeping failure. Instead of the original researcher, Michael Lauer, we get this world salad from a guy that doesn't understand statistic 101. Either the gatekeeper of the Silicon Valley community are equally mediocre, or is a deliberate attempt to put side by side people like Deepak Chopra and Gladwell to people like Matthias Troyer and Stephen Hawking in order to provide a veneer of respectability to an industry and people that would not qualify as freshmen in a proper environment.

[@rafaelnavarro3466]

Mr you think the republican don't wil be same or worse when they stay in the power??? I can imagine the extermination of the race who's no withe because they believe the race had to be the same they .

[@carolnorton2551]

I doubt that it would have been "infinitely more interesting"...just sayin' @ 21:45

[@idomatternonya7447]

Malcom is a cruelly contemptible varmint and a monstrous heart-sickening plot-less melodrama of uneventful life

[@no.6243]

Monk debate... Nothing this guy says is credible.