I recently watched December’s Munk debate on honesty in the media. On the “the media are lying bastards” side were Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray. On the, “the media are elite, omniscient angels” side were Michelle Goldberg and Malcolm Gladwell.
The poll prior to the debate’s start was nearly evenly split, with Taibbi/Murray’s side unfavored by 4%. The poll at the end saw the greatest opinion swing in Munk debate history with Gladwell/Goldberg losing 39% of their pre-poll support.
It was a blood bath.
And Malcolm Gladwell was atrocious. He was not only incompetent at making his argument, he resorted mostly to bizarre, unfounded ad hominem attacks. He even threw the race card at Matt Taibbi 5 times! Not that it should matter, especially in a debate forum, but Taibbi’s father is of Philippine and Hawaiian heritage and his mother is of European heritage. Gladwell’s mother is Jamaican and his father is British. Based on their parents’ professions, Gladwell was raised in more “comfort” and privilege” than Taibbi, but it’s all nonsense anyway. Amazing Gladwell attempted to use such foolishness as a debate tactic.
It’s a good debate. Murray was wonderful, as always, and did not suffer Gladwell’s unfortunate slurs silently. I recommend watching it.
I’ve been a big fan of Gladwell’s writing, but his performance here is so poor and egregious that it makes me question what I liked about his writing in the past. It’s only one, one hour episode. He could have been having a bad day. But his behavior is very boorish. Even when called out on it he doubles down rather than admitting (or, perhaps, even comprehending) his error. It was painful to see someone I admired, admittedly solely through the lens of his own words, appear to be much less than the image I had formed.
Very beautiful jewelry. I can attest to the fact Emeralds are very fragile. I bought a ring for my Wife that had a small Emerald in it and we think she hit it on something and it shattered.
Thanks for starting my day with a look at loveliness. Gerard often did this and I am always grateful.
yes gladwell is known for a very simplistic version of choice theory, of course many progressives don’t really believe in choice,
taibbi’s perspective on this strange new world we live in, was born out of post soviet russia, the rise of the oligarchs so called, and the siloviki, thats the security class, he saw the tea party erroneously I think like the yabloko liberals, and saw obama as not a noxious force, what he was seeing was a fusion of private and public power, greenwald saw the same on this side of the panopticon, the surveillance state, which for a brief instance allowed samizdat media, like wikileaks, (hence the raft of pulitzers) till 2016
i didn’t notice much wrong about his tome on the bomber mafia, but it was mercifully short, they are not accustomed to a free exchange of debates, and social media has made them even more prickly,
Thanks to Rufus for bringing attention to that debate and Nonapod for the link.
It is stimulating to watch intelligent, honest men harness the English language and send it into battle with those who adulterate it serve their elite masters. It wasn’t a fair fight. Taibbi and Murray tiumphed.
Do watch it.
I watched Gladwell once on, I think it was, global warming. He impressed me as a know-it-all fool. Very glib and slick with his presentation but completely wrong in his facts and knowledge. I only got part way through it was so awful.
I had no idea who he was. That he’s a journalist explains a lot. Michael Creighton, author of ER and Jurassic Park, described a phenomenon that he called the Gell’Man effect. If you understand the subject matter of a news paper article it reads as if “wet side walks cause rain” but when you go to the next piece you accept it 100%. If what you know is trash why isn’t the rest of the paper trash too? Malcom Gladwell, please stand up and take a bow for scaring the rubes.
A new national motto has appeared in the public sphere. Speaking of which, my favorite echos the unity of the cosmos: E pluribus unum (Out of many, one).
A few good ones from the states:
Alabama – Audemus jura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights)
Arizona – Ditat Deus (God enriches)
Arkansas – Regnat populus (The people rule)
California – Eureka (I have found it)
Maryland – Fatti maschi, parole femine (Strong deeds, gentle words)
Massachusetts – Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)
Missouri – Salus populi suprema lex esto (Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law)
Oklahoma – Labor omnia vincit (Labor conquers all things)
South Dakota – Under God the people rule
Utah – Industry
To that noble list, an ignoble entry has emerged.
Latin translation will adapt it for coinage, presidential seal, etc.
Tweeted by the White House deputy press secretary, so it’s official:
Rufus, I will definitely watch this debate! I have read several of Gladwell’s books and liked them. This surprises me. I’m a big Douglas Murray fan, so this should be fun. Thanks for the recommendation.
Although I started as a Gladwell fan and bought his first three books, I noticed that some of his glib, smart stuff was later debunked.
Still following the Asbury Revival…
__________________________
The movement began after students refused to leave following a chapel service last Wednesday, and the services have since grown to pack the school’s chapel with worshipers from all over the country.
And now the revival is spreading to other campuses.
__________________________
Nick Hall of Pulse told CP that, after visiting Asbury, he and other leaders of the congregation “felt led to change our regular, monthly college and young adult service in downtown Minneapolis to simply make space for God to move.”
“The elements were simply Bible, prayer, worship and repentance. We said we would stay as long as people were hungry,” said Hall regarding last week’s service.
Holding the service “felt like we opened a hospital,” he added, as hundreds of people “flooded our space for 53 hours, non-stop,” with more than 50 people making professions of faith.
“At times, the space was overflowing with 500 plus. At other times it dwindled to 20, but every time we thought we would end, someone else showed up needing prayer,” said Hall.
“We are working with the leaders at Asbury, praying for next steps and potentially helping to lead a gathering at Rupp Arena. We are also working with leaders across the nation wanting this to spread.”
Their service lasted until Saturday at midnight, with Hall telling CP that while Pulse “doesn’t have firm plans” on next steps, he believes “this certainly isn’t ending.”
“It’s about people turning to Jesus, and God pouring out his love,” he added. “I believe this is about God healing His people. So many have been wounded and jaded, especially over the last few years.”
“This is a moment to encounter the healing power of the love of God. It’s about us being filled, not so that we go back into striving and doing … but filled until it overflows into those around us.”
I used to warn people about looking into Christianity. It may seem like a dead religion in our society… You may be surprised.
_______________________
Ask [God] to show you his face. But when he looks at you, you must look back.
–Bhagavan Das, “It’s Here Now (Are You?)”
@ huxley > “Although I started as a Gladwell fan and bought his first three books, I noticed that some of his glib, smart stuff was later debunked.”
Deja vu all over again.
Same here.
I did enjoy Gladwell’s writing, and most of his claims were plausible enough to at least consider, if not adopt uncritically. However, that also applies to debunkers.
Miller’s post at 6seconds on the 10000 rule is informative, but I recommend reading through the comments for a recursive debunking of some of HIS assertions.
Gladwell’s speculations in The Tipping Point, about influencers generating the cascades, was less plausible, as I don’t think it’s really possible in most situations to go back and discover which of the straws piled on the camel’s back was the fatal one. Also, there are varying antecedent conditions which determine how many straws it takes to reach the tipping point, and changes in any of those will change the “number” of the last straw.
The arstechnica post is too short to really explore the controversy: basically all he does is cite a competing Expert Witness; there is no cross-examination because there are no comments. Watts’ book (2004) might be persuasive, but I suspect someone has also debunked that by now..
At any rate, none of that has anything to do with his personal social deficiencies.
It’s much easier to make smooth arguments sitting at a computer in a quiet room by yourself than in a public setting on-the-fly.
Since a good debater generally has his points lined up in his head ready to go in any venue, maybe Gladwell needs to put in 10000 hours practicing his speaking skills.
“On the “the media are lying bastards” side were Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray. On the, “the media are elite, omniscient angels” side were Michelle Goldberg and Malcolm Gladwell.”
It also helps if the side you are defending is, in fact, correct, as it is much easier to get those talking points prepared.
However, when you really can’t support your assertions with actual evidence, it doesn’t matter how good they sound, they are not reliable.
And behold serendipity strikes again, via Neo’s link to LI on the Enshrining Equity post:
Pasadena Phil | February 24, 2023 at 8:46 am
Malcolm Gladwell’s Law of the Few:
“Major cultural changes are always instigated by a small vanguard elite who have the courage of their convictions and the outsized drive to move mountains.”
Always.
Which we see often enough that it really IS plausible.
Think of all the political and social movements, good or bad, that only took off because one or a few people worked at pushing them, for many many hours (maybe even 10000). They don’t HAVE to be elites, however; many very successful ones were started by plain-folks who got a burr under their saddle.
And they are not “influencers” in the way the term is used to describe internet personalities who are famous only for being famous.
Ward may be (and probably is) correct that none of their movements would have succeeded without the numberless other people amplifying their cause, but the “masses” seldom generate any effective movement without some small group pointing the way and keeping them focused.
AesopFan:
Which is why I’m watching the Asbury Revival.
Leaving aside arguments about God’s intervention in the world, movements do start small and may lead to huge social changes.
Chaos theory, butterfly wings. The Asbury Revival may well be a flash in the pan. But then again, it may not.
I believe there is much dry tinder in conservative America which could easily catch fire at any moment. Trump captured some of that possibility in 2016.
In 1955 Rosa Parks refused to sit in the “colored section” of an Alabama bus. It was a spark which led to much more, because of the plentiful “dry tinder” at the time supporting a civil rights movement.
That can be a two-way street.
The only book of Gladwell that I have read is The Bomber Mafia. Reviews led me to expect something substantial and insightful. It was neither. Having read quite a few books about aviation, WWII, Strategic Bombing (I am a boomer, but not a bomber) over the course of 50 years, it was nothing new or worth remembering.
Tucker Carlson on our domestic Ukraine hype machine:
I grieve when I hear nice people in this country – there are so many and I often hear it – root for Zelenskyy like he’s a sports hero. They have no idea what’s at stake here in the massive global realignment under way because they would have no way of knowing (due to the scarcity of good information). https://www.bitchute.com/video/zA4LHa3CQ1Ab/
Some of those nice people are right here on this very blog.
Says Banned who roots for Putin, his MVP. Do you get all your thoughts from Tucker, Banned?
I will defend Gladwell. In my opinion he is a very talented writer. Not only that, but he developed (as far as I am aware) a unique style of journalism that is very readable and entertaining.
I first thought I was enjoying his essays because of the subjects he chose; often science adjacent, or using science and statistics at a surface level to examine cultural things. Somewhere into the third essay I realized that he also had figured out a very clever style of finding 2 or 3 interesting, diverse but somewhat tangential threads on his main topics and weaving them in and out throughout his essays. Switching from one to the other every 2 or 3 paragraphs. This hopping back and forth, rather than flowing chronologically or thematically from beginning to end made his writing hard to put down. Every 2 or 3 paragraphs he leaves the reader hanging on a thread. Clever. And entertaining.
So mega-kudos to Gladwell for figuring that out. And, mega-kudos to Gladwell for having a great eye for topics. He is very good at picking out subjects that many people will find interesting, but aren’t typically tackled by journalists. And the science and statistic adjacent nature of his subjects and approach make a reader feel like he or she is doing something beneficial. Sort-of like when your biology teacher would assign a Word Search puzzle to learn vocabulary. Yes, you’re doing “biology” and “learning,” but it’s mostly playing a fun game.
After reading 30 or 40 essays and two or three of his books the trick he was using was less fresh and I noticed he often seemed a bit too certain about conclusions he was making without having fleshed them out with proper investigation.
But give him credit; he’s very good at writing in a style that keeps one turning the page and he’s very good at choosing topics that will sell books and get people talking. However, after watching him in this Munk debate I’m very suspicious of his motives. He seems to be less a cool clear seeker of wisdom and truth but possibly a narcissistic charlatan.
@ huxley > “Which is why I’m watching the Asbury Revival.”
Asbury University students have sparked Christian revivals nationwide
Campus Reform has complied a list of 7 student-led revivals across the country.
Christian revivals have swept through America numerous times in the past, sometimes in response to rising apostasy and the concomitant increasing decline of moral standards, sometimes for matters of denominational & theological controversy.
The founding of the LDS church occurred during a large revival movement called The Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century.
However, I’m not familiar with any major movements that were centered in the colleges, as opposed to being sponsored by the clergy or adults who felt called to missionary action (including the First and Third Great Awakenings, per Wikipedia).
Many institutions are now offering minors, majors, and masters degrees in diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice topics.
Campus Reform reported earlier this month that several Christian liberal arts colleges are experiencing double-digit increases in admissions or enrollment.
Looks like the Leftists’ rampant neo-Marxism may finally have been the tipping point.
;
I lived through a “revival” that began sweeping college campuses across the nation during my time at university. It was the late 2000s, and as social media exploded and the millennials started going to college, they had serious questions about faith, life, and destiny.
I joined InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and quickly saw the campus ministry quadruple in size in just a year or two. This happened with other ministries such as Cru – and not just on my Michigan campus, but around the nation. Christian college conferences were packed to the gills with people who were sold out for Jesus.
…
Many of my friends in college became Christians after plugging into ministries on campus. Others had grown up in churches that never catechized them in the faith.
These kids loved being part of the 4-hour worship sets and the 2-hour intensive prayer meetings. It was experimental and emotional: Exactly what a vanilla Midwest kid needed to feel like he or she was coming closer to the God of the universe. These kids were reaching out for authenticity and a sense of deeper purpose. Untethered from tradition or history, they began to develop their own traditions or copy things that seemed to “enhance” worship.
…
When I came across all of this, I identified it as the growing pains of young believers. These kids didn’t have a church framework to fit into. They were a bunch of 18- to 22-year-olds just figuring out how the world works. They had found their identity in Christ, but they had no concept of Christian praxis, or how to apply the teachings of the Bible into daily life.
For most, this praxis became a routine of Bible studies, worship gatherings, conferences, and outreach. And that was admirable.
But then something happened.
We all left college.
A few of my friends managed to snag jobs in campus ministry themselves. I tried this same route for a short time as well.
What was a Christian on fire for the Gospel supposed to do in the big bad world?
…
In my own life, I soon faced the reality that life is not like college. There were bills to be paid. I had a marriage to maintain. Kids were soon on the way. For a time, I felt less than, as if I had given into worldly things.
In the meantime, I saw many of my college friends began to slip away from the faith. The world was choking them out. They moved in with girlfriends and boyfriends, stopped going to church, went full woke, and began pursuing whatever thing gave them that emotional high they once chased in campus ministry. I even know of one who was arrested for an utterly heinous crime the likes of which you’d never think possible for a guy who sat down and read Scripture with you.
I heard this trend put best by a woman who once tweeted about how she lost her faith. She grew up feeling like she was deeply in love with Jesus, but then she attended a Taylor Swift concert with the same emotional vibe and she realized she just liked the high she got from attending concerts.
…
People like this were once sold out for Jesus, but they had never been prepared to apply their faith in real life – the realities of working for food and housing, of love, commitment, and parenthood, or the slow, sometimes seemingly boring task of following Christ.
Consider the sower who went out to sow. As he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seed fell on rocky ground where it didn’t have much soil, and it grew up quickly since the soil wasn’t deep. But when the sun came up, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it.
The Christian faith is about endurance. Our faith is not one of perpetual emotional rollercoasters like some romance thriller.
…
What our country needs is not just a “back to Jesus moment.” It needs the hard truth that it is quite literally damned to hell on its current path and that there is a lot of difficult, monotonous work that will be required to set it right – if something is even possible at this point of societal collapse.
College worship experiences will not lead to this type of repentance in heart and action.
Then again, it’s never wise to sell God short.
“Out of the mouths of babes” and all that.
Time will tell, I suppose.
@ Rufus > “After reading 30 or 40 essays and two or three of his books the trick he was using was less fresh and I noticed he often seemed a bit too certain about conclusions he was making without having fleshed them out with proper investigation…. However, after watching him in this Munk debate I’m very suspicious of his motives. He seems to be less a cool clear seeker of wisdom and truth but possibly a narcissistic charlatan.”
Or he has been reading his own press releases.
Most authors with a long string of successes forget what got them there in the first place, and start to skimp on the research and analysis that they put into their earlier works. If they are writers of fiction, they start repeating themselves (I feel certain that Louis L’Amour wrote several of his later books by dropping in chunks of “Western wisdom” boilerplate), and drop the editing process in favor of just churning out the next volume of the 12-book series.
Thomas Sowell is a major exception.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I recently watched December’s Munk debate on honesty in the media. On the “the media are lying bastards” side were Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray. On the, “the media are elite, omniscient angels” side were Michelle Goldberg and Malcolm Gladwell.
The poll prior to the debate’s start was nearly evenly split, with Taibbi/Murray’s side unfavored by 4%. The poll at the end saw the greatest opinion swing in Munk debate history with Gladwell/Goldberg losing 39% of their pre-poll support.
It was a blood bath.
And Malcolm Gladwell was atrocious. He was not only incompetent at making his argument, he resorted mostly to bizarre, unfounded ad hominem attacks. He even threw the race card at Matt Taibbi 5 times! Not that it should matter, especially in a debate forum, but Taibbi’s father is of Philippine and Hawaiian heritage and his mother is of European heritage. Gladwell’s mother is Jamaican and his father is British. Based on their parents’ professions, Gladwell was raised in more “comfort” and privilege” than Taibbi, but it’s all nonsense anyway. Amazing Gladwell attempted to use such foolishness as a debate tactic.
It’s a good debate. Murray was wonderful, as always, and did not suffer Gladwell’s unfortunate slurs silently. I recommend watching it.
I’ve been a big fan of Gladwell’s writing, but his performance here is so poor and egregious that it makes me question what I liked about his writing in the past. It’s only one, one hour episode. He could have been having a bad day. But his behavior is very boorish. Even when called out on it he doubles down rather than admitting (or, perhaps, even comprehending) his error. It was painful to see someone I admired, admittedly solely through the lens of his own words, appear to be much less than the image I had formed.
Here’s a link to the debate Rufus T. Firefly was referring to.
Very beautiful jewelry. I can attest to the fact Emeralds are very fragile. I bought a ring for my Wife that had a small Emerald in it and we think she hit it on something and it shattered.
Thanks for starting my day with a look at loveliness. Gerard often did this and I am always grateful.
yes gladwell is known for a very simplistic version of choice theory, of course many progressives don’t really believe in choice,
taibbi’s perspective on this strange new world we live in, was born out of post soviet russia, the rise of the oligarchs so called, and the siloviki, thats the security class, he saw the tea party erroneously I think like the yabloko liberals, and saw obama as not a noxious force, what he was seeing was a fusion of private and public power, greenwald saw the same on this side of the panopticon, the surveillance state, which for a brief instance allowed samizdat media, like wikileaks, (hence the raft of pulitzers) till 2016
i didn’t notice much wrong about his tome on the bomber mafia, but it was mercifully short, they are not accustomed to a free exchange of debates, and social media has made them even more prickly,
Thanks to Rufus for bringing attention to that debate and Nonapod for the link.
It is stimulating to watch intelligent, honest men harness the English language and send it into battle with those who adulterate it serve their elite masters. It wasn’t a fair fight. Taibbi and Murray tiumphed.
Do watch it.
I watched Gladwell once on, I think it was, global warming. He impressed me as a know-it-all fool. Very glib and slick with his presentation but completely wrong in his facts and knowledge. I only got part way through it was so awful.
I had no idea who he was. That he’s a journalist explains a lot. Michael Creighton, author of ER and Jurassic Park, described a phenomenon that he called the Gell’Man effect. If you understand the subject matter of a news paper article it reads as if “wet side walks cause rain” but when you go to the next piece you accept it 100%. If what you know is trash why isn’t the rest of the paper trash too? Malcom Gladwell, please stand up and take a bow for scaring the rubes.
A new national motto has appeared in the public sphere. Speaking of which, my favorite echos the unity of the cosmos: E pluribus unum (Out of many, one).
A few good ones from the states:
Alabama – Audemus jura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights)
Arizona – Ditat Deus (God enriches)
Arkansas – Regnat populus (The people rule)
California – Eureka (I have found it)
Maryland – Fatti maschi, parole femine (Strong deeds, gentle words)
Massachusetts – Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)
Missouri – Salus populi suprema lex esto (Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law)
Oklahoma – Labor omnia vincit (Labor conquers all things)
South Dakota – Under God the people rule
Utah – Industry
To that noble list, an ignoble entry has emerged.
Latin translation will adapt it for coinage, presidential seal, etc.
Tweeted by the White House deputy press secretary, so it’s official:
*trumpet fanfare*
“Joe Biden showered with his daughter”
Such are the times.
Rufus, I will definitely watch this debate! I have read several of Gladwell’s books and liked them. This surprises me. I’m a big Douglas Murray fan, so this should be fun. Thanks for the recommendation.
Although I started as a Gladwell fan and bought his first three books, I noticed that some of his glib, smart stuff was later debunked.
https://www.6seconds.org/2022/06/20/10000-hour-rule/
https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/01/tipped-over-social-influence-tipping-point-theory-debunked/
Thus, the bloom was off the Gladwell.
Sorry to learn he’s also a piece of work.
Still following the Asbury Revival…
__________________________
The movement began after students refused to leave following a chapel service last Wednesday, and the services have since grown to pack the school’s chapel with worshipers from all over the country.
–“Asbury University ends 24/7 revival meeting after 50K flock to Kentucky town over 13 days”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/asbury-university-ends-24-7-revival-meeting-50k-flock-kentucky-town-13-days
__________________________
And now the revival is spreading to other campuses.
__________________________
Nick Hall of Pulse told CP that, after visiting Asbury, he and other leaders of the congregation “felt led to change our regular, monthly college and young adult service in downtown Minneapolis to simply make space for God to move.”
“The elements were simply Bible, prayer, worship and repentance. We said we would stay as long as people were hungry,” said Hall regarding last week’s service.
Holding the service “felt like we opened a hospital,” he added, as hundreds of people “flooded our space for 53 hours, non-stop,” with more than 50 people making professions of faith.
“At times, the space was overflowing with 500 plus. At other times it dwindled to 20, but every time we thought we would end, someone else showed up needing prayer,” said Hall.
“We are working with the leaders at Asbury, praying for next steps and potentially helping to lead a gathering at Rupp Arena. We are also working with leaders across the nation wanting this to spread.”
Their service lasted until Saturday at midnight, with Hall telling CP that while Pulse “doesn’t have firm plans” on next steps, he believes “this certainly isn’t ending.”
“It’s about people turning to Jesus, and God pouring out his love,” he added. “I believe this is about God healing His people. So many have been wounded and jaded, especially over the last few years.”
“This is a moment to encounter the healing power of the love of God. It’s about us being filled, not so that we go back into striving and doing … but filled until it overflows into those around us.”
–“Universities nationwide experiencing ‘a spirit of unity and confession’ spurred by Asbury revival”
https://www.christianpost.com/news/asbury-revival-spreading-to-more-universities-churches.html
I used to warn people about looking into Christianity. It may seem like a dead religion in our society… You may be surprised.
_______________________
Ask [God] to show you his face. But when he looks at you, you must look back.
–Bhagavan Das, “It’s Here Now (Are You?)”
@ huxley > “Although I started as a Gladwell fan and bought his first three books, I noticed that some of his glib, smart stuff was later debunked.”
Deja vu all over again.
Same here.
I did enjoy Gladwell’s writing, and most of his claims were plausible enough to at least consider, if not adopt uncritically. However, that also applies to debunkers.
Miller’s post at 6seconds on the 10000 rule is informative, but I recommend reading through the comments for a recursive debunking of some of HIS assertions.
Gladwell’s speculations in The Tipping Point, about influencers generating the cascades, was less plausible, as I don’t think it’s really possible in most situations to go back and discover which of the straws piled on the camel’s back was the fatal one. Also, there are varying antecedent conditions which determine how many straws it takes to reach the tipping point, and changes in any of those will change the “number” of the last straw.
The arstechnica post is too short to really explore the controversy: basically all he does is cite a competing Expert Witness; there is no cross-examination because there are no comments. Watts’ book (2004) might be persuasive, but I suspect someone has also debunked that by now..
At any rate, none of that has anything to do with his personal social deficiencies.
It’s much easier to make smooth arguments sitting at a computer in a quiet room by yourself than in a public setting on-the-fly.
Since a good debater generally has his points lined up in his head ready to go in any venue, maybe Gladwell needs to put in 10000 hours practicing his speaking skills.
It also helps if the side you are defending is, in fact, correct, as it is much easier to get those talking points prepared.
However, when you really can’t support your assertions with actual evidence, it doesn’t matter how good they sound, they are not reliable.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/24/new-york-times-uses-groupthink-not-evidence-to-claim-dei-works/
And behold serendipity strikes again, via Neo’s link to LI on the Enshrining Equity post:
Which we see often enough that it really IS plausible.
Think of all the political and social movements, good or bad, that only took off because one or a few people worked at pushing them, for many many hours (maybe even 10000). They don’t HAVE to be elites, however; many very successful ones were started by plain-folks who got a burr under their saddle.
And they are not “influencers” in the way the term is used to describe internet personalities who are famous only for being famous.
Ward may be (and probably is) correct that none of their movements would have succeeded without the numberless other people amplifying their cause, but the “masses” seldom generate any effective movement without some small group pointing the way and keeping them focused.
AesopFan:
Which is why I’m watching the Asbury Revival.
Leaving aside arguments about God’s intervention in the world, movements do start small and may lead to huge social changes.
Chaos theory, butterfly wings. The Asbury Revival may well be a flash in the pan. But then again, it may not.
I believe there is much dry tinder in conservative America which could easily catch fire at any moment. Trump captured some of that possibility in 2016.
In 1955 Rosa Parks refused to sit in the “colored section” of an Alabama bus. It was a spark which led to much more, because of the plentiful “dry tinder” at the time supporting a civil rights movement.
That can be a two-way street.
The only book of Gladwell that I have read is The Bomber Mafia. Reviews led me to expect something substantial and insightful. It was neither. Having read quite a few books about aviation, WWII, Strategic Bombing (I am a boomer, but not a bomber) over the course of 50 years, it was nothing new or worth remembering.
Tucker Carlson on our domestic Ukraine hype machine:
I grieve when I hear nice people in this country – there are so many and I often hear it – root for Zelenskyy like he’s a sports hero. They have no idea what’s at stake here in the massive global realignment under way because they would have no way of knowing (due to the scarcity of good information).
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zA4LHa3CQ1Ab/
Some of those nice people are right here on this very blog.
Says Banned who roots for Putin, his MVP. Do you get all your thoughts from Tucker, Banned?
I will defend Gladwell. In my opinion he is a very talented writer. Not only that, but he developed (as far as I am aware) a unique style of journalism that is very readable and entertaining.
I forget which of his New Yorker essays I read first (https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/malcolm-gladwell), but after reading it I instantly read another, and another.
I first thought I was enjoying his essays because of the subjects he chose; often science adjacent, or using science and statistics at a surface level to examine cultural things. Somewhere into the third essay I realized that he also had figured out a very clever style of finding 2 or 3 interesting, diverse but somewhat tangential threads on his main topics and weaving them in and out throughout his essays. Switching from one to the other every 2 or 3 paragraphs. This hopping back and forth, rather than flowing chronologically or thematically from beginning to end made his writing hard to put down. Every 2 or 3 paragraphs he leaves the reader hanging on a thread. Clever. And entertaining.
So mega-kudos to Gladwell for figuring that out. And, mega-kudos to Gladwell for having a great eye for topics. He is very good at picking out subjects that many people will find interesting, but aren’t typically tackled by journalists. And the science and statistic adjacent nature of his subjects and approach make a reader feel like he or she is doing something beneficial. Sort-of like when your biology teacher would assign a Word Search puzzle to learn vocabulary. Yes, you’re doing “biology” and “learning,” but it’s mostly playing a fun game.
After reading 30 or 40 essays and two or three of his books the trick he was using was less fresh and I noticed he often seemed a bit too certain about conclusions he was making without having fleshed them out with proper investigation.
But give him credit; he’s very good at writing in a style that keeps one turning the page and he’s very good at choosing topics that will sell books and get people talking. However, after watching him in this Munk debate I’m very suspicious of his motives. He seems to be less a cool clear seeker of wisdom and truth but possibly a narcissistic charlatan.
@ huxley > “Which is why I’m watching the Asbury Revival.”
Did you see this?
https://campusreform.org/article?id=21409
Christian revivals have swept through America numerous times in the past, sometimes in response to rising apostasy and the concomitant increasing decline of moral standards, sometimes for matters of denominational & theological controversy.
The founding of the LDS church occurred during a large revival movement called The Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century.
However, I’m not familiar with any major movements that were centered in the colleges, as opposed to being sponsored by the clergy or adults who felt called to missionary action (including the First and Third Great Awakenings, per Wikipedia).
I found that post after looking at this one (h/t ?? on another thread), which is not just coincidence.
https://campusreform.org/article?id=21388
Looks like the Leftists’ rampant neo-Marxism may finally have been the tipping point.
;
Joel Abbott is advising some caution, as modern revivals are sometimes broad but shallow.
https://notthebee.com/article/lets-have-some-real-talk-about-this-whole-asbury-revival-thing-cuz-a-lot-of-people-are-getting-hyped-up-about-it
Then again, it’s never wise to sell God short.
“Out of the mouths of babes” and all that.
Time will tell, I suppose.
@ Rufus > “After reading 30 or 40 essays and two or three of his books the trick he was using was less fresh and I noticed he often seemed a bit too certain about conclusions he was making without having fleshed them out with proper investigation…. However, after watching him in this Munk debate I’m very suspicious of his motives. He seems to be less a cool clear seeker of wisdom and truth but possibly a narcissistic charlatan.”
Or he has been reading his own press releases.
Most authors with a long string of successes forget what got them there in the first place, and start to skimp on the research and analysis that they put into their earlier works. If they are writers of fiction, they start repeating themselves (I feel certain that Louis L’Amour wrote several of his later books by dropping in chunks of “Western wisdom” boilerplate), and drop the editing process in favor of just churning out the next volume of the 12-book series.
Thomas Sowell is a major exception.