Pinker on Gladwell

I wish I was as articulate as Harvard professors sometimes. But I'm OK with my lack of clarity if it means I don't have to be pretentious.

Still, I couldn't agree more with Steven Pinker's criticism of Malcolm Gladwell in today's New York Times Book Review:

The reasoning in “Outliers,” which consists of cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies, had me gnawing on my Kindle. Fortunately for “What the Dog Saw,” the essay format is a better showcase for Gladwell’s talents, because the constraints of length and editors yield a higher ratio of fact to fancy. Readers have much to learn from Gladwell the journalist and essayist. But when it comes to Gladwell the social scientist, they should watch out for those igon values.

I've always said that Gladwell's books are weak due to the obvious conclusions he derives off of some great generalizations. His new book, What the Dog Saw, which Pinker reviewed in today's Times is the type of work I think he should stick to. I love his essays and articles, especially the work he does for The New Yorker. He needs to most rigorous fact checkers and academics editing his work, not just a publishing company quick to make the next Gladwell dollar.