Comments on: Beyond the ‘Free’ Debate with Malcolm Gladwell http://brianfrank.ca/2009/07/beyond-the-free-debate-with-malcolm-gladwell/ This is where I share my ideas & questions. Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:39:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian Frank http://brianfrank.ca/2009/07/beyond-the-free-debate-with-malcolm-gladwell/comment-page-1/#comment-6721 Brian Frank Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:15:21 +0000 http://brianfrank.ca/?p=2637#comment-6721 Arno: you almost exactly captured why I decided to go opinion-free for a while. <br><br>The divisiveness of this debate surprised and disappointed me. It seems like last week set us back by a couple of months. Everyone started arguing from catchphrases supported by supposed self-evidence instead of asking questions and generating new intellectual leverage through dialog. Arno: you almost exactly captured why I decided to go opinion-free for a while.

The divisiveness of this debate surprised and disappointed me. It seems like last week set us back by a couple of months. Everyone started arguing from catchphrases supported by supposed self-evidence instead of asking questions and generating new intellectual leverage through dialog.

]]> By: Brian Frank http://brianfrank.ca/2009/07/beyond-the-free-debate-with-malcolm-gladwell/comment-page-1/#comment-3750 Brian Frank Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:15:21 +0000 http://brianfrank.ca/?p=2637#comment-3750 Arno: you almost exactly captured why I decided to go opinion-free for a while. <br><br>The divisiveness of this debate surprised and disappointed me. It seems like last week set us back by a couple of months. Everyone started arguing from catchphrases supported by supposed self-evidence instead of asking questions and generating new intellectual leverage through dialog. Arno: you almost exactly captured why I decided to go opinion-free for a while.

The divisiveness of this debate surprised and disappointed me. It seems like last week set us back by a couple of months. Everyone started arguing from catchphrases supported by supposed self-evidence instead of asking questions and generating new intellectual leverage through dialog.

]]> By: Arno http://brianfrank.ca/2009/07/beyond-the-free-debate-with-malcolm-gladwell/comment-page-1/#comment-3749 Arno Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:04:56 +0000 http://brianfrank.ca/?p=2637#comment-3749 At least Gladwell does ask some fundamental questions of a concept of which most tech gurus say "Free IS the future" without any argumentation why. This is exactly the kind of argumentation Godin uses when he writes: <br><br>"The first argument that makes no sense is, "should we want free to be the future?" Who cares if we want it? It is."<br><br>That fits an intellectual debate... And even Anderson uses one of the oldest tricks in the book -often used by politicians by the way- he gives a real life example to answer in a discussion on a meta-level. Why doesn't he respond to the fundamental doubts that Gladwell raises to Anderson's book?<br><br>The problem with many tech gurus like Godin is that they are dogmatic: "if you doubt what we're saying you just haven't seen the light yet". That is what religions do as well, so maybe it does help to get a lot of followers and sell many books but it does not help in an intellectual debate. At least Gladwell does ask some fundamental questions of a concept of which most tech gurus say “Free IS the future” without any argumentation why. This is exactly the kind of argumentation Godin uses when he writes:

“The first argument that makes no sense is, “should we want free to be the future?” Who cares if we want it? It is.”

That fits an intellectual debate… And even Anderson uses one of the oldest tricks in the book -often used by politicians by the way- he gives a real life example to answer in a discussion on a meta-level. Why doesn't he respond to the fundamental doubts that Gladwell raises to Anderson's book?

The problem with many tech gurus like Godin is that they are dogmatic: “if you doubt what we're saying you just haven't seen the light yet”. That is what religions do as well, so maybe it does help to get a lot of followers and sell many books but it does not help in an intellectual debate.

]]> By: Brian Frank http://brianfrank.ca/2009/07/beyond-the-free-debate-with-malcolm-gladwell/comment-page-1/#comment-3678 Brian Frank Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:56:28 +0000 http://brianfrank.ca/?p=2637#comment-3678 Phronk: that's exactly where I'm at too -- in fact I decided to write a complementary post putting Gladwell's style in a more positive light (mostly because I realized I fell into the same readability trap).<br><br>The sweet spot between readability and rigor is elusive... Phronk: that's exactly where I'm at too — in fact I decided to write a complementary post putting Gladwell's style in a more positive light (mostly because I realized I fell into the same readability trap).

The sweet spot between readability and rigor is elusive…

]]> By: phronk http://brianfrank.ca/2009/07/beyond-the-free-debate-with-malcolm-gladwell/comment-page-1/#comment-3677 phronk Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:42:23 +0000 http://brianfrank.ca/?p=2637#comment-3677 I agree with a lot of the thoughts about Gladwell. I read Blink and enjoyed most of it, but as a psychologist working in the same research areas he describes, I can see that it's been simplified to the point of being dishonest. He deserves credit for making his books so readable, but I think it's possible (though rare) for a book to be both an entertaining read and intellectually rigorous. I agree with a lot of the thoughts about Gladwell. I read Blink and enjoyed most of it, but as a psychologist working in the same research areas he describes, I can see that it's been simplified to the point of being dishonest. He deserves credit for making his books so readable, but I think it's possible (though rare) for a book to be both an entertaining read and intellectually rigorous.

]]>