Slashdot Mirror


Malcolm Gladwell Challenges the Idea of "Free"

An anonymous reader brings us another bump on the bumpy road of Chris Anderson's new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, which we discussed a week ago. Now the Times (UK) is reporting on a dustup between Anderson and Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers. Recently Gladwell reviewed, or rather deconstructed, Anderson's book in the New Yorker. Anderson has responded with a blog post that addresses some, but by no means all, of Gladwell's criticisms, and The Times is inclined to award the match to Gladwell on points. Although their reviewer didn't notice that Gladwell, in setting up the idea of "Free" as a straw man, omitted a critical half of Stewart Brand's seminal quote.

6 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Summary?! by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Summary, n.: a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.

    That is exactly what this slashdot post isn't.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Summary?! by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Editor, n: a perl script used to push a slashdot article to the frontpage "as is" or with random perturbations.

      kdawson.pl is widely acknowledged as the buggiest and least effective of these script.

  2. 1 headline + 1 paragraph = nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could anyone understand that mess? Is this a book review? If I didn't know that "outliers" was a book, I'd be clicking past.

  3. Re:Is the real story ego? by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My take is that Gladwell is post-peak and he knows it.

    Give him a little bit of credit, at least try to address his arguments.

    They're both rather accomplished bullshit-pop-sociology writers, but the real disagreement has a lot to do with their style. Anderson is like Tom Friedman and Ray Kurtzweil, in that he is a messianic This Is The Future pop philosopher-type, and tends to construct his argument around absolute, theoretical propositions, and asserts his case as if it were inescapable physical law. He writes like an Austrian Economist or a Straussian. He is a structuralist.

    Gladwell is the skeptic. All of his books have mainly focused on picking-apart the assumptions of structuralists; you think entrepreneurs are the movers in an economy, he puts up 10 reasons why it isn't so simple. You think hockey teams always select the best roster of players? Outliers is about how social institutions are highly irrational in identifying the successful. You think people make rational decisions at all? He wrote a book called Blink where he calls it all into question.

    I'm not saying he's right, it's just his MO. When he sees a book like Free, that makes Big Important Statements about How All Of Us Order Our Lives, it's bait to someone like him.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  4. Re:Extended Summary by Razalhague · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a difference between "making money off IP" and "making money off producing IP".

  5. Re:Extended Summary by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm surprised to seeso many college educated US slashdot readers act so aggressively to devalue the one thing their economic future really does depend upon.

    I'm always surprised to see so many intelligent people talk about how the US economy is dependent on IP without seeing that as a problem. The devaluation of IP is a reality we're faced with, and insofar as we're relying on our ability to legislate artificially high prices and prop up obsolete business models to keep our economy afloat, we should all be terrified of what happens when all that fails.