Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interviews: Ask Malcolm Gladwell a Question

Posted by samzenpus on from the go-ahead-and-ask dept.

Malcolm Gladwell is a speaker, author, and staff writer for The New Yorker since 1996. Gladwell's writing often focuses on research in the social sciences and the unexpected connections or theories made from such research. His books: The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Outliers: The Story of Success, and David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants are all New York Times best sellers. Malcolm has agreed to give us some of his time to answer any question you may have. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one per post.

10 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Questions for Malcolm Gladwell! by advancecoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ten-thousand hours (~3.4 years if a regular job) is Gladwell's estimate of temporal mastery. With that being said, the Mozarts like Carlsen or Fischer learn faster and become World Champion. What is the difference between the Mozarts and 3.4 years? Is it there some passionate rage to absorb and decipher patterns that magnetizes them to a particular domain or is it their consistent, well-designed regimen for reaching the upper echelons (like Lalzo Polgar's systemic approach with Judith and Susan)? If it is "pure" passion, then will people who find their true calling and invest appropriate time (e.g. have an OCD mentality) always see the unquestionable results? If it is "pure" regimen, then will following the same systematic approach always see the overarching performance? One thing to keep in mind is are these skills transferable to other domains? Is there a way to tackle a number of domains in the same 10,000 hours with an abstract approach? What about the time to create "new" domains rather than to "solve" problems in a particular domain? Is there some sort of estimate for that? Malcolm could possibly use those clues for his sequel to "Outliers" appropriately called "Pioneers". Any thoughts?

  2. Opinion On Basic Income by Scottingham · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm curious to know what your take is on a basic income for all US citizens versus our current 'conditional' welfare system. What do you think short term and long term outcome would be? Would the increased tax burden on the upper classes result in a total collapse rendering a basic income useless? My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size (not to mention aging). Am I delusional? If so, why?

    1. Re:Opinion On Basic Income by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, both the population increase as well as the increase in automation is happening at an exponential rate

      It has been growing exponentially for a long time. There's been no correlation between either population growth and unemployment, or automation and unemployment. If your hypothesis is correct, then you need to explain the lack of correlation.

      It could lead to the abolishment of the minimum wage, which expecting people to live on is sort of a joke anyhow.

      Almost no one lives on minimum wage. Look up the demographics of a typical minimum wage earner some time, almost all of them live in a nice middle-class income household.

      Honestly though, I think it'll remain firmly in fantasy land

      Don't. Base your worldview on facts. That is the only way we'll ever get the cheap energy, because people are looking at scientific facts and how we can use them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Opinion On Basic Income by ranton · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ... you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant

      I am not necessarily worried about unemployment; I am worried about the increasing gap between the elite and everyone else. Early automation created the need for the middle class, as the wealthy needed trained people to run the machines. But in the past 40 years automation has become far more capable and sophisticated. It requires less people to run modern machines, but they need to be far more skilled than the last generation. This has lead to the shrinking middle class, the rising 1%, and also the rising upper middle class.

      The trend of the middle class falling into the lower class, and a small minority of the middle class rising into the upper middle class is what automation is creating.

      I envision a future (perhaps 20 years out) where there is a huge gap between a servant class and the elite. The elite will still be split between what is now considered the upper middle class and the 1%, but they will all have a much different lifestyle than the servant class. Today's lower class jobs will be replaced with a more personalized service industry, where your average knowledge worker can easily hire a maid for instance. I am barely in the top 5% of household incomes and even I can already have my house cleaned and yard cared for every other week for less than 3% of our monthly net income. In 20 years that will probably turn into paying someone to do my dishes and laundry for me.

      A basic income will allow these individuals who cannot command a living wage to still live a good life. I would love for us to move to a system where minimum wage is abolished but everyone receives around $10k per year and all other income is supplementary. Just the reduction in crime alone may even make this less costly to the upper class than paying for our current prison / police infrastructure. And some of the extra taxes you are paying will come back to you in the form of maids who only cost $4/hr.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Opinion On Basic Income by Scottingham · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oi, I realize this will woosh right over your partisan-baked brain, but I'll bite:

      "What makes you think that anyone is entitled to someone else's money?"
      How did they get that money in the first place? Through a societal system they are able to take advantage of. Never completely on their own like libertarians are want to believe. Our current monetary system is based on debt leveraged on debt based on a promise. It's purely imaginary, fiat, whatever. The real deal is the cost of energy, resource extraction (also a function of the cost of energy), and labor cost (which is decreasing due to automation/globalization). Money is just a convenient shorthand.

      "you're trying to impose your beliefs as facts"
      I'd like you to meet Kettle, Mr. Pot. Also...notice that I used words like 'could'. It was pretty clear I was speculating, not claiming anything as a fact (otherwise I cite that shit).

      "How (who?) defines how much is "basic"? That is a good point. If I'm able to filter out your partisan ObamaPhone/Nike bullshit I can see where you are going (though your mental image of what constitutes a poor person is a hilariously on-message Fox News caricature). Who or what defines a living as basic is a pretty subjective thing. A good place to start is being able to eat real food and have a stable place to live. I'd go so far as to include internet in that mix.

      "The problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money."
      Nice quote there Thatcher. Got any good Rand for me?

        "you're so useless, we'll pay you to not work so you will go away and we can ignore you"
      That is not the message. The message is "everybody is worth something, regardless of whether or not you are capable of 'meaningful work'. Mentally ill people, physically disabled people, etc.

      The value of meaningful work != the monetary value. With a basic income if somebody wanted to make art baubles and somebody else found value in them...how is that less meaningful than cleaning a bathroom at a movie theater?

      So, having said that. I'm sure there would be some negative consequences. Since I'm speculating as much as the next guy, what would some be? If people got a basic income, then they wouldn't be forced to work in a Tobacco field for minimum wage (or less in a lot of cases) to make rent. What would happen O sage of the free market? Would the wages for these shitty jobs raise to meet the demand of the no-longer enslaved lower class? Would that then cause the price of cigarettes or whatever else to go up? Would inflation explode to make the basic income essentially worthless? (a possibility smarter economists than I say is unsupported by evidence...no cite though)

      Seriously though, Mr. Libertarian, go fucking live on an island. If you want to say 'I got mine, fuck off' so badly, GTFO.

    4. Re:Opinion On Basic Income by ranton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1) A vibrant middle class is an aberration of history. I don't think we can look to history and find meaningful examples of what exponentially increasing technology will do to our current social structures.

      2) Our society determines what basic income is. Just like we determine our laws.

      3) Living in a society that respects property rights has its costs. Almost the only difference between the relatively peaceful western world and places like the unrest in the middle east is that the vast majority of our population has a lot of opportunities. You take those away and we will have the same unrest here.

      I tend to agree with Thomas Paine, who believed that all citizens have a natural inheritance created by the introduction of the system of landed property. So in return for society recognizing property rights those property holders owe society some of its proceeds. He explicitly stated this should not be considered charity.

      4) He never said he thought there would only be positive results. He did say he thinks it would be a good idea, but plenty of good ideas still have consequences. And he was openly asking for other opinions while merely offering his own; there is no need to jump down his throat.

      5) No one is saying people would be paid not to work. All people would just be told "you don't have to work to meet your basic needs." Once that burden is removed, people would still be free to work to better their lives further. Very few people would just sit around all day doing nothing, and those that do really would be the ones we want removed from the workforce anyway.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  3. Long term effects of filter bubbles/silos by An+dochasac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a positive feedback between human confirmation bias and reliance on information sources which increasingly give us what we want (e.g. Google/Facebook "filter bubbles", Amazon "if you like this... you'll like that." Do you expect this to create more social balkanization and extremism or other social effects? Is there anything we can do to stop or slow this process?

  4. How by werepants · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You have made a career out of writing books that popularize scientific findings - it seems like this is a task fraught with potential dangers, in terms of representing something that your readers misinterpret and misapply, or perhaps taking a published study and drawing an unwarranted conclusion yourself that attracts the ire of the original researchers. Certainly, much science journalism lately can be criticized for sensationalizing scientific results in the pursuit of better headlines, sometimes at the cost of being deliberately misleading. Can you expound a bit on the issues you've run into as a purveyor of scientific results, and explain how you balance the need for a faithful presentation of the source material with the desire to find something relatable and compelling enough to write a book about?

  5. Recent religious topics by werepants · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I imagine that the different circles you run in might have dramatically different responses to the religious emphasis in your recent work. What kind of reactions (wanted and unwanted) have you gotten from your recent move towards Christianity?

  6. Why are you a corporate shill? by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://shameproject.com/report...

    Why did you, after college, attend the National Journalism Center, a corporate-funded program created to counter the mediaâ(TM)s alleged âoeanti-business biasâ?

    Why, as someone who is half-Jamaican, have you repeatedly associated yourself (and apparently continue to do so) with the white supremacist organization EPPC, which fights activists for economic justice?

    Why did you write for American Spectator, which churned out anti-Clinton conspiracy theories?

    Why did you recycle tobacco industry propaganda and quote lobbyists for Washington Post articles you "wrote"? Why did Phillip Morris consider you, according to their internal documents, to be a "friend" who could be counted on for pro-tobacco-industry stories?

    Why did you clearly promote drugs for treating ADHD in kids, in which you heavily quoted researchers who were paid heavily by the pharma industry?

    Why did you cite a pharma-industry cited study and defend the industry when it was attacked for high drug costs?

    Why did you blame the victims in the Enron collapse, defending executives who committed gross fraud?

    --
    Please help metamoderate.