Scott Lilienfeld said, "I’d like to gently push Beth a bit and ask her why she believes that Gladwell’s books help readers to think critically." I can see - and even largely agree - with some of the criticisms Scott made about his writing. But I find Gladwell's out-of-the-box ideas often make me metaphorically tilt my head with a "Huh...I never thought of it like that." That's an important start to get people to think critically. It doesn't trouble me (well, not too much) that he doesn't pursue every possible avenue of explanation. In the first chapter of *Blink,* for example, he talked about his observation that Canadian hockey players born in the early months of the year have an advantage, and thus that most of the pros were born in the early months of the year. Well, that sounded very cool, BUT when I pulled up stats other than the ones he offered, I didn't see quite the strong effect he found. But I used his article in class, and discussed his finding. Students were very impressed until I then offered the stats from other teams that didn't exactly validate his point. It was a good lesson in not swallowing everything you read. But I couldn't help but feel that it was an exercise in looking under the covers for explanations.
That said, I still think he might give the layperson some pause for thought about things they take for granted. (Is he the one who thought up that now hideously overused expression, "Think outside the box"? I liked it the first 3 times I heard it.) So that's my defense. I like clever writing, put don't put it in the same category as a peer-reviewed journal. As Scott also said, he's a talented writer and storyteller. His columns in *The New Yorker *are always must-reads for me. Reading what I've just written, I realize my defense is a little shy of a strong one. Maybe it's his hair.... Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
