Splicetoday

Sports
Jul 05, 2017, 05:58AM

Malcolm Gladwell’s a Fraud

His analysis of golf is shoddy and dishonest.

Rsz gettyimages 91969624.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Malcolm Gladwell recently kicked off the second season of his podcast, Revisionist History, with an episode entitled “A Good Walk Spoiled,” in which he put golf under his microscope. What he saw was so downright horrifying that he’s now on a mission to spread the word. “I hate golf,” he announced, “and hopefully by the end of this you'll hate it too.” While it can be refreshing when commentators announce their bias right up front, it's soon clear that the podcast host is merely announcing that he's about to do a hatchet job on one of his pet peeves.

Apparently, the Canadian writer and speaker got triggered during a recent visit to Los Angeles while running around the rocky dirt track that encircles the posh Brentwood Country Club. The dearth of places to run in West L.A. bothers Gladwell, as does the necessity for runners to make do with this inadequate loop when there’s a “huge, magnificent park on the other side of the fence.”

Gladwell tells us he “read somewhere” that when a “fancy golf course” rebuilds its bunkers, it requires 389 truckloads of sand. This implies that less fancy courses have smaller bunkers, but I've played on many golf courses running the gamut from pedestrian to posh and have never noticed any such discrepancy in bunker size. Also, I'm not sure what size truck he's referring to (perhaps Tonka?), but the bunkers I've seen don't look like they require that much sand. A typical dump truck load of sand is 486 cubic feet, so Gladwell would have us believe that the average bunker holds 192,944 cubic feet of sand. That’s the equivalent of 77,177 wheelbarrow loads. Compare these hard numbers to what Gladwell read somewhere.

Moving on to the golfers themselves, Gladwell has “another fact about golf” for us: “Rich people really, really like it. They're obsessed with it in a way that there just isn't any parallel for ordinary people.” No, ordinary people never get obsessed with things like fantasy football or videogames. According to Gladwell, serious golfers are “super-anal” about their scores, as if serious runners aren't fixated on their times, or serious tennis players aren't overly concerned about their USTA rankings.

Next on the podcast is an economist from Miami University who’s studied the golf habits of the captains of industry via a national database maintained by the U.S. Golf Association. Gladwell explains that the economist's research indicates that 363 of the 1500 top American CEOs “are so obsessed with golf that they enter their scores in the U.S.G.A. database.” What he doesn't understand is that this is the only way you can get an official golf handicap, a standard practice in golf that’s also necessary to enter many formal and informal competitions. This is not an indication of obsession.

The economist says that the average CEO plays about 15 rounds of golf per year, which is quite reasonable, but Gladwell wants to press the case that the more golf a CEO plays “the worse his firm does... and the more likely he is to be fired.” To do this, he takes the fact that there's a correlation between business failure and CEOs who play much more than 15 rounds per year, and tries to peddle if off as causation. He certainly knows that he hasn't established a causal relationship between excessive golf and business failure, and the way he makes his argument makes it hard to escape the conclusion that he's just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people who don't get the distinction.

Gladwell uses the example of the Bear Stearns CEO in July 2007 (it was James Cayne, who he doesn't identify by name) who’d helicopter out to his golf club on Friday to get in a round of golf before sunset. “Even when his company was collapsing, he couldn't stop playing golf.” Could it possibly be that he knew it was over by that time (which he certainly did) and golf was his escape from reality? Moving on to Donald Trump's golf, he says it's an “addiction” that's keeping Trump from doing his job. To Gladwell, golf is “crack cocaine for rich white guys” that causes important people “to make lifestyle choices,” which puts their careers in jeopardy.

Gladwell’s shoddy “analysis” of golf is little more than an airing of his personal prejudices about the people who play the game. He wants to be taken seriously, but that’s difficult. I've played dozens of rounds of golf that cost me $15, but Gladwell needs his listeners to falsely think that Brentwood Country Club is the essence of the sport in order to make his argument. It would’ve been more honest if he'd said, starting off, that he hates rich guys and wants you to hate them too. That's the real theme of this podcast about “golf.” Gladwell's rich but of mixed race. He describes his Jamaican mother as “brown.” Perhaps there's an underlying issue here he's not revealing, or maybe he just despises the sport because he sees it, from the leftist perspective, as an egregious example of bourgeois decadence.

I wonder what Malcolm Gladwell's fans think when he tells them he read something “somewhere.” Maybe they believe in him so much to accept it as fact. Gladwell’s said that if you find his books too simplistic that you should avoid them. Good advice.

Discussion
  • The only one triggered is some "journalist " who writes a whole article on a dude who hates golf. I didn't even know who this dude was until recently , but I'm pretty sure his accomplishments outweigh yours by a mile. Step your game up, bro.

    Responses to this comment
  • Bro?

    Responses to this comment
  • Gladwell is a runner, I can see why he doesn't have much use for golf. Seems like you are on to him Chris.

    Responses to this comment
  • What Gladwell "read" was a blog post describing the cost of bunker replacement when your "high end" golf course is poorly designed, I.e. filled with 4" of sand. http://nuzzogolfcoursedesign.blogspot.com/2012/05/golf-course-economics-by-factor-of-28.html

    Responses to this comment
  • The unintended irony of this article is extraordinary. Gladwell's podcast certainly lacks a reflexivity statement, as does your article. You do not even bring up the central argument of the podcast, which is that by the very nature of being a "rich man's" past time, golf courses enjoy a position of power and often gets exempted from property taxes or zoning requirements that other businesses are subject to. You've cherry picked the superfluous elements, which are admittedly weak, while ignoring the central thesis of the piece. You're accusing someone of a hack job by literally committing one yourself.

    Responses to this comment
  • You think you understand the central argument of podcast, but you don't. Gladwell had discredited himself by the time he got to his "central argument," so I have no interest in commenting on it. What you call superfluous elements is actually pure garbage (you call it "weak," which is incorrect) but you gloss over it because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe. Anyway, I wish you all the best in letting Gladwell explain the world to you.

    Responses to this comment
  • You're upset that he doesn't like golf? I thought I was the triggered snowflake of Splice Today!

    Responses to this comment
  • Dishonest, sloppy analysis from a person with pretentions like Gladwell has is offensive to me, regardless of the topic. If that's being a triggered snowflake in your book, then so be it. You're free to define things as you wish.

    Responses to this comment
  • I think Trav was joking, Chris.

    Responses to this comment
  • I can't tell on the internet.

    Responses to this comment
  • You can never tell with me ;)

    Responses to this comment
  • Take a breath, Chris, your emotions are getting in the way. It is a fallacy to say that even 100 poor ideas from a writer mean that the 101st idea is inherently garbage. Ideas stand alone. In the world of ideas, unless one of the "dishonest/sloppy" arguments are minor premises of a syllogism they do not discredit that idea. Gladwell builds a narrative, you feel a certain kind of way about that buildup because of personal feelings about his points. He then introduces what is clearly a concrete and substantial thesis. You have spun your wheels on his minor theses while avoiding the central topic at hand. Unless you can address the major points of his argument you have brought exactly nothing to the table. Your article could be condensed into a single sentence: "I don't like Gladwell's personal feelings about golf, but I have no thoughts on any of the substantive analysis of public policy."

    Responses to this comment
  • Builds a narrative with deception? I think I'll pass.

    Responses to this comment
  • Your second sentence is truly bizarre. Gladwell people are like cultists.

    Responses to this comment
  • If my second sentence places me in a cult, it is the cult of Plato and not Gladwell. That thoughts stand alone from the reputation, religion, or even prior thoughts of the person with the idea is the foundation of western thought and what the scientific method and ie most western progress was built upon. You’ve made, formally, the inverse fallacy error aka denying the antecedent. If argument C is not scaffolded from arguments A and B, then the validity of arguments A and B have no bearing on argument C. Whether or not municipalities favor golf courses over public good has no real bearing on whether rich bosses waste company time on golf or sand is expensive. You’ve continued to refuse to address the fundamental premise of Gladwell’s podcast. Beyond that, you’ve committed literally the original sin of the “fallacy fallacy.” You’re posting here, so you have internet. Look it up and enjoy the revelations that my cult of hundreds of millions of western thinkers (and everyone who took high school rhetoric or competed in speech) enjoyed in their late teens. You’ll note, I am remaining focused on your thoughts and not calling you a fraud or cultist. That’s ad hominin and that will likely be in the same Wikipedia article that’s about to dominate your weekend. Enjoy.

    Responses to this comment
  • You're with Plato and all this is quite impressive sounding, at least at first glance. Many of your fellow Gladwell fans would think you'd nailed. The problem is that you've incorrectly identified the fundamental premise of the podcast, rendering all of your words here meaningless. Enjoy whatever dominates your weekend.

    Responses to this comment
  • nailed *it

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment