I never saw the Shame Project, but after reading the above link I think they're over-reaching way more than Gladwell's worst stories.
For example they say, "In 1990, a Gladwell article in the Washington Post warned that laws banning cigarettes could “put a serious strain on the nation’s Social Security and Medicare programs.”"
I read the article (as they link to it), and frankly it's not as inflammatory as their quote would lead one to believe. Gladwell brings up a reasonable point that smokers tend to die younger and hence may reduce total costs in the health care system. And he, rightly IMO, says that we should move the anti-smoking movement as a health issue rather than a cost-cutting issue (And 22 years after this article was written his position has been borne out. Few people view smoking as a cost issue.)
Regarding the American Spectator -- this was apparently one of the few places he was offered a job. This "3rd Party" list he's on also includes Penn Jillette and I suspect many other names we know. Being an open ear isn't the same as being a shill. John Gruber is a shill, while Nilay Pital is an open ear.
> In 1999, Gladwell wrote a New Yorker article defending the explosion of ADHD amphetamine prescriptions to children against criticism from media and public figures. Gladwell’s response: “...are too many children taking the drug—or too few?”
Now, I don't know anything about the other claims in Shame Project, but... when you call Ritalin (methylphenidate) an amphetamine, you immediately call into question everything else that's written. MPH is not derived from or related to anything in the amphetamine family. There are similarities in the mechanism of action, but it's just as close to other stimulants, e.g. cocaine.
I don't know if that's deliberate (since amphetamines are obviously "bad") -- that is, FUD -- or if it's simple ignorance, but I'm suddenly very wary of everything else they write on his work.
Not to comment on Gladwell specifically, but it seems to be well-accepted that lifespans in excess of the average retirement age are a huge cost to the system, particularly because of the disproportionate sums used in the very last few years of treatment.
It may be cruel to say so, but it is logical that longer lifespans are costly.
I dont believe that. It all depends on how you die, not how long you live. My grandfather died at home at 96 years of age, no nurse, no equipment. Just my grandmom and him, at home. I'd bet his medical cost of passing away is far lower than a type-2 diabetic in their mid-60s hospitalized for 5 years before passing, or a lung cancer patient (vis a vis Gladwell's example) going through chemo for 5 years before expiring. His analysis needs much more rigor, imo.
For example they say, "In 1990, a Gladwell article in the Washington Post warned that laws banning cigarettes could “put a serious strain on the nation’s Social Security and Medicare programs.”"
I read the article (as they link to it), and frankly it's not as inflammatory as their quote would lead one to believe. Gladwell brings up a reasonable point that smokers tend to die younger and hence may reduce total costs in the health care system. And he, rightly IMO, says that we should move the anti-smoking movement as a health issue rather than a cost-cutting issue (And 22 years after this article was written his position has been borne out. Few people view smoking as a cost issue.)
Regarding the American Spectator -- this was apparently one of the few places he was offered a job. This "3rd Party" list he's on also includes Penn Jillette and I suspect many other names we know. Being an open ear isn't the same as being a shill. John Gruber is a shill, while Nilay Pital is an open ear.