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.

This one stood out to me:

> 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.

I agree that the SHAME project appears to be too hyperbolic.

But that article was based on research paid for by tobacco industry, and heavily promoted by tobacco industry.

One of the reasons that cost isn't considered a factor is because tobacco companies have successfully introduced FUD into the discussion.

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.

Careful! The authors at that site both have a strong background in satire. It is quite possible that S.H.A.M.E. is not meant to be taken seriously. Combine this with the over the top language, and the numerous logical errors, and it is really hard to escape that conclusion.

Here are a couple examples of the logic errors. If a person gives speeches for money, and is hired by group X to give a speech, S.H.A.M.E. takes this to mean that the person is a shill for X. Another good example is in the profile of Steven D. Levitt, where they tag him as a union buster, based on the fact that he wrote a paper that proved statistically that some teachers in Chicago were cheating on standardized test. In S.H.A.M.E. logic this means that Levitt is a union buster, because someone might use that information as part of an argument against the teacher's union.

Regardless of whether the site is satire and so the errors are intentional, or the site is serious and the authors don't know how to reason, it seems rather silly to decide to forego an author you found quite interesting based on that site.

Exactly! Once you've heard that someone's opinions disagree with your worldview, why read anything that person has to say? Sounds like a good way to live.

Your point cuts, but is valid. It's not like there's a shortage of great reads bringing statistics and economics to the everyman though.

I think the problem is not that the point was unreasonable, but that he was basically being paid by tobacco companies to promote it, and he didn't disclose this.