Bics at dawn

I meant to write about this last week but never found the time; however, another round of Stephen Pinker versus Malcolm Gladwell has a long shelf-life. As ever, their polite exchanges ooze malice – a literary spat for the 2.0 age to match Waugh versus Galsworthy, Larkin versus Hughes or V. S. Naipul versus everyone else.

Harvard don, Pinker let slip the dogs of war in a review of Gladwell’s What The Dog Saw. In a style reminiscent of a schoolmaster’s report, Pinker declared:

‘The themes of the collection are a good way to characterize Gladwell himself: a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning and who occasionally blunders into spectacular failures.’

Enough to see of the faint hearted, but Gladwell is made of sterner stuff. He responded with a remorselessly savage letter to the New York Times, with he was evidently rather pleased because he posted said letter on his blog. Feigning reverence throughout, Gladwell challenges Pinker’s expertise in substantive research, concluding with:

‘I have enormous respect for Professor Pinker, and his description of me as “minor genius” made even my mother blush. But maybe on the question of subjects like quarterbacks, we should agree that our differences owe less to what can be found in the scientific literature than they do to what can be found on Google.’

The pen might not be mightier than the sword, but it’s certainly sharper.