It’s a bit of a paradox. While a lot of Gladwells work is a broad brush and not generalizable, it has opened people’s minds to a new way of thinking. I have found those people are open to discussions with more rigor, but it’s possible that is selection bias at work.
I also don’t think Duke is saying all disagreement is good. She specifically says you need a small trusted circle of people who agree to basic rules. Even then, it’s difficult to keep people inside the lines. That’s why her recommended way of rigorous thinking wouldn’t work on Twitter or in a general public sphere, for instance.
It’s not that people are dumb or willful, it’s that our brains are wired for different circumstances. And it takes constant effort to swim against the stream, which is tiring and not scalable.
In the end, I have concluded that humanity is better off for having a Gladwell - someone who can connect and clearly communicate with the masses. We need these mass communicators, even if they aren’t precise, because they open people’s minds to alternative ways of thinking.
It’s like a funnel - gladwell gets more people to the top of the funnel. You end up with folks who take pop music conclusions, and some percentage will dive deeper. Without Gladwell, I would have never discovered Duke or been receptive to the message.
