I don't put much credibility in Gladwell's arguments, particularly since Greenspun's analysis: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/foreign-airline-safety in which, among other things, Greenspun notes that Gladwell did not talk to any pilots.
Greenspun's arguments are bit a flippant, as noted here in the ending comments:
"To see just how much of a factor this is, look at how mishap rates plummeted after the introduction of CRM training at US carriers in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Prior to widespread CRM training, the culture at major US carriers was largely as Gladwell describes current foreign carrier culture: the captain's word was final, and co-pilots didn't speak up or contradict the captain."
Dismissing PDI out of hand as "already handled" is perhaps being disingenuous about the role it may play.
I haven't read Gladwell's book, but does it compare Korean and USA PDI and disaster rates, or disaster rates from a large number of countries?
If Gladwell has looked at a few more countries (and perhaps even ploted PDI against crashes) then he's done a much better job than Greenspun's comparison of "Foriegn" and "US" pilots.
If not, then the ball would be in Gladwell's court (so to speak).
It's obvious that Greenspun knows US air safety better than Gladwell though.
Sloppy evidence is far more damaging than no evidence. The fact that this author even brings up Gladwell caused me to stop reading. In light of Greenspun's argument that domestic pilots have orders of magnitude more experience, Gladwell's argument is worthless at best. But clearly, Gladwell's argument is worse than worthless, because now people are using it as anecdotal evidence in other realms. Even worse, the OP picked this anecdote because it is the same as his own hypothesis.
Yes, agreed. Gladwell is sloppy, it's just that Greenspun's essay was not where I discovered this fact. As far as Gladwell debunkings go, the philg attempt was the least convincing.
Comments
I don't put much credibility in Gladwell's arguments, particularly since Greenspun's analysis: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/foreign-airline-safety in which, among other things, Greenspun notes that Gladwell did not talk to any pilots.
Greenspun's arguments are bit a flippant, as noted here in the ending comments:
"To see just how much of a factor this is, look at how mishap rates plummeted after the introduction of CRM training at US carriers in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Prior to widespread CRM training, the culture at major US carriers was largely as Gladwell describes current foreign carrier culture: the captain's word was final, and co-pilots didn't speak up or contradict the captain."
Dismissing PDI out of hand as "already handled" is perhaps being disingenuous about the role it may play.
I haven't read Gladwell's book, but does it compare Korean and USA PDI and disaster rates, or disaster rates from a large number of countries?
If Gladwell has looked at a few more countries (and perhaps even ploted PDI against crashes) then he's done a much better job than Greenspun's comparison of "Foriegn" and "US" pilots.
If not, then the ball would be in Gladwell's court (so to speak).
It's obvious that Greenspun knows US air safety better than Gladwell though.
Gladwell is sloppy, but to be fair, in that essay, it seemed like Greenspun was out to avenge Pinker (MIT). It was more attack than criticism.
Sloppy evidence is far more damaging than no evidence. The fact that this author even brings up Gladwell caused me to stop reading. In light of Greenspun's argument that domestic pilots have orders of magnitude more experience, Gladwell's argument is worthless at best. But clearly, Gladwell's argument is worse than worthless, because now people are using it as anecdotal evidence in other realms. Even worse, the OP picked this anecdote because it is the same as his own hypothesis.
Yes, agreed. Gladwell is sloppy, it's just that Greenspun's essay was not where I discovered this fact. As far as Gladwell debunkings go, the philg attempt was the least convincing.