<p>Hi all. Sorry for ducking out for a day – but I’m very pleasantly surprised by the turn this discussion has taken.</p>
<p>SilvaRua asked whether the “Rule of 150” (in particular, that precise number) has much relevance in actual social science research. You are right that the answer is no. Gladwell is cheerleading – that’s his job. The faux precision colorfully raises the hope that laws governing large-scale social interactions might be akin to laws of physics (with precise constants!), although of course the real statements in this science of social interaction would probably not include the number 150.</p>
<p>With books like Gladwell’s, and with Freakonomics, I think the important thing for intellectually serious readers to remember is that hyperbole and imprecision form the essence of those works and that this is not so bad. The best scientists I know still get excited by that type of cheerleading despite – or perhaps because of – understanding the caveats better than anyone else. I think the reason is that it does a good job of capturing the fundamentally exciting hope of the field at the cost of a few pesky facts. Responding to a book like that by complaining about robustness is like responding to a fable of Aesop’s by saying that foxes don’t talk. It is true but misses the point.</p>
<p>I maintain vigorously that Caltech houses are almost perfect examples in the essential ways. SilvaRua said:
but I think both of these statements are off. I’ll only take on the rules for now. Each house clearly has such rules. In Fleming, it is a serious social faux pas to talk much about academics at any house social event. At dinner this rule is enforced explicitly, while elsewhere it is enforced very informally. Everyone knows this and everyone obeys the rule. I am sure this happens also in other houses – with different rules, of course. </p>
<p>But we could argue forever about whether the houses are or aren’t good examples. Obviously Gladwell’s exposition wasn’t precise enough to give very clear criteria to settle the debate. If we give a little more leeway, I do think it’s relevant that Caltech’s small community allows a more personal and informal system of governance than any other major university and that this is a big component of Caltech’s success. Would you guys disagree?</p>