Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History Podcast, Guest-Starring Hikaru Nakamura and Puzzle Rush
Malcolm Gladwell's "Revisionist History" podcast is always extremely interesting, whether one agrees with his (occasionally sweeping) claims or not, and the new episodes of season 4 are no exception. It's a two-part episode on the LSAT (the Law School Admissions Test required for those hoping to attend law school in the U.S.) and on what he takes to be the misplaced emphasis placed on solving the LSAT's questions especially quickly.
In the first episode (see the link above and scroll down), after setting up the issue, he takes a digression into the world of chess. He interviews Hikaru Nakamura, asking him how he would rate his chances against Magnus Carlsen if both players had 30 minutes a move, in ordinary classical chess, in blitz chess and in (original recipe) bullet chess (1'+0"); and then there's some discussion of Nakamura's prowess at Chess.com's Puzzle Rush as well.
You'll enjoy the episodes, I think, altogether aside from the chess cameo, but you'll probably be frustrated by the end of the second episode. (And Gladwell's after-credits tease rubs it in. The stinker.)
Reader Comments (2)
"You'll enjoy the episodes, I think"
I doubt it, because as a non-American I have no idea what the LSAT is about.
[DM: If the point of the episodes was the minutiae of the LSAT, you'd be right. Likewise if the LSAT was the only instance in life where talent is judged by one's ability to solve relatively shallow problems slightly more quickly than one's peers. But this seems to be generalizable - it's an issue in chess, for example, which is one reason why Gladwell talks to Nakamura in the first episode. Give it a try, at least through there. That should be interesting to you as a chess player, and by that point you'll be in a better position to evaluate the whole thing. Btw, Gladwell isn't an American either, and it was the strangeness of the idea of the LSAT that motivated him to investigate it further.]
Thanks for the additional info; that clears up a lot for me.
Btw there seems to be a slight linguistical misunderstanding. When I wrote "I doubt it" I meant literally that, ie not taking a standpoint. So by definition I can't be right neither wrong. I simply didn't know. Blame it on me being Dutch.
If I can find myself some time I'll watch; I think the issue of solving problems in general highly interesting.
[DM: Thanks for the clarification about the English expression "I doubt it"; as you surmised, it's generally taken to mean "I believe this is false/unlikely." Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any stock phrase that captures what you want to say in a purely neutral way. "I'm not sure that..." comes closer, but it too leans towards a slightly negative interpretation. Hm.
Btw, there's nothing to watch - it's just audio - so you could listen on the go, if that's convenient for you.]