is that they never let reality get in the way of a good post.

-Here’s Guy Kawasaki falling prey to a textbook case of the selection bias and using a non-representative sample.

-Here’s one of the writers at Wikinomics bragging about Starbucks’ successful social media strategy a few days after they reported earnings were down by 97% PERCENT and its shares lost two thirds of their value almost instantly.

-Here’s Hugh MacLeod (who this aside is wonderful) self-referencing the “blue monster” for the 400th time, apparently unaware that Microsoft isn’t just culturally irrelevant but actively not “changing the world.”

-Here’s Steve Rubel misunderstanding incentives that some crappy new Mahalo program creates. (Hint: Rewards for searching translate into more worthless searches by people trying to get prizes)

-Here’s Michael Arrington (who is the worst) not noticing an incredibly obvious flaw in a textbook rental startup, letting an outlier skew the results by adding TMZ’s revenue to an acquisition it wasn’t a part of, and finally, projecting a yearly revenue estimate based off 3 weeks of data from an unofficial source in the middle of a financial crisis less than a month after the product launched.

To be fair, it’s not really blogs fault so much as it’s a product of low-level thinking. Scientists and psychologists do their research in these fields for a reason – to help us think clearer and more accurately. Breathlessly chasing the first lead you find without constantly checking it against the world around you is a dangerous way and unproductive way to think.

If we can deduce anything from the blogs above, it also makes you 1) Sound like an idiot 2) Act like an asshole 3) Always get it wrong

Update: Wikinomics responds – Dealing with backlash in the blogosphere: a personal experience

When I think about my criticism of other people, I’m disappointed to see how much of it could be more honestly laid bare as “be more like me.” Or when I sit down to lay out a plan of action for someone, how conveniently the course aligns with my natural disposition. If I notice a flaw somewhere, I’m starting to think, and it happens to correspond with one of my own strengths maybe I ought to relinquish claims to judgment.

It’s not pleasant to root out rationalization and subjectivity. You rob yourself of the right to indignation, an intoxicating position. Every time I dig around, I watch as the boxes I’ve trapped people in just disappear along with my superiority. The reality is that the smear of low level mediocrity never shines brighter than on a person unknowingly reacting to something inside them. In fact, the truly impressive part of Gladwell’s New Yorker piece on artists is not his thesis but the fact that it has nothing to do with him. He transcends his own place in the discussion.

So the bold move when you encounter hypocrites may be ignoring the desire to dismiss them. The real question: would you really want to listen to someone whose moral philosophy was just as easily done as it was said?

In the last few weeks I read biographies or memoirs of: Fidel Castro, Toussaint Louverture, PT Barnum, Martin Luther, Langston Hughes, Arnold Rothstein, Wyatt Earp , George Washington, Seneca, Sammy Davis Jr, Jesus, Saul Alinsky, Richard Feynman, the Stoics, Da Vinci, Samuel Bronfman, Cato the Younger, Olaudah Equiano, and Joe Biden.

Those are just the ones I can remember. For most, I used two or three different books. I do know that I have to buy more bookshelves because I’ve resorted to piling them on the floor and in the trunk of my car. If anyone can think of people like these, iconic figures that might have a side to them that has gone unnoticed, it’d be amazing if you could email me your ideas.