What you've said is 100% correct. Notice how you didn't attribute it to a history of rice farming, but rather to academic prowess and diligence.

I think you're associating two things that Gladwell didn't. He brings up rice farming for the anecdote about fallow-fields versus 360-days-of-work.

In that case I was wrong to trust the article linked here.

Yeah. It's a pretty bad one.

I just remembered that I read "Tipping Point" years ago and didn't detect any prejudice or really any negativity. I just didn't put two and two together (Gladwell's name doesn't stand out to me).

The article is good. Just look a the discussion it's begun.

But the discussion exists because the topic is so vivid. The article itself is rambling, incoherent, and at many times wrong.

It's not a theory he came up with, that Asian cultures tend to have stronger and more rigid work ethics because rice is labor-intensive, whereas Europeans tend to seek clever ways of eliminating work because the farming of traditional European grains is capital-intensive. I don't buy it, but it's not a crack theory and Gladwell isn't the first to propose it.