Obviously not everything that Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit, that was hyperoble. If he said the sky was blue I wouldn't disbelieve him, but I would check my watch to see if it's sunrise or sunset. It's also ridiculous to jump from "anything Malcolm Gladwell says is bullshit" to discounting everything he quotes, cites or references. He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified.

Also, what are you wary about? You can check every statement I've made on this subject by reading the article. It's not long. You don't have to bother deciding whether or not to be suspicious of me.

Your hyperbole is akin to Malcolm Gladwell's style. See how this works?

lol +1 I didn't see that...

Why is it ridiculous to take your statements as you say them? I am at a loss. Your hyperbole continues with "He draws conclusions and makes cases from these things, in a way that is, frankly, not justified."

So nothing that Gladwell writes has justification? Seems like you have a deep hatred of his writing and are unable to critique his ideas objectively.

I read the article; I have read the 10 years/10,000 hours peice and it's detractors numerous times. I don't use that one argument to tear down a man's work though. People fixate on one part of one chapter.

His study of the Gore-Tex working practices and racism in the Caribbean I thought were particularly excellent.

You didn't take his statements as he said them. He said, "as a rule, I think", but you dropped that part, increasing the drama and giving you something to yell at. The guy was clearly indicating a general skepticism of Gladwell, not saying that every single sentence he had ever written was false.

Protip: If somebody apparently smart says something that you interpret as being completely idiotic, take some time to see if you can find another interpretation.

I'd go further recommend you do that for anyone, not just people you know are smart. You never know what random useful thing someone else knows that you don't. But do prioritize it for the ones you know are smart.

Why does the precursor "as a rule..." change anything?

I have not increased the drama at all. Someone posted a totally hyperbolic statement. I called them on it. It was upvoted numerous times I suspect because a consensus agrees with me.

It is not intelligent to tear down popular things because they are popular. You could have very well removed Gladwell and added Apple, Microsoft or French wine.

I haven't yelled, have I?

Your protip is baffling. Who is apparently smart? The OP? How have you reached that conclusion? By the possession of a HN account?

'As a rule, I think'...'I think'

Its a qualifier stating that what ever follows is a personal heuristic not a claim of fact.

...how does that change the OP's position?

Why look! More argumentation and drama. From a new, anonymous account. How could I ever have guessed? Oh, maybe like this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

...is your theory that only non-anonymous persons are allowed to disagree? I am not anonymous - you never asked me my name.

My heuristic is that non-anonymous persons get more conversational leeway. I'm more willing to invest time in conversations with people who have invested in their identity.

Your current level of argumentative dickishness would probably disqualify you as a useful interlocutor for me regardless of how much you stand behind your words. E.g., the "you never asked me my name" bullshit. So I'm done with you.

You sound like a teenage girl throwing a tantrum. Am I supposed to care you "done" with me?

How about "everything I've ever heard or read Malcolm Gladwell to say is bullshit"? He usually isn't actually saying anything, so the fact that so many words are involved automatically qualifies... As one might imagine given our opinions of the man, many of us haven't subjected ourselves to all of his latest communications, so if we're missing some specific non-bullshit please let us know!