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