[mdeck_]

> The guy is a good writer and storyteller but he seemingly prioritizes good writing and story over telling the most honest story. That isn't an unusual trait among pop-non-fiction writers.

It’s not fair at all to cast Malcolm Gladwell as typical of pop nonfiction writers—there are tons of great and serious writers in the genre. It’s truly a shame that Malcolm Gladwell, an utter hack, has been consistently publishing garbage for decades and that he has such a wide audience.

[quadrangle]

Despite the undeniably pattern of problematic framings (particularly how Gladwell invites readers to feel that they now have the answers as opposed to the scientific mindset of now feeling that they have so many more questions), I don't think "utter hack" is fair.

Gladwell is not only a superb storyteller, he's sincerely interested in learning himself, has intriguing ideas… it's sloppy (almost in a Gladwellian manner) to be angry about the problems with his approach and then just insist that the conclusion is that his stuff is just garbage and he's just a hack.

[wsinks]

really great usage of Gladwellian here

[slg]

I'm not going to disagree with the merits of your point, but I do want to provide clarification that I think there is a gap between "not unusual" and "typical". I think the former means it isn't rare while the later means it applies to most people. To make up a number, if this applied to 20% of people it would be both "not unusual" and "not typical".