[ezy]

He's a pop science writer who does a bit of synthesis. He has interesting ideas -- but they aren't super well substantiated. I've always viewed his works as launching points for further work or ideas to consider, but not really definitive. Most writers who write "accessible" science prose are like this, unless they have written some inaccessible work in papers first and are just trying to explain things to the layman. You take it all with a grain of salt.

With that in mind, I take two concrete appraoches to Gladwell's work. Unless I feel like reading a story, I skip the anecdotes -- this shortens most of his books to about a chapter's worth. :-)

And if I do hit upon an important point I might want to incorporate into my thinking, I look up the references to see how substantiated it really is.