What original arguments Gladwell makes are clearly speculative, but it's inherently sloppier to attempt to refute an argument whose reasoning you can only specu

What original arguments Gladwell makes are clearly speculative, but it's inherently sloppier to attempt to refute an argument whose reasoning you can only speculate about. Your arguments about Bill Gates and The Beatles are themselves flawed and classically oversimplistic. Bill Gates didn't get rich as a business man / negotiator / monopolist: he got rich as a programmer business man / negotiator / monopolist. Hard to believe a regular on HN could fail to see how Gates' having serious technical chops was essential to his success. As for The Beatles, I'll leave it to you to actually read the book.