I'm not quite understanding all of the hate on Galdwell, in the parent, the OP, and generally. You (parent) have glossed over one of the GP's points: Galdwell

I'm not quite understanding all of the hate on Galdwell, in the parent, the OP, and generally. You (parent) have glossed over one of the GP's points: Galdwell shares some credible scientific research via the popular press. Yes, there is undoubtedly some spin on it, but chucking out the entirety of Gladwell also dismisses, as just one example, implicit cognition research done at Harvard. As techies and scientists we can gloat all day that we know correlation doesn't equate to causation, but exploring the stories behind correlations can help uncover the causal chain. Goodness knows a great deal of qualitative academic research (in top journals, no less) suffer some of the same criticisms Gladwell is enduring. Social sciences accept different ontologies and epistimologies [e.g., 1], and postivism is only one such, albeit the most common. Properly done, interpretivism, too, is accepted. I think my biggest frustration with the Gladwell-bashing is that even though Gladwell's connections between research and anecdote are sometimes tenuous, those engaging in the critique don't first demonstrate an understanding of the epistimological/ontological standards in social research. 1: http://misq.org/misq/downloads/download/editorial/25/ http://misq.org/misq/downloads/download/editorial/25/