Gladwell says himself, in his own books, that he writes not to change the minds of his readers, but to make his readers think. The stories he presents alongsid

Gladwell says himself, in his own books, that he writes not to change the minds of his readers, but to make his readers think. The stories he presents alongside the ideas he presents are just illustrations. Every situation, whether it's Bill Gates' success, the problem of choosing NFL Quarterbacks, or the rise of Hush Puppies has an incredible amount of variables that can never be fully grasped. The common theme of Gladwell bashers seems to be that they take every idea presented as if he were presenting it as unilateral truth. I mean, just take a look at this Quora page: http://www.quora.com/Malcolm-Gladwell-author/What-are-some-claims-by-Malcolm-Gladwell-that-are-incorrect http://www.quora.com/Malcolm-Gladwell-author/What-are-some-c... If you look at the top answer there, the writer is clearly missing the point of Gladwell's writing on a number of issues. The one complaint about his writing I've seen the most often is about the 10,000 hour rule. The writer of the Quora answer puts it this way: "[Gladwell is wrong in saying] That 10,000 hours of practice will turn you into a genius on the order of Mozart or Michael Jordan". He never says anything like that in Outliers! The main arguments that I got out of the 10,000 hour rule is that the most successful people of any area tend to follow a similar trend: born into an exceptional situation to lead to greatness in that area, dedicated practice for thousands of hours, above average IQ (but IQ past ~120 is not too important). Saying that dedicated practice alone will turn anyone into the top 0.001% of a given profession is absurd, and Gladwell doesn't say that at all. Maybe if Gladwell bashers stopped taking everything he writes as if he were prescribing ideas of thought, they could enjoy his compelling writing and thought-provoking ideas.