Pinker's core point is that Gladwell is a shallow dilletante that writes well, but makes profound conclusions based on this basic dabbling. Gladwell does nothi

Pinker's core point is that Gladwell is a shallow dilletante that writes well, but makes profound conclusions based on this basic dabbling. Gladwell does nothing but make one of Pinker's specific challenges appear much shakier (and yes, I'm going to be stereotypical here and guess that Pinker probably is much less comfortable with Football than Gladwell). If I hadn't ever heard of Pinker before, this would do something to my trust in his argument. However, knowing Pinker's track record and background, Gladwell's "rebuttal" seems a frail attempt that tries to hit at the one weak point he found. Really? Nothing more substantial to refute?