gladwell

None of this means that Gladwell only cares about selling books.

I don't see how this means that Gladwell wasn't in error.

I like Gladwell from a pop-sci point of view.

It might be worth noting that Becker is hugely respected among economists, while Krugman is considered to be a bit of an asshat, sort of like the Malcom Gladwell of the field.

There should be a word for pop science that teaches people to think rationally and run good experiments in their own lives, separate from the junk Psychology Today or Gladwell vomit out.

For those of you who don't know what Y is because you did not read the two sentence explanation of it that I did when Malcom Gladwell covered the topic better, it is Insert Wikipedia Definition.

That's all Gladwell does -- he spins yarns around widely accepted knowledge in a subfield into stories for "everyone".

Malcolm Gladwell's excellent 2006 New Yorker article "Million Dollar Murray" directly addresses some of the grumbling in the comments below...

It was a recent academic fad, Malcolm Gladwell included a big section on it in "Blink".

While I generally agree that it's harder for big companies to innovate I think the key is to segregate the company into smaller units (Gladwell's "magic number 150").

Gladwell gave examples in which he absolutely murdered the pronunciation of the number 7.

Some of Malcolm Gladwell's books are interesting although they are a tad popsci.

The Daily Mash summed up Gladwell's market: family of nerds, not nerds themselves.