It’s almost comical how much Gladwell contradicts himself in this particular case. He draws conclusions that he directly disproves in subsequent sections.

More than anything, it’s just entertaining to consume his work, but also, so long as you’re paying attention, always seems to end up like the scene in The Prestige when Michael Cain explains misdirection and makes the bird disappear. Only we know the bird is crushed by the cage and dead. And we just aren’t supposed to catch the dead body.

Well so it is with all Gladwell books. And really it makes a lot of sense when you see an interview with him where he says he considers his books launching pads for conversations. Kickstarts into the general intellect. But… no where in his actual books, that I’ve read anyways, is his actual intent every stated. He presents his thinking through the gesture of seemingly factual evidence and leads the reader on through the small hoops of his logic in order for his conclusions to appear factually true.

Yet… the reader is supposed to infer that even he thinks this is just the beginning of the conversation as a whole? He clearly states what he thinks and why, even when drawing comical biased conclusions from information that would disprove something in the first section. What reason is there for the reader to think that he thinks he’s sending them on toward the actual “hard data”. (See below for a reference)

And the problem is that now those conclusions from the book are used as short hand in the general intellect, even when completely untrue. Like the 10,000 hour thing, or underdogs, or really any of his popular concussions. And because he is so popular, he really does have a larger responsibility. Especially now that we’ve seen the effect Gladwell has on culture. It’s legitimately disturbing, and easily remedied with a clear intent stated upfront on the book that is never there.

At least with other books, as far as I could tell, he did not contradict himself so much. It hampered my enjoyment and that’s really all I came to these books for, knowing to take everything with a grain of salt. But even the prestige takes a turn from the fun of a magic trick to something far more sinister when you know the bird is dead, crushed by the cage for the audience.

“In an interview with The Telegraph, Gladwell said, "The mistake is to think these books are ends in themselves. My books are gateway drugs—they lead you to the hard stuff." Gladwell himself is discrediting his own work, essentially saying you also need a Psych 101 textbook at your side to make sure everything jives with actual fact. If his books are not "ends in themselves," why does he go on with doing Ted talk after Ted talk, business meeting after business meeting masquerading around ideas that are truly stories that are inspired by science? The citations and studies he uses are simply the starting point for him to draw completely different, unrelated, and non-peer reviewed conclusions. They give his ideas unwarranted scientific legitimacy.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/behavioral-economist/article/2014/8/7/why-you-shouldnt-trust/