Prolific author. Popularized 10,000 hour rule. Also is a bit cliche. Would you consider him good to read or not
malcolm gladwell. yes or no :
Anonymous :
13 days ago :
No.6693
>>6718
>>6701
His pivot into podcasting with his own media company was the epitome of that.
>>6693 (OP)
His books are meant for a popular audience. Nuance is sacrificed for the sake of story flow and propping up the main thesis. The most redeeming quality of any of his books are the bibliographies. For the bibliographies, it's a yes. For the books themselves, no.
Why don't you read him and then tell the class what you found out. Develop your own opinion for god's sake
A particularly bad author who popularized the idea that IQ's not real. Avoid.
That's a firm no
Anonymous :
12 days ago :
No.6701
>>6718
>>6701
His pivot into podcasting with his own media company was the epitome of that.
>>6693 (OP)
His books are meant for a popular audience. Nuance is sacrificed for the sake of story flow and propping up the main thesis. The most redeeming quality of any of his books are the bibliographies. For the bibliographies, it's a yes. For the books themselves, no.
A remarkable success story for a climber in old media. He made the right moves in the late 90s and the early 2000s. Unfortunately it's no use emulating him because that terrain has collapsed and his path went with it.
Always get him confused with Steven Pinker
>>6701
A remarkable success story for a climber in old media. He made the right moves in the late 90s and the early 2000s. Unfortunately it's no use emulating him because that terrain has collapsed and his path went with it.
His pivot into podcasting with his own media company was the epitome of that.
>>6693 (OP)
His books are meant for a popular audience. Nuance is sacrificed for the sake of story flow and propping up the main thesis. The most redeeming quality of any of his books are the bibliographies. For the bibliographies, it's a yes. For the books themselves, no.