>so unless there are any 'experts' who agree with his
>analysis, then Outliers would be a bunch of really
>interesting b.s.

No, it's not that.

It's someone with a general knowledge trying to convey specialized knowledge to a general audience.

I don't think he's particularly "wrong" about anything, but the text itself doesn't take into account all the nuance you would really need to break down everything.

I run into this all the time when I talk about the law or hip hop.

Take sampling. Most heads think that it's okay to sample something, just as long as you don't make any money from it. If you make money from it, you're "breaking the law".

It's very difficult to explain to dj's/producers what a copyright violation is and what that means in the legal sense. Most of the time, I have to focus on "what happens in the real world" - I can't really explain it in the legal sense - because my audience would need legal training to understand what's important and what's not important.

>The funny thing is that this is exactly what makes
>Gladwell so remarkable, his ability of turning a concept
>from the fringes of mainstream understanding/concern
>and give it that nudge onto the main stage.
>
>btw, do you have a link for the Salon piece?

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/12/05/askthepilot301/print.html


>http://www.last.fm/user/djrue/