I feel... conflicted about it. Thoughout the book, he holds the thesis that success is not a matter of extraordinary talent, but of "enough" talent, the right circumstances and a lot of work. So far, so good; why not.

What Gladwell does extremely well is tell anecdotes, funny stories and the like. He's funny, he's engaging, his examples are well chosen and usually quite fascinating. (And by the way, I think [b:What The Dog Saw|6516450|What the Dog Saw and Other Adventures|Malcolm Gladwell|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1344263875s/6516450.jpg|6708278] is better in that regard).

What he also does well is to make you think and look beyond the "usual" stories, giving some additional info and make you wonder what, in the end, is really relevant (probably all of it, in some measure).

What annoyed me most, however, was the nagging feeling of "yeah, you're trying to show me statistics, but you're not really convincing at that, are you?". I mean, I have no idea whether the stats hold or not. But the way they are presented in the book, it feels more like anecdotal evidence and Texas sharpshooter fallacy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy). Again, I'm not saying the facts are wrong; I'm saying that after reading the book, I have no idea if they are right or wrong. Which is very annoying.

So in the end, I end up with a book that I actually enjoyed reading (because of the cool anecdotes and stuff) but that annoyed me greatly on the statistical/scientific content. And I suck at stats. So, yeah... conflicted.