Matthew Yglesias calls out Simon Rich on a few points in this week’s Shouts:

When I was eighteen and Simon Rich was fifteen we were both in Mr Young’s homeroom and he really wasn’t the “sitting silently in the corner” type. I distinctly recall him showing off his juggling moves.

Ha! Writers do so love that “shy little me” voice. Still, as commenter ostap points out, “Showing off juggling moves in home room is entirely consistent with sitting in the corner at parties.” But what’s with that (not Constant) Reader commenter? Sheesh.

Meanwhile, those meanie scientists are after Malcolm Gladwell again. (The subtitle: “Sorry, Malcolm, but the Tipping Point Might Be More Myth Than Math.” He’s a first-name monolith!) Is it me or do Gladwell’s books get treated like original science more than they should be? I regard it as a compliment—Gladwell is so darn good at popularizing, explaining, and repackaging original work mostly done elsewhere that people feel the need to pick apart his theses.
Let’s look at one line from the article: “In reality, tipping—experiencing that exponential growth—is very difficult.” How this represents a debunking is beyond me. Show me the passage where Gladwell says tipping things is a piece of pie, and you win, Ad Age! (But you can’t.) —Martin Schneider
[There’s at least one of Gladwell’s theses that is surely undebunkable! Also, I liked this comment on the Yglesias post: ‘The best part, though, are the key words on the side: ‘Children; Teen-agers; Baseball; Erections; Mothers; Concerts; Popularity.’ From now on, I’m restricting my reading to only what comes up from a Google Alert on those seven words.” —EG]