The Gladwell article was a travesty. It was hastily written piece, basically copied and pasted from the Isaacson biography with a thin layer of crappy pop psychology on top.
The whole time I was reading it I was wondering why Gladwell didn't refer to any other material than the biography since they offered a deeper, more balanced picture of his work, but then I remembered they were probably trying to cash in on the Steve Jobs aura by putting his article on the cover.
Jeremy, as far as I could notice, Gladwell's article had no pop psychology. It's interpretation of "tweakers" was based on a paper by two economists, "The Rate and Direction of Invention in the British Industrial Revolution: Incentives and Institutions." Gladwell then argues that Jobs' contribution fall more in the "tweaking" category, which is not meant as a criticism or denigration. Remember that in this interpretation it is the tweakers who brought us the Industrial Revolution, not the visionary inventors.
The whole time I was reading it I was wondering why Gladwell didn't refer to any other material than the biography since they offered a deeper, more balanced picture of his work, but then I remembered they were probably trying to cash in on the Steve Jobs aura by putting his article on the cover.
reply