"Fairly characterize the evidence for your position" shouldn't apply only in Nature.
If Gladwell came up with an hypothesis and gave anecdotes both supporting and disproving his hypothesis, that would be "exposing ideas." Instead, he (sometimes implicitly, but usually explicitly) suggests that his hypothesis is a universal law.
Of course, Gladwell writes well. But the OP is exactly right that Gladwell's bread-and-butter is inappropriate extrapolation from a few anecdotes to some pithy "theory of everything."
If Gladwell came up with an hypothesis and gave anecdotes both supporting and disproving his hypothesis, that would be "exposing ideas." Instead, he (sometimes implicitly, but usually explicitly) suggests that his hypothesis is a universal law.
Of course, Gladwell writes well. But the OP is exactly right that Gladwell's bread-and-butter is inappropriate extrapolation from a few anecdotes to some pithy "theory of everything."