I wonder if there's any popular non-fiction book which someone hasn't accused of being simplistic. The same criticism was levelled for "Sapiens." It seems a kind of gate-keeping, just like how an expert programmer would pounce on a simple explanation shouting, "hey this doesn't cover X, Y or Z." Sapiens might not be 100% accurate, but superbly covers tens of ideas that will gives you a fresh perspective to understand history and humans.
I haven't read Galdwell's books, but read most of his New Yorker articles. While I have observed that sometimes he cherry-picks data, his gift of communicating ideas effectively is un-ignorable. I have had trouble finding non-fiction writers that can match his ability. Gladwell might not be for you, but it's unfair to criticize him just because his writing lacks an academic treatment for the subject.
There are lots of popular nonfiction books that aren't simplistic. They just may be older than you would expect. For example, On the Origin of Species is a book packed with information, yet still approachable by most. You can find books in many fields - science, philosophy, history that are incredibly well written.
The last book I read that was written well was Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse In the Age of Show Business.
(I've read Gladwell before and have mixed feeling about his writing)
You might enjoy any of Mike Dash's writing, also. He walks the line between vivid history and nonfiction novels, but he's also a diligent researcher who's pretty often covering material from unexamined primary sources.
Single-story history is of course easier to make vivid than thesis-based writing, but he still stands out to me as way above the usual mark for density * readability.
I don't think GP was criticising the books for not being academic, so much as stretching out 6 pages of worthwhile material to an entire book.
I've dipped into Sapiens - it does seems to contain more ideas per chapter than the Gladwell books I've read, though I'll reserve final judgement until I get around to reading it fully.
> I haven't read Gladwell's books, but read most of his New Yorker articles.
A significant part of what people (myself included) condemn about Gladwell is that you aren't losing anything at all by doing that.
How David Beats Goliath was a pretty interesting New Yorker article built around 2-3 very good stories, connected by some less-than-great history and dubious analysis. (Gladwell repeatedly implies that it's better to be David than Goliath, because Davids who use unusual strategies win more than half the time. He never manages to acknowledge that he's only looking at conventional-strategy Goliaths, and excluding cases where David looked for alternate approaches but found none.) Still, I'm glad I read it. The Eurisko strategy game story is superb, and the full-court press basketball narrative provides an interesting analogue to similar strategies in other sports like 'small ball'.
David and Goliath consisted of those 2-3 very good stories in a 300+ page book, filled out by tenuously-connected stories, ludicrously cherry-picked anecdotes, and confirmation bias filled blunders through sociological data.
Gladwell is definitely a talented storyteller, and turned loose on the right stories that's not to be underestimated. But his book-length works are scattered and heavy on filler at best. At worst, they're things like Outliers, which is focused and persuasively argued - at the cost of wildly misrepresenting the basic facts it relies on.
I haven't read Galdwell's books, but read most of his New Yorker articles. While I have observed that sometimes he cherry-picks data, his gift of communicating ideas effectively is un-ignorable. I have had trouble finding non-fiction writers that can match his ability. Gladwell might not be for you, but it's unfair to criticize him just because his writing lacks an academic treatment for the subject.