Obviously you can write about what you want, whenever you want and about what you think is relevant. At the same time this stament holds also for the people who reads your stuff.

My point it is quite simple: there is a wealth of work and accomplishment already available on the subject you brought up in your post, and this material has been already worked out in the context of the technology usage. It could be just more effective for everybody not to start from the scratch leveraging the already existing knowledge.

One of my first bosses used to say, “Nothing is obvious to the uninformed.” I’ve found it worth remembering for any number of circumstances. But it’s not always that easy to catch yourself using jargon or insider conventions!

That said, I very much take your comment to heart that the interaction design community could learn a lot from existing research/books. While I have never heard of the book you mention, I’m definitely going to go find a copy.

But you must realize that there is a gigantic gulf between the everyday lives of practicing interface designers and the academic world where folks can discuss this stuff on a high level. Part of what I hope my blog is about is a chance at bridging that divide…so while I haven’t read all the relevant books out there (who has?) I’m still going to write what I see as helpful content.

And, to the point about culture…I never said that I agree with Gladwell’s assessment…in fact that’s not even important for this post.

I’m not clear on your argument. Joshua writes about good design. His use of the Flight 052 anecdote wasn’t meant a pro-American screed, or a comprehensive look at high-intensity communication breakdowns, or how technology disables clear communication. He was making four points:
1. Say the obvious.
2. Use the right terminology.
3. Be clear about what you want.
4. Order information correctly, with the right emphasis.

I don’t see how that shows — in any way — a “lack of knowledge” about good design. I’m sure Joshua (and the rest of the readers here) appreciate your references to the other books on the topic of communications breakdowns, and I hope that people who are interested in the subject will follow up with those. But pairing the references with a suggestion that Joshua’s arguments were faulty, misleading, or incomplete, or that he shows a “lack of knoweldge” about his subject (design) does little to persuade me that I should bother reading those books.