Specifically about the term "tipping point" I used it in its general meaning. Beyond the legitimate criticisms on Gladwell's use of the concept in his book, it is known in behavioral science and more specifically in when we talk about behavioral contagion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_contagion) as the "inflection point" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point) which is what I'm referring to as a "tipping point" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)). But I agree that this could be confusing. I'll add this precision to my article.
For the rest of your remark: the point of this article is to make readers realize the importance of context on people's decision-making process. This is no pseudo-science as it is standard knowledge in social sciences, backed up with years of scientific studies and publications.
For sure, many scientific concepts have been reused (and altered) by personal development and pseudo-science movements. But this doesn't cancel the scientific validity of such concepts. How many times can we read about “quantum physic” in pseudo-science articles (i.e. https://elemental.medium.com/the-human-body-can-heal-in-asto...). Does it make quantum physic a pseudo-science? Fortunately, no. The difference here is that not only the concept is well-supported but also the method and technic used for its application.
Perhaps, my article is not well written, which I can concede (always learning and improving). Anyway, thanks for helping me improve it.