The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference

The only book in many years that I did not finish. It was bad. BAD I say. Sloppy pseudo-science. Slippery slope logic. UGH. I just could not swallow the load that this book was.

And I read a review that said this was originally only supposed to be a 5-7 pg article - THAT makes sense. It would probably be an interesting article - but as a book? Suck city.

Here's what this book taught me:
1. When something (an idea, a product, etc) passes an arbitrary 'tipping point', it becomes trendy.
2. Influential people have more influence in making something trendy.
3. If an idea is worth spreading, it is more likely to spread.
4. When analyzing human behavior, context matters.

Really good book. It read like a bestseller (quick read), but had a lot of substance to stop and make you think.

three Rules of the tipping point: the law of the few, the stickyness factor, the power of context.

Law of the Few (people who influence):
- Connectors: super connectors (eg Paul Revere). William Dawes had the same mission as Paul Revere the same night but we haven't heard of him b/c Paul Revere was a super-connector & knew who to rouse.
- Mavens: A Maven is a person who has information on a lot of different products or prices or places. This person likes to initiate discussions with consumers and respond to requests. They like to be helpers in the marketplace.
- Salesmen: people with the skills of persuasion. Good at reading people entering into "conversational harmony" with them. Facial gestures (nods, smiles, frowns) are key indicators. Emotional Mimicry. Studies showed Peter Jennings viewers voted Republican b/c he unconsciously smiled more while covering Reagan.

Stickyness Factor
- Sesame street succeeded b/c it learned to make TV sticky. It did a TON of testing with focus groups of kids to increase stickyness (how much kids remembered) of each show. They would cut scenes that didn't hold attention until each show
was good.
- Blues Clues did even more testing and discovered that kids love repetition - it plays the same show 5 times in a row and kids love it.
- make the message personal to make it memorable

The Power of Context
- Broken window theory. NYC cleaned up its crime epidemic by cleaning off the graffiti from its subways.
- Often to change human behavior you have to change the context the problem is presented in.
- Stanford Prison Experiment by Zimbardo proved that context matters.
- law of 150: a person can't 'know' more than 150 people, so companies usually start to fail at that point. Gore-Tex breaks up a company into 2 once it hits 150, because they've found things work better that way.

موضوع: نقطه اوج، چه طور مسائل جزئی موجب تغییرات بزرگ می شوند

خلاصه ای از محتویات: به طور کلی مالکوم گلدول، ژورنالیست مشهور نیویورکر در این کتاب علت وقوع اتفاقات اپیدمیک رو بررسی می کنه. اینکه تحت حضور چه شرایط و عواملی یک تبلیغ، یک شایعه، یا یک رویه در جامعه مد واپیدمیک می شه. از اطلاعاتی که در کتاب هست می شه در بحث های مارکتینگ و بازریابی، تبلیغات موثر استفاده کرد.

خلاصه ای از جالبات کتاب:
1. six degrees of separation: یکی از مطلب های جالبی که توی کتاب یاد گرفتم مفهوم شش درجه جدایی هست. به طول خلاصه طبق این تئوری، هر چیز یا شخصی که در دنیا وجود داشته باشه، با یک واسطه شش نفره از ذنجیره دوستان ما، و دوستان آن ها در دست رس ما خواهد بود.

2. Connectors: یکی از عوامل اپیدمیک شدن یک موضوع وجود افرادی با هویت رابط هست. این ها افرادی هستن با شبکه ای بزرگ از ارتباطات میان فردی. افرادی اجتماعی و خوش مشرب که معمولا مورد اعتماد و تحسین دوستانشون هستن.
یک مثال خیلی جالب در خصوص این افراد این بود که می گه یک لیست 40 نفری از دوستانتون تهیه کنید و مشخص کنید چه طور با هر یک از این دوستانتون آشنا شدین، در نهایت به یک عدد کوچک می رسید. به این معنی که یکی یا دو نفر از دوستانتون موجب آشنا شدن شما با ما بقی افراد موجود در لیست دوسانتون هستن. این افراد همون اشخاص با هویت رابط هستند.

3. بر خلاف باور عموم مبنی بر اینکه انتخاب دوستانشون بر اساس ویژگی های مشترک هست، مطالعات و بررسی ها نشون می ده که ما دوستانمون رو بر اساس نزدیکی محیطی و اجتماعی انتخاب می کنیم. کسانی که فعالیت های مشترکی با اون ها داریم و نه ویژگی های مشترک.
We're friends with the people we do things with, as much as we are with the people we resemble. We don't seek out friends, in other words. We associ­ate with the people who occupy the same small, physical spaces that we do.

4. Six degrees of separation doesn't mean that everyone is linked to everyone else in just six steps. It means that a very small number of people are linked to everyone else in a few steps, and the rest of us are linked to the world through those special few.

5. یکی دیگه از مطالبی که یاد گرفتم این بود که این دسته افرادی که با هویت رابط می شناسیم و دایره دوستان زیادی دارن آدم هایی هستن که ناخودآگاه معتقند که همه آدم هایی که قراره ببینن به یک نحوی فوق العاده و شگفت انگیزن و این طرز فکر باعث می شه زیبایی های آدم ها رو در حالی که از دید بقیه پنهان هست ببینن... جای بسی تامل داره این موضوع...

6. یک موضوع کاربردی و بسیار جالب دیگه در خصوص پیدا کردن شغل این هست که طبق آمار، اغلب افرادی که مشغول به کارهای رده بالا و خوب می شن اغلب شغلشون رو از طریق آشنایانشون (چه خیلی دور و چه خیلی نزدیک) پیدا می کنن که این مسئله اهمیت داشتن شبکه دوستان بزرگ رو مشخص می کنه.
The strength of weak ties... Acquaintances, in short, represent a source of social power, and the more acquaintances you have the more power­ful you are.

7. The more close an idea a message come to a connector, the more probability that it spreads.

8. Mavens: Those people who hoard knowledge if particular subjects and present them to anyone need that type of information merely out of goodwill which in turns make them popular and trustworthy.

9. The broken window theory این نظریه بسیار جالب می گه اگر یک پنجره ای شکسته بشه و تعمییر نشه، باعث می شه که به مرور پنجره های بیشتری شکسته بشن و این آغازی می شه برای گسترش بی نظمی و جرم. وجود کوچکترین نشانه از آلودگی یا بی نظمی و بی توجهی به اون باعث گسترش اون می شه.
crime is the inevitable result of disorder. If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal
that anything goes.

10. the convictions of your heart and the actual contents of your thoughts are less important, in the end, in guiding your actions than the immediate context of your behavior

11. Peer influence and community influence are more important than family influence in determining how children turn out

12. Caring about someone deeply is exhausting thus limiting us on the number of people we can mentally afford to heartily and truly care about.

13. Transactive memory: حافظه انتقالی به این معنی هست که ما مواردی در زندگیمون داریم مثل شماره تلفن، آدرس، یا مجموعه مواردی که باید بهشون رسیدگی کنیم که این ها رو در حافظه خودمون حفظ نمی کنیم، بلکه در جایی ذخیرشون می کنیم و آن جا را که نگهدارنده اون موارد هست به خاطر می سپاریم.
مثلا مسائل زیادی هستن مثل یک تجربه یا یک نوع بازی یا محاوره که حفظ و نگهداریشون رو بر عهده شریک زندگیمون می سپاریم. به همین خاطر طلاق یا جدایی انقدر دردناک می شن، به این دلیل که دیگه به بخشی از اون خاطرات دست رسی نمی توانیم داشته باشیم.

کلام آخر: یک ستاره ای که کم شد از امتیازش به دلیل حجیم بودن کتاب بود که می تونست خیلی خلاصه تر باشه. البته این مورد بین اغلب کتاب ها مشترک هست که دلیلش مسائل اقتصادی و مالی هست بیشتر. اما در کل کتاب واقعا خواندنی و آموزنده ای بود، و ��ز مطالعش لذت بردم.

I think missed the best by date for this book. It's more fun than an introductory course in sociology and covers some of the same material. Reminded me of Bellwether by Connie Willis and William Gibson's Blue Ant series. All looking for the point where people change behavior and a new trend begins.

I loved the part about creating the children's education tv programs Sesame Street and Blue's Clues. What worked with preschoolers, and what didn't.

It seems likely Gladwell relies on his enthusiasm for his theory more than fact. That being said, I'll probably read more of his books. It's good food for thought.

کتاب عالی ای بود، اولش یکم سرد شروع میشه و موضوعش تکراری بنظر میاد ولی تو بخش the law of the few اوج میگیره. مفاهیم connector و maven و salesman فوق العاده جالب و کاربردی بود مخصوصا برای افرادی که به بیزینس و روان شناسی علاقه دارن. توی بخش the stickness factor با اینکه موضوع جالبه ولی باز یکم معمولی میشه و جزئیات زیادی مطرح میشه که لزومی نداره ولی دوباره تو بخش power of context اوج میگیره. دو فصل راجب context هست که هم فواید کاری هم فواید فردی و شخصی میتونه براتون داشته باشه. در کل بسیار لذت بردم از خوندن این کتاب گرچه هنوز outliers تو کتاب های گلدول بهترینه بنظرم. واسه کتاب بعدی سراغ David and Goliath میرم و بعد ازون ریویو کامل راجب کتاب های گلدول مینویسم

Malcolm Gladwell shows us with this book that he is a jack-of-all-trades (or intellectual disciplines) and master of none. He very loosely weaves together existing social science and economic research to support his thin idea that there is a "tipping point" in all epidemics. While it was a page turner and interesting to read, his glib conclusory statements interpreting others' research was a bit jarring... For example, use of the word "always" when describing a social phenomenon is not a practice to which most trained social scientists would subscribe. I was also hoping for more practical advice resulting from his work, but not much was to be found other than that many complex forces (people, context, etc.) are at work in achieving a tipping point in most epidemics.

When I write reviews, I revisit my 1-5 star rating guide. It was inspired  by a friend , though I've adapted it slightly. Five stars is a book everyone should read, three stars is really only if you're obsessive about reading everything on a particular topic, and one star, well, is reserved for books that might mislead.

It's not that Gladwell isn't a good writer, or that there aren't good ideas in here. There are great ideas. But, the problem is they're buried amidst too much crap that misleads, misdirects, and otherwise misinforms. And, if you're not careful about it, the polish and pizazz of Gladwell's writing makes it hard to discern between the two. There are beautiful pieces of meat here, but also infected pockets of pus and botulism riddled veggies... and it's not really easy to eat one from the plate without risking picking up a bit of the other, especially when it's all presented so beautifully.

First, though, the good. Gladwell, as is often recognized, has an incredible ability to convey complicated stories in simple, accessible prose. He's a profoundly engaging writer with a knack for two particular rhetorical moves. First, he's excellent with analogies, comparisons, and cases. His examples are vivid and compelling. They're easy to understand and well-told vignettes. And, they're delivered in a way that helps to unpack and make obvious big and complex points. Second, he has a real gift for taking complicated science and distilling it down to simple stories. His accounting of research analyzing positive and negative body language of different reporters when talking about various politicians, for instance, takes a messy subject and makes it hugely approachable. This is a legitimate gift, and Gladwell ought to be commended for it.

The problem, though, is that this gift for simplifying complex stories down into simple, digestible nuggets ends up being the undoing of The Tipping Point. The book is ultimately an attempt to distill a bestseller set of "five simple rules that explain the universe!" Making matters worse, where this simplification happens, it generally happens with precious little acknowledgement of the complexity, leaving the reader with no idea that they're being sold a clean, one-sentence explanation of a phenomenon that's much more complex.

This is manifest in a few different ways, worth exploring in turn.

One ongoing problem is the use of equivocation. Rarely does Gladwell pin down the meaning of particular terms (e.g., "tipping point," "contagious," etc). This lets him play remarkably fast and loose with their application. For instance, the first chapter on epidemics (which reads particularly roughly in the current COVID context) harps on about the way that epidemics are characterized by tipping points where things take off. But, this is so much of a truism as to become useless for revealing anything. Yes, sometimes a contagion does indeed experience exponential or rapid growth. But, pointing out the idea of "tipping points" does precious little to explain why it happened then and not some other time. It doesn't explain why countries have had, periodically, a little success containing COVID only to have it resurge later. It doesn't explain why the "tipping point" looks entirely different in different countries, cities, or times.

Similarly, Gladwell is all too keen to treat his observation that "tipping points" exist as a causal explanation of the world, when it actually appears to be a result that shows up in some cases and not others. I'm happy to grant that tipping points can and do exist, but noting that they exist does precious little to help us understand why they do. By playing fast and loose with language, and periodically committing fallacies of equivocation, the analysis ends up obscuring more than it reveals.

To understand these limitations, it's worth summarizing Gladwell's core argument. Gladwell thinks we pay insufficient attention to tipping points as a phenomenon, then argues they can be explained through three factors: The Law of the Few; the Law of Stickiness; and the Law of Context. The Law of the Few refers to the idea that a select few play a disproportionate role in shaping these exponential phenomenon. Connectors are those with extensive social networks, mavens are the nerds who know a ton about a specialist topic, and salesmen are those who can sell ideas. Stickiness refers to either an intrinsic or added property, wherein the idea is more easily retained and captivating to the listener. And, the Law of Context suggests that small factors (e.g., graffiti on subway cars in his Broken Window Theory example) can end up causing the tipping point.

(Want to quit this review here? The TL;DR: is that all of these "laws" end up being pretty worthless. If something had a "tipping point," you can almost inevitably find at least one of the "laws" in play. But, a near-infinite number of things also have salespeople selling them, or are sticky... and yet they never tip. These "laws" sound good in hindsight, but don't actually offer any guidance looking forward in trying to predict which things will or won't hit a tipping point.)

A related problem is also present in his analysis of the causes of tipping points. For instance, one chapter focuses on the drop-off of crime in NYC in the 90s. Gladwell uses the "broken windows theory" to explain this drop-off, with only a passing nod to any other explanations. But, of course, for anyone who has actually studied this change in detail, it's a heck of a lot more complicated than "they removed the graffiti from the subway cars."

This isn't to say that I have something against simple stories. Simple stories can be helpful and good. I just finished writing a review of another book, Stephen Pyne's  Florida: A Fire Survey , that is effective precisely because it uses simple stories. But, the key difference is that Pyne's volume succeeds where simple stories are told about specific things. It can be helpful to tell a relatively simple story of how wildfire management evolved in a specific National Park. By contrast, Gladwell's fails when it tries to tell simple stories that explain absolutely everything.

At the end of the day, then, Gladwell's analysis gives the mirage of explanation while actually having absolutely no explanatory power. One needn't look much further than Gladwell's new afterward to see why this is such a problem. In it, Gladwell is discussing the emergence of school shootings in America post Columbine. He's keen to use Columbine itself as the causal event; the genesis of contagion that would go on to inspire similar actions by other youngsters. Here's what he says to explain why Columbine can be seen as the cause:

"Millions of kids who grow up just as emotionally impoverished as Andy Williams don't walk into their school one morning and start shooting. The difference is Columbine. Andy Williams was infected by this example of Eric Harris and Dyllan Klebold..."

But this doesn't explain a da#% thing! The thing Gladwell needs to explain here is why some teenagers walk into schools and shoot them up, yet so many don't. If contagion were the answer, we'd see dozens of school shootings a day, curving upwards exponentially like COVID case counts.

But we don't. Don't get me wrong, we see way too many school shootings, and this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

But, at the end of the day, Gladwell's analysis doesn't get us any further to doing that.

It doesn't get us any further because it focuses on telling simple, "just so" stories. Look at any case study long enough, and you can come up with an explanation of why it succeeded or failed. You can draw out a "maven" or "connector" who gave it the push it needed, just at the right moment. Or, you can bemoan the lack of suitable context, trapping and preventing it from reaching its full potential.

But the theory has no predictive power at all. Nothing in the book lets us discern between what things will and won't reach a tipping point. If a novel pathogen emerged; a new invention was created; a new fad bubbled out of a hipster coffee spot... the book wouldn't be able to tell us anything about it until hindsight kicked in.

And that's the real trouble with this book. It leaves you feeling as though you understand the world better, when actually you've just been bombarded with a set of "just so" stories that make sense when the narrative is simple, but fall apart when more detail is considered. It's so well written that it can slip sneaky equivocations into the analysis and play fast and loose with the ideas. And, it's so engaging and compelling that it feels like everything adds up... because in the world of convenient, hindsight narratives, it somehow always does.