I read this years ago while I was stranded at an airport for about four hours. Luckily, there was a coffee shop combined with a book store, so I just sat and read this, unpurchased. Oh, yes, I did have a tipping point: when I finished it I realized it was total BS and put it back on the shelf. But EVERYTHING has a tipping point. Let's say you're house shopping and you have been for a year. And suddenly, the realtor opens the door to your dream house. That's it. Happens all the time. There is no subject matter here at all.

To understand "The Tipping Point," one must understand what led to its creation: In the year 2000 A.D. (Anal Dominos), there were 5.5 billion people living on the planet Earth. Many of them were considered human beings, but a few were thought to be celery. The difference between the two categories bewildered the top dog breeders of the day.

To help us think more deeply about the consequences of the problem, consider the following fact: If you were born after 1975 and tried to ride a bicycle from Iceland to Darfur, the chances of colliding with a British nanny increased 13% based on the number of Blossom reruns you watched as a child. Whether or not your parents are divorced is immaterial, as is the amount of padding in your seat. Social Scientists had a term for this late 20th century phenomenon: "Whoa!"

Meanwhile, in Canada (if that's your real name), a young, mild-mannered boy named Malcolm recognized the unique power of combining individual letters into meaning-units called “words.”

He quit his job making ice sculptures out of rusted fenders and moved south of the border to America (the nation, not the toy store).

His timing was impeccable. At the end of the 90s, America had just entered a period of reckless behavior wherein, with little prompting, Americans would try to arrange words into "sentences" and, if sufficiently coked-up, slap those sentences into "paragraphs."

Conservatives like Pat Buchanan were furious. Senator Bob Dole went on Meet the Press and blamed his erectile dysfunction on syntax. The era ended suddenly on December 31st, 1999, when, according to a budding bow-tie fanatic named Bill Nye, both the year AND the century had run their course.

Feeling threatened, Gladwell went on national television to declare "writing" is the radical, counterintuitive explanation for the existence of what he called "books" but what conservatives called "syphilis".

The strategy worked: He signed a contract with the biggest publishing house in America, which then promptly issued his first minor masterpiece: "Writing: How Letters, Sentences, Paragraphs, and Chapters Add Up To The Thing That Came Before the Colon." From that point on, it was all gin and roses (until Slash and Hypen left the band).

2 ½ Stars

Note: I listened to the audiobook. Gladwell reads his own work, and the vocal effect is generally pleasing.

Having first read Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, this earlier work of Gladwell's was a bit disappointing. The premise is intriguing, particularly from a sociological and marketing standpoint. Gladwell explores numerous factors that seem to provide compelling explanations as to why certain products or ideas (intentionally or otherwise) become virulent phenomenon, while others simply fade into obscurity.

On the one hand, there's no denying this book is dated. The studies mentioned are largely from the early to mid-90's, though he goes back in the epilogue to revise some of his examples (particularly of epidemic youth suicide in Micronesia—which he initially tried to parallel to teen smoking in the U.S., but amended with a far more fitting claim regarding school shootings in the post-Columbine era.) On the other hand...there are a few takeaway concepts that could possibly be considered timeless if properly translated to one's own field/situation: the law of the few, the power of context, and the stickyness factor. But an instructional guide, this book is not.

Repetition is overused, at times, to the point of tedium. (While he suggests this principle worked well for certain children's TV shows, it was perhaps not the most effective approach to his target audience.)

To this reader, the most fascinating part of the book involves the history of Sesame Street and Blue's Clues, two of the most successful and effectively educational children's TV programs to date. I'd previously had no idea of many studies and tweaking went into the production of these shows. (Although, some information on their long-term effects would have felt a bit more meaningful.) Historically speaking, the story he kept coming back to about Paul Revere's midnight ride was thought-provoking. Even if it did sometimes seem this was being used to force the author's point rather than to point the readers toward their own conclusions.

The author makes some interesting observations—some that may very well have some credence. But then, in many instances, he seems to go the unnecessary extra mile of drawing problematic (if not outright faulty) conclusion. One glaring example would be his early-on illustration involving the AIDs virus: In mentioning an anomalous 1950's epidemic among newborns, Gladwell says of the lead scientist, "Goudsmit thinks that this was an early HIV epidemic." This is an interesting bit of speculation. He follows that up with a connect-the-dot's trail of how an AIDs-infected adult could have passed the virus on to a woman who became pregnant, infecting her own baby in-utero, and how the practice of sharing out unsterilized needles could possibly have spread the virus through the maternity ward.

The problem isn't Goudsmit's possible-yet-unproven scenario. The problem I have (which many have pointed out before me) is that Gladwell takes this and runs with it, making oddly definite statements like: "They defeated HIV"(in reference to the surviving infants) and "The strains of HIV circulating in the 1950s were a lot different from the HIV circulating today." Those are pretty bold leaps to make without citing any evidence beyond the anecdotal. And unfortunately, because this came so early on in the book, Gladwell's later postulations were then brought into serious question in the mind of this reader.

A fost genul de carte care merge de minune în perioada asta pentru că explică foarte bine cum anumite comportamente pot deveni contagioase și se pot transforma în epidemii. Nu e o carte despre mari epidemii ale lumii, ci te trece prin diferite fenomene sociale (de la show-uri TV de mare succes și rețelele din spatele lor și până la valori de acte de delicvență celebre și cum au fost stopate pornind de la detalii aparent semnificative). Pe alocuri mi s-a părut puțin ruptă de actualitate, aș fi fost interesata de cum se aplica teoria The tipping point în era social media și a influencer marketingului, dar chiar și așa mi-a plăcut mult.

singurul motiv pentru care a fost 4/5, nu 5/5 este că am convingerea ca voi gasi „the book” de la Gladwell și atunci îmi va părea rău că nu am suficiente stele

Urmează micro recenzie pe www.blogdeidei.ro și postare dedicată pe instagram.

The tipping point', an analysis of that magic moment when ideas, trends, social behaviours etc. tips over, and spread like nobody business sometimes into becoming mainstream. An interesting theory… I liked the examples and note that this much more than just a book of examples. To me, I liked the breaking down of how something started and grew to something more from the likes of Sesame Street and rumours through to sneakers and New York crime! The magic number 150 chapter is thought provoking, although to be clear Gladwell was far from the first to identify essentially the maximum number of acquaintances one can have. Recommended read, just to be aware of the trend examples provided. 7 out of 12, up to 9 out of 12 after my 2016 reread!

This is a book on epidemics. In this book, Malcolm tries to explain, with the wit, clarity and beauty you'd expect from him, the way something small and insignificant turns into a huge wave. The book started slow and gradually became more and more interesting. I loved chapter 7, which was partly about smoking. I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong about anti-smoking campaigns. Turns out I was right!

Here I just want to note the beauty of mass data gathering. Without mass data, the late parts of the book, in my opinion, could not have existed. For example we always had data on anti-smoking campaigns, the money the spent and the results they got. But it's only when you have access to limited but wast amounts of data that you can really figure out what is going on inside the system.

Now, this is the first lesson of the Tipping Point: Starting epidemics requires concentrating your efforts in a few key areas. The second lesson of the tipping point is that whether we like it or not, our intuitions are often wrong. People and organizations that start the epidemics don't stumble upon them by chance. They deliberately test their intuitions.
What we need to understand is that human communication has its own set of unusual and often counter-intuitive rules. Here again, mass gathering of data and analysis comes into play. The final and maybe the most important lesson of tipping point is that change is possible! That people can radically transform their behaviors and their beliefs in the face of the right kind of impetus. This also has ties to problems of free will. I think here we can see that the best philosophy is explained by compatibilism (soft determinism)! Here we can see that our understanding of freedom must change radically.
I can go on, but I don't want to!

تجربة قراءة كتاب اللغة الإنجليزية هي تجربة رائعة جداً,تفتقد شعورك تجاه لغتك الأم تجاه لغة الضاد..ولكن لا يعني ذلك أنك تؤثرها على الإنجليزية,عندما يفتح لك باب القراءة بلغة أخرى إنما هي نعمة أنعم الله بها عليك فلا فضل لك ولا قوة فـ لله الحمد والشكر أولاً وأخيراً. الكتاب نقطة التحول عندما بدأت في قراءة لم أكن أستطيع تصنيف الكتاب بأي قسم أضعه وتحت أي مجموعة أصنفة فما كان مني إلا أن أنتهيت من الكتاب وقلت في نفسي هذا كتاب قد يكون تسويقي وقد يكون جزء من علم النفس. الكتاب يدور حول ثلاث فصول مهمة:
فصل قانون القلة.وهو كيف أن قلة من الناس هي التي تقوم بنشر "الأمراض"كما يسميها قلادويل وماهي الأمراض هي كلمة تخرج من الفم ويحدد ذلك بثلاث شروط أساسية وهم (المتواصلون-الذين يعرفون كل شيء - والمسوقيّن-)فـ بهؤلاءِ تكون الأفكار والأمراض تنتشر ويقول أنها تنطبق على جميع الحالات الإنسانية وقد لا تكون كذلك.وبعد ذلك هو فصل قوة اللزوجة وليس معناها الحرفي ولكن "الإلتصاق" المعلومة أو الخبر أو حتى الإعلان في رأس المتلقي وأخيراً هو فصل"قوة السياق" وأن بعض الحوادث والأحداث تكون قوية نتيجة سياقها وتكون ضعيفة نتيجة السياق أو الحالة التي وجدت فيها.
الكتاب يحتاج تركيز أكثر.جميل بـ مجملة وأفكارة ولكن كثرة الأمثلة كما هي عادت الأجانب فهم يعشقون شيء أسمه"الإحصائيات والأمثلة"لكي يعزز فكرته بكل صغيرة وكبيرة يذكرها.ولم أكن معتاد على هذا النوع من الكتب فكان صعباً أن أهضمة داماً قرأته في تاريخ ١٢-١٠ وإنتهيت منه في تاريخ ٣-١١.

انتشار صيحة معينة، مرض معين، عادة معينة..
أو حتى انتشار الجرائم، العنف، التطرف،
نجاح برنامج، انتشار كتب معينة، أديان،
نهضة بلد
أو أي شيء يمكن له الانتشار..
يظن الناس اعتباطاً في العالم العربي أن هذه الأمور وليدة الصدفة..
أو القدر..
أو أن الله أراد ذلك..

هذا الكتاب يريك علمياً ومن خلال أمثلة أن أي تغيير جذري لا يحتاج للكثير..
يحتاج فقط لأي شيء لأن يصل لنقطته الحرجة..
لنقطة يصبح فيها تكاثر الأشياء غير منطقياً لأول وهلة وبالتفكير السريع البشري..
تحتاج تحليلاً أكبر..
مثلاً لو استطعنا نظرياً أن نطوي ورقة 50 مرة..
كم السمك الذي سنحصل عليه؟

هي المسافة بين الأرض والشمس!
لو طويناها للمرة الـ51 فإن السمك سيصبح المسافة من الأرض للشمس ذهاباً وإياباً..

شرح الكثير من المبائ لانتشار أي شيء وهي تقوم على ثلاث عوامل رئيسية:
أولاً: نوع المرسل (إنسان لديه شبكة علاقات رهيبة، إنسان لديه كم كبير من المعلومات ويحب مشاركتها، والمسوقون)
ثانياً: طريقة تنظيم الرسالة لتصبح قادرة على أن تعلق في ذهن الناس
وثالثاً: السياق الزمني والمكاني لهذه الرسالة..

الأمثلة كثيرة منها مثلاً مدينة نيويورك وكيف تدنى مستوى الجريمة فيها..
اعتمدت الشرطة وهيئة المترو على نظرية نفسية تسمى: الشباك المكسور..
تنص النظرية على أن شباكاً مكسوراً سيشجع الناس على كسر زجاج شبابيك أخرى..
فقامت الهيئتان بالتركيز على أمور ظنها الجميع سخيفة مثل إعادة دهن جدران كل مباني المترو لإزالة الجرافيتي..
وقامت الشرطة بمخالفة أي شخص قام بجرم صغير خاصة لو قام بعدم دفع السنت للميترو!!
ظن الناس أن هذه التغييرات سخيفة..
لكن لم يمضي أشهر حتى تغيرت نيويورك بشكل مذهل!!

كثير من الأمثلة المشابهة وعن أشياء مختلفة..
يجعلك هذا الكتاب تفهم التغير الاجتماعي بشكل مختلف..
بشكل مبني على قدرتنا ليس فقط لفهم التغيير بل لصناعته أيضاً بذكاء..

الكتاب سلس في الكتابة خاصة أن كاتبه صحفي..
مليء بالمعلومات والنظريات المختلفة وتدل على اطلاع واسع للكاتب..

أنصح بقراءته بشدة للمهتمين بفهم تغير المجتمعات ;)

I didn't plan to read this book, just grabbed it, as the one I was waiting for in my library, was still on hold. Big mistake.


I'm having really hard time to understand how this book was number one on NYT list and was endorsed by "Fortune". I must be missing something here, or NYT is not what it used to be. The book starts with street level knowledge - popular person with sticky topic is "a tipping point". Fact known to any high school popular girl/guy who likes to gossip. Then, author falls into a trap of interpretation of questionable facts and even more questionable studies coming up with conclusions like "NYC subway graffiti elimination was a reason for decreased number of felonies" or "better for a child to have bad family and live in good neighborhood than other way around".



I understand that the goal here was popularization of sociology knowledge. But to do that, first you have to have one, and then know how to write about it in a simple way without bending facts to your liking.

I can see now that the n   Freakonomicsn boys took quite a few pages out of this book. The Tipping Point launched the trend of examining social experiments with results that are, to use Mr. Gladwell's phrase, "wildly counterintuitive". I breezed right through this one--the most popular books always seem to be quick reads--because I was so caught up in Gladwell's straightforward style of writing and fascinating subject matter. (I particularly enjoyed the Sesame Street/Blue's Clues experiments.) The book only lags (and then only slightly) towards the very end with his "case studies". Someone named DeeDee Gordon, whom Gladwell tells us is an expert in spotting "trendsetters", delivers the following monologue:

"I've run into trendsetters who look completely Joe Regular Guy. I can see Joe Regular Guy at a club listening to some totally hard-core band playing, and I say to myself, omigod, what's that guy doing here, and that totally intrigues me, and I have to walk up to him and say, hey, you're really into this band. What's up? You know what I mean? I look at everything. If I see Joe Regular Guy sitting in a coffee shop, and everyone around him has blue hair, I'm going to gravitate toward him because, hey, what's Joe Regular Guy doing in a coffee shop with people with blue hair?"

What's sad is that almost everyone knows someone who talks like this. And sometimes we want to punch them. I mean, can you even imagine these "Joe Regular Guy" scenarios actually occurring? First at the club:

DeeDee Gordon: Hey, Joe Regular Guy...

JRG: Pardon me?

DeeDee Gordon: You're really into this band. What's up?

JRG: They're okay, I guess. What do you mean?

DeeDee Gordon: You really intrigue me, Joe Regular Guy.

JRG: My name is Ted.

DeeDee Gordon: I want to know what Joe Regular Guy is doing listening to a band. In a club.

JRG: Are you hitting on me?

DeeDee Gordon: Is this a new trend I spy, Joe Regular Guy?

JRG: I'm going to go stand over there.

(JRG leaves)

DeeDee Gordon: I wonder what Joe Regular Guy is doing standing over there?

Or, in the coffee shop:

DeeDee Gordon: Hey there.

JRG: Um, hello.

DeeDee Gordon: What's Joe Regular Guy doing in a coffee shop with people with blue hair?

Blue Hair #1: She has identified our leader!

Blue Hair #2: Pummel her!

(Joe Regular Guy and blue-haired acolytes pummel Deedee Gordon)

At least that's what I hope would happen. Anyway, good book, this.

An interesting book about how fads, social movements, and learning occur. Lots of simple social theory combined with very concrete, specific examples from our current world.

In a work heavily influenced by the budding science of memetics (though he never once uses the word meme), Malcom Gladwell seeks to provide a framework for explaining why certain isolated phenomena (suicide in Micronesia, wearing hush puppies, reading a particular novel) can suddenly become widespread and why situations can suddenly swing from one extreme (rampant crime in 80s NYC) to another (the huge drop in crime in that same city during the 90s). Gladwell postulates three mechanisms of cultural epidemiology, the axioms of the law of the few, the stickiness factor and the power of context. The law of the few declares that change is often initiated by a small group of people (three different types) with an ever-widening pyramid of influence. Making up the first type are the connectors, basically human nexuses whose webs of important acquaintances (note that these are not friends) spread out in logarithmic vertigos of extension (e.g., Revere’s “the British are coming” spread more quickly than that of William Dawes because of the many people Revere knew in the towns he visited).

Another group mentioned in the law of the few are mavens, whom we could term data strategists, their almost hobby-like information-gathering not just carried out to further their own interests, but to assist a broader sphere of people. The final set of individuals counted among the few are the salesmen, persuasive communicators whose instinctual ability to adapt the non-verbal cues of others and infect them with emotion is key to effecting wide-sweeping change.

The second axiom in Gladwell’s informal theory is stickiness: the impact of the vector on the host, i.e., an idea or product must be memorable in order to spread; otherwise, it will not be embraced by the people in the connector's network. As a result, marketers must constantly devise ways to present products so that they are memorable. Of course, there is no ready-made science of what makes something catchy. However, the effectiveness of a product or idea’s packaging can be tested and tweaked, as Gladwell demonstrates in his discussion of how the creators of Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues try to ensure that children remember their message (in other words, learn the concept being taught).

The final factor leading toward the tipping point is the power of context. This area is less well defined by Gladwell, and he unfortunately seems to be trying to herd together a host of disparate considerations under a single, handy rubric. The basic concept is that human behavior is strongly influenced by external variables of context. For example, "zero tolerance" efforts to combat minor crimes such as fare-beating and vandalism on the New York subway led to a decline in more violent crimes; the perception of increased vigilance altered the behavior and attitudes of the passengers. This theory of broken windows is well-known in sociology: attention to small details, reparation of seemingly unimportant (when looking at the big picture) problems, can engender massive change in a larger system (this is sort of the butterfly effect of sociology).

On the whole, however, Gladwell has made an admirable foray into the construction of a theoretical model of memetic transmission and epidemiology. Building upon his layman’s approach, scientists specializing in cultural transmission might now begin testing his specific claims with an eye toward developing such a model.