کتاب نقطه عطف، تفکر شما را در مورد عواملی که باعث همه‌گیر شدن و بر سر زبان‌ها افتادن یک ایده، کالا، فیلم یا هر چیزی می‌شوند، متحول خواهد کرد.

مالکوم گلدول در این کتاب، با ذکر مثال‌ها و بیان نتایج تحقیقات گوناگون، به بررسی و تعیین موثرترین عواملی که می‌توانند باعث گسترش موارد فوق‌الذکر شوند، می‌پردازد.

گلدول در ادامه این کتاب، به بیان راهکارهایی می‌پردازد که ما با استفاده آگاهانه از آن‌ها می‌توانیم در جهت گسترش و هم

Без да съм какъвто и да е експерт на тема нехудожествена литература ще кажа, че тази книга ми беше доста интеррсна. Гладуел подкрепя всяка една от тезите си с доста примери. Дава отговор на въпроса, кое точно разпалва социалните епидемии.

Excellent. Everyone should read this book.It explains the media, trends, politics in a user-friendly book.The straw that broke the camel's back for 21st Century

Useful book for everyone, from marketers, sociologists to educators, strategists, etc. More applicable than Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, in my opinion.

This book scrutinizes on how a small event can lead to an epidemic. Gladwell suggests an idea about the Tipping Point, a dramatic moment in an epidemic when everything can change at once. There are 3 factors that lead to The Tipping Point: The Law of Few, The Stickiness Factor and The Power of Context. Firstly, the Law of Few states that little things can make as much of a difference as big things. There are 3 kinds of people that can make it possible: Connectors, Mavens (a person that has a lot of information about different products) and Salesmen. Secondly, the Stickiness Factor proposes that in order to spark an epidemic, an idea must be memorable and lead people to action. Lastly, the Power of Context holds that an epidemic can be tipped by tinkering a smallest detail of the environment. The Rule of 150 suggests that at this size, it is easier to manage people. The author has given an example in marketing: by utilizing a book group, readers can share their opinions about the book with other group members.

How the flying fuck did this piece of shit ever get published? How on God's green earth did this thing become a bestseller?

Yes, I'm the last person in America to read The Tipping Point, and I'm glad I waited. Now that all the hype has burned off, it's easy to see this book for what it is: a very well crafted collection of half-truths and speculation, sold as "truth".

Let's look at one example. I read The Tipping Point as an ebook, so my pages might not match completely with yours, but it's the story about the AIDS virus, Chapter One, Section 2, page 24. In writing about a weird epidemic among newborns in the 1950s, Gladwell says of the lead scientist, "Goudsmit thinks that this was an early HIV epidemic."

Nothing wrong with that. Gladwell is reporting what a scientist thinks. Gladwell then offers an extended quote from Dr. Goudsmit, which is loaded with conditional statements: "this adult could have died of AIDS", "he could have transmitted the virus", "she could have given birth to an HIV infected child", "unsterilized needles could have spread the virus".

Again, all well and good: Goudsmit was speculating, and making it clear that what he was saying was not certain, but that it "could have" happened.

Then Gladwell returns and destroys the careful foundation he had built by making concrete statements about things that a moment before were only hypotheses: "They defeated HIV", "The strains of HIV circulating in the 1950s were a lot different from the HIV circulating today", "HIV itself changed" None of this is proven by any of the information Gladwell gave us. All of it is speculation. But Gladwell draws firm conclusions from things that are, at best, educated guesses. I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

Actually, I'm not sorry. What Gladwell did is so wrong it's unforgivable.

I've been a journalist for 20 years, and I work with some of the finest fact checkers in the world. If I ever handed in a badly reasoned piece of shit like this book, they'd tear me a new asshole. (No they wouldn't. They're very nice people. But they would tear the manuscript a new asshole, as they should.) More to the point, I have enough respect for myself, my readers, and my fact checkers that I'd never hand in something like this in the first place. That Gladwell thought he could get away with it (and let's face it, he did get away with it) is metaphorically criminal. Fuck him.

This was a reread for me (15 years later) and it was interesting how my perspective on the information shifted somewhat. I didn't love the chapter about Goetz and NYC because I felt only certain factors were looked at in assessing the why's of what happened and the later clean up by the police. I felt only the factor of increased policing was looked at for the change in crime and not other farther reaching factors such as poverty, programs, and investments into communities. However the rest of the book stood about the same. Still a great read and food for thought!

نمیخوام اینجا در مورد موضوع کتاب حرف بزنم اما یک سری نکته هست که میخوام بگم.
نمیشه با حرفهای گلدول تو این کتاب مخالفت کرد. اما خیلی هم نمیشه موافقت کرد :) کل کتاب یک سری کِیس اِستادی هست که بررسی میکنه و از توش با یک سری روش های به ظاهر منطقی حرف خودش رو تایید میکنه. یا اینکه میگه قضیه اینه دیگه قبول کنید :)
ینی خیلی نمیشه به عنوان روش های علمی بهش نگاه کرد. البته همچین چیزهایی، یعنی بررسی رفتار مُسری، خیلی بررسی نشدن و احتمالا خیلی هم پیچیده است توصیفش.
پدیدار های بیشمار پروفایل دارن و بررسی پدیدارها روش خاص خودش رو داره. اما این روش نتیجه گیری به وسیله روایت (حتی واقعی) رو خیلی مطلوب نمیدونم. چون خیلی ممکنه که آلودگی های ذهنی خودمون رو روی این سیستم پیاده کنیم و به خورد ملت بدیم :)

One word summary: boring. I don't even feel like explaining myself. Maybe it was the Norwegian translation, it felt completely off, particularly in regards to the most important concepts. The one thing this book does very well is explain the importance of context and the fact that human beings always tend toward fundamental attribution error. That is, we over-estimate personal factors and underestimate situational factors. "Behavior is a result of social context". Nicely put! There wasn't anything here that I hadn't heard before though.

هو ثالث كتاب أقرأه لغلادويل بعد آوتلايرز الذي أثار إعجابي جدا ، وبلنك الذي كان شبه محبط بالمقارنة . سعيد بأن أقول إن غلادويل قدم في ذا تيبينغ بوينت مادة بقوة كتاب آوتلايرز من ناحية قراءة وتحليل الواقع وقولبته في قوالب إستنتاجات تفيد أصحاب الأفكار سواءا تجارية أو هادفة أو مجتمعية أو غيرها في إحداث التغيير في المجتمع بأخذ العوامل التي يطرحها بعين الإعتبار.

'Books like these, huh Gary?'
'That's right Dude'

O man, could someone please, please explain the concept of 'the essay' or 'the article' to our beloved neighbours on the other side of the Atlantic? This is not bad at all, would it have been written in a crispy article of, say, 20 to 30 pages. But this book is two hundred and seventy nine pages (see what I am doing?) long. That means Malcolm filled over 200 pages with crap. Sure, easy to read crap. Enjoyable crap. Namedropping crap. Looks good on your 'books-hipster-web2.0-thefutureiswhatIunderstand-creativityisnotwhatyouthinkitis' list crap. But still crap.

It's so frustrating to hit upon an interesting idea in the introduction, get excited to read more, only to find out that that was it. The introduction was where all the magic happened. That was the new stuff. The rest is two hundred seventy nine instead of 279.

The two stars might be a bit on the low side but I'm fed up with this kind of shit: look, I have a moderately interesting idea but think I am eligible for the Nobel price so I wrought a book.

Science for Harry Potter fans.

Still, fuck it Dude, I will keep reading these books. I have to warn my friends. It's fun to write reviews.

Let's go bowling.

I was one of those a-holes that referenced this book to my friends in casual conversation, over and over and over again right after reading it. I'M REALLY BRIGHT, I JUST READ MALCOLM GLADWELL, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HUSH PUPPIES AND SESAME STREET. That said, it was one of my favorites in college and I still enjoy Gladwell's stuff, unashamedly.

Actual Ratings: 3.25