Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point is a worthwhile book, but its
flaws do not lead me to fundamentally change my views about the
issues Gladwell confronts.
There are, to be sure, many virtues in The Tipping Point. As
opposed to our culture's current fetish for biological explanation
of human behaviour, Gladwell makes a good case for the role of
social-psychological explanations. Instead of assuming that
chemical imbalances are sufficient causal explanations rather than
symptoms themselves or, at best, are intermediate causes, The
Tipping Point illustrates the power of social surroundings to
change or maintain human behaviour. He says,
We like to think of ourselves as autonomous and inner-directed,
that who we are and how we act is something permanently set by our
genes and our temperament. But if you add up the example of
Salesmen and Connectors, of Paul Revere's ride and Blue's Clues,
and the Rule of 150 and the New York subway cleanup and the
Fundamental Attribution Error, they amount to a very different
conclusion about what it means to be human. (p. 258-259)
The variety of historical, business and military examples of the
'150 Person Rule' effectively describes the tipping point at which
organizations can no longer maintain close inter-personal
relationships. I also like Gladwell's discussion of the key
individuals responsible for spreading ideas (i.e. connectors,
mavens and salespeople). His examples seem representative, and they
consistently reflect the definitions Gladwell offers at the start
of the book. I think his discussion of mavens (with their
predilection for Consumer Reports) is particularly convincing, and
I see a lot of the maven in myself. His discussion of Dunbar's
theory of the neo-cortex and complex social interaction rings true,
as it parallels my own understanding of anthropology and the
history of mentalities. Finally, Gladwell writes smoothly and
clearly, and restates his key arguments so that the average
layperson can keep track of his sophisticated arguments. Given my
experiences with books that lack these virtues, I think this last
point is enough to recommend this book!
On the other hand, The Tipping Point does not have enough to
significantly alter my own perception of the world. Gladwell tries
to generalize about human behaviour and argues (see above) that
social interaction is the dominant, or perhaps sole explanation,
for human behaviour. However, he can't account for the plethora of
counter-examples. In other words, even though I'm personally
sympathetic with Gladwell's social-psychological worldview, there
are too many instances of behaviour that result from biological or
consciously self-directed motives.
For example, Gladwell's metaphor of the epidemic to explain the
spread of ideas is problematic. An epidemic implies a spontaneous,
'bottom-up' creation and transmission of ideas, but many of his own
examples don't seem to fit his theory. Many of the examples with
television display a very conscious manipulation of an audience.
They are created and transmitted from a central source; I suppose
this can be an epidemic, but it certainly is not spontaneous or
'bottom-up'. It's more akin to creating the virus on your own and
intentionally infecting yourself and spreading it to others. The
Hush Puppy example can easily be seen this way. Trend watchers are
only based in a few cities, and fashion 'seeders' know this;
fashion trends are the result of geographic specificity and an
industry that intentionally 'infects' itself to create new demand.
Some call this "viral marketing". I doubt if clogs from Minneapolis
would ever start a new trend, because neither the watchers nor the
seeders are there. I don't doubt some ideas/trends spread in the
manner Gladwell describes, but I hardly think it's the only way
they spread.
Finally, Gladwell's explanation of 'sticky' ideas is circular.
Gladwell argues that you need the right people and the right
context in order for new ideas to spread. He also says you need the
right idea, too. But he waffles as to whether it's the content of
the idea, or how it's presented, that is important. For example,
the Ya-Ya Sisterhood is a sticky book because the content of the
story is sticky: 'The book itself is heartwarming and beautifully
written, a compelling story of friendship and mother-daughter
relationships. It spoke to people' (p. 171). On the other hand, he
concludes that by 'tinkering with the presentation of information,
we can significantly improve its stickiness' (p. 259). In the end,
one gets the impression that an idea has stickiness because the
idea sticks. This is a tautology that renders explanation
meaningless.
Nevertheless, any book that makes me think about such a variety of
issues is worth the time to read it. Like with Lord of the Flies,
for example, I don't have to agree with a book to find it
rewarding.