Sign in with Facebook
Diane's Reviews > The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
by
by
The book that became a catchphrase! The term "tipping point" has become so commonly used in news stories that I wonder how many people know it came from a book.
I read this back in 2000 when I was in grad school for sociology. It's a fun little book of case studies, many of which applied to what I was learning in my classes. Here it is 13 years later and I can still recall many of the details and theories, which shows how interesting I thought they were.
Gladwell, who writes for The New Yorker, has a skill of weaving different elements and stories together into an enjoyable narrative. The gist of the book is how information spreads among people -- why do some ideas/products spread quickly and effectively, but others don't? Are there kinds of people who are better at transmitting information? (Hint: Yes, there are.)
Some of the stories I remember best are about how "Sesame Street" was founded and its impact on literacy (it's surprisingly high!); how to reduce the spread of HIV among drug addicts; how the size of an office can enhance the feeling of community among its workers; how suicide can become more widespread in a region if someone of high stature commits it; and how crime can rise and fall in a city.
But perhaps the most salient concept I still use is about connectors vs. mavens. A connector is someone who knows lots and lots of people. They are extroverts and are good at making casual acquaintances wherever they go. In contrast, a maven is a Yiddish term that means one who accumulates knowledge. These are people who gain the respect of friends and colleagues for giving good advice, so when they recommend something, the advice is usually followed. (For example, as a librarian I try to be a maven of good books.)
Advertisers are interested in mavens because their opinions carry weight. Gladwell gives several examples of the differences between connectors and mavens, the main one being that the advice of a connector is not always taken even though he/she may give it to more people (because they know more people), but almost everyone follows the advice of a maven, even though they may give it to fewer people. So a maven might have more of an impact on spreading an idea.
It would be interesting to reread this book now to see how it holds up, because many of these ideas seem to have become part of the cultural zeitgeist. I think I would still recommend it to anyone interested in some pop sociology.
I read this back in 2000 when I was in grad school for sociology. It's a fun little book of case studies, many of which applied to what I was learning in my classes. Here it is 13 years later and I can still recall many of the details and theories, which shows how interesting I thought they were.
Gladwell, who writes for The New Yorker, has a skill of weaving different elements and stories together into an enjoyable narrative. The gist of the book is how information spreads among people -- why do some ideas/products spread quickly and effectively, but others don't? Are there kinds of people who are better at transmitting information? (Hint: Yes, there are.)
Some of the stories I remember best are about how "Sesame Street" was founded and its impact on literacy (it's surprisingly high!); how to reduce the spread of HIV among drug addicts; how the size of an office can enhance the feeling of community among its workers; how suicide can become more widespread in a region if someone of high stature commits it; and how crime can rise and fall in a city.
But perhaps the most salient concept I still use is about connectors vs. mavens. A connector is someone who knows lots and lots of people. They are extroverts and are good at making casual acquaintances wherever they go. In contrast, a maven is a Yiddish term that means one who accumulates knowledge. These are people who gain the respect of friends and colleagues for giving good advice, so when they recommend something, the advice is usually followed. (For example, as a librarian I try to be a maven of good books.)
Advertisers are interested in mavens because their opinions carry weight. Gladwell gives several examples of the differences between connectors and mavens, the main one being that the advice of a connector is not always taken even though he/she may give it to more people (because they know more people), but almost everyone follows the advice of a maven, even though they may give it to fewer people. So a maven might have more of an impact on spreading an idea.
It would be interesting to reread this book now to see how it holds up, because many of these ideas seem to have become part of the cultural zeitgeist. I think I would still recommend it to anyone interested in some pop sociology.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Tipping Point.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
August 15, 2007
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
s.penkevich
(new)
Aug 12, 2013 09:26AM
Great stuff. I just read this for a class in the spring and quite enjoyed Gladwell (you might want to check out Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, which we read along with it to tie Gladwell's themes into how television affects our society). The bit in here about Sesame Street and Blue's Clues was fascinating! Cool to know so much child psychology and fieldwork went into making that show a success. Sometimes I feel like he assumes correlation proves causation, but still interesting stuff.
reply
|
flag
Yes, Gladwell does like to jump to conclusions. A minor complaint I have is that he highlights the famous six-degrees/small-world research of Stanley Milgrim, but neglects to mention all of the faults in that study (there are plenty). Gladwell's books wouldn't qualify as serious research, but they are entertaining!
Based on a single data point (Outliers), I got the impression that Gladwell would not pass muster as a real social scientist. There's just not enough rigor in his analyses nor does he pay heed to every aspect of the scientific method. However, he knows what's interesting, and his theories typically sound plausible, at least. Your excellent review reinforces my view, Diane.
Steve, yes, it's important to note that Gladwell is not creating new research -- he just cherry picks studies from genuine academics, writes it up in a snazzy way, and then sells a ton of books!
