If the point of a book is to make you think then you can consider Malolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point a resounding success for me. I have been thinking a lot about this book since I started reading it. Thing is, there is more too books than making you think.
In that wider sense, the book fell flat for me.
If I was to tell you that fashion trends spread when they are taken up by socially influential people and mimicked by others you would shrug and tell me that is standard knowledge. Then if I told you that small but intensely committed groups are one of the best ways to spread messages and organize (think the Obama presidential campaign) you would probably tell me this is not earth shattering news. On both counts you would absolutely be right.
What Gladwell is essentially doing is basing his book on those two points. He then tries to add depth by citing lots of stories and studies and giving fun names to the people who help spread these things (Connectors are at the center of social circles and have tons of contacts that they spread things to. Mavens have in depth knowledge to disseminate to the rest of us.). Then he tries to add breadth by saying this is how many social phenomena spread. He mentions such diverse examples as Hush Puppies shoes, AIDs and other STDs, Airwalk skate shoes, and the decrease in crime in NYC during the 1990’s. He is adding window dressing. He is talking about big things by using something small—but in the end he ends up saying very little and still gets people to think.
I had a problem with the book from the start. It is one thing to describe a fashion trend but it is another thing entirely to describe the dramatic decrease of crime in NYC (a more complex sociological phenomena than a fashion trend) using the same theory. Any time I see a simple and clean cut explanation for something extremely complex I get suspicious. This is no different.
Taking the drop in NYC crime rates as an example, he says there were a lot of factors—each of which was important but none of which was the single cause. First off, why couldn’t there be multiple causes? Second, why doesn’t he compare this data on crime to data in other cities or the rest of the country? Third, he mentions that fixing small things on the NYC subway system (graffiti and fare jumping) helped to improve order overall—but this isn’t part of his thesis. In fact he never offers a clear explanation of how this spread through contacts to cause this widespread social change according to his thesis. Fourth, he forgets to mention much of this was due the dramatic increase the numbers and quality of the NYPD.
When I was reading the book I kept thinking of the mistake he was making. In my LSAT class they always drilled you on “sufficient v. necessary.” Meaning if something was sufficient to cause X it doesn’t always mean it is necessary to cause X (it can be but there are a multitude of possible causes)
However, none of this is to say he is wrong. I simply didn’t buy the depth and breadth he tried to add to the two points I mentioned above. To be sure, those two points are important and understanding them is also important. For example, the election of Obama showed the power of using small groups of very highly motivated people (but has since ditched this entirely) by distributing materials and motivating a core group they disseminated the information to their key contacts and it spread through social networks. But I think it is an error to apply those points too widely and not consider wider ranges of possibilities that cause things like the spread of AIDs or dramatic drops in the NYC crime rate.
So the book was interesting and has some insight. I was wary from the start and I remain so. Still it made me think.
In that wider sense, the book fell flat for me.
If I was to tell you that fashion trends spread when they are taken up by socially influential people and mimicked by others you would shrug and tell me that is standard knowledge. Then if I told you that small but intensely committed groups are one of the best ways to spread messages and organize (think the Obama presidential campaign) you would probably tell me this is not earth shattering news. On both counts you would absolutely be right.
What Gladwell is essentially doing is basing his book on those two points. He then tries to add depth by citing lots of stories and studies and giving fun names to the people who help spread these things (Connectors are at the center of social circles and have tons of contacts that they spread things to. Mavens have in depth knowledge to disseminate to the rest of us.). Then he tries to add breadth by saying this is how many social phenomena spread. He mentions such diverse examples as Hush Puppies shoes, AIDs and other STDs, Airwalk skate shoes, and the decrease in crime in NYC during the 1990’s. He is adding window dressing. He is talking about big things by using something small—but in the end he ends up saying very little and still gets people to think.
I had a problem with the book from the start. It is one thing to describe a fashion trend but it is another thing entirely to describe the dramatic decrease of crime in NYC (a more complex sociological phenomena than a fashion trend) using the same theory. Any time I see a simple and clean cut explanation for something extremely complex I get suspicious. This is no different.
Taking the drop in NYC crime rates as an example, he says there were a lot of factors—each of which was important but none of which was the single cause. First off, why couldn’t there be multiple causes? Second, why doesn’t he compare this data on crime to data in other cities or the rest of the country? Third, he mentions that fixing small things on the NYC subway system (graffiti and fare jumping) helped to improve order overall—but this isn’t part of his thesis. In fact he never offers a clear explanation of how this spread through contacts to cause this widespread social change according to his thesis. Fourth, he forgets to mention much of this was due the dramatic increase the numbers and quality of the NYPD.
When I was reading the book I kept thinking of the mistake he was making. In my LSAT class they always drilled you on “sufficient v. necessary.” Meaning if something was sufficient to cause X it doesn’t always mean it is necessary to cause X (it can be but there are a multitude of possible causes)
However, none of this is to say he is wrong. I simply didn’t buy the depth and breadth he tried to add to the two points I mentioned above. To be sure, those two points are important and understanding them is also important. For example, the election of Obama showed the power of using small groups of very highly motivated people (but has since ditched this entirely) by distributing materials and motivating a core group they disseminated the information to their key contacts and it spread through social networks. But I think it is an error to apply those points too widely and not consider wider ranges of possibilities that cause things like the spread of AIDs or dramatic drops in the NYC crime rate.
So the book was interesting and has some insight. I was wary from the start and I remain so. Still it made me think.
No comments:
Post a Comment