Slate's Bizbox
the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

The Tipping Point

the book club
entries
123456
from: John Horgan

Fun Factoids

Posted Wednesday, March 15, 2000, at 12:26 PM ET

Dear Ed,

I don't see how can you agree with me about the flaws of The Tipping Point and still admire it. Its good points are superficial, its flaws fundamental. As an editor once said of a story I'd given him, "It's a triumph of style over substance." (I was flattered, until he spiked the story.)

Gladwell claims he is serving up a grand unified theory of culture that provides not only understanding but power. Take away this claim--and you agree that Gladwell has not backed it up, Ed--and all that's left is a bunch of tangentially related sociological fun facts.

Some are undoubtedly interesting. I was startled to learn that ABC anchorman Peter Jennings smiles more when mentioning Republicans than Democrats, and that his audience votes Republican as a result. And I always thought Jennings was a closet Commie! If Gladwell had called his book "Miscellaneous Cool Findings From Social Science," I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Or maybe I would have. By the end of the book Gladwell had so little credibility left that I distrusted his "facts" as well as his grand theories.

You ask how Gladwell could make his book more substantive. For starters, he would need to acknowledge that his epidemiological model of culture--like his declaration that little things can have big effects--is old news. As several reviews of Tipping Point have pointed out, Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" to describe self-replicating beliefs, behaviors, inventions, and so on in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. The meme meme spawned the now-thriving field of memetics.

The British psychologist Susan Blackmore wrote a good book on memetics, The Meme Machine, that came out last year. Her book is a bit dry and abstract; it could have benefited from some Gladwell-style case histories. But at least Blackmore explores the dark side of memetics, which especially in the age of mass media raises disturbing questions about free will and social control.

Gladwell is oddly oblivious to the implications of his own ideas. For example, he blithely suggests that governments can reduce smoking by forcing cigarette manufacturers to reduce nicotine content. What bothers you, Ed, is that Gladwell doesn't consider the potential side effects of his "solution": e.g., people might smoke more if they think cigarettes are less addictive. What bothers me is that Gladwell never considers whether such governmental intervention infringes on individual rights. I mean, if we don't care about individual rights, why not just ban all tobacco products? Oh, I forgot. That wouldn't be a "little thing."

I bet Gladwell consciously chose not to muddle his narrative with these messy issues. He wants to bypass the audience for serious science books and tap into the much larger inspirational, self-help market, where bromides are more important than careful analysis. Gladwell's strategy may well succeed. I can see the director of sales for Acme Widgets getting all excited about Tipping Point, forcing his sales staff to read it, and inviting Gladwell to talk about "Finding Your Inner Maven!" at the annual convention. This is the tipping point that grips Gladwell's imagination.

If my criticism of Tipping Point seems harsh, it's because I believe science is ill-served by books that exaggerate its potential so shamelessly. You don't have to take my word for it, Ed. In yesterday's (March 14) New York Times, the physicist Lawrence Krauss warns that "avoiding hype in science is more important than ever, because it is clear that many in the public cannot distinguish claims of scientists from those of pseudoscientists." Ed, doesn't this problem concern you too?

the book club
entries
123456
from: John Horgan

Fun Factoids

Posted Wednesday, March 15, 2000, at 12:26 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
The Tipping Point, by Malcolm GladwellThis week, a discussion of Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point (click hereto buy the book; click hereto read an excerpt). Edward Tenner is a visiting researcher in the Princeton Department of Geosciences and the author of Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences (click hereto buy it). John Horgan is the author of The End of Science (click hereto buy it) and has written for Scientific American, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and numerous other publications.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Highlights from The Fray:


From preference marketing to public policy analysis, Mr. Gladwell's theory rings very true. Because he is a writer and essayist and not a scientist, he makes members of the general public feel considerably more comfortable in learning and connecting theory to everyday life. I can tell you that a host of mayors, legislators, corporate CEOs, and those other people who make society work are engaged, provoked, and rejuvenated by the tipping point theory. The book and New Yorker article from which it sprang has prompted us to look anew at strategies, tactics, and policies to enhance the public good. It has helped immensely to improve evaluation and assessment. It has unchained chaos theory, memes, and nonlinear thinking from the province of the laboratory. I wholeheartedly agree with the Swiss historian Jacob Burkhardt who said: "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity." But a different and no-less harmful brand of tyranny lies in discouraging public consumption of clear, understandable, and real-life interpretations of "new" science. Mr. Gladwell's book links science and social conditions as well or better than any work since Silent Spring.

--Craig Ruff

(To reply, click here.)


 Because it doesn't have much to say to well-informed and science-minded people doesn't mean the book is without value. The general public has a very difficult time understanding trade-offs, let alone imagining them without an advocate's prompt. So, too, public reaction to public policy ideas benefits from awareness of tipping points and encouragement to think of them in many domains. In a world of social problems, often mistaken for technical problems and steeped in polarizing analysis (e.g. school reform), I believe it is helpful for Gladwell to direct citizens, as well as advocates, to the importance of relationships and personal influence.

--Ted Lobman

(To reply, click here.)

(3/20)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
The Great Debate
Marcus | Forget Biden. I'd like to see McCain face off against Palin.
Toles: Another McCain SurpriseStumped: Where's Palin's Baby?