The Tipping Point: Gladwell

The Tipping Point is the book by Malcolm Gladwell that popularized the term. Think about the spread of a virus such as a cold. For a while, you don't feel well, but you're not particularly sick, and then -- suddenly -- you're very sick!

In common parlance, "tipping point" refers to having a product or idea achieve main-stream popularity. Tipping-point ideas invade the collective conscious and change society.

The Tipping Point is about the events that lead up to the all-of-the-sudden part! Tipping points are about ideas that operate as viruses.

Viral ideas were popularized by Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene which preceded The Tipping Point by four years. Dawkins identified the what -- Gladwell the how. Gladwell applies the tipping point to a wide range of issues such as the militia's response to the outbreak of the American Revolution, the battle against rising syphilis rates in Baltimore in the 1990's, and the clean up of crime in New York City in the same period.

Gladwell's "how" has three primary rules: (1) the law of the few; (2) the stickiness factor; and (3) the power of context. These three laws control the success of the viral outbreaks of ideas.

• The Law of the Few. When Paul Revere warned the citizens of Boston about the British attack, he mobilized the citizenry to defeat the British in that initial attack. We assume that his "message" was the power that led to that success, but William Dawes set out in the opposite direction and was almost completely unsuccessful. Paul Revere had personal attributes that contributed to his success -- he was both a "maven" and a "connector" -- see below.
• The Stickiness Factor. For ideas to be successful, they must "stick." For our new ideas, how do we identify, create, and leverage the "stickiness factor."
• The Power of Context. Good ideas only stick within the right context. How do we identify and mold the context to make ideas successful?

The Law of the Few is about three key personality types that drive the spread of new ideas. These three types are very rare (which is why there are "few" of them!).

• Connectors. Connectors know everybody!
• Mavens. Mavens are the innovators that wade through mountains of information to make sense of it. Being a maven requires dedication to an idea or practice and a unwavering obsession. "Pricing mavens" are the easiest to understand: go to them to find out the best price for a commodity! I would suggest that a maven is the person you gravitate to for a specific "thing" -- commodity, idea, scientific principle, etc.
• Salesmen. Ever bought something from a great salesmen? The experience was very satisfying and a win-win transaction. Salesmen take a maven's idea and popularize it.

So mavens figure it out, connectors spread the word, and salesmen get the word from connectors and then help the rest of us to understand why it matters.

The Tipping Point is a beautifully written book and describes a powerful concept that we all need to be aware of. Gladwell has a gift for sharing new concepts through great examples.

The tipping point is a key concept in successful marketing campaigns as well as political campaigns. You need to read it to increase your effectiveness and to protect yourself from others who may apply the principles to achieve their goals at your expense!

If you liked Tipping Point, I'm sure you'll also like Gladwell's Blink -- a much less successful book on managing your insights. Blink is an equally powerful concept but more universally applicable!

Salt Study No 'Smoking Gun'

Ever wonder where the fear of eating salt came from?

The big push for salt restriction came after a widely publicized 1984 study called “Intersalt.” This study examined more than 10,000 subjects at 52 locations in 39 countries.

Sounds pretty authoritative, doesn't it. How could a study involving thousands of people in dozens of countries yield a result that, according to my personal investigations several years ago, was wrong? Certainly chips and nachos aren't good for you, but is that because of the salt? If the excessive amounts of salt in junk foods is in fact bad (because it upsets the cell's potassium/sodium balance), does that imply that adding salt to your food is bad?

Read the Wikpedia article to see this one example of how seemingly rigorous scientific research can be misinterpreted.

  

ALL of the statistical validation for the Intersalt study came from 4 indigenous populations that ingested low sodium and alcohol and had no obesity in their populations. There was NO correlation between salt intake and hypertension in the remaining 48 populations; i.e. our population. In fact, the data suggested the opposite after accounting for the outlier data!

  

So how does "science" reach conclusions that are not only wrong, but damaging to society? How can I say "damaging" -- what's the big deal about eating less salt? My point is that it potentially has some impact on the economy (perhaps minor in this case), but a greater damage to the culture. I clearly remember the absolute FEAR that was engendered when the Intersalt study results were communicated. What other "facts" that we didn't know about were "killing us?" Study after study after Intersalt on unrelated topics was more confirmation that we needed scientists to save us. That dramatic impact on our society persists in most people today.

Most scientists are well-intentioned. What about the "scientist culture" can lead to such bad results? We have peer-reviews and public scrutiny to prevent failures of this type. Might it be the pressures of the scientific culture? "Publish or perish?" In today's environment, there are significant economic incentives to become an international authority -- book rights, speaking engagements, etc. I was taught that "intellectual honesty" was crucial to science and in my opinion the countervailing economic pressures have neutralized this important principle.

My science, and "thinking" training, was injected with significant doses of skepticism. Unfortunately, the world is getting so complex that we can't run to ground every new rumor and often can't personally interpret the results of every study that is produced, so we need to discriminatingly evaluate based on our background and common sense.

The area of most significance today for applying this chain of logic are fear-based energy policies on an international scale. See the related blog for more details: http://stevekruba.blogspot.com/2010/11/rational-optimist-how-prosperity.html .