Analysis Of The Tipping Point By Malcolm Gladwell

Everyday economics and social epidemics are topics that do not come easily to many people. The job of Malcolm Gladwell, the author of The Tipping Point, was to explain and teach the science of economics. Economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner also had the task of doing the same, but their book Freakonomics, did so differently. That difference includes several components of the book: the structure, the main focus, and the connection to the audience. The Tipping Point shows a better use of these three components and therefore, Gladwell gave the readers a better understanding of the text and the idea behind it. As opposed to Levitt and Dubner, Gladwell uses a conventional structure that organized the topics and main ideas well.

This makes the book more captivating than Freakonomics, in that Levitt and Dubner use ineffective techniques that tend to branch off in different directions in order to present “the hidden side of everything”.

The most notable component of Gladwell’s book that makes it more compelling than Freakonomics is the well organized structure. Like any argumentative writing, Gladwell uses a formal structure that continues throughout the book and finishes the circle by stating that trends occur because “we are actually powerfully influenced by our surroundings, our immediate context, and the personalities of those around us,” (Gladwell 259). In contrast, Freakonomics does not follow a standard structure that reiterates important points throughout the book; instead Levitt and Dubner ask questions in the beginning of the chapters, and branch off into different topics from there. Following the conventional structure, at the start of The Tipping Point, Gladwell mentions three characteristics of epidemics: contagiousness, big effects, and that change happens dramatically, not gradually. In every chapter, a rule is introduced, explained, and related to an epidemic: he refers to the law of the few, the

Gladwell consistently includes real-life connections that are relatable. A situation that the audience can relate to is Roger Horchow. In order to emphasize the power of a connector according to the law of the few, Gladwell includes Horchow’s experience at a new Japanese restaurant. He claims that the word of the new restaurant couldn’t have reached far if it hadn’t been told to a person like Roger Horchow, since he has connection to different worlds. Using an example as relatable and as common as the critique of a new restaurant helps realize that the word of a common man does not reach the potential of the word of a connector. Unlike Freakonomics, Gladwell brings the attention of the reader in an effective and subtle way, allowing the readers to connect to a situation as mundane as a restaurant recommendation; in contrast, Levitt and Dubner use statistics to prove their point. Using percentages to represent the number of children likely to be raised with only one parent or in poverty does not emphasize the fact that abortion caused the crime drop in the 1990’s. In addition, Levitt and Dubner include unattractive tables and charts that support their claims, but do not relate to the readers at all. Bare facts are boring to read about and should be accompanied by a connection to the reader. Some argue that statistics are more credible, but in reality they can be