Gladwell shares some thoughts on Freakonomics, particularly the reduction of crime rate in America in the '90s. Levitt and Dubner apparently dismiss Gladwell's Broken Windows theory in Freakonomics.
...chapter four of Freakonomics is devoted to the question of why crime dropped so dramatically in America—and particularly New York—in the 1990’s, and in that chapter Dubner and Levitt reach a very different conclusion than I do in "The Tipping Point." In fact, "Freakonomics" specially singles out for ridicule the theory of broken windows, which I suggest in the Tipping Point played a big role in New York City’s recovery. So what gives? Why do I love a book so much, if it contradicts my own book? Have I renounced the theories I put forward in the Tipping Point?
I must get to reading Freakonomics soon. Been intending to for a while. BTW, don't books like Tipping Point, Blink, Freakonomics, Wisdom of Crowds and the like give you an eerie feeling of a Web 2.0 in the making for books? The whole 'popularity/effectiveness grows as more people use it/talk about it' yada yada...
Update: Dubner responds to Gladwell's post.
Hey,
Please do get to that genre. It becomes quite a drab after a while. These guys end up saying the same thing again and again.
At one point of time, I was like crazy bored of his theory of how crime rates declined in the US!
Posted by
Santhosh |
1:58 PM, April 03, 2006