What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures

This is a fine collection of Malcolm Gladwell's previous articles which appeared in "New Yorker" magazine. They cover things like: 1. Pitchmen, specifically Ron Popeil and the marriage of the message (Vegematic, Rotisserie) and the medium (TV). 2. Ketchup, why there is essentially only one kind of ketchup (hits 5 fundamental tastes together - salty, sweet, sour, bitter and umami, the full bodied taste like in chicken soup) and one brand - Heinz (hits an 'amplitude' like Coke and Pepsi). 3. Nassem Taleb of 'Black Swan' fame. Investors don't behave with statistical orderliness - they change their minds. Random, unexpected events can sweep the markets like the Russian government defaulting on its bonds caused LTCM hedge fund to collapse causing panic to spread. So, his strategy is to ignore minor changes in the market and bet on big changes which will come unexpectantly but where really big profit is. 4. Hair Dye - Shirley Polikoff of Clairol's 'Nice n' Easy' with her 'Does she or doesn't she (translated from Yiddish), only her hairdresser knows for sure' and Ilon Specht of L'Oreal's 'I'm worth it' were the first stirrings of the feminism movement. Led to motivational research - like tying curing 'The Blahs' to Alka Seltzer. 5. John Rock's error marketing the birth control pill as preventing conception rather than reducing the risk of cancer - less menstruations, ovulations like in older times because women had less due to more children, breastfeeding, etc. 6. What the dog saw - unlike almost all animals a dog is a student of human movement - they look to you and other dog owners for help rather than judging other dogs. They judge the way a human body moves - forward or backward, face - relaxed or not, leash - tight or not. 7. Enron - was a 'mystery' not a 'puzzle' - requies a lot of analysis not just uncovering some missing pieces of information - it was the way the information could be interpreted. Whereas, 'Watergate' was a puzzle which 'Deep Throat' supplied the missing pieces of information. 8. Picture problem - Desert Storm equipment showed Scuds, but enemy used decoys to look like Scuds. Mammograms - approx 10k xrays only saved 3 lives, human finger more sensitive than expensive technology. 9. Plagiarism - courts too strict, old words in service of new ideas are no problem. 10. Connecting the dots - 1973 Israel war, other countries' mobilizations warned of imminent attck, but this was a common practice, hence not an error by Israel to ignore the mobilizations. A second piece of intelligence was needed - why different this time. 'Constructive Rivalry' needed, like with FDR and the Great Depression to have lots of competing opinions because so many factors caused the mess. FBI (law enforcement focuses on one case) whereas CIA (lots of situations) - need both perspecitives, not that they should always agree. 11. The art of failure - Choke, explicit learning overtakes implicit (like with some tennis players, golfers), whereas Panic is where thinking too little is the cause. JFK, Jr's plane crash was panic because he wasn't trained enough in instrument flying. 'Stereotype threat' like when some Blacks perform worse than should on some tests is a choke, not always a function of less knowledge (implicit) but fear of stereotype (explicit). 12. Blow-up - Challenger, Three Mile Island - complicated events - people did what was expected - 'normal' accidents, not screwups. 13. Late Bloomers, Most lkiely to succeed - value-added analysis necessary - teachers are more important than the schools and test scores, graduate degrees and certifications are not great predictors of teaching talent. Same with NFL quarterbacks - can't judge by college record or even specific tests. Good example are financial advisors - only requirement is college degree - companies know it is important to get as many candidates as possible - the same should be for teacher requirements. 14. Dangerous minds - serial killer can be categorized as organized or disorganized, but really more complicated - it is more likely a mixture. 15. The talent myth - assumes people make organizations successful, but really it is the other way around. 16. The Newboy Network - job interviews are a minefield in evaluating potential talent. Overall, the book is a fun read with lots of things to think about.

Good reading. Can put down and pick up again days later to read chapter on different topic

Great boom, wide range of topics. Fascinating.

I've now read all of Gladwell's books over the course of several years. In the time since I first read Blink maybe 5+ years back, I've had countless conversations with friends who aggressively assert that Malcolm Gladwell is either the best thing since whatever topped sliced bread or a sham who re-dresses Psych 1 studies in mediocre prose (well not quite that vehement, but...). For my part, before picking this one up, I thought Blink was my favorite -- a really cool weaving of pop psych and interesting stories -- and that the other two suffered from the full-scale book's requirement of a coherent argument, a requirement which in their case made their contents seem artificially bound. While Outliers, for example, had some interesting stuff, I felt that Gladwell's attempt to stuff all those stories into a big argument seemed artificial and forced. At the end of the day, the book seemed cheapened by his rather pointless thesis that (to simplify) hard work + luck = success. What the Dog Saw, then -- because it is chock full of fascinating Malcolm Gladwell stories but entirely uninhibited by this annoying need to press these stories into some sort of ill-fitting form -- may be my favorite of the lot. It's just extremely thought-provoking and diverse. His stories cover a huge range of interesting material -- the difficulties of mammogram reading, the inevitability of disaster, how hair coloring slogans mimicked and shaped changing definitions of 20th-Cent feminism, the slippery definitions of plagiarism -- in a way that lends itself to your drawing your OWN opinions about the interrelations of ideas. The book really makes you think, and I've found much of what I read here applicable to much of what I've seen while and since reading it. He really is a very thoughtful and lucid writer, and he turns this varied world of ideas into a series of comprehensible and well-laid out pieces. Just a very interesting read in general. Two last notes, for those who haven't seen many other reviews of the book. One, the articles will be hit or miss for some people; I found some things interesting that others here appear to have been bored by, and visa versa. And then two, of course, if you've faithfully read his New Yorker pieces since 1996, then you will be disappointed to find that this book represents nothing other than a reprint of some of his best. That said, though, I'd highly encourage buying it. It's just been a fascinating read.

What the Dog Saw is a collection of essays by Malcom Gladwell, all of which were originally published in The New Yorker. The essays are divided into three sections. The first is about what Gladwell calls "obsessives and minor geniuses," the second is about theories, and the third is about predictions about people. Now, because these latter two sections are themed so specifically...the book gets a bit repetitive. The first section is great. The stories are varied. Every single one talks about a person in a different area of life, from a guy who sells kitchen gadgets to the Dog Whisperer to a person obsessed with making a ketchup better than Heinz. I really did feel like I was reading a new "adventure" with every article. In the second section, things started out well. Soon, though, I started to feel like I was reading the same story over and over again. This is party because of Gladwell's writing style and partly because of how the book is compiled. Let's talk about the writing style first. It's not dry, it's not boring, it's not badly-done. On the contrary, it's quite good, which is what I would expect from someone who's written for The New Yorker for years. The stories don't drag on; they focus on one topic, such as homelessness, but tackle it from different angles. For example, in the story about the Dog Whisperer, entitled "What the Dog Saw," Gladwell talks not only about what Cesar Millan does with the dog, but how movement specialists examine his posture and gestures. It's a different approach. It lets Gladwell incorporate a lot of different stuff into one article, and it also lets him research a myriad of stuff and then break that stuff up into different articles where various sections of it might be relevant. But on the other hand, I got sick of reading about Enron, which comes up not only in its own story but in one or two others. And the theories, while they were technically different, were all too closely-related for me to really enjoy that section. Some of the stuff was awesome on its own. The story about homelessness and the one about troublemakers were great. But some of them just began to blur together and consequently weren't as interesting. This is mainly because of how the book is constructed. Articles just aren't written to be read en masse like this; they're meant to be read as stand-alone things, in the magazines or papers they were written for. When you get a collection like this, there's bound to be some repetition. That doesn't mean it's bad; it just means it's not a book that's meant to be read straight through. I feel like it's more something that should be picked up every now and then to read one article, and then to be put back down for a while before being looked again. At least, that's what I saw. 3 out of 5 stars.

Presidents and other historical figures usually have their own biographers while people who study the sociology of ketchup or create kitchen gadgets usually do not. Malcolm Gladwell is the biographer for the rest of us. "What the Dog Saw" is a collection of life-stories from people who are very interesting but seldom get more than a glance. What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures ,on the first bounce,appears to be a random collection of his New Yorker articles that he is trying to get more mileage out of. But is it random? Each of the articles are divided into three broad categories. The vary from obsessives "of minor genius" to "theories, predictions and diagnoses" and then on to "Personality, character and intelligence." At the end is a reading group guide for book clubs or others with the courage to look beyond this as a cute collection. Ketchup, Enron and military intelligence all pull together to make a point. Ketchup and aggressive dogs get the same intense treatment as breast cancer and homelessness. This point is to challenge the reader to see and not just look, live and not just exist. Rather than tell you this however, Gladwell shows you though people's stories. This is about the everyday genius in us all. Malcolm is able to take the life of reclusive financier and make it raw and interesting. He is able to tackle the complexities of diagnosing breast cancer and create understanding. The reader can see better by reading of those who see more intentionally. "Million Dollar Murray" made me angry by suggesting that we should limit benevolences to the homeless. Then he made his case and showed out of the box thoughts that could solve parts of the problem rather than merely managing it. I am better for reading this book. I It is infectious, interesting, and challenging at the same time. My only regret is that it took me so long to get around to reading it. Malcolm makes my world bigger than mere "Horseradish" (see chapter 1).

Malcolm Gladwell has written four thought-provoking books on the human condition and related to practical subjects and topics but what has been different about his perspectives is that he has included in the equation a critical eye within a case study approach. And he himself can be topic of discussion, especially with What the Dog Saw and Other Adventures. The book may be a retrospective of his past writings that were published in The New Yorker in 1996 and to 2008. If one has not read or come across any of the articles, they are a very insightful collection. Gladwell kindly explains in the preface of the book of his purpose for offering readers a glimpse of what he has written in the past decade. And with over 400 pages of enlightening essays in the Gladwell tradition, he takes an idea and he runs with it with a slew of intellectual curiosity that moves into various directions in the process that is not locked into one particular topic; most of what he writes about spans from education, politics, social, economic, cultural, and historical frameworks. But he knows exactly where his thoughts will eventually land with his clear goals explained within the beginning of the book that focuses on: people and their efforts and not necessarily larger than life individuals but the average person that happened to make remarkable results in something they have achieved such as Ron Popeil and his Chop-O-Matic, Devoted to theories, ways of organizing experience, and Predictions we make about people. It is these main factors that relate to understanding outcomes that are not necessarily final in terms of interpretation, and many times before Gladwell has proven that fact in his previous books. And when he probes, he uses a part of his early education and skills as a lawyer and blends it with his journalistic inquiries of critical thinking. All of the chapters show the immense curiosity and a-ha or wait a minute, let me think about that moments. The chapter Something Borrowed is one of several examples, he discusses creativity but makes one question, was the idea original? One of the enticing part of the chapter spoke of memorable classic rock songs from bands such as Led Zeppelin versus a Muddy Water’s song that may have been influenced by lyrics and chords, this topic and another topic in the chapter that held close to home for Gladwell pertaining to the Broadway play “Frozen” and the possibility that the story may have been copied from one of his early articles; purely Gladwell where he has taken what appears to be two completely different topics but he brings them congruently parallel in the conclusion. What the Dog Saw never disappoints for readers that have grown accustomed to Gladwell’s writings. Two points that one may consider before reading the book, the interesting part about the book is that it provides first-time readers a sample of his writing, and second, it clearly shows how far he has come but continues to move forward in his perspectives that is open to new ideas. But one recommendation, if one has not already read his previous books, it is highly encouraged.

What Malcolm saw leads us to stop and rethink of our surroundings and ourselves. His deliberation gives us various hints in moving back on the right rails. He tries to understand how the person concerned felt and thought the things in the very situation it happened. Some support from the behavior science results makes his findings much more persuasive. He takes up everything from minor geniuses to the theories and predictions around us. His stance of being fascinated with everything around him is the very secrets of his success of his books. "The Pitchman," "Ketchup," "True colors," and "John Rock," deepen our knowledge about some aspects of historical developments in the American society. He alleges it is mystery why Wall Street couldn't keep pace with the growing complicity of the Enron's business practice. He doubts about the reason of the Enron failure as it is caused by the overrated talents within the company. His distinction of "puzzle and mystery" and "choke and panic" is to its point. Frequently he explains his theories by showing another example which at first seems to be irrelevant with. No other person can think of the quality of targeting information by relating breast cancer with the World War II. "Late Bloomers" and "Most likely to Succeed" are the topics correlating with his former work "Outliers." He warns negative aspect of "Blink." We have a particular prerational ability for judging others by the power of first impression. When we make a snap judgement, we feel it's very clear and have no difficulty in articulating. But this is the place the trap is hidden. He also warns against our folly attitude toward generalization, homology between character and action. He points out the every details of our situation causes much effects on our behavior than the unchangeable inner driver of us, which makes us difficult in predicting someone's future and profiling action. What caught my eye mostly is his thought on plagiarism. To whom the words belong? Everyone composes sentences by selecting words based on his/her own history, world view and social customs he/she lives in. Some other people quote some part of them by their own comprehensions. In this sense, Malcolm is very generous to who uses his creation. This would be from the reason because he truly think highly of intellectual property. For the Japanese who experienced Fukushima, his point out of risk homeostasis in "blowup" is very suggestive. We need to concentrate our efforts in establishing nuclear power plant safety based on the fact we tend to compensate for lower risks in one area by taking greater risks in another. Our faithful enactment of the rituals of disaster should not be ended as another example of hypocritical commitment.

*What the Dog Saw* by Malcolm Gladwell is a collection of essays exploring unusual ideas, people and events through his trademark style of storytelling and analysis. What makes the book enjoyable is the way Gladwell takes seemingly ordinary topics — from advertising and innovation to human behaviour and decision-making — and uncovers the hidden factors behind them. The chapters are easy to read, thought-provoking and often leave you looking at familiar situations differently. Some essays are more engaging than others, but the variety keeps it interesting and there are plenty of memorable insights throughout. It’s a good choice for readers who enjoy psychology, business, culture and understanding why people make the choices they do. Overall, an entertaining and accessible read with plenty of interesting ideas, even if some conclusions may leave you wanting to explore the evidence further. A great introduction to Gladwell’s style.

I've never read a Gladwell's book, but this one is so original and never boring that I found myself in the position of buying all of his production . Try it.

Leí "The tipping point" y "Outliers" y me gustaron mucho pero este me ha decepcionado. El primer capítulo sobre las máquinas de cortar repollo es tedioso y aburrido. No lo terminé y salté al siguiente con el que ocurrió lo mismo. Lástima que no puedan devolverme mi dinero.

For readers interested in subtle insights this book is a feast. Gladwell looks at issues you may have had your own experience with, like Enron or Ketchup. He starts at the obvious, the published story, the well known "facts" you are familiar with and then proceeds to reveal more and more information, different perspective and real (scientific) correlations you probably are not aware at all. Finally you find out, that a well established public opinion is just a made up story, concocted by some spin doctors and spread by the mass media. Don't look for advice in this book. Gladwell just shows you a different, more differentiated picture. He did the searching for background information and scientific evidence for you. He presents the elements and their interrelation. Gladwell never tells you, what to think or how to act. Intelligent readers who prefer to think for themselves love such stuff for thought. It broadens ones mindset. Great book. Highly recommended!

So many interesting stories are covered in this book. I have shared the stories i read in this book for years to come