What the Dog Saw

Malcolm Gladwell is at his best when he's questioning conventional wisdom, making compelling, seemingly counterintuitive arguments that the way we look at a certain issue (genius, viral trends, decision making) is not the only way or the best way to look at it. Several of the essays in this collection do just that--they point out the dangerous similarities between criminal psychological profiling and small-time magician mind reading tricks, argue that plagiarism may not be as bad as we act like it is, or that precocity and genius don't necessarily go hand in hand.

The book is divided into three sections. The first features profiles of various minor geniuses, like Ron Popeil of infomercial fame. I thought this was the weakest section of the book. In each of the articles, it seems like Gladwell would rather be writing about the theories connected to these people than the people themselves. All of the people he profiles seem like they should be fascinating, but come across as only mildly interesting.

The second section focuses on miscellaneous theories. A few of these were quite good--the essay on plagiarism, one on homelessness, one about the way we process intelligence. But a few of them felt underdeveloped--Gladwell caught my attention and left me wanting more, like in an article on the difference between panicking and choking.

The third section is devoted to theories on how we evaluate people. Again, this section had some terrific articles, and some so-so ones.

Even though I thought this collection was a little uneven, and possibly a little long, it did what all of Gladwell's books tend to do--pulled me into issues I didn't think I had any interest in and made me question, and often agree with, the surprising claims that Gladwell makes.