Reviews
Malcom uses different examples and case studies to illustrate how our mind works and how to facilitate snap judgement in a positive way.
It was s nice read specially Malcom writing is read smoothly. The problem, as others mentioned, is that he is pointing to these split decisions we make and paint a picture of how they are fantastic but then again he brings the incidents that it is detrimental to do so. I personally dislike this praise of snap judgment since it can gateway to justification for racism or intolerance. All in, the book was good, I learned a lot, but I didn’t conclude something. I specifically don’t like that this “snap judgment is all you need” mentality and how it is getting simplified and only the success cases are portrayed.l to justify it. Surely there is a truth to it, as the book points it out, but I find it troublesome so simply says “trust your gut”, which he doesn’t say, to clarify. However, it paints this positive picture of it and points its success more than its shortcomings. Overall, the book is not misleading but it is biased. After all, it is called blink, not contemplation!
I decided to read this book after reading Talking to Strangers, also by Gladwell. While I gave Talking to Strangers a four star review, I initially decided I was going to give Blink a 5 star because the topic seemed more interesting to me. However, about halfway or three quarters through the book, everything became monotonous. Ultimately, Blink discusses one topic and can be summed up with one sentence, whereas Talking to Strangers had many topics being discussed, not just one central focus like Blink. I still enjoyed the book and would recommend it to others, especially because it's unique to learn how we function as human beings.
The premise of Blink is around how making split decisions without rational judgement or analysis and that we often can't explain at the time can play out without our consciousness being able to explain.
Examples of which include art experts who instantly know a statue is fake, when countless of research tends to suggest otherwise and a fireman that orders his team to evacuate just seconds before a floor collapses.
There are however cases where we "thin-slice" and come to the wrong conclusions like the four New York cops who kills a guy when mistaking a wallet for a gun.
As many others have said, this is a complicated read with lots of conclusions but put simply I think the main goal isn’t perfect knowledge of the subject of thinking without thinking, but rather consideration of it and how it can benefit us or hinder us both individually and as a society.
** spoiler alert ** Snap judgment, thin slicing, that's it. tl;dr, challenge your rapid cognition aka question your assumptions. Bet there might be better books on this topic. >It is often surprising how accurate a mere hunch can be in the long run. >Dr. Gottman believed that he could determine if a couple would still be together at 90% accuracy by measuring moments of conflict. So, he measured their heart rates and perspiration and studied their facial expressions when discussing the traditional beliefs of money, sex, children, jobs, and in–laws. He found that their constantly changing combinations determined the couples’ compatibility. ≥The Four Horsemen of relationships are defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt >The difference between contempt and criticism is that contempt seems to criticize from a superior plane. >The thing about snapjudgmentis that it is unexplainable, and the attempts to explain them are often unconvincing. >We have, as human beings, a storytelling problem. We’re a bit too quick to come up with explanations for things we don’t really have an explanation for. >In psychology, you will often hear the term ‘thin slicing.’ This means looking for and finding trends and patterns in specific things by only using very small pieces of information to do so. Basically, you’re basing your judgment on less than the whole picture. >The explanation was that the list contained words that made people walk more slowly. The study showed that people could be influenced to behave in certain ways without being brainwashed. Priming infringes on the notion of free will, and this can be challenging. >People want to think that there are logical explanations for why they fall in love with certain people, but it often comes down to snap judgments. >Spontaneous thinking is an act of humorous improvisation. It seems difficult and arbitrary, but it is not; a series of rules governs it. >Spontaneity is not random. People make snap judgments, but they also follow certain intuitive rules. >One side of the human brain thinks in words (the left hemisphere), while the other thinks in pictures (the right hemisphere). Anytime you have to describe something in words, it tends to displace your visual memory. Psychologist Jonathan W. Schooler described this as verbal overshadowing. >Overload of information makes decision–making harder. There is a need to cut back on unnecessary information to be an excellent decision maker. >Dr. John Gottman discovered how much we could learn about what people think by simply analyzing their body language and facial expressions, or by stealing a look at their book shelves and the decor of their personal space, than by asking them directly. >People spontaneously volunteer information about the motive of their actions. Interestingly, many of their submissions are often incorrect, as decisions are made subconsciously. >However, the reality proves popular opinion is often faulty, and folks running such polls are hardly concerned about the implication and misinformation caused by the process. >More often than not, people at the receiving end of gunfire or shelling may empty their bowels or bladder, usually because the strange level of the threat represented by the heightened heart rate of 175 and above makes the body see controlling the muscles of the anus as non – essential. There is a recall of blood from the outer muscle layers and concentrated in core muscle mass at such times. The reason for that is to presumably make the muscles as hard as possible—thus, turning them into a pseudo–armor, which helps in limiting bleeding, should there be an injury. >When you listen to music with your eyes, your judgment will be affected. However, when you choose to listen with your heart and your ears, you’ll be more objective in your assessment.
I first read Blink as a Junior in college. This book came highly recommended by almost all of my marketing professors even though it is not strictly a marketing book. However, the concepts in it do apply in many ways to business settings ranging from marketing to job interviews. But they also apply to every day situations from taste testing to reacting in life-threatening situations. This book was referenced in another book that I read recently, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, so I decided to reread it. The subject of Blink is the adaptive unconscious. Whether we call it thin-slicing, gut feelings, or snap judgements, we do it every day. Gladwell explains what the adaptive unconscious is, when we should trust it, when we shouldn't, and how to improve our instincts. He explains his theory in the introduction and then proceeds to build his case through scientific studies and stories. The examples he used were all very interesting and well presented. Gladwell as talent for storytelling (even though it is nonfiction), and the book is easy to read and easy to relate to regardless of your background.
Blink is a fascinating read. I could find a more eloquent adjective, but the idea of being 'fascinated' by something - having your eyes opened to realities that have existed for millennia, and having your perception of things significantly both affirmed and challenged - hits close to home when I look back at my reading of Gladwell's work. As I read more and more non-fiction, I'm beginning to understand the distinction between an average scholar and one who so easily draws you in to their thought world that you consume their body of work like a fiction. Gladwell uses real stories of real human beings to convey his understanding of thin slicing, perception, mind reading, and environmental awareness. He does so in such a way that Blink, whilst embedded in years of research and thought leadership, comes off as an entertaining and thought provoking read - which doesn't distance the reader via their understanding of psychology or human intuition. If you're after a book which talks about things you'd never think of, things that occur between the fraction of the second of meeting someone you've never met before - your search it over.
i just love Gladwell!
I read this with my husband (yes, reading the book together at the same time) and I liked it. Interesting but not profound. Something to talk about at boring parties.
Quite an easy read, which I enjoyed. Really liked how it explored the balance between the amazing accomplishments that human intuition achieves while showing its equally significant shortcomings.
For the most part this was a very interesting read. It gave me some new perspectives about how the brain works. There were some surprising facts and studies cited. However, he was a little redundant. He really hammered home the point in many cases. Often within pages of each other he would have the same idea repeated. Other than that though it was a fun easy read.
Snap judgement = heuristics. It's not so much about the subject itself, but rather that my view that the whole book could be distilled into one post is the main reason behind the two stars. Now Outlier - that's a fascinating read. Thank you, next.
I'm skeptical about Blink for various reasons. The principle of blink is based about gut feeling or as the cover says the power of thinking without thinking. I had my own gut feeling about this book and it turned out to be true. Though it might be insightful on a surface level, it's not essentially as deep as I thought it would. It presents many stories and correlates the events with first judgements and whether or not it confirms the blink hypothesis, but Its foundation is based on deconstructing the decision made through analysis which makes it believable but not reliable. We all know how gut feeling works but the book here emphasized mostly on how analysis and data failed. Adding to it the fact that some stories were clearly biased, for reference the millenium challenge and the result of it highlighted at the end. The book is for scientific purposes and seeing how biases are presented in it is a major downturn for a reader. Still it's well crafted and for people who want to read it I'd still recommend it with a clear warning.
I'm skeptical about Blink for various reasons. The principle of blink is based about gut feeling or as the cover says the power of thinking without thinking. I had my own gut feeling about this book and it turned out to be true. Though it might be insightful on a surface level, it's not essentially as deep as I thought it would. It presents many stories and correlates the events with first judgements and whether or not it confirms the blink hypothesis, but Its foundation is based on deconstructing the decision made through analysis which makes it believable but not reliable. We all know how gut feeling works but the book here emphasized mostly on how analysis and data failed. Adding to it the fact that some stories were clearly biased, for reference the millenium challenge and the result of it highlighted at the end. The book is for scientific purposes and seeing how biases are presented in it is a major downturn for a reader. Still it's well crafted and for people who want to read it I'd still recommend it with a clear warning.
Apart all controversies made on the subject i still believe Gladwell presents enough evidences to support his ideas. A must read. Análise em português: http://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/2...
One of the best books I've ever read really, It is a must read book and it will change the way you are thinking about many simple things in your life
A nice perspective on "gut feel".
It’s almost comical how much Gladwell contradicts himself in this particular case. He draws conclusions that he directly disproves in subsequent sections. More than anything, it’s just entertaining to consume his work, but also, so long as you’re paying attention, always seems to end up like the scene in The Prestige when Michael Cain explains misdirection and makes the bird disappear. Only we know the bird is crushed by the cage and dead. And we just aren’t supposed to catch the dead body. Well so it is with all Gladwell books. And really it makes a lot of sense when you see an interview with him where he says he considers his books launching pads for conversations. Kickstarts into the general intellect. But… no where in his actual books, that I’ve read anyways, is his actual intent every stated. He presents his thinking through the gesture of seemingly factual evidence and leads the reader on through the small hoops of his logic in order for his conclusions to appear factually true. Yet… the reader is supposed to infer that even he thinks this is just the beginning of the conversation as a whole? He clearly states what he thinks and why, even when drawing comical biased conclusions from information that would disprove something in the first section. What reason is there for the reader to think that he thinks he’s sending them on toward the actual “hard data”. (See below for a reference) And the problem is that now those conclusions from the book are used as short hand in the general intellect, even when completely untrue. Like the 10,000 hour thing, or underdogs, or really any of his popular concussions. And because he is so popular, he really does have a larger responsibility. Especially now that we’ve seen the effect Gladwell has on culture. It’s legitimately disturbing, and easily remedied with a clear intent stated upfront on the book that is never there. At least with other books, as far as I could tell, he did not contradict himself so much. It hampered my enjoyment and that’s really all I came to these books for, knowing to take everything with a grain of salt. But even the prestige takes a turn from the fun of a magic trick to something far more sinister when you know the bird is dead, crushed by the cage for the audience. “In an interview with The Telegraph, Gladwell said, "The mistake is to think these books are ends in themselves. My books are gateway drugs—they lead you to the hard stuff." Gladwell himself is discrediting his own work, essentially saying you also need a Psych 101 textbook at your side to make sure everything jives with actual fact. If his books are not "ends in themselves," why does he go on with doing Ted talk after Ted talk, business meeting after business meeting masquerading around ideas that are truly stories that are inspired by science? The citations and studies he uses are simply the starting point for him to draw completely different, unrelated, and non-peer reviewed conclusions. They give his ideas unwarranted scientific legitimacy.” https://www.thecrimson.com/column/beh...
Dropped this book, couldn’t get past half of it. I felt that the book was very descriptive and that I was just reading a collection of evidences. There were some interesting examples, but when there are many examples and a lack of insights (or a perceived lack of insights), the book becomes boring. Felt that the book can be shorter and more concise.
An interesting listen. Malcolm Gladwell exploring how and why decisions can be made in a split second. If you liked Gladwell's other works you'll like this.
Gladwell offers a lot of examples of behavioral lab experiments that both support and contradict his theory that he laid in the first chapter. I got confused on whether to go with snap judgment or not while making decisions and I expected a better conclusion on when to use and develop snap judgment.. didn't happen *bummer*
A complete video review will later be put up on http://www.youtube.com/user/delcourtre This book is crazy to read. If you like books that make you think about everything and anything this is totally the book for you. Malcolm Gladwell is amazingly detailed in every aspect of this book. Of how people's unconscious "thin slice". Thin slicing is broken down and thoroughly explained by many studies, interviews, and quirky examples that make you laugh smile and really make you want to learn more. Blink has studies that include married couples, Pepsi/Coke taste test, and the Millennium Challenge (a study done by the United States armed forces that involved a computer simulation that broke down an enemy's weaknesses and strengths). There are relatable examples from medicine to improve theater. He even refers to speed dating in one chapter. The book itself holds many funny little interviews and thought provoking stories. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the human brain and how we process and evaluate a situation. The cool thing about Blink is that not only did I learn from this book, the information was presented in an entertaining manner. I was never bored and I haven't been seen these past two weeks without the book in arm's reach of me. It may have taken me much longer to read than most books, but it was only because this book was so jammed packed with information. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and I most certainly learned a whole lot from it. Malcolm Gladwell also has written: The Tipping Point, Outliers, and What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures.
His anecdotes just make so much sense and are so easy to read. I liked Outliers best, but this one is also awesome. :)
Fascinating!
Highlights
We can use our voluntary muscular system to try to suppress those involuntary responses. But, often, some little part of that suppressed emotion — such as the sense that I’m really unhappy even if I deny it
We think of the face as the residue of emotion. What this research showed, though, is that the process works in the opposite direction as well. Emotion can also start on the face.
When someone says, “I love you,” we look into that person’s eyes to judge his or her sincerity. When we meet someone new, we often pick up on subtle signals, so that afterward, even though he or she may have talked in a normal and friendly manner, we may say, “I don’t think he liked me,” or “I don’t think she’s very happy.
People have an innate sense of looking for authenticity and sincerity
Every waking minute that we are in the presence of someone, we come up with a constant stream of predictions and inferences about what that person is thinking and feeling.
Whenever we have something that we are good at — something we care about — that experience and passion fundamentally change the nature of our first impressions
When we become expert in something, our tastes grow more esoteric and complex. What I mean is that it is really only experts who are able to reliably account for their reactions.
When we talk about analytic versus intuitive decision making, neither is good or bad. What is bad is if you use either of them in an inappropriate circumstance.
A truly successful decision making relies on a balance between deliberate and instinctive thinking.
That extra information is more than useless. It’s harmful. It confuses the issues. What screws up doctors when they are trying to predict heart attacks is that they take too much information into account.
The Warren Harding error is the dark side of rapid cognition. It is at the root of a good deal of prejudice and discrimination. It’s why picking the right candidate for a job is so difficult and why, on more occasions than we may care to admit, utter mediocrities sometimes end up in positions of enormous responsibility.
We need to respect the fact that it is possible to know without knowing why we know and accept that — sometimes — we’re better off that way.
Our world requires that decisions be sourced and footnoted, and if we say how we feel, we must also be prepared to elaborate on why we feel that way.
It’s one thing to acknowledge the enormous power of snap judgments and thin slices but quite another to place our trust in something so seemingly mysterious.
You can learn as much — or more — from one glance at a private space as you can from hours of exposure to a public face.
It is quite possible for people who have never met us and who have spent only twenty minutes thinking about us to come to a better understanding of who we are than people who have known us for years.
In the negative sentiment override state, people draw lasting conclusions about each other.
When it comes to the task of understanding ourselves and our world, I think we pay too much attention to those grand themes and too little to the particulars of those fleeting moments.
We live in a world that assumes that the quality of a decision is directly related to the time and effort that went into making it.
For products — the problem is that buried among the things that we hate is a class of products that are in that category only because they are weird. They make us nervous. They are suffciently different that it takes us some time to understand that we actually like them. Maybe the word ‘ugly’ is just a proxy for ‘different.’
Maybe it’s the same for people?
We have this fixation on softness. I always think of that glove that Disney put on Mickey Mouse's hand. If we saw his real claw, no one would have liked him.
Deliberate thinking is a wonderful tool when we have the luxury of time, the help of a computer, and a clearly defined task, and the fruits of that type of analysis can set the stage for rapid cognition.
We have, as human beings, a storytelling problem. We're a bit too quick to come up with explanations for things we don't really have an explanation for.