Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.83 AVERAGE
3.83 AVERAGE
informative
medium-paced
This is what you would expect from Malcolm Gladwell. It goes into depth in a few situations, then tries to tie them all together.
I didn't think anything was overtly wrong like I have in other books of his. It was interesting, but I was disappointed with the case studies he selected. At one point he criticises the media for "if it bleeds, it leads", but then chose explicit sexual material and alcohol consumption as 2 of the 5 or so case studies.
The book was interesting (I wish he had spent more time on enhanced interrogation), but not without flaws.
6/10
I didn't think anything was overtly wrong like I have in other books of his. It was interesting, but I was disappointed with the case studies he selected. At one point he criticises the media for "if it bleeds, it leads", but then chose explicit sexual material and alcohol consumption as 2 of the 5 or so case studies.
The book was interesting (I wish he had spent more time on enhanced interrogation), but not without flaws.
6/10
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Een soort van eye-opener, dit boek. Malcolm Gladwell laat zien hoe slecht mensen vaak zijn in het begrijpen, inschatten en beoordelen van vreemden. Dat kan soms heel vervelende gevolgen hebben, zoals in het geval van Sandra Bland die werd aangehouden in Texas. Het kan leiden tot misverstanden, verkeerde beslissingen en zelfs dieptragische gebeurtenissen.
Behalve Sandra Bland, zijn ook de andere verhalen die Gladwell gebruikt illustratief. Hoe Hitler verkeerd werd ingeschat, hoe de CIA werd misleid door dubbelagenten en hoe Amanda Knox in Perugia werd veroordeeld om haar onbegrepen reacties en communicatie.
Gladwell vraagt zich af waarom we mensen die we eigenlijk niet kennen als ‘default to truth’ vertrouwen. En ook, waarom begrijpen we lichaamstaal en gezichtsuitdrukkingen van vreemden vaak verkeerd?
Ook boeiend zijn andere begrippen die hij uitlegt en illustreert. Zoals de transparency illusion. We denken dat we iemands bedoelingen kunnen aflezen aan uiterlijk of gedrag, maar dat klopt vaak niet. Of coupling. Gedrag is sterk gekoppeld aan context — we begrijpen mensen niet als we die context negeren.
Talking to Strangers laat zo zien dat misverstanden tussen onbekenden vaak niet ontstaan door slechte bedoelingen, maar door systematische fouten in hoe we communiceren, vertrouwen en oordelen. Gladwell pleit voor meer bescheidenheid en voorzichtigheid in hoe we vreemden beoordelen.
Ik vond het heel interessant. Mooie voorbeelden die wel doen denken, hoe is mijn omgang met ‘vreemden’? De kritiek op Gladwell is dat hij in dit populairwetenschappelijke boek selectief zijn voorbeelden kiest. Dat kan ik niet goed beoordelen.
This was an interesting read. I enjoyed reading Gladwell’s perspective on why interpersonal communication can be extremely tricky, especially with people we don’t know. I think he has some great insights, and I found the points about people who are mismatched with our expectation of what reactions and emotions should look like to be especially poignant. I enjoyed his thoughts about Amanda Knox regarding this point.
What dragged the book down to 2 stars for me was 1) the extremely abrupt ending, which felt rushed and unfinished. 2) What seemed like excuses for behavior that is inexcusable to me. This came across several times, for example in the Brock Turner example where Gladwell seems to say that it’s to some degree understandable that Brock didn’t know he shouldn’t stick his penis into an unconscious girl. Yeah, no. There is no way that is ok/ acceptable/ or even comprehensible. Turner made the choice to do this and no matter how much the girl drank, once she was unconscious, he should have stopped.
The Nassar examples made me extremely uncomfortable as well, because I feel like there’s a fairly wide gap between trusting a medical authority and allowing that medical authority to stick his fingers inside your teenage daughter. Maybe I’m just more aligned with the cynical guy at the SEC who mistrusts everyone, but I would hope, I’d do something other than blindly trust that this was totally fine. And finally, 3) the incident with Sandra Bland is explained as a misunderstanding of signals and poor training of cops. I’m sure those issues contributed to what happened but at the end of the day, Encinia chose to be a jerk and a bully.
So the book does a fairly good job of explaining why misunderstandings might occur and what the terrible consequences could be of our inability to read strangers as well as we think we can. But in its attempt at presenting the issue objectively, it also manages to appear to make excuses for terrible behavior, and this made it a lot less palatable for me.
What dragged the book down to 2 stars for me was 1) the extremely abrupt ending, which felt rushed and unfinished. 2) What seemed like excuses for behavior that is inexcusable to me. This came across several times, for example in the Brock Turner example where Gladwell seems to say that it’s to some degree understandable that Brock didn’t know he shouldn’t stick his penis into an unconscious girl. Yeah, no. There is no way that is ok/ acceptable/ or even comprehensible. Turner made the choice to do this and no matter how much the girl drank, once she was unconscious, he should have stopped.
The Nassar examples made me extremely uncomfortable as well, because I feel like there’s a fairly wide gap between trusting a medical authority and allowing that medical authority to stick his fingers inside your teenage daughter. Maybe I’m just more aligned with the cynical guy at the SEC who mistrusts everyone, but I would hope, I’d do something other than blindly trust that this was totally fine. And finally, 3) the incident with Sandra Bland is explained as a misunderstanding of signals and poor training of cops. I’m sure those issues contributed to what happened but at the end of the day, Encinia chose to be a jerk and a bully.
So the book does a fairly good job of explaining why misunderstandings might occur and what the terrible consequences could be of our inability to read strangers as well as we think we can. But in its attempt at presenting the issue objectively, it also manages to appear to make excuses for terrible behavior, and this made it a lot less palatable for me.
This book definitely made me think and I thoroughly enjoyed it, so I’m giving it five stars; however, he has some (controversial) opinions I disagree with completely.
There's no doubt that Malcom Gladwell is a talented writer. The book was very easy to read and follow. However, I'm not so convinced about some of his conclusions. I have a feeling that they lack the depth and detail they deserve. Seems like, as the book promises, he's looking at the cases only from the perspective of our relations to strangers. Some other important contexts have been left out. Overall, I'm giving 3 stars, because I enjoyed reading this book, but it left me with some dual feelings.
As ever, thought provoking explanations of phenomena from Gladwell. I’d really recommend this on audio as it includes original audio recordings.
challenging
informative
tense
slow-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Pedophilia, Racism, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Torture, Violence, Police brutality, Suicide attempt, Alcohol, Colonisation
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
This book feels like a bit of a roller coaster ride.
I’m not really sure what constitutes as a “stranger” to Malcolm Gladwell. It feels like everyone is a “stranger” to Gladwell—but I couldn’t tell ya, because he doesn’t tell you. He’s onto something, but he’s only just scratching the surface.
Gladwell uses pretty harrowing accounts (like, Sandra Bland’s death, Larry Nassar, Jerry Sandusky, Brock Turner, etc.) to illustrate his point. I kept feeling like he missed the point with some of them—in trying to focus on the strangers dilemma, he sees only that in isolation. There’s an argument that my critique is actually just me making assumptions about Gladwell (a stranger?!) and then assuming that my view on what is the “point” is the right view—given Gladwell talks about coupling. But I can’t help but feel something is off with his analyses and my folly is my inability to articulate what.
Gladwell is definitely right about one thing—and this is the quote I read in a yarn about Sam Konstas in the Sydney Morning Herald by Geoff Lawson that convinced me to read this book for the first time years after I bought it: “We think we can easily see into the hearts of others based on the flimsiest of clues. We jump at the chance to judge strangers. We would never do that to ourselves, of course. We are nuanced and complex and enigmatic. But the stranger is easy.”
You’re right—I shouldn’t jump to conclusions about the guy I met on Hinge. I’ll text him back, thanks to you.
I’m not really sure what constitutes as a “stranger” to Malcolm Gladwell. It feels like everyone is a “stranger” to Gladwell—but I couldn’t tell ya, because he doesn’t tell you. He’s onto something, but he’s only just scratching the surface.
Gladwell uses pretty harrowing accounts (like, Sandra Bland’s death, Larry Nassar, Jerry Sandusky, Brock Turner, etc.) to illustrate his point. I kept feeling like he missed the point with some of them—in trying to focus on the strangers dilemma, he sees only that in isolation. There’s an argument that my critique is actually just me making assumptions about Gladwell (a stranger?!) and then assuming that my view on what is the “point” is the right view—given Gladwell talks about coupling. But I can’t help but feel something is off with his analyses and my folly is my inability to articulate what.
Gladwell is definitely right about one thing—and this is the quote I read in a yarn about Sam Konstas in the Sydney Morning Herald by Geoff Lawson that convinced me to read this book for the first time years after I bought it: “We think we can easily see into the hearts of others based on the flimsiest of clues. We jump at the chance to judge strangers. We would never do that to ourselves, of course. We are nuanced and complex and enigmatic. But the stranger is easy.”
You’re right—I shouldn’t jump to conclusions about the guy I met on Hinge. I’ll text him back, thanks to you.