Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.83 AVERAGE
3.83 AVERAGE
Ok I have A LOT of problems with this book. I am glad I did the audiobook instead of wasting the focused time reading this. I'm also glad that I got the audiobook for free so I didn't have to waste money on this crap.
Some of the chapters are interesting. The ideas of "default to truth" and transparency ring true and are fascinating. I listened to the entire book keeping an open mind. HOWEVER I could not let go of some things that really bothered me about Gladwell's logic in some of the chapters.
The most significant example is the chapter about the rape of Chanel Miller (Emily Doe) by Brock Turner. Gladwell basically argues that alcohol as an agent of "myopia" is partly responsible for Turner's crime. I have a serious issue with this argument because it implies that would-be-rapists only avoid raping people due to fear of consequences. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT. Brock Turner is a disgusting rapist, and like all rapists, he did it because he felt entitled and arrogant in his ability to avoid suffering consequences even if they exist for others. Does alcohol not help the situation? Obviously. But that in no way displaces Turner's guilt. And it absolutely does not give Gladwell the right to suggest a rephrase of Miller's courageous letter, or even worse, to give Turner the last word in the chapter. I was outraged.
My second big issue was the last chapter where Gladwell finally gets to the point of the Sandra Bland case he starts the book with. He actually comes to the defense of the police officer who pulled over Bland stating that he was a "modern cop" who doesn't "default to truth" and therefore would be more effective at catching crimes. He claims the cops reactions to Bland are due to his fear of her as a part of the price he pays for not defaulting to truth! He claims the whole issue was that the cop didn't default to truth in the wrong place due to a lack of understanding of crime coupling. This is utter hogwash. The police officer's ego was offended when a female driver would not grovel and bend to his will so he lost his temper. Sure, he didn't know about Bland's history of depression and PTSD and her suicide cannot be placed on him. HOWEVER, he completely mishandled the situation when he pulled her over and she should never have been arrested in the first place (this is a key distinction from what Gladwell claims that she should never have been pulled over as a part of his argument that this case was a symptom of a systematic failure). Her being pulled over may have been the result of an institutional flaw in policing, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire interaction was mismanaged by the police officer in question, and it should never have led to her being ARRESTED. WTF GLADWELL???? UGH
Some of the chapters are interesting. The ideas of "default to truth" and transparency ring true and are fascinating. I listened to the entire book keeping an open mind. HOWEVER I could not let go of some things that really bothered me about Gladwell's logic in some of the chapters.
The most significant example is the chapter about the rape of Chanel Miller (Emily Doe) by Brock Turner. Gladwell basically argues that alcohol as an agent of "myopia" is partly responsible for Turner's crime. I have a serious issue with this argument because it implies that would-be-rapists only avoid raping people due to fear of consequences. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT. Brock Turner is a disgusting rapist, and like all rapists, he did it because he felt entitled and arrogant in his ability to avoid suffering consequences even if they exist for others. Does alcohol not help the situation? Obviously. But that in no way displaces Turner's guilt. And it absolutely does not give Gladwell the right to suggest a rephrase of Miller's courageous letter, or even worse, to give Turner the last word in the chapter. I was outraged.
My second big issue was the last chapter where Gladwell finally gets to the point of the Sandra Bland case he starts the book with. He actually comes to the defense of the police officer who pulled over Bland stating that he was a "modern cop" who doesn't "default to truth" and therefore would be more effective at catching crimes. He claims the cops reactions to Bland are due to his fear of her as a part of the price he pays for not defaulting to truth! He claims the whole issue was that the cop didn't default to truth in the wrong place due to a lack of understanding of crime coupling. This is utter hogwash. The police officer's ego was offended when a female driver would not grovel and bend to his will so he lost his temper. Sure, he didn't know about Bland's history of depression and PTSD and her suicide cannot be placed on him. HOWEVER, he completely mishandled the situation when he pulled her over and she should never have been arrested in the first place (this is a key distinction from what Gladwell claims that she should never have been pulled over as a part of his argument that this case was a symptom of a systematic failure). Her being pulled over may have been the result of an institutional flaw in policing, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire interaction was mismanaged by the police officer in question, and it should never have led to her being ARRESTED. WTF GLADWELL???? UGH
I found this book fascinating ... however, Gladwell does make a few generalizations that seemed forced at times. I enjoyed his signature deep-dives into wide-ranging topics like espionage, Sandra Bland, and Larry Nassar. While I’m not 100% sold on some of his arguments in the book, it was as thought-provoking as his other books, and definitely an exploration in critical thinking. Recommended.
This was classic Gladwell. He has really mastered the art of new perspectives.
I do think that he has oversimplified a lot of the ideas that he has explored but I do understand where he is coming from. Not all of this book can be put down to “we are bad at talking to strangers” however the content is still good to think about.
I do think that he has oversimplified a lot of the ideas that he has explored but I do understand where he is coming from. Not all of this book can be put down to “we are bad at talking to strangers” however the content is still good to think about.
It is always great when a book changes my thinking on a topic I completely take for granted. This book is not about small talk, by the way. Gladwell spends much more time raising interesting questions than providing satisfying answers, but that can be forgiven. Definitely read the audiobook version if possible, it contains recordings of the many interviews included in the book.
dark
informative
slow-paced
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
So intelligent and appropriate. Be warned that the content is very dark - dealing with murder, rape, and torture. But it is a brilliant exploration of human perception. So well done.
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
It was really interesting, and I learned a lot about the psychology of how we communicate and interact with strangers. But I feel like he didn’t really come to any conclusions about how we can better talk to strangers, he kind of just explained what happened in each example he gave. Which was still interesting but not what I wanted to get out of reading this book.
The author doesn’t over-interpret as much as I believed he might by the popularity of this title. A group of good stories which expose the failings of evolution to be socially adept in our modern society. It’s good to know you all are as bad as I am.
Challenged me but overall felt like pop science and I agree with more of the criticisms of this book than I agreed with any of the good points.