Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.83 AVERAGE
3.83 AVERAGE
a really compelling book, but the argument didn’t quite come together/reach its fullest form in the last few pages
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I always enjoy Gladwell’s writing. He has an ability to make topics that could be extremely boring into stories. Rather than piling the reader with straight data he share anecdotes supported by research or facts that lead you to understand his opinion.
I read his book blink more than ten years ago and think pairing these books would be interesting. The transparency theory in this book applied to fast thinking in Blink and how they affect each other.
Overall an interesting and easy read.
I read his book blink more than ten years ago and think pairing these books would be interesting. The transparency theory in this book applied to fast thinking in Blink and how they affect each other.
Overall an interesting and easy read.
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
I tend to like Gladwell, but I felt he went way off the rails on this one.
He puts a lot of weight on his few themes: transparency, contextual mismatching, causal coupling, etc, but even in the text he's skirting the fact that his chosen examples often don't conform to his argument. For example, we get the Brock Turner thing, where he's arguing (among other things) that alcohol and rape are strongly coupled. Okay, that's crazy reductive, but we'll just accept it as true. Then we jump straight to Jerry Sandusky, and this is represented as a communications issue where everyone's preconceived notions are getting in the way of accurate blah blah, WHERE'S THE CORRELATION WITH ALCOHOL NOW? I thought they were coupled?
He argues that suicide is strongly correlated with available methods, and let's just ignore that all the suicide "data" (there is no real data) in the book is female suicide, and women make up 20% of suicides, and just deal with the assertion as it stands. He makes the argument, then jumps to the Sandra Bland case which is again, represented as a communication issue, but she committed suicide in a cell with a method that required a serious will to die. Where's the coupling? I thought suicide was coupled with an easy method, and it just magically vanished if you took that away?
I felt the data was cherry-picked, I felt the arguments were weak and superficial (all correlation, no causation) or just trite and obvious (people are bad at reading other people? Really?) and I felt he had an unwarranted perception of who the "real" victim was (poor poor Brock Turner? What the hell? I've never seen such a sympathetic treatment of that guy) in most of his situations.
Anyway. Miss this. You won't learn anything except his what his opinions are, and you're going to come off as a jerk if you spout them in public.
He puts a lot of weight on his few themes: transparency, contextual mismatching, causal coupling, etc, but even in the text he's skirting the fact that his chosen examples often don't conform to his argument. For example, we get the Brock Turner thing, where he's arguing (among other things) that alcohol and rape are strongly coupled. Okay, that's crazy reductive, but we'll just accept it as true. Then we jump straight to Jerry Sandusky, and this is represented as a communications issue where everyone's preconceived notions are getting in the way of accurate blah blah, WHERE'S THE CORRELATION WITH ALCOHOL NOW? I thought they were coupled?
He argues that suicide is strongly correlated with available methods, and let's just ignore that all the suicide "data" (there is no real data) in the book is female suicide, and women make up 20% of suicides, and just deal with the assertion as it stands. He makes the argument, then jumps to the Sandra Bland case which is again, represented as a communication issue, but she committed suicide in a cell with a method that required a serious will to die. Where's the coupling? I thought suicide was coupled with an easy method, and it just magically vanished if you took that away?
I felt the data was cherry-picked, I felt the arguments were weak and superficial (all correlation, no causation) or just trite and obvious (people are bad at reading other people? Really?) and I felt he had an unwarranted perception of who the "real" victim was (poor poor Brock Turner? What the hell? I've never seen such a sympathetic treatment of that guy) in most of his situations.
Anyway. Miss this. You won't learn anything except his what his opinions are, and you're going to come off as a jerk if you spout them in public.
I have to say upfront that although I never particularly liked Gladwell's previous books mostly because I don't find his narration engaging, I came into this booking thinking I'd at least semi-enjoy it because I was listening to it.
Well, I was wrong.
In all fairness, this book isn't particularly bad comparing to Gladwell's other, earlier works. Most of his previous works are full of interesting stories and antidotes that loosely revolves around a theme, with a "novel" theory to tie things together. The theories sometimes have stronger academic research to support it, sometimes not. In short, most of the previous books are generally entertaining, easy to read, not too intellectually challenging light non-fiction. This book didn't wander too far off from that formula, not really.
The first bit of this book seems fine, most noteworthily, with observation on people who met or did not meet Hitler seeming to support the argument to be made. The arguments are somewhat shaky, probably more so than some of Gladwell's earlier works but not to the degree that makes me just want to stop listening all together.
Then something changed, and based on the reviews I see I'm not alone. Because of the subject matter of many cases, examples used in the latter part of this book probably hit home for more people then Gladwell's previous books.
What drove me off the cliff is the part about drinking culture and how drinking allows one to simulate more with the environment. I'm not an expert in brain chemistry after drinking or social observation and I'm willing to give some credit to the arguments made in this book, I'm however stunned at the way Gladwell, a seasoned writer, framed this theory.
It might not be the true intention, but it certainly sounded like by pushing this theory, that the campus drinking culture is problematic, it's also lifting the blame from the aggressors who happens to be drunk in a "rowdy" environment.
This aligns with some of the other theories and slogans such as "voting with your feet" without recognising the difficulty in mobility and shifting the blame from those who were advantaged in such a "current equilibrium" to those who're disadvantaged by it.
Well, I was wrong.
In all fairness, this book isn't particularly bad comparing to Gladwell's other, earlier works. Most of his previous works are full of interesting stories and antidotes that loosely revolves around a theme, with a "novel" theory to tie things together. The theories sometimes have stronger academic research to support it, sometimes not. In short, most of the previous books are generally entertaining, easy to read, not too intellectually challenging light non-fiction. This book didn't wander too far off from that formula, not really.
The first bit of this book seems fine, most noteworthily, with observation on people who met or did not meet Hitler seeming to support the argument to be made. The arguments are somewhat shaky, probably more so than some of Gladwell's earlier works but not to the degree that makes me just want to stop listening all together.
Then something changed, and based on the reviews I see I'm not alone. Because of the subject matter of many cases, examples used in the latter part of this book probably hit home for more people then Gladwell's previous books.
What drove me off the cliff is the part about drinking culture and how drinking allows one to simulate more with the environment. I'm not an expert in brain chemistry after drinking or social observation and I'm willing to give some credit to the arguments made in this book, I'm however stunned at the way Gladwell, a seasoned writer, framed this theory.
It might not be the true intention, but it certainly sounded like by pushing this theory, that the campus drinking culture is problematic, it's also lifting the blame from the aggressors who happens to be drunk in a "rowdy" environment.
This aligns with some of the other theories and slogans such as "voting with your feet" without recognising the difficulty in mobility and shifting the blame from those who were advantaged in such a "current equilibrium" to those who're disadvantaged by it.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
sad
medium-paced
Great read with lots to think about
I love Malcom Gladwell and I think this is one of his best. Well done and so much to think about.
I love Malcom Gladwell and I think this is one of his best. Well done and so much to think about.
An interesting exploration of our natural inclination to "default to truth". I recommend getting the audiobook for this one since it's read by the author and contains actual recordings of events and interviews.
1 star
Malcolm Gladwell's sociology is watered down to be readable to the general public with a lot of nuance removed at best but this one was odd. The general essence is that we are unable to grasp what strangers are thinking and feeling by conduct alone and we cannot tell when they are lying to us. That is fine but the examples used are extreme and graphic for very little reward. There was no reason to use the example of Brock Turner or Larry Nassar to explain why humans struggle to understand whether a person is telling the truth or believing that people are not who they say they are. It was extremely graphic and uncomfortable for very little reward. I literally listened to Chanel Miller's audiobook and was less weirded out than the reference to her story in this book because there was simply no utility in telling the story in this book.
Malcolm Gladwell's sociology is watered down to be readable to the general public with a lot of nuance removed at best but this one was odd. The general essence is that we are unable to grasp what strangers are thinking and feeling by conduct alone and we cannot tell when they are lying to us. That is fine but the examples used are extreme and graphic for very little reward. There was no reason to use the example of Brock Turner or Larry Nassar to explain why humans struggle to understand whether a person is telling the truth or believing that people are not who they say they are. It was extremely graphic and uncomfortable for very little reward. I literally listened to Chanel Miller's audiobook and was less weirded out than the reference to her story in this book because there was simply no utility in telling the story in this book.