You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
5.52k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don‰ЫЄt Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
5.52k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don‰ЫЄt Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
Just ok. There’s no real conclusion. Like how are we supposed to get better at talking to strangers? The whole book is about how we screw it up so.... just don’t do that??
Agree or disagree, I always come away thinking after a Gladwell book. I was fascinated to read about Neville Chamberlain's trust in Hitler and other infamous errors made by people who thought they had successfully judged a person's body language, only to be very wrong. He unveils the problems with our human tendency to be overconfident in judging others. We view a nervous, shifty young man or woman as suspect, while being taken in by a charismatic, well-spoken and educated person. The only blot on my experience of reading this book was the chapter on sexual offenders. For some reason, the author feels the need to make excuses for those who believed Larry Nassar and turned a deaf ear to the young women he abused. This was not a default to truth as Gladwell calls it - it was avoiding hearing the truth because the truth was inconvenient and embarrassing.
I was hesitating between 1 and 2 stars, but the fact that some stories may be interesting to get to know does not excuse the epic amount of bullsh*t he writes to justify and "benignfy" some absolutely outrageous events.
hopeful
informative
fast-paced
Been attempting to finish this for over a year. I got the audiobook from the library in one final attempt.
Humans move through the world playing an elaborate game of telephone ... and we're not good at it.
That's basically what Gladwell took 350 pages to tell me. The first few chapters had a hook, I thought he was going somewhere but it was just repetition. No deeper explanations, no attempt at light pop-sci even. The theory that humans "default to truth" was his "explanation" for every miscommunication from friendly mix-ups to unreported pedophilia.
I did skim, but listened fully to his conclusion and it was no more illuminating than his introduction.
Humans move through the world playing an elaborate game of telephone ... and we're not good at it.
That's basically what Gladwell took 350 pages to tell me. The first few chapters had a hook, I thought he was going somewhere but it was just repetition. No deeper explanations, no attempt at light pop-sci even. The theory that humans "default to truth" was his "explanation" for every miscommunication from friendly mix-ups to unreported pedophilia.
I did skim, but listened fully to his conclusion and it was no more illuminating than his introduction.
Es curioso cómo un reseña bien hecha puede hacer que te intereses por el libro más inesperado. Y es así cómo me interesé por este curioso ensayo que, en principio, se sale de mi círculo de interés. Y es que Nacho hablaba tan bien sobre él que no pude dejarlo escapar.
¿Qué ocurre en una sociedad donde no se sabe hablar con extraños? Pues ocurren varios casos que el autor analiza en su libro. Casos con trágicas consecuencias en algunos de ellos. Y es que hablar, o más aún, entender a personas extrañas no es fácil y cuando no se produce esa comprensión, cuando se produce un fallo de comunicación o entendimiento, las consecuencias pueden ser trágicas.
Y así el autor nos habla de la tendencia que tenemos el ser humano de creer lo que nos cuentan, en eso que llama el sesgo de veracidad. Asimismo habla de las apariencias, o más bien, las falsas apariencias y cómo estas nos llevan a creer lo que no es. O del acoplamiento que nos lleva a generalizar.
Me ha parecido un ensayo muy, muy interesante, que me ha dado mucho qué pensar. Realmente recomendable.
Me quedo con esta reflexión final: "Suponer lo mejor de los demás es el rasgo que ha alumbrado la sociedad moderna. Las ocasiones en que se viola nuestra naturaleza confiada son trágicas. Pero la alternativa —el abandono de la confianza en el otro como defensa contra la depredación y el engaño— es peor."
¿Qué ocurre en una sociedad donde no se sabe hablar con extraños? Pues ocurren varios casos que el autor analiza en su libro. Casos con trágicas consecuencias en algunos de ellos. Y es que hablar, o más aún, entender a personas extrañas no es fácil y cuando no se produce esa comprensión, cuando se produce un fallo de comunicación o entendimiento, las consecuencias pueden ser trágicas.
Y así el autor nos habla de la tendencia que tenemos el ser humano de creer lo que nos cuentan, en eso que llama el sesgo de veracidad. Asimismo habla de las apariencias, o más bien, las falsas apariencias y cómo estas nos llevan a creer lo que no es. O del acoplamiento que nos lleva a generalizar.
Me ha parecido un ensayo muy, muy interesante, que me ha dado mucho qué pensar. Realmente recomendable.
Me quedo con esta reflexión final: "Suponer lo mejor de los demás es el rasgo que ha alumbrado la sociedad moderna. Las ocasiones en que se viola nuestra naturaleza confiada son trágicas. Pero la alternativa —el abandono de la confianza en el otro como defensa contra la depredación y el engaño— es peor."
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
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.