Take a photo of a barcode or cover
5.46k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
5.46k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
Parts of this book are fine but the parts that are bad are so bad that they ruined the whole thing. There are plenty of other reviews that detail the problems with this book so I won't go into all the examples. Overall, though, there are some really terrible and lazy arguments in this book. Saying the parents of Larry Nassar's victims as as complacent as Graham Spanier because they both had suspicions they didn't act on? Are you kidding? The parents' top priority is their children. Raising unsubstantiated suspicions could endanger their children's careers on the US Olympic Team. Again: their top priority is to their children- saying something negative about Nassar without any kind of proof, and having their child suffer retaliation, probably seemed like an untenable risk. Spanier, on the other hand, had a responsibility to ensure things were ok at his university. He was RESPONSIBLE for what was going on at Penn State; he was responsible for his employees. The parents of the gymnastic team had no authority. Another example: the argument that women are partially culpable for what happens to them when they drink because their ability to judge good vs. bad intentions is impaired. Did we not just go through a substantial portion of the book detailing how top CIA agents were fooled by spies? Did we not go through numerous examples of how judges are no better than random chance at evaluating flight risk during bail hearings? This statement is in direct contradiction to the point he makes in the front half of his book. How about instead, then, men who can no longer control themselves when they drink are the ones who should abstain from alcohol? This book was extremely reductionistic in a lot of arguments. It did not consider tons of social factors that play into our every day experiences. By reducing everything to his central theme of "default to truth", "transparency theory", and so on, he's taking a lazy, reductionistic view of the world that honestly I'm quite disappointed in.
Overall, Talking to Strangers is an interesting read, but I’m not entirely sure the author succeeds in wrapping everything up convincingly.
The central premise that many public disasters stem from misunderstandings between strangers is compelling. Gladwell weaves together studies, stories, and tragedies to show how we misread people who don’t conform to our expectations. But at times, I struggled with the way he framed some of these events. There are examples I just don’t agree with, particularly when he treats them as simple communication failures.
For instance, I don’t think it works to draw a parallel between the police officer who pulled over Sandra Bland and Neville Chamberlain misreading Hitler. That feels like an oversimplification of two very different and deeply serious events. Similarly, his framing of the Stanford rape case as a misunderstanding is not only off-putting, it’s infuriating. Brock Turner is not misunderstood, he's a predator. That section really undermined his argument for me. Same goes for the coaches and foster carers who sexually assaulted people in their care. These are not misunderstandings. These are abuses of power.
That said, the book does have moments of genuine insight. The section on alcohol and how different cultures experience drinking was fascinating. It made me reflect on my own choices. I'm glad I no longer drink and it’s something I’ll absolutely talk to my kids about as they grow up. There’s a strong message in there about how context and environment shape behaviour.
I also found the Sylvia Plath section striking. I had been recommended the book for that reason, and the idea that simply changing London’s gas fittings led to a massive drop in suicides really stuck with me. Poets, as it turns out, do die young. Something I hadn’t realised was such a trend.
And then, out of nowhere, those Cuban spies. Mind blown. I absolutely want to read more about that.
In the end, Gladwell leaves us with a reminder that’s not new but still worth repeating: people are more complex than they seem. Some are just awkward, some act outside of social norms, and some are genuinely dangerous. It’s not always easy to tell which is which. We should be cautious about jumping to conclusions and yet, we should also be clear-eyed about the fact that not everything is a misunderstanding.
One last unexpected takeaway: this book got me thinking seriously about criminology. With my background in data, maybe that’s a direction worth exploring.
The central premise that many public disasters stem from misunderstandings between strangers is compelling. Gladwell weaves together studies, stories, and tragedies to show how we misread people who don’t conform to our expectations. But at times, I struggled with the way he framed some of these events. There are examples I just don’t agree with, particularly when he treats them as simple communication failures.
For instance, I don’t think it works to draw a parallel between the police officer who pulled over Sandra Bland and Neville Chamberlain misreading Hitler. That feels like an oversimplification of two very different and deeply serious events. Similarly, his framing of the Stanford rape case as a misunderstanding is not only off-putting, it’s infuriating. Brock Turner is not misunderstood, he's a predator. That section really undermined his argument for me. Same goes for the coaches and foster carers who sexually assaulted people in their care. These are not misunderstandings. These are abuses of power.
That said, the book does have moments of genuine insight. The section on alcohol and how different cultures experience drinking was fascinating. It made me reflect on my own choices. I'm glad I no longer drink and it’s something I’ll absolutely talk to my kids about as they grow up. There’s a strong message in there about how context and environment shape behaviour.
I also found the Sylvia Plath section striking. I had been recommended the book for that reason, and the idea that simply changing London’s gas fittings led to a massive drop in suicides really stuck with me. Poets, as it turns out, do die young. Something I hadn’t realised was such a trend.
And then, out of nowhere, those Cuban spies. Mind blown. I absolutely want to read more about that.
In the end, Gladwell leaves us with a reminder that’s not new but still worth repeating: people are more complex than they seem. Some are just awkward, some act outside of social norms, and some are genuinely dangerous. It’s not always easy to tell which is which. We should be cautious about jumping to conclusions and yet, we should also be clear-eyed about the fact that not everything is a misunderstanding.
One last unexpected takeaway: this book got me thinking seriously about criminology. With my background in data, maybe that’s a direction worth exploring.
Oy boy. This was my first Malcom Gladwell book and I probably won’t read another. I have so many complaints I’m just gonna list a few.
“Default to Truth” is just not a theory that holds up in all situations or from both sides and I find it a really weird concept to tie into something like sexual assault. Talking about policing in a similar light just feels so wrong and the author provides no evidence for anything.
I don’t like pop science books because they tend to make vast huge claims and then provide no evidence for those claims or base them off a single study. Sexual assault would be reduced if drinking was while providing zero sources or evidence?
I loved the conclusion that Plath wouldn’t have killed herself if gas ovens didn’t exist. I found the whole coupling chapter dumb.
At least some of the stories were interesting.
“Default to Truth” is just not a theory that holds up in all situations or from both sides and I find it a really weird concept to tie into something like sexual assault. Talking about policing in a similar light just feels so wrong and the author provides no evidence for anything.
I don’t like pop science books because they tend to make vast huge claims and then provide no evidence for those claims or base them off a single study. Sexual assault would be reduced if drinking was while providing zero sources or evidence?
I loved the conclusion that Plath wouldn’t have killed herself if gas ovens didn’t exist. I found the whole coupling chapter dumb.
At least some of the stories were interesting.
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
I think it’s missing some nuance when addressing stories where social conditioning around race and gender are very prevalent, but nonetheless a very compelling and insightful read into how we interact and make assumptions about those we don’t know
I always read his books. This one was just ok. Not my favorite by a long shot. But there is always enough to reel you in. The part about the SERE's training was very interesting.
4.5 stars.
Excellent book. I listened to the audiobook, which I would highly recommend. It contained the actual audio of interviews and for the dash cam for one of the examples discussed. This greatly enhanced the content of the book.
Excellent book. I listened to the audiobook, which I would highly recommend. It contained the actual audio of interviews and for the dash cam for one of the examples discussed. This greatly enhanced the content of the book.
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Fantastic stories of misinterpretation. Everything from Hitler to Sandra Bland. Loved it!
Not sure how this is my first Gladwell book. Really interesting and timely. One I think I will visit again to really understand his points. Audio was fantastic.
A bunch of neat case studies people should know. I didn't feel they were as cohesive as he thought he made them. Still no real prognosis from the thoughts- just things aren't always what you think.
One point that annoyed me, was the Stanford rapist chapter. I'm wondering if it would have been different if he read Know My Name. It came out the same month, so he maybe didn't have that extra information. Or maybe that extra information directly from her would make a bias, as his book shows, not sure. One thing, he kind of uses alcohol as an excuse, but what really annoyed me was he quoted from her victim statement, but did not include the passage where she says alcohol is not the excuse, other people at the party were drunk and they didn't rape her. I felt not speaking to this specific statement was a complete cop out given the chapter's willingness to say alcohol makes people act differently. Though at least he noted that what Brock told police that night and what he testified to was completely different.
One point that annoyed me, was the Stanford rapist chapter. I'm wondering if it would have been different if he read Know My Name. It came out the same month, so he maybe didn't have that extra information. Or maybe that extra information directly from her would make a bias, as his book shows, not sure. One thing, he kind of uses alcohol as an excuse, but what really annoyed me was he quoted from her victim statement, but did not include the passage where she says alcohol is not the excuse, other people at the party were drunk and they didn't rape her. I felt not speaking to this specific statement was a complete cop out given the chapter's willingness to say alcohol makes people act differently. Though at least he noted that what Brock told police that night and what he testified to was completely different.