Take a photo of a barcode or cover
5.5k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
5.5k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
After taking some time off from Gladwell's style of pop psychology, I'd heard the Revisionist History podcast and went for this book via audio. The use of Janelle Monae for interludes kept me invested, and the line of reasoning comes together in a compelling manner of pushing a reader's thinking about Sandra Bland and similar police injustice.
Author tried to present systemic biases as human nature. When presented with cases of a man vs. a woman, a white person vs a non-white person, an adult versus a child, your leaning toward believing the former is not some innate barrier of disbelief, of believing that people default to the truth, it is your bias that the former are less trustworthy, that they lie, whether you're aware of it or not. Weird pop sociology that clearly mirrors author's place in the world.
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
In a confusing attempt to explain how we interact with and respond to strangers, Gladwell oversimplifies and ignores history (and morality) in order to capitalise on court cases with large media attention to sell copies of his book "Talking to Strangers".
Gladwell ignores racism, sexism, classism and many other factors in his determination of how we react to strangers. He suggests sexual assault (specifically in the case of the People vs Brock Turner) is the result of alcohol consumption leading to miscommunication and misunderstanding. Verging on victim blaming, he empathises with rapists saying those who are blind drunk are "at the mercy of their environment". Furthermore, perhaps even more outrageously, he attributes the death of Sandra Bland again to a miscommunication instead of the blatant systemic racism that lead to her death. Gladwell does nothing to recognise the prejudices that define how our societies view other people, and to me personally, that seems like a significant factor.
There is little logic behind many of Gladwell's theory and he struggles to offer anything worthwhile or any direction. The height of Gladwell's discussion is demonstrated in the quote “Maybe real life isn’t like Friends,” referring to the TV show. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this is not a ground breaking discovery.
In my frustration and anger, I forced myself to the finish the book in the hope of some thoughtful analysis to redeem the chapters of rapist, racist and paedophile sympathising, but sadly this never came. I would not recommend this book unless you are in the mood to be infuriated by lack of insight and erroneous opinions.
Gladwell ignores racism, sexism, classism and many other factors in his determination of how we react to strangers. He suggests sexual assault (specifically in the case of the People vs Brock Turner) is the result of alcohol consumption leading to miscommunication and misunderstanding. Verging on victim blaming, he empathises with rapists saying those who are blind drunk are "at the mercy of their environment". Furthermore, perhaps even more outrageously, he attributes the death of Sandra Bland again to a miscommunication instead of the blatant systemic racism that lead to her death. Gladwell does nothing to recognise the prejudices that define how our societies view other people, and to me personally, that seems like a significant factor.
There is little logic behind many of Gladwell's theory and he struggles to offer anything worthwhile or any direction. The height of Gladwell's discussion is demonstrated in the quote “Maybe real life isn’t like Friends,” referring to the TV show. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this is not a ground breaking discovery.
In my frustration and anger, I forced myself to the finish the book in the hope of some thoughtful analysis to redeem the chapters of rapist, racist and paedophile sympathising, but sadly this never came. I would not recommend this book unless you are in the mood to be infuriated by lack of insight and erroneous opinions.
I’ve enjoyed some of Gladwell’s other books in the past but this one disappointed me. While it was informative in some ways and introduced some interesting concepts, overall I felt it simplified and overlooked aspects of human interactions. There were a few different things that frustrated me but the following were what bothered me the most (especially considering this book was written in 2019):
Presenting facial expressions as being universal and the facf that they’re perceived differently as shocking. This felt to be a very narrow point of view that forgets that different cultures have different standards Presenting cases such as Sandra Bland’s and Brock Turner’s as mere “interactions with strangers gone wrong” while glossing over elements such as racism in police brutality and misogyny in violence against women which played large parts in these “interactions” Believing the best in people is not a crime. But in instances such as the Sandusky case and Brock Turner case, we SHOULD be believing victims. Yes, there are some false accusations, but like Gladwell says we default to truth for a reason so we should do that for survivors and not just the perpetrators. Also, we know that sexual assault and abuse are traumatic experiences that affect people’s memory and emotions so it shouldn’t be surprising when victims recount their experiences with conflicting details or attitudes towards their assaulters
Overall I don’t think this book provided any revolutionary new insights or ideas. Talking with strangers is difficult and complicated because we all have different life experiences, attitudes, and motivations.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Police brutality
I want to say that this is a book everyone should read because I found so much of it enlightening and fascinating and giving insight into our interactions with others. I was really floored by the connections he draws between our tendency to believe people, transparency, and coupling. Many of his examples were eye-opening and the audio book was fun to listen to. However... (TW discussion of sexual assault.)
However, Gladwell's repeated use of of sexual assault cases as case studies left me with a bad taste in my mouth. They are invariably cases that have significant grey areas, and that is why they are interesting--they situations where people have to determine who to believe and why. Gladwell's interest in probing those grey areas is, I think, good. But the book's ultimate conclusion that believing the best in people is a good, necessary human trait, when applied to the sexual assault cases can just as easily be read as an excuse to not "believe women," as the slogan goes. He fails to mention how alcohol, drugs, and other factors are not merely part of many sexual assault cases but are in fact intentional factors that assaulters have either created or taken advantage of. I think Gladwell ends up focusing on potential miscommunications (i.e. how can two very drunk people possibly navigate a hypersexualized college party and the expectations of consent) to the exclusion of the fact that a sexual assault is laced with power dynamics and often intentional predatory behavior.
It's interesting that Gladwell chooses not to address these power dynamics and predatory behavior, because I think similar power dynamics could be found in the primary focus of his book, the police stop that led to Sandra Bland's death. It seems to me that humans don't merely believe the best in all people, rather we first believe the best in the people in our "group" or "tribe." I have no studies to back my assumption, but I think of the college professor who first believes the best in her coworker accused of sexual assault, the police officer or prosecutor who first believes the best in her fellow officer. In that case, it does not seem so cut and dried that believing the best in people is good, unless it is believing the best in all people.
Spoiler
However, Gladwell's repeated use of of sexual assault cases as case studies left me with a bad taste in my mouth. They are invariably cases that have significant grey areas, and that is why they are interesting--they situations where people have to determine who to believe and why. Gladwell's interest in probing those grey areas is, I think, good. But the book's ultimate conclusion that believing the best in people is a good, necessary human trait, when applied to the sexual assault cases can just as easily be read as an excuse to not "believe women," as the slogan goes. He fails to mention how alcohol, drugs, and other factors are not merely part of many sexual assault cases but are in fact intentional factors that assaulters have either created or taken advantage of. I think Gladwell ends up focusing on potential miscommunications (i.e. how can two very drunk people possibly navigate a hypersexualized college party and the expectations of consent) to the exclusion of the fact that a sexual assault is laced with power dynamics and often intentional predatory behavior.
It's interesting that Gladwell chooses not to address these power dynamics and predatory behavior, because I think similar power dynamics could be found in the primary focus of his book, the police stop that led to Sandra Bland's death. It seems to me that humans don't merely believe the best in all people, rather we first believe the best in the people in our "group" or "tribe." I have no studies to back my assumption, but I think of the college professor who first believes the best in her coworker accused of sexual assault, the police officer or prosecutor who first believes the best in her fellow officer. In that case, it does not seem so cut and dried that believing the best in people is good, unless it is believing the best in all people.
informative
lighthearted
medium-paced
This is an overall decent work of nonfiction that is not aptly titled. While its title may hint that this is a book about communication or the psychology of communication with strangers, it really is just a collection of stories that are vaguely related by a fuzzy notion of "strangers". Gladwell does a good job of transmitting his message and explaining the concepts behind it. He uses a variety of examples that range from the comical to the tragic. In terms of the positives, I can say that this is a book that is highly engaging, well-written, easy to read, with an interesting topic.
Where this book falters is in its message. When discussing strangers, Gladwell wants to make it clear that as humans, we make certain assumptions that may be harmful in some situations. We have the default-to-truth phenomenon, the assumption of transparency, and coupling as some of the major phenomena. These are all true phenomena that occur in many everyday contexts. Gladwell starts off by telling the story of Sandra Bland, then shifts away to all the other stories, allowing himself time to explain the various phenomena that occur when we interact with strangers before returning to explain what happened with Sandra Bland. In a way, the whole book exists to explain what happened in that interaction between Bland and the police officer. This is why I find the omission of any discussion of implicit bias shocking. While Gladwell does touch upon the fact that in policing, Black individuals are searched and arrested at higher rates than white individuals, he does so in a footnote without trying to even understand why that happens. In interacting with strangers, we absolutely make assumptions based on their appearance and what we know from cultural stereotypes. This is part of why Black people are overpoliced as internalized racism leads police officers (even those who may believe themselves to be without prejudice) to profile POCs. When he talks about how people assume transparency, Gladwell makes an important point: we believe that we can judge someone's internal state or emotions by how they look. It's surprising that Gladwell does not also make the point that we believe we can judge someone's behaviour based on their appearance. When discussing the debate regarding Sandra Bland's case, the author argues that most people are missing the forest for the trees, that people are looking too small when trying to understand what happened by looking through the framework of racism in policing. But in reality, it is Gladwell who is missing a key detail in human psychology.
What I fear the most with popular nonfiction books such as this one is that they lend a sort of authority to people who read it and who share its flawed arguments. It must be true because I read it in a book! But reality is more complex than Gladwell makes it out to be and the interaction between Bland and the police officer was absolutely conditioned by socio-cultural stereotypes and profiling. Sure, the assumption of transparency and the officer's mental framework of rejecting the default-to-truth setting played a role in this interaction. But so did racism among other biases. Overall, this book is a fun read but it does send a very flawed message and for that, I must deduct some points.
Where this book falters is in its message. When discussing strangers, Gladwell wants to make it clear that as humans, we make certain assumptions that may be harmful in some situations. We have the default-to-truth phenomenon, the assumption of transparency, and coupling as some of the major phenomena. These are all true phenomena that occur in many everyday contexts. Gladwell starts off by telling the story of Sandra Bland, then shifts away to all the other stories, allowing himself time to explain the various phenomena that occur when we interact with strangers before returning to explain what happened with Sandra Bland. In a way, the whole book exists to explain what happened in that interaction between Bland and the police officer. This is why I find the omission of any discussion of implicit bias shocking. While Gladwell does touch upon the fact that in policing, Black individuals are searched and arrested at higher rates than white individuals, he does so in a footnote without trying to even understand why that happens. In interacting with strangers, we absolutely make assumptions based on their appearance and what we know from cultural stereotypes. This is part of why Black people are overpoliced as internalized racism leads police officers (even those who may believe themselves to be without prejudice) to profile POCs. When he talks about how people assume transparency, Gladwell makes an important point: we believe that we can judge someone's internal state or emotions by how they look. It's surprising that Gladwell does not also make the point that we believe we can judge someone's behaviour based on their appearance. When discussing the debate regarding Sandra Bland's case, the author argues that most people are missing the forest for the trees, that people are looking too small when trying to understand what happened by looking through the framework of racism in policing. But in reality, it is Gladwell who is missing a key detail in human psychology.
What I fear the most with popular nonfiction books such as this one is that they lend a sort of authority to people who read it and who share its flawed arguments. It must be true because I read it in a book! But reality is more complex than Gladwell makes it out to be and the interaction between Bland and the police officer was absolutely conditioned by socio-cultural stereotypes and profiling. Sure, the assumption of transparency and the officer's mental framework of rejecting the default-to-truth setting played a role in this interaction. But so did racism among other biases. Overall, this book is a fun read but it does send a very flawed message and for that, I must deduct some points.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
This book is very triggering for anyone sensitive to child abuse, suicide, racial profiling, wrongful convictions, and murder. I appreciated the deep look into our human society but this book left me with more uneasy questions. Maybe that was the intent. It's OK to be uncomfortable.
The enhanced audiobook gave a documentary feel because Gladwell brought in actors to read transcripts or shared actual audio footage if it existed. I liked hearing the real words from the real people saying them.
The enhanced audiobook gave a documentary feel because Gladwell brought in actors to read transcripts or shared actual audio footage if it existed. I liked hearing the real words from the real people saying them.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Mental illness, Racism, Suicide, Police brutality, Murder