You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
5.53k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
5.53k reviews for:
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know
Malcolm Gladwell
3.83 AVERAGE
A fascinating read that helps us understand the factors that contribute to the judgements we make of those we don’t know. I highly recommend the audio book. It is produced more like a podcast.
challenging
dark
fast-paced
Has nothing to do with talking to strangers. Is confusing if you do not read it quickly. I read the first few chapters and set the book aside for a month or two. When I returned I was extremely confused. The information he gives to make his case is presented all over the place. It’s not very coherent.
I don’t know if I really agree with his overall premise.
Would not recommend.
I don’t know if I really agree with his overall premise.
Would not recommend.
I did not finish the book. When discussing the Brock Turner rape case, he asserts that alcohol creates a feeling of myopia, that the reason Turner raped her was because the alcohol Turner consumed rendered him incapable of reading her messages, and also that her messages were mixed due to her own myopia. Gladwell then extrapolates out that of course unfortunate situations happen.
He never explains why some men rape when they’re drunk but others don’t or why women very rarely do, or why women or color are assaulted at a higher rate then white women. Surely he isn’t intimating that women of color are more myoptic when drunk... mayyyybe rape is about social capital, privilege, and power? On this he is silent.
And what the hell is this line: “The outcome of People v. Brock Turner brought a measure of justice to Emily Doe.” The whole controversy was regarding the light sentence!
I gave up while reading about water boarding, before I got to Sandra Bland’s arrest and death. Just couldn’t do it.
He never explains why some men rape when they’re drunk but others don’t or why women very rarely do, or why women or color are assaulted at a higher rate then white women. Surely he isn’t intimating that women of color are more myoptic when drunk... mayyyybe rape is about social capital, privilege, and power? On this he is silent.
And what the hell is this line: “The outcome of People v. Brock Turner brought a measure of justice to Emily Doe.” The whole controversy was regarding the light sentence!
I gave up while reading about water boarding, before I got to Sandra Bland’s arrest and death. Just couldn’t do it.
I enjoyed this thought-provoking book immensely. I especially liked the audio format with real/enacted audio clips played throughout. I don't agree with everything he said, particularly the part about Brock Turner's rape being a "tragic misunderstanding," but most of his case studies and examples were well-connected and contributed well to the overall theme being portrayed. The first few were quite long explanations about the context just to convey a pretty simple idea. I had to relisten to a few of the ones about cuba because of the convoluted double agent stories, but the intent was clear: people, even those trained in counter-intelligence, are really bad at telling when other people are lying. The book was wrapped up well at the end and I definitely recommend that most people read this book. It doesn't have any groundbreaking insights, but it does make you think and be more aware of your interactions with others, which I think is the intent.
I enjoyed this book and like all Malcolm Gladwell books I had a few "A Ha" moments based on his insight. I feel more aware and well informed about how human behavior makes unpredictable outcomes seem less mysterious.
This book starts out with a story of a traffic stop gone awry and then it subsequently breaks down the human behaviors of default to truth, transparency, and coupling meant to make sense of the tragic outcome. While the structure of the book is straightforward it's easy to get lost in the anecdotes and wonder, "wait how does this connect to the traffic stop?" However, each anecdote explaining the human behaviors is interesting in its own right so it is easy to move past it. I will say he chooses some very dark topics such as child abuse, torture, and suicide and I wasn't always excited to pick this book up again. In the end, Malcolm Gladwell wraps it up nicely, but I keep wondering how he could have kept everything more connected.
I also am curious to go back and read Blink. Some of the topics like default to truth seem to fit with Blink's thesis, but I wonder if the concept of transparency is the exact opposite of the Blink theory. Things to think about.
This book starts out with a story of a traffic stop gone awry and then it subsequently breaks down the human behaviors of default to truth, transparency, and coupling meant to make sense of the tragic outcome. While the structure of the book is straightforward it's easy to get lost in the anecdotes and wonder, "wait how does this connect to the traffic stop?" However, each anecdote explaining the human behaviors is interesting in its own right so it is easy to move past it. I will say he chooses some very dark topics such as child abuse, torture, and suicide and I wasn't always excited to pick this book up again. In the end, Malcolm Gladwell wraps it up nicely, but I keep wondering how he could have kept everything more connected.
I also am curious to go back and read Blink. Some of the topics like default to truth seem to fit with Blink's thesis, but I wonder if the concept of transparency is the exact opposite of the Blink theory. Things to think about.
I like Malcom Gladwell and most everything he writes and his podcast. This did not disappoint. Very interesting perspective. Abrupt ending made me want more. But I think that’s part of the point, actually. Definitely food for thought and a good read.
There is not as strong a thesis here as in some of this other books; it feels like unrelated anecdotes strung together. But all the anecdotes are interesting. The chapter on campus sexual assault felt clunky and poorly thought out. The chapter on police brutality, centered on the death in custody of Sandra Bland, may have under-rated racism as a factor but its exploration of how police training leads them into inefficient and unnecessarily adversarial traffic stops that then have the potential to escalate fills in a piece of the puzzle that isn't getting much media attention.
And Gladwell is an engaging storyteller with a very listen-able voice, and I enjoyed the format of using his interview tapes rather than himself reading what other people said, and even of having court transcripts read by actors. Very immersive.
And Gladwell is an engaging storyteller with a very listen-able voice, and I enjoyed the format of using his interview tapes rather than himself reading what other people said, and even of having court transcripts read by actors. Very immersive.
medium-paced
Some parts are interesting but there are a few case studies like Bland/Sandusky/Nassar/Turner where Gladwell over generalizes them and sums up that basically these things happen or weren’t caught soon enough because of what he calls “humans default to truth” and inability to read body language correctly. This completely ignores systemic sexism, racism, and classism which drastically determined how all of these cases were processed and how/when someone finally stepped in to investigate/prosecute them. In the Nassar case alone many of the girls parents struggled to believe THEIR OWN DAUGHTERS simply because they were young girls. Society undermines and discounts the word of women especially young girls! In the death of Sandra Bland she had racism and sexism stacked against her and was instantly profiled by the cop because he felt she wasn’t human and he could treat her with cruelty! Gladwell does not address these deep deep systemic issues and cruelties or really even consider them as reasons for why these cases were handled so poorly and why these horrible crimes (though Gladwell often implies a tone that they’re “misunderstandings”) happen in the first place.
Here is an example, at one point Gladwell quotes that young men are getting a distorted message that drinking excess is a harmless social exercise but the real message should be when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself you drastically increase the chances you’ll commit a sexual crime. He states he isn’t saying alcohol is an excuse but the conclusion he draws from the given antidotes largely reaffirms that he does believe alcohol is an excuse. In the cited study students were asked what measures would be most effective in reducing sexual assault. The responses were harsher punishment, self defense, teaching men to respect women, with only a small amount saying it would be effective if they drank less. Gladwell says these students hold contradictory positions because in most campus sexual assault cases the man is drunk, so for instance women thinking men should respect them more is not an issue when said dude is sober only when drunk and have been transformed by alcohol. Thus, the solution is to teach men to respect women AND drink less. Gladwell tries to be like oh here is my caveat statement “i don't think alcohol is an excuse” then just doubles down on giving men the excuse that alcohol is the problem in his summations of the evidence he presents. He’s doing a lot of subverting/distorting of the studies and quotes to make his flawed point seem valid. To make it worse he even has a quote from the book Know My Name where Chanel Miller says word for word its not an alcohol issue its a respect/societal issue with how men view women. He read that quote and then came up with the conclusion its still alcohol’s fault 🫣I would argue these men would do it sober or drunk. Alcohol doesn’t change whether a man is a sexual predator or not. What would change it (to just begin) is very harsh punishments and not spinning the narrative that men have power/control over women and that we are subhuman to them—looking at you christianity! So what Gladwell effectively does in chapter 8 is reaffirm that if a man is drunk the alcohol is to blame for him committing sexual assault all while undermining Chanel Miller.
Gladwell says repeatedly the world is a pretty honest place and most people are telling the truth which stems from his whole default to truth theory. Yet I would ask is it? Is the world pretty honest? because in the west, especially, the foundation of many societies are built on the backs of slaves and the theft of indigenous land, yet people go to great lengths to conceal that truth. Laws and even layouts of cities and suburbs (read Color Law to learn more) are directly based on marginalization. I don’t buy the whole theory behind this book and don’t think Gladwell gave sufficient evidence or connected dots in such a way to prove his theory. I guess if you suspend knowledge of critical societal issues and just boil it down to our inability to accurately interpret the behavior and intentions of strangers can lead to dangerous outcomes then…yeah sure maybe it makes sense 🧐🤨. But I think in many of these cases, especially Bland’s, the handling and outcome stems from an inherent lack of empathy for the victims because they are deemed the “other,” the deep rooted culture of placing individual wants over the communal needs which allows people to justify cruelty to get what they want, and the sick display of superiority that results from privilege or ones perceived notion that they are…all leading to the world being a pretty dishonest and selfish place.
The massive over generalizations Gladwell makes minimizes crimes of rape, assault, and racism. After writing this all down I’m thinking it it should probably get negative stars!
Here is an example, at one point Gladwell quotes that young men are getting a distorted message that drinking excess is a harmless social exercise but the real message should be when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself you drastically increase the chances you’ll commit a sexual crime. He states he isn’t saying alcohol is an excuse but the conclusion he draws from the given antidotes largely reaffirms that he does believe alcohol is an excuse. In the cited study students were asked what measures would be most effective in reducing sexual assault. The responses were harsher punishment, self defense, teaching men to respect women, with only a small amount saying it would be effective if they drank less. Gladwell says these students hold contradictory positions because in most campus sexual assault cases the man is drunk, so for instance women thinking men should respect them more is not an issue when said dude is sober only when drunk and have been transformed by alcohol. Thus, the solution is to teach men to respect women AND drink less. Gladwell tries to be like oh here is my caveat statement “i don't think alcohol is an excuse” then just doubles down on giving men the excuse that alcohol is the problem in his summations of the evidence he presents. He’s doing a lot of subverting/distorting of the studies and quotes to make his flawed point seem valid. To make it worse he even has a quote from the book Know My Name where Chanel Miller says word for word its not an alcohol issue its a respect/societal issue with how men view women. He read that quote and then came up with the conclusion its still alcohol’s fault 🫣I would argue these men would do it sober or drunk. Alcohol doesn’t change whether a man is a sexual predator or not. What would change it (to just begin) is very harsh punishments and not spinning the narrative that men have power/control over women and that we are subhuman to them—looking at you christianity! So what Gladwell effectively does in chapter 8 is reaffirm that if a man is drunk the alcohol is to blame for him committing sexual assault all while undermining Chanel Miller.
Gladwell says repeatedly the world is a pretty honest place and most people are telling the truth which stems from his whole default to truth theory. Yet I would ask is it? Is the world pretty honest? because in the west, especially, the foundation of many societies are built on the backs of slaves and the theft of indigenous land, yet people go to great lengths to conceal that truth. Laws and even layouts of cities and suburbs (read Color Law to learn more) are directly based on marginalization. I don’t buy the whole theory behind this book and don’t think Gladwell gave sufficient evidence or connected dots in such a way to prove his theory. I guess if you suspend knowledge of critical societal issues and just boil it down to our inability to accurately interpret the behavior and intentions of strangers can lead to dangerous outcomes then…yeah sure maybe it makes sense 🧐🤨. But I think in many of these cases, especially Bland’s, the handling and outcome stems from an inherent lack of empathy for the victims because they are deemed the “other,” the deep rooted culture of placing individual wants over the communal needs which allows people to justify cruelty to get what they want, and the sick display of superiority that results from privilege or ones perceived notion that they are…all leading to the world being a pretty dishonest and selfish place.
The massive over generalizations Gladwell makes minimizes crimes of rape, assault, and racism. After writing this all down I’m thinking it it should probably get negative stars!