Scan barcode
flickflickcity's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
fast-paced
4.0
Minor-ish spoilers?
I will note I did skip the Chanel Miller chapter because I didn’t think I could handle it spoken about at length - so I’ll have to defer to other experiences RE: that chapter but please note I didn’t read that chapter in full when reading the following.
I’ve read a lot of reviews that have been highly critical for Gladwell’s “reductive” and/or “victim blaming” approach around heinous crimes. From the parts I read, I feel like that summary could be perhaps be in bad faith. Understandable because this book contains a lot of heavy themes and even for me with the Chanel chapter… I knew I’d not be able to take anything in in a measured way because I feel so emotional about the case. In other chapters I was brought to tears over simple case facts being recalled - so it certainly took a lot of effort to look past my impulse to be enraged we were seeking to ‘understand’ varying parties with varying guilt (from perpetrators to bystanders), but I did my best and here are some initial thoughts. Certainly this book’s theory reduces social/cultural phenomena in a sense - but does so necessarily to try and find a productive way of explaining the roots of our misunderstandings, and in that provides a useful prompt for us moving forward. I felt that rather than achieving breadth, it achieved an actionable impetus for me moving forward. No, my gut response is not to let parents that disbelieve children about abuse off the hook, but I also thought about a similar responses to other reported social infractions of lesser degrees and note that most people are guilty of not wanting to believe the difficult thing especially at first. (AKA “I heard your new friend is not very nice and betrays people’s trust” “ok thanks but I’ll figure that out for myself”) The point I take is that this is a human thing, but also something we can overcome personally (e.g. understand our impulse is to disbelieve deceit and malice and try to push against it where possible in order to learn the truth), and understand broadly (e.g. people may be resistant to things because it takes longer to process that someone is deceptive/awful). Do I think that it’s all good and dandy? No. But I don’t think Gladwell does either, he just wants us to notice it. As for the reductionist arguments regarding culture impacts, I keep thinking about the AI vs the judge example. He is just taking us through one theory, not expecting us to abandon other beliefs. But when ruminating on other considerations, the prompt seems to be for us to be critical about our own statistical inability to be fully accurate with our appraisals. Not that we are all wrong, but that people are more complex - more complex than even a steady understanding of cultural nuance can understand. Considering those factors is not invalid or a waste of time perhaps, it’s just not perfect or foolproof like we may feel it is. Of course, using stats about reoffending etc is an interesting data point given the cultural contexts that *cause* those stats… but again I think if anything this text has allowed me to think and articulate these contributing factors clearer and with more confidence because I am inherently going up against the argument that these complexities make me less accurate not more, and in that sense the book has encouraged me to interrogate and feel more certain in some patterns I see and debunk others.
Anyway, even if I/you don’t agree with all of these theories about coupling, transparency etc. - it’s certainly good for thought.
I will note I did skip the Chanel Miller chapter because I didn’t think I could handle it spoken about at length - so I’ll have to defer to other experiences RE: that chapter but please note I didn’t read that chapter in full when reading the following.
I’ve read a lot of reviews that have been highly critical for Gladwell’s “reductive” and/or “victim blaming” approach around heinous crimes. From the parts I read, I feel like that summary could be perhaps be in bad faith. Understandable because this book contains a lot of heavy themes and even for me with the Chanel chapter… I knew I’d not be able to take anything in in a measured way because I feel so emotional about the case. In other chapters I was brought to tears over simple case facts being recalled - so it certainly took a lot of effort to look past my impulse to be enraged we were seeking to ‘understand’ varying parties with varying guilt (from perpetrators to bystanders), but I did my best and here are some initial thoughts. Certainly this book’s theory reduces social/cultural phenomena in a sense - but does so necessarily to try and find a productive way of explaining the roots of our misunderstandings, and in that provides a useful prompt for us moving forward. I felt that rather than achieving breadth, it achieved an actionable impetus for me moving forward. No, my gut response is not to let parents that disbelieve children about abuse off the hook, but I also thought about a similar responses to other reported social infractions of lesser degrees and note that most people are guilty of not wanting to believe the difficult thing especially at first. (AKA “I heard your new friend is not very nice and betrays people’s trust” “ok thanks but I’ll figure that out for myself”) The point I take is that this is a human thing, but also something we can overcome personally (e.g. understand our impulse is to disbelieve deceit and malice and try to push against it where possible in order to learn the truth), and understand broadly (e.g. people may be resistant to things because it takes longer to process that someone is deceptive/awful). Do I think that it’s all good and dandy? No. But I don’t think Gladwell does either, he just wants us to notice it. As for the reductionist arguments regarding culture impacts, I keep thinking about the AI vs the judge example. He is just taking us through one theory, not expecting us to abandon other beliefs. But when ruminating on other considerations, the prompt seems to be for us to be critical about our own statistical inability to be fully accurate with our appraisals. Not that we are all wrong, but that people are more complex - more complex than even a steady understanding of cultural nuance can understand. Considering those factors is not invalid or a waste of time perhaps, it’s just not perfect or foolproof like we may feel it is. Of course, using stats about reoffending etc is an interesting data point given the cultural contexts that *cause* those stats… but again I think if anything this text has allowed me to think and articulate these contributing factors clearer and with more confidence because I am inherently going up against the argument that these complexities make me less accurate not more, and in that sense the book has encouraged me to interrogate and feel more certain in some patterns I see and debunk others.
Anyway, even if I/you don’t agree with all of these theories about coupling, transparency etc. - it’s certainly good for thought.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Suicide attempt, Child abuse, Police brutality, Racism, Physical abuse, War, Torture, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, and Sexual assault
saskiahill's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Death, Medical trauma, Racism, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Suicidal thoughts, Torture, Pedophilia, Police brutality, Violence, Self harm, Child abuse, Physical abuse, and Suicide
Moderate: Alcohol and Gun violence
mmestitches's review against another edition
0.25
Irresponsible at best. I feel like the point of this book was to humanize how people make terrible mistakes, but ultimately it reinforced the idea that keeping people with power emotionally comfortable is more important than protecting the lives of people without power.
I normally love Malcom Gladwell's work but this book was irresponsible as hell in how it discussed some high profile cases about sexual predators. He draws a parallel between victims of CSA being unable to understand they're being abused and grown ass adults allowing kids being raped as a result of their inability to handle some cognitive dissonance. I see this pattern of making victims of child abuse equally responsible to the adults committing or enabling the abuse, and it makes me want to scream. Gladwell went as far as to play a clip of a victim crying and pleading with her abuser to recognize the hurt he caused, and the purpose of this clip is to show how murky the facts can get in these cases as opposed to being used as a classic example of how a groomed and abused child grows into an adult who feels responsible for healing the person that abused them. These responses are not murky, they are well researched and understood, but holding people accountable for their actions is hard so Gladwell took a lazy, victim blaming approach. How disappointing.
I normally love Malcom Gladwell's work but this book was irresponsible as hell in how it discussed some high profile cases about sexual predators. He draws a parallel between victims of CSA being unable to understand they're being abused and grown ass adults allowing kids being raped as a result of their inability to handle some cognitive dissonance. I see this pattern of making victims of child abuse equally responsible to the adults committing or enabling the abuse, and it makes me want to scream. Gladwell went as far as to play a clip of a victim crying and pleading with her abuser to recognize the hurt he caused, and the purpose of this clip is to show how murky the facts can get in these cases as opposed to being used as a classic example of how a groomed and abused child grows into an adult who feels responsible for healing the person that abused them. These responses are not murky, they are well researched and understood, but holding people accountable for their actions is hard so Gladwell took a lazy, victim blaming approach. How disappointing.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual content, Adult/minor relationship, Sexual assault, Suicidal thoughts, Torture, Violence, Child abuse, Emotional abuse, Rape, Racism, Alcohol, Pedophilia, Police brutality, Sexism, Physical abuse, Sexual harassment, and Sexual violence
Not worth reading, spare yourselfsidekicksam's review against another edition
2.25
A re-read of a book I read back in 2020, after the pandemic caused both a lot of isolation and division. People were literally keeping their distance, interacting less with strangers, but the summer of '20 also had some very painful revelations and awakenings for the race and equality discussions.
Reading it again, I feel refreshed in the theories he outlines in the book. The 3 problems we have when encountering strangers (defaulting to the assumption that people can be trusted; thinking people's feelings always match their appearance and our inability to judge correctly whether someone is lying or the mismatch is happening; and that context is vital but also underappreciated) are a few that kept me curious, thinking and will stay with me in the back of my mind in encounters with strangers. Interesting food for thought and definitely contemplations that will stay with me.
That being said, I am uneasy with some of the examples Gladwell decided to explore to prove his points. I already had some question marks during my re-read, but after reading multiple 1-star reviews (which have gained 1,000+ likes) on the first page, I'm seriously reconsidering whether this book is good enough to be read on its own (without the accompanying guide/reviews to also challenge the examples given).
To use cases of rape and child molestation and trying to explain away the motives of witnesses or even instigators of the crimes is just... what? Why would you invalidate experiences of trauma instead of exploring the faulty assumptions on which we make errors (the cases of the Cuban spies in the CIA were much more compelling I think).
Example: Brock Turner raping a passed out drunk girl on campus is explained away by their (mutual) excessive drinking and misinterpeted signals - I have never had to explain to any of my boyfriends that no means no (and that if I don't wake up or respond that is also a big fucking NO).
Not taking the prejudice of race into consideration when discussing Sandra Bland's case, but explaining it away to miscommunication... especially with police brutality against Black people blowing up in the media in recent years, it's just harrowing.
I'm happy I don't just read books but also review them, because I may not have gotten further in my evaluation than 'whoo interesting material' without re-evaluating also the icky (and blatantly wrong) bits.
Read it at your own volition, but do heed my warning.
Reading it again, I feel refreshed in the theories he outlines in the book. The 3 problems we have when encountering strangers (defaulting to the assumption that people can be trusted; thinking people's feelings always match their appearance and our inability to judge correctly whether someone is lying or the mismatch is happening; and that context is vital but also underappreciated) are a few that kept me curious, thinking and will stay with me in the back of my mind in encounters with strangers. Interesting food for thought and definitely contemplations that will stay with me.
That being said, I am uneasy with some of the examples Gladwell decided to explore to prove his points. I already had some question marks during my re-read, but after reading multiple 1-star reviews (which have gained 1,000+ likes) on the first page, I'm seriously reconsidering whether this book is good enough to be read on its own (without the accompanying guide/reviews to also challenge the examples given).
To use cases of rape and child molestation and trying to explain away the motives of witnesses or even instigators of the crimes is just... what? Why would you invalidate experiences of trauma instead of exploring the faulty assumptions on which we make errors (the cases of the Cuban spies in the CIA were much more compelling I think).
Example: Brock Turner raping a passed out drunk girl on campus is explained away by their (mutual) excessive drinking and misinterpeted signals - I have never had to explain to any of my boyfriends that no means no (and that if I don't wake up or respond that is also a big fucking NO).
Not taking the prejudice of race into consideration when discussing Sandra Bland's case, but explaining it away to miscommunication... especially with police brutality against Black people blowing up in the media in recent years, it's just harrowing.
I'm happy I don't just read books but also review them, because I may not have gotten further in my evaluation than 'whoo interesting material' without re-evaluating also the icky (and blatantly wrong) bits.
Read it at your own volition, but do heed my warning.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racism, Rape, Sexual assault, Torture, Child abuse, Hate crime, Sexual violence, War, Murder, Physical abuse, Police brutality, Racial slurs, Sexual harassment, Suicide, Confinement, Death, and Alcohol
missbsbookshelf's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Alcoholism, Bullying, Child abuse, Death, Drug abuse, Domestic abuse, Drug use, Emotional abuse, Grief, Gun violence, Hate crime, Islamophobia, Mass/school shootings, Mental illness, Murder, Pedophilia, Physical abuse, Police brutality, Rape, Self harm, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Suicide, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide attempt, Torture, and Violence
shortcas's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child abuse, Pedophilia, Physical abuse, Police brutality, Rape, Self harm, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Suicide, Suicidal thoughts, and Torture
emberthestylesage's review against another edition
Really just couldn't get past the defense of rapists and shallow understanding of what respect is. Almost everything in this book up to where I finished will be triggering for several groups of people, and I didn't have to look him up to know the author was a cis white man because his take on most topics makes that clear, and not in a 'okay, that's you experience' way either. Won't be finishing.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Hate crime, Misogyny, Physical abuse, Pedophilia, Racism, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Torture, Violence, Emotional abuse, and Child abuse
More...