Scan barcode
A review by sidekicksam
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don't Know by Malcolm Gladwell
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