Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by knightley18
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don't Know by Malcolm Gladwell
1.0
Ok I have A LOT of problems with this book. I am glad I did the audiobook instead of wasting the focused time reading this. I'm also glad that I got the audiobook for free so I didn't have to waste money on this crap.
Some of the chapters are interesting. The ideas of "default to truth" and transparency ring true and are fascinating. I listened to the entire book keeping an open mind. HOWEVER I could not let go of some things that really bothered me about Gladwell's logic in some of the chapters.
The most significant example is the chapter about the rape of Chanel Miller (Emily Doe) by Brock Turner. Gladwell basically argues that alcohol as an agent of "myopia" is partly responsible for Turner's crime. I have a serious issue with this argument because it implies that would-be-rapists only avoid raping people due to fear of consequences. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT. Brock Turner is a disgusting rapist, and like all rapists, he did it because he felt entitled and arrogant in his ability to avoid suffering consequences even if they exist for others. Does alcohol not help the situation? Obviously. But that in no way displaces Turner's guilt. And it absolutely does not give Gladwell the right to suggest a rephrase of Miller's courageous letter, or even worse, to give Turner the last word in the chapter. I was outraged.
My second big issue was the last chapter where Gladwell finally gets to the point of the Sandra Bland case he starts the book with. He actually comes to the defense of the police officer who pulled over Bland stating that he was a "modern cop" who doesn't "default to truth" and therefore would be more effective at catching crimes. He claims the cops reactions to Bland are due to his fear of her as a part of the price he pays for not defaulting to truth! He claims the whole issue was that the cop didn't default to truth in the wrong place due to a lack of understanding of crime coupling. This is utter hogwash. The police officer's ego was offended when a female driver would not grovel and bend to his will so he lost his temper. Sure, he didn't know about Bland's history of depression and PTSD and her suicide cannot be placed on him. HOWEVER, he completely mishandled the situation when he pulled her over and she should never have been arrested in the first place (this is a key distinction from what Gladwell claims that she should never have been pulled over as a part of his argument that this case was a symptom of a systematic failure). Her being pulled over may have been the result of an institutional flaw in policing, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire interaction was mismanaged by the police officer in question, and it should never have led to her being ARRESTED. WTF GLADWELL???? UGH
Some of the chapters are interesting. The ideas of "default to truth" and transparency ring true and are fascinating. I listened to the entire book keeping an open mind. HOWEVER I could not let go of some things that really bothered me about Gladwell's logic in some of the chapters.
The most significant example is the chapter about the rape of Chanel Miller (Emily Doe) by Brock Turner. Gladwell basically argues that alcohol as an agent of "myopia" is partly responsible for Turner's crime. I have a serious issue with this argument because it implies that would-be-rapists only avoid raping people due to fear of consequences. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT. Brock Turner is a disgusting rapist, and like all rapists, he did it because he felt entitled and arrogant in his ability to avoid suffering consequences even if they exist for others. Does alcohol not help the situation? Obviously. But that in no way displaces Turner's guilt. And it absolutely does not give Gladwell the right to suggest a rephrase of Miller's courageous letter, or even worse, to give Turner the last word in the chapter. I was outraged.
My second big issue was the last chapter where Gladwell finally gets to the point of the Sandra Bland case he starts the book with. He actually comes to the defense of the police officer who pulled over Bland stating that he was a "modern cop" who doesn't "default to truth" and therefore would be more effective at catching crimes. He claims the cops reactions to Bland are due to his fear of her as a part of the price he pays for not defaulting to truth! He claims the whole issue was that the cop didn't default to truth in the wrong place due to a lack of understanding of crime coupling. This is utter hogwash. The police officer's ego was offended when a female driver would not grovel and bend to his will so he lost his temper. Sure, he didn't know about Bland's history of depression and PTSD and her suicide cannot be placed on him. HOWEVER, he completely mishandled the situation when he pulled her over and she should never have been arrested in the first place (this is a key distinction from what Gladwell claims that she should never have been pulled over as a part of his argument that this case was a symptom of a systematic failure). Her being pulled over may have been the result of an institutional flaw in policing, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire interaction was mismanaged by the police officer in question, and it should never have led to her being ARRESTED. WTF GLADWELL???? UGH