Blink is about the first two seconds of looking—the decisive glance that knows in an instant. Gladwell, the best-selling author of The Tipping Point, campaigns for snap judgments and mind reading with a gift for translating research into splendid storytelling. Building his case with scenes from a marriage, heart attack triage, speed dating, choking on the golf course, selling cars, and military maneuvers, he persuades readers to think small and focus on the meaning of “thin slices” of behavior. The key is to rely on our “adaptive unconscious”—a 24⁄7 mental valet—that provides us with instant and sophisticated information to warn of danger, read a stranger, or react to a new idea.
Gladwell includes caveats about leaping to conclusions: marketers can manipulate our first impressions, high arousal moments make us “mind blind,” focusing on the wrong cue leaves us vulnerable to “the Warren Harding Effect” (i.e., voting for a handsome but hapless president). In a provocative chapter that exposes the “dark side of blink,” he illuminates the failure of rapid cognition in the tragic stakeout and murder of Amadou Diallo in the Bronx. He underlines studies about autism, facial reading and cardio uptick to urge training that enhances high-stakes decision-making. In this brilliant, cage-rattling book, one can only wish for a thicker slice of Gladwell’s ideas about what Blink Camp might look like. --Barbara Mackoff
I haven’t read it, so I can’t comment directly on it.
But you should probably know that Gladwell has been criticized a lot for un-scientific methodology and for turning interesting anecdotes and “just-so” stories into generalizations and supposed “laws” (without much evidence).
The Harding hate is sadly predictable. Harding is so abused by people who nothing about the man. Historians hate him because they have a bias toward hyperactive presidents like TR and FDR.
Rated by the historians in the “worst” category, by contrast, is, you guessed it, Warren G. Harding: a president who successfully promoted economic prosperity, cut taxes, balanced the budget, reduced the national debt, released all of his predecessor’s political prisoners, supported anti-lynching legislation, and instituted the most substantial naval arms reduction agreement in world history. Go figure.
Yes, Harding was prone to verbal gaffes, and had a few scandals, but he was basically a solid leader, ahead of his time in many ways, like in civil rights.
Yes, and Wilson is always in the top 10, and he suspended habeus corpus and took political prisoners (mostly socialists and feminists).
If you look at the list, you can see that historians tend to favor the politicians that took big dramatic actions, started wars, led imperially, etc. Theodore Roosevelt is also always near the top, and he basically advocated empire building and racist immigration policies. Historians are just awful drama queens mostly.
Sure. The cat face emoticon is a reference to an anime trope. When a character is being deliberately mischievous, or slightly bad in some way, they’re often shown with the “cat face” (If you want to see an example, go to the Banned Wiki and search “cat smile”. I daren’t link there. ). It was adopted as an emoticon since the “mouth” of the cat face is essentially a sideways 3. In the west it is usually used to indicate that one is joking lightheartedly, using a bad pun, or alternately, to indicate that one isn’t really trying to troll.
Interesting. Most of the people I’ve seen using it (myself included) are using it as a kind of a variant of <3, the heart smiley. (There’s a slight difference in meaning between that and the heart, but one that’s too subtle for me to put my finger on right now.)
Hmmm, maybe the meaning is splintering as it becomes more common. I suspect it originated in anime/manga message boards, as that is where I first saw it.
The TV tropes page mainly seems to describe my usage.
I liked it. The promotional material and summaries of it don’t do justice to the content, I think, though. The book has many examples of how people who are experts at things can make good snap judgments in their domains of expertise, but it is not about how any normal person can make great decisions without thinking about them.
Also, Malcolm Gladwell could write a cookbook and make it the most entertaining thing you’ll read all year.
The book has many examples of how people who are experts at things can make good snap judgments in their domains of expertise, but it is not about how any normal person can make great decisions without thinking about them.
Jon Finkel is probably the world’s best Magic player. However, he is not good at explaining how to make correct decisions when playing; to him, the right play is simply obvious, and he doesn’t even notice all the wrong ones. His skill is almost entirely unconscious.
Reminds me of Marion Tinsley, the greatest checkers player ever. He lost 7 games out of thousands in his 45 year career of playing for the World Championship, two of them to the program that would eventually go on to solve checkers. (That excludes his early years studying the game.) He was arguably the most dominant master of any game, ever. He, too, couldn’t explain his skill.
I believe so, though I’ve heard the first few moves are now randomized, as only perfect play, rather than all board positions, is solved.
Of course, every perfect-information deterministic game is “a somewhat more complex tic-tac-toe variant” from the perspective of sufficient computing power.
Of course, every perfect-information deterministic game is “a somewhat more complex tic-tac-toe variant” from the perspective of sufficient computing power.
Yeah, sure. And I have a program that gives constant time random access to all primes less than 3^^^^3 from the perspective of sufficient computing power.
I believe so, though I’ve heard the first few moves are now randomized, as only perfect play, rather than all board positions, is solved.
Ahh, good idea.
Of course, every perfect-information deterministic game is “a somewhat more complex tic-tac-toe variant” from the perspective of sufficient computing power.
I’ve got an audio copy and have listened to it several times. It’s definitely worth a look. I enjoyed it more than ‘tipping point’ but I did read blink first.
Does anyone know if Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking is a good book?
http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316172324
Amazon.com Review
Blink is about the first two seconds of looking—the decisive glance that knows in an instant. Gladwell, the best-selling author of The Tipping Point, campaigns for snap judgments and mind reading with a gift for translating research into splendid storytelling. Building his case with scenes from a marriage, heart attack triage, speed dating, choking on the golf course, selling cars, and military maneuvers, he persuades readers to think small and focus on the meaning of “thin slices” of behavior. The key is to rely on our “adaptive unconscious”—a 24⁄7 mental valet—that provides us with instant and sophisticated information to warn of danger, read a stranger, or react to a new idea.
Gladwell includes caveats about leaping to conclusions: marketers can manipulate our first impressions, high arousal moments make us “mind blind,” focusing on the wrong cue leaves us vulnerable to “the Warren Harding Effect” (i.e., voting for a handsome but hapless president). In a provocative chapter that exposes the “dark side of blink,” he illuminates the failure of rapid cognition in the tragic stakeout and murder of Amadou Diallo in the Bronx. He underlines studies about autism, facial reading and cardio uptick to urge training that enhances high-stakes decision-making. In this brilliant, cage-rattling book, one can only wish for a thicker slice of Gladwell’s ideas about what Blink Camp might look like. --Barbara Mackoff
I haven’t read it, so I can’t comment directly on it.
But you should probably know that Gladwell has been criticized a lot for un-scientific methodology and for turning interesting anecdotes and “just-so” stories into generalizations and supposed “laws” (without much evidence).
The most recent example of high profile criticism of Gladwell is probably this review by Steven Pinker: Malcolm Gladwell, Eclectic Detective
I don’t know if this criticism applies to Blink, though, but if you read it, your BS detector should probably be turned up a notch.
Sounds like someone I know! jk
The Harding hate is sadly predictable. Harding is so abused by people who nothing about the man. Historians hate him because they have a bias toward hyperactive presidents like TR and FDR.
Yes, Harding was prone to verbal gaffes, and had a few scandals, but he was basically a solid leader, ahead of his time in many ways, like in civil rights.
Edit: Okay, you’ve given good reasons.
Yes, and Wilson is always in the top 10, and he suspended habeus corpus and took political prisoners (mostly socialists and feminists).
If you look at the list, you can see that historians tend to favor the politicians that took big dramatic actions, started wars, led imperially, etc. Theodore Roosevelt is also always near the top, and he basically advocated empire building and racist immigration policies. Historians are just awful drama queens mostly.
There’s a pretty good argument to make for Lincoln as our worst President, too. He’s the only President under which we had a civil war!
Is this really relevant …
Hey, we’re trying to get less wrong here.… :3
well in that case, can you explain that emoticon (:3)? I have yet to hear any explanation that makes sense :)
Sure. The cat face emoticon is a reference to an anime trope. When a character is being deliberately mischievous, or slightly bad in some way, they’re often shown with the “cat face” (If you want to see an example, go to the Banned Wiki and search “cat smile”. I daren’t link there. ). It was adopted as an emoticon since the “mouth” of the cat face is essentially a sideways 3. In the west it is usually used to indicate that one is joking lightheartedly, using a bad pun, or alternately, to indicate that one isn’t really trying to troll.
Interesting. Most of the people I’ve seen using it (myself included) are using it as a kind of a variant of <3, the heart smiley. (There’s a slight difference in meaning between that and the heart, but one that’s too subtle for me to put my finger on right now.)
Hmmm, maybe the meaning is splintering as it becomes more common. I suspect it originated in anime/manga message boards, as that is where I first saw it.
The TV tropes page mainly seems to describe my usage.
:3 is more “kitty likes you! aww!” or “teehee” and <3 is more “I send my love/kisses” or “wish I was there”. At least, that is how I see it.
Thank you, that fits my intuition. Though :3 can also be a more tender, delicate version of the “love message” in <3. <3 has a more powerful tone.
I enjoyed Blink. You can read some essays by the author here—if you get a lot out of them, you’ll probably react similarly to the book.
I liked it. The promotional material and summaries of it don’t do justice to the content, I think, though. The book has many examples of how people who are experts at things can make good snap judgments in their domains of expertise, but it is not about how any normal person can make great decisions without thinking about them.
Also, Malcolm Gladwell could write a cookbook and make it the most entertaining thing you’ll read all year.
Jon Finkel is probably the world’s best Magic player. However, he is not good at explaining how to make correct decisions when playing; to him, the right play is simply obvious, and he doesn’t even notice all the wrong ones. His skill is almost entirely unconscious.
Reminds me of Marion Tinsley, the greatest checkers player ever. He lost 7 games out of thousands in his 45 year career of playing for the World Championship, two of them to the program that would eventually go on to solve checkers. (That excludes his early years studying the game.) He was arguably the most dominant master of any game, ever. He, too, couldn’t explain his skill.
Do they still have World Championships in checkers now the game is understood to be a somewhat more complex tic-tac-toe variant?
I believe so, though I’ve heard the first few moves are now randomized, as only perfect play, rather than all board positions, is solved.
Of course, every perfect-information deterministic game is “a somewhat more complex tic-tac-toe variant” from the perspective of sufficient computing power.
Yeah, sure. And I have a program that gives constant time random access to all primes less than 3^^^^3 from the perspective of sufficient computing power.
Ahh, good idea.
No, only the ones that are a tie.
I’ve got an audio copy and have listened to it several times. It’s definitely worth a look. I enjoyed it more than ‘tipping point’ but I did read blink first.