(Had to make a spelling correction in the subject line, thus the edit. -JB)

I'm about halfway thru. If you're reading or have already read it, post your thoughts. Also, for Gladwell fans, let us know how you think this one compares to The Tipping Point?

B
--
now playing: The African American Student's Guide to Excellence in College
on deck: another installment of Okaybooks
archives: Spoken Words | Move Over Girl

www.chance22.com
www.lionsstory.org
www.okayplayer.com/books

really enjoyed it, recommended it to all my friends. Blink sounds really interesting though.

they don't amount to much of a point. For all the talk about our potential to change our lives through thin-slicing, his examples are almost exclusively about people who have a lifetime of experience and study in a certain discipline, and are able to parlay that into remarkable thin-slicing abilities. It makes sense that those people would be able to develop that ability. But I didn't feel like he ever presented a case where the ability wasn't the result of serious study and experience. So, it was kind of a no-duh message to me. He never made the transition to how normal people can apply thin-slicing WITHOUT needing an intense level of knowledge and experience on whatever they are thin-slicing. We already know that people who are experts are better equipped to make quick decisions in their chosen fields.

Also, I found his theory of temporary autism to be pretty ridiculous and thinly supported. It's like he came up with the idea, liked it, and did whatever he could to back his way into a rationale for it. For example, in the case of the police shooting, he talks about how officers saw the victim pulling something out of his pocket and pointing it at them, and then acts as if their focus on this movement over everything else that was going on was somehow INEXPLICABLE, comparing it to an autistic child watching a movie's most dramatic moment, and focusing intently on a clock in the background. Of course that would be your main focus if you were a police officer chasing someone you thought may be a criminal. An autistic response would be to focus on anything BUT the unidentified object being pointed at you. (Note: I think the officers were in the wrong and made a really shitty decision, I just think Gladwell tried, and failed, to use the incident to illustrate a spurious point.)

Anyway, I haven't read The Tipping Point, but I have read a lot of Gladwell's New Yorker work, and he always really makes you think with fascinating theories, but rarely arrives at any useful real-world application of his theories.

For example, and I'll shut-up soon, he wrote about the homeless problem, and in theory his solution was very interesting. Long story short: only a small fraction of a city's homeless are perpetually homeless. These are the ones that are the most expensive burden, in terms of medical and psychological care. So instead of focusing money to feed and house the thousands who will most likely only be homeless for 48 hours at most, we should just pay for apartments and round-the-clock nurse care for the most hopeless cases, because from an economic stand point, this makes the most sense. And it's fascinating to think about. But if you actually try to think about applying this theory to reality, it becomes obvious that it cannot work, for different ethical and logistical reasons. So you have some great food for thought, but that's about it.

Anyway, I honestly look forward to reading more of Gladwell's work, but find its best to use his intriguing case studies on perplexing problems and issues as a springboard for my own thoughts and conclusions, because unfortunately, I don't usually get much out of his.

and that's why I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback before reading it.

Did you see the thing I posted a few years back about Gladwell & The Tipping Point (and some other stuff)?

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=23&topic_id=17643&mesg_id=17643&listing_type=search

~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing.

I hadn't seen your post before, but my post sure reads like I had.

It seems like we both, as well as a lot of other people, acknowledge the problems with his work, but still kind of give Gladwell a pass. Why do you think that is?

Because he's an interesting writer?
Because we like his politics?
Because we like him personally?
Because even if they are incorrect, his ideas are generally not dangerous?
Because the New Yorker rides for him?

If Gladwell wrote exactly the same way, but to use the example of two recent New Yorker essays, used his theories to say:

a) Racial profiling is effective. So are bans on pitbulls.

or

b) We need to get tougher on the most problem-prone homeless people.

he would have platinum hate posts on OKP, and I'm sure I'd be a major contributor. It makes me feel less justified in attacking similar methods when employed by those I don't agree with.

I loved his article on airport security that came out in about October 2001. Loved it. I think what I really like about him is what he says about himself -- that he's an enthusiast. I really do get the impression that he only writes (essays) about things that he thinks are just really interesting, and his enthusiasm is infectious.

I have been a little less enamored with him lately, in particular with respect to the two essays you note. But then, his essay on single payer healthcare systems was marvelous. Wunderbar. Even though it didn't always stay on topic. Or maybe because of that.




~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing.

what about the some of the examples at the begining like the card playing one?

or the example of how word sets in a quiz can change peoples behavior?

and seems "unfair", what are the other ethical and logistical reasons you don't think it would work?


>For example, and I'll shut-up soon, he wrote about the
>homeless problem, and in theory his solution was very
>interesting. Long story short: only a small fraction of a
>city's homeless are perpetually homeless. These are the ones
>that are the most expensive burden, in terms of medical and
>psychological care. So instead of focusing money to feed and
>house the thousands who will most likely only be homeless for
>48 hours at most, we should just pay for apartments and
>round-the-clock nurse care for the most hopeless cases,
>because from an economic stand point, this makes the most
>sense. And it's fascinating to think about. But if you
>actually try to think about applying this theory to reality,
>it becomes obvious that it cannot work, for different ethical
>and logistical reasons. So you have some great food for
>thought, but that's about it.

Ethically: How do you give a rent-free apartment to the addict who just can't get his act together, but tell the single mother working her butt of and getting nowhere that she's not desperate enough to get a free apartment? I think it would cause an outrage. It would become an issue of who deserves, not who needs. Maybe that is more political than ethical, but I guarantee the average person would see it in an ethical light.

Logistically: When you're putting up the most desperate, hopeless cases, wouldn't these apartments attract a strong criminal element, making them dangerous places? How would you keep them from becoming hang outs for addicts, dealers, etc. without turning them into little prisons or rehab centers? How would you keep tenants from selling their furniture for money? Basically, imagine the most irresponsible, un-trustworthy person you know, and imagine how it would go if you gave them their own rent-free apartment, and you became the person ultimately responsible for their lives and behavior. Do you think it could ever work out? Once again, maybe logistically wasn't the best word... perhaps realistically?

Anyway, I understand that this is just my perspective, but it just seems so impossible when you bring in all these real-life considerations. To me, it's a solution that looks great-on-paper, but that's as far as it goes.

that these solutions, while they have proven more effective than the conventional approaches, strike people as unfair and thus are extremely difficult to implement. That's part of why I like that article so much, he recognized the same problem with the emissions testing: it strikes people as unfair, so even though it's thinking outside the box and is most importantly effective, there are going to be serious problems implementing it.

As to other downsides of the homelessness thing, you may well be right, I'd just like to see how it worked in practice on a larger scale first. 'Cause the current approaches to homelessness have plenty of drawbacks too, even if it created other side effects, it might still be better in the long run, just depends on the political will and the cost/benefit analysis.

don't always go hand in hand.

In addition to the concerns voiced above, and just as a side note to the question of political problems with the idea, given the majority viewpoint of people receiving AFDC or foodstamps as leeches on the system, resulting in tremendous cutbacks in the last ten or so years, can you just imagine what kind of backlash a program like this would cause? No politician could support it.

The article in question wasn't just about "here are possible solutions to two* civic problems", it was "here are these unorthodox, but potentially more effective solutions, but the paradox is that they are extremely politically unpalatable, they seem unfair to the general public". It seems silly to cite that as a "weakness" of the article, when it was part of the article's content, and the parallel with welfare reform was noted.

Here's a link to the actual article:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060213fa_fact

* Actually, now that I look at it again, it goes into three civic problems, though chronic homelesness is the primary focus.

I read the article when it was published (I pretty much religiously read his essays in the New Yorker), and I get it that he was just pointing out that there are paradoxical alternatives that aren't really under consideration, and just musing on them.

And that kind of brings us back to the whole Who Is Malcolm Gladwell And Why Do We Like Him question. He's great at pointing out these funny little inconsistencies, like how increased airport security yields fewer incidents with increasingly horrific results, but he's not great at finding solutions. On the other hand, that's not his intent. His intent is to noodle. And what a great noodler he is.

But it's when we say, well why NOT try it? that we have to face the real reality world and see why it wouldn't fly.

By the way, I thought he might be at a new low point in this week's New Yorker. I depend on MG to find me people and things I would never hear about otherwise -- the diaper guy, for example -- and I gather that the Dog Whisperer has a television show.

Some politician would have already done it and loudly claimed credit for it. Gladwell's doing what he can, getting these ideas out there, it's up to other people to sell them politically.

Agreed on the dog whisperer article though, I didn't even realize that was Gladwell.

is the one on co-opting dissent re: the Da Vinci Code

It was just a sub-par issue, unfortunately. But at least it wasn't a food or style issue.

I saw David Remnick speak the other day. That man is so smart it just kills me.

The last time I saw him speak, during the Q&A someone asked, "Do you have anything to do with the choice of poetry for the magazine, and if so, WHY?" lol

That's great. I used to take the time to read the poems, the only ones I tended to like were the ones translated from Polish. And even those disrupted the flow of whatever I was reading. Now I just look past 'em like I do the ads. I do love the New Yorker though, in general, it's the only magazine I read regularly, aside from whatever crap they have to distract me at the gym.

You know that one that was in the first issue after Sept. 11, 2001? "Try to praise the mutilated world"? Translated from the POLISH (side note: Why do we say "from THE Polish"? That ALWAYS bugs me.)

I printed that fucker out and have had it at my desk ever since.

And that is probably the only poem printed in the New Yorker that I have ever actually liked. lol

I've only had it for the past 2-3 years. I hear you on "the polish", it's like a 21st century equivalent of "I met a chinese the other day".

P.S. Does the fact that I am a dude make me more you, or less you?

I read it and was interested throughout, but in the end I was left wondering what conclusion he was actually trying to make.

Interesting and entertaining short anecdotes and factoids, but they don't build to much. And yes, the police part was very sketchy. Why try to defend those actions as being somewhat natural in a high adrenaline situation?

~
Pearl, Pig & ear2ear are Everything That's Fly

www.magomus.com
www.myspace.com/ear2ear

T-Dot!

cause we all make snap judgements, don't think it's something we can change but we'll have to learn to control them

Hey, no...
i finally just got the hint and read the tipping point.
interesting book. i'm reading "Bitching" by Marion Meade,
then i'm reading blink.
can't wait.

where is the discussion about the tipping point?

T

I liked it when I read it. Right now, the only thing that really sticks in my mind is the racism/unconscious test. As a training psychologist (which psychology of racism and categories is my area of interest) it was good to see this in the book, and also it shows just how much our unconscious motives affect our actions.

Also, the other part that really resonated with me was the sculpture thing at the start of the book. It basically showed me that if you break down something enough and analyze its elements early, then in the future, when evaluating the quality of something, it becomes much more of a snap-judgement thing, much more efficient.

Liked The Tipping Point more though.

was it to trust your snap judgements (statue hoax, card game) or not to (racial bias, diallo shooting, president harding)? or maybe it was to only trust them when they're right.

still a great read.

I liked it a lot, even if the conclusions were somewhat contradictory, there was still a lot to be learned and enjoyed.

it is best if we are at least aware of how the process works so we can build our thin-slicing ability. Also, his argument is that systems which allow rapid, autonomous decision-making (single-officer patrol cars, the abolition of bureaucracy in the military) are more efficient, and will produce better results than systems that require decisions to go through levels of approval.

.

but it can be done "magazine style".

out o order since the chapters are al about seperate aspects of a main topic.

the diallo chapter was the most impressive.

he broke done the shooting, action by action. it takes about a solid minute maybe two to read it. but the entire thing took maybe 30 seconds to go down. it was the most haunting chapter, as wel it should have been.

the chapter on autism was interesting too.

i really enjoy his style. he makes complex things simple and interesting.

oh and the chest pain chapter, very interesting.


________________________________________
return to your home citizens

madagascar titties- (c) phontiggalo the rap jiggalo

I would never, ever hit a woman....but i'll beat a bitch (c) wifey

http://www.myspace.com/iltigo

...I don't think he hit paydirt with this one like he did with The Tipping Point, but I did really like it. The arguments I've heard about his writings and his books is that he doesn't offer great conclusions or solutions, but I don't really know if I can fault him for that. Coming up with a great solution to homelessness - can ya blame him for not coming up with that? I don't know that he writes with the conclusion/solution in mind, so much as he writes so you'll think about the subject. In that sense, the book was a success because he makes you think about it and come up with your own conclusions.
He has that nasty habit of making me interested in crap I never thought I'd be interested in. Chairs? Muscles in your face? Tennis?
I wasn't expecting Blink to do as much as The Tipping Point, but I did find it provacative.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

at least wait until it's out in paperback, so us poor folks can read it and discuss too.

http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/whitenotion/
http://www.myspace.com/flowtron
http://mynameisshaun.blogspot.com

you probably could too

i usually share books with my friends and i always forget to use the library. i'm a dummy.

http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/whitenotion/
http://www.myspace.com/flowtron
http://mynameisshaun.blogspot.com

Personally the book is Educational, and entertaining. I enjoyed having certain visuals from page 189.... .

It is somewhat like a short story book with each one giving us the list I so expected.

" Mind......" Another page.

Somewhere along the way,
I was expecting like
maybe a 1-10, laid out explanations as a summary .

But with each story, and explanation, I guess he gave us enough to
use our own Mind Power and

BLINK
The Power Of Thinking Without Thinking

And. Make a list.

Book Club PaperBack Purchase.
Helping me to replace Sula , Song Of Solomon and more.

D'Angelo : @ www.myspace.com/dangeloarcher

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

http://www.gladwell.com/archive.html

amongst other reasons.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I wish it were that easy.

finished it a week ago but haven't had time to post. it was an interesting book. one that you can read in chunks, but i think that if i read it straight thru, i would have gotten more. maybe not though, from some of your comments. it did feel a bit disjointed, but i took it for what it was - some interesting stuff, a bit connected. i like that he dealt w/ both sides of thin-slicing - when it can potentially work and potentially fail. i also liked how he made an attempt to bring it all together - like he kept going back to the statue from the opening story. even when it seemed like a bit of a stretch, it at least reminded me of the previous points and made me try to piece together some relations.

it was b/c of this that the end felt a bit empty. not that i expected a neat summary and a "what to do w/ this info" guide, but the symphony auditions didn't seem to capture everything. or maybe that was just me. the autism piece was interesting, but a bit forced i felt. he gave an example of how the autistic dude focussed in on key things that you wouldn't expect then took that theme and ran. there are other aspects to autism that may not have worked in well w/ his conclusion, but i got what he was trying to say, and i found the tunnel-vision concept pretty interesting. it's terrible that tragedies (diallo shooting) play out this way. i mean, how can you thin-slice the value of someone's life - which is essentially what happens when you have a gun in your hand. pull the trigger or not? crazy.

good book. if anyone's still reading (or waiting for the paperback - i see you), feel free to add on to this thread whenever you'd like. next book coming.

B

--
now playing: The African American Student's Guide to Excellence in College
on deck: another installment of Okaybooks
archives: Spoken Words | Move Over Girl

www.chance22.com
www.lionsstory.org
www.okayplayer.com/books

~~~~~

Breathe and know you're breathing.

It's really random. I used to post a thread for suggestions. Now I just see what people are talking about on the boards, what's in the news, what seems interesting, and roll w/ it. Some people still e-mail suggestions as well. When Okaybooks is relaunched (no timetable right now), there will be a more exact science to it.

Got suggestions? Post or e-mail chance22ATgmail.com

B

one thing that's nice about this one is that it has the book club discussion guide at the end, so you've got a natural jumping off point for discussion.

Also, I mean, having re-read it recently, I'm once again taken by the overwhelming message of Paul Farmer's life -- which is not that you yourself must cure the world, but that you do need to do what you can in the way that you can for those in need, wherever you find them. I just find it incredibly inspirational and also something of a kick in the pants AND it's really really engaging.

***Mountains Beyond Mountains, by Tracy Kidder

The biography of Paul Farmer. Farmer is a doctor (specialist in infectious diseases) and anthropologist who has undertaken the treatment of AIDS in Haiti and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in Russia (and elsewhere), and who looks at disease as social/cultural ill and poverty as the single most significant factor in healthcare issues. He makes a powerful case in his own writings for a radically new picture of the politics of health and the allocation of resources, and this book is a great introduction to him and his writings, because he tends to disappear in his own books. His own story is very much worth reading. He scoffs at the idea of "sustainable" programs (i.e., AIDS prevention to the detriment of AIDS treatment) and just tackles what is in front of him with all his force and determination. In the offices of his non-profit org, one of his co-workers has a little sign posted that says "If Paul is the model, we're fucked." And that's a good reminder. I mean, this book could totally inspire you or it could make you throw your hands in the air and think that if you can't give everything, the way the Farmer does, there's no point in trying. But Farmer, via Kidder, would say with Gandhi that everything you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.