Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science Books Media Book Reviews

Blink 194

ThinkMagnet (James Mitchell) writes " Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking is Malcolm Gladwell's foray into the study of intuitive decision-making. The author, a former Washington Post science and technology writer, reveals his journalistic background in his narrative style. His assertions are based on recent scientific findings, but are always presented as a story. This makes good conversation fodder, but can frustrate readers who prefer direct presentation of scientific arguments." Read on for the rest of Mitchell's review.
Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
author Malcolm Gladwell
pages 288 pages
publisher Little, Brown (January 11, 2005)
rating 8
reviewer James Mitchell
ISBN 0316172324
summary This book discusses in narrative style the mechanics of subconscious snap decisions.

First, Gladwell introduces a concept called "thin-slicing." This involves the human brain's critical reduction of information to make predictions about complicated systems. For example, a system developed at the University of Washington can predict with 95% accuracy whether a couple will be divorced within fifteen years, based entirely upon one hour of observed interaction.

Next, Gladwell discusses analogous ways the human brain uses thin-slicing to make subconscious snap decisions. Interestingly, this rapid decision-making process can easily be primed by external influences. External influences affect more decisions than many people care to admit; these factors form the basis for snap judgments and first impressions.

Gladwell relates a study of how well a subject's personality was evaluated either by strangers who visited the subject's dorm room for fifteen minutes or by friends that knew the subject well. Friends were more accurate about extraversion and agreeableness, but the strangers were better at gauging conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to new experiences. Thin-slicing isn't always correct; it depends on having the right information.

Superficial traits can be used to the advantage of an actor trying to project a particular characterization. Similarly, an authority figure can dress and behave in a particular fashion to influence subordinates. Warren G. Harding made overwhelmingly positive first impressions throughout his political career, although he is considered by historians to be one of the worst American presidents. Despite his consistently lackluster performance, his attractive bearing and appearance camouflaged his shortcomings.

On the other hand, by understanding the fallibilities of intuition, one can influence others' unconscious decision-making processes and be more aware of influences on one's own intuition. People can control and develop their intuitive decision-making skills. For instance, a successful car salesman would never be distracted by the appearance of a customer to the detriment of a sale. A portion of the book discusses physiological tests that reveal the strength of stereotypes in subconscious decision making by measuring reaction times.

Having defined the capabilities and limitations of intuitive decision-making, Gladwell spends a chapter focusing on spontaneity through the story of General Paul Van Riper and Millennium Challenge '02. A technologically advanced military with a vast array of information collection and "common operational picture" was pitted against a less technologically capable adversary led by General Van Riper. Much as David defeated Goliath, Van Riper's force inflicted staggering losses on his information-gorged enemy. His victory illustrates the utility of pre-arranged structure (such as "commander's intent" or "desired endstate") to empower subordinates to make spontaneous decisions. The fog of war couldn't really be defied, but decision makers could be trained to cope well with uncertainty.

The latter parts of the book discuss how intuitive decision-making can fall short. Humans' senses and subconscious minds can be negatively affected in stressful environments where stimuli are distorted and thin-slicing can easily go awry. Gladwell takes examples from recent developments in police procedures designed to avoid situations that adversely affect law enforcement personnel. For instance, many departments make their officers patrol individually. Without partners, they are more likely to wait for backup before entering dangerous situations. The author also performs a detailed deconstruction of the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York City. He concludes that the tragedy was not a product of conscious injustice, but simply a chain reaction of impaired snap decisions made within seven seconds of violence.

Overall, Blink makes for a quick read and is sure to stimulate conversation. Its premise is simple, and it contains ample food for thought. Its discussion of priming the intuition with particular stimuli and impaired "thin-slicing" provides a useful tool in deconstructing human behavior. The strengths and weaknesses of intuition-priming and thin-slicing are useful knowledge for any professional decision-maker.


You can purchase Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blink

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @06:27PM (#11567243)
    Steve Sailor reviewed [vdare.com] this book recently too.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2005 @06:52PM (#11567492)
    on his website you can find dates where he is making guest appearances/ book signing type deal...to get an idea of what a great speaker he is you could hit up IT conversations where theres a podcast/mp3 whatever you want to call it of his under the poptech conference section...

    http://www.itconversations.com
    http://www.gladw ell.com/
  • Re:Van Riper (Score:4, Informative)

    by rcamans ( 252182 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @06:58PM (#11567549)
    Actually, they did not change rules midgame.
    Van Riper won.
    Then the brass called a do-over, replaced Van Riper with their own kind of brass, and they won.
    Of course, in real life, you do not get do-overs.
  • by BandwidthHog ( 257320 ) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @06:59PM (#11567555) Homepage Journal
    I'm on the road mangling the network at one of our satellite locations, and went out seeking coffee Tuesday night. I went to a local book store, grabbed a book that looked interesting and sat down to read while I slurped. Sitting on the table was a copy of Blink that another customer had left there. I picked that up and was immediately engrossed. I've already decided (no two second jokes here, it took a few dozen pages) to start handing it to various friends and coworkers.

    I highly recommend this one, and am glad I stumbled across it. As soon as I get home I'm gonna find a copy of Tipping Point.
  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:28PM (#11567805) Homepage Journal
    Richard A. Posner provides a few counterpoints in his review of the book [tnr.com] in the New Republic. The gist of Posner's criticism is that the book provides a great deal of anecdotal evidence, but little real analysis. In particular he hones in on what he considers to be mistaken interpretations of causality.

    I haven't read the book myself, but Posner's somewhat scathing review doesn't keep me from wanting to read the book. It does, however, make me want to read it with a critical eye.

  • Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)

    by quandrum ( 652868 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:30PM (#11567826)
    Without having read the book, this sounds like they are talking about the work of Dr. Gottman.

    Although, the sumation seems disingenious. It was never a system, it was a study of interaction in married couples. He never offered to predict someones chances of success, but rather studied their interaction, and then kept track of their marriage. He then analyzed the data and published novel ideas on the importance of how the way we communicate affects our relationships. Third parties then plumbed the data to get media bytes like the one quoted.

    Although, now he has written 2 or 3 books. *shrug*
  • by Web-o-matic ( 246295 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:33PM (#11567847) Homepage
    There's another critical review by Thomas Homer-Dixon (the guy who wrote the book 'The Ingenuity Gap" a few years back) at http://www.homerdixon.com/download/blink_snap_buzz .pdf [homerdixon.com]
    Nicely written review -- and he really does not like the book....
  • by ghutchis ( 7810 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @07:39PM (#11567884) Homepage
    You might be disappointed by Blink.

    I think Gladwell had a ton of great stories like he did in Tipping Point. But I think Blink is a bit more diffuse -- no equivalent to the classification system in TP that you mention.

    I like the concept of "thin-slicing" and very much enjoyed the stories in Blink. But I didn't think there was a core argument that stuck together, just a brief concept and some surrounding stories. I'm still not sure I know how to apply the idea of thin slicing myself or how to improve my abilities, other than to assume that with increasing expertise, it'll improve.

    In another post, I suggested that people wait for the paperback or borrow it from the library. Blink is a solid book, but IMHO not worth the $$ right now.
  • Oh Yeah... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Thursday February 03, 2005 @08:35PM (#11568311)
    Because what we really need is more encouragement for people to stop thinking about things before doing whatever fool thing pops into their head.
  • by Kazparr ( 24651 ) <caspar AT onemonkey DOT org> on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:42AM (#11571246) Homepage Journal
    The real research on this topic is that of Simple Heuristics that make smart - Gigerenzer & Todd (OUP, 2000) - on first appearance a dry academic psychology text on bounded rationality and how we use lots of shortcuts to get close to the right answer to complex practical problems. the slightly artificial but effective example they give is determining German city size.. which is bigger Wiesbaden or Stuttgart? you've probably no idea..(German readers - don't interupt just yet) but may have at least heard of Stuttgart as might surmise that it was larger. Not only would you be right in this case but you've just discovered the highly effective "recognition heuristic".. and whats more your ignorance works for you..

    asked to say which was bigger from pairs of biggest 73 german cities, american college students were more accurate than germans in germany.. the result was reversed for american cities. neat huh?

    This heuristic can then be extended to something called 'take the best' which uses extra information in a very frugal fashion.. all you do is compare two items on the best cue you have..(in this case 'have i heard of it?') if your best choice discriminates between them then pick the one it tells you to, if not move to the next best cue (for city size being a state capital or having a premier league sports team are good indicators)

    this is a very plausible model of a low cost stategy that might be used in human decision making.. the most surprising thing being that it gives the computationally intensive and informationally exhaustive multiple linear regression a real run for it's money in accuracy at a fraction of the cost in storage and calculation.

    just thought i'd let you know.

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...