Hello again. Welcome to Two guys one book. I'm Brian. I'm Tim. And today we are talkin about Blink by Malcolm Gladwell or blink the power of thinking without thinking. This is a book I picked. I selected this book because I've always wanted to uh, read a book by Malcolm Gladwell. I have never read one of his books, but I am a fan of his podcast Revisionist History.
I enjoy hearing the stories he tells through that and wanted uh, see what his books were about and I think Tim was going into this with a heavy dose of skepticism about this book, but essentially I'll give you overview. essentially, this is a book about human beings our ability to process things within our subconscious to make determinations or decisions without us really even realizing that we've made up our mind already or And the determination I don't think okay. Whatever. Sorry no its fine. Like all right. So how would you describe this? All right, so I uh, I tried preparing for this.
I think more than you did. Um, I have laid out, he put three tasks like in the first chapter the first task is to convince you that decisions made quickly can be every bit as good as decisions made cautiously and deliberately and then the second task of blink when our powers of Rapid cognition go in disarray they do so for a specific and consistent set of reasons and those can be identified and understood and the final task is to convince you that our snap judgments and first impressions can be educated and controlled.
I couldn't have said it better myself. All right, right, so going into this. Did it it was it exactly what you thought it was like, what was your first what was going into this? What was your mindset? Like this is bull crap. He's just twisting the facts and stories to suit The Narrative that he wants. so going into this I sort of pictured Malcolm Gladwell as a pop scientist or pseudoscientist with these kind of mainstream books that aren't necessarily contributing a lot of like depth or great research and I sort of still think that. There were parts I liked the book definitely but on the whole I still wasn't very impressed. And I know I came in with some prejudgments, but I'll explain in depth as we go along why I think the way I do. What do you think that the book?
Oh, I liked it. like I said, I'm a fan of his podcast so. It was very interesting to see how he writes very much like he talks and I and I appreciate that because like I think we have a sense that books are like they can take time to craft their words and their then their structures of their sentences and what they want to say.
And get it very precise and I think maybe I think he probably does that for the podcast as well as he knows what he wants to say and how to deliver it. And so I guess it's just it's similar process that he has for book and podcasts so they sound very similar and I appreciate that but he does it in a way that I think makes it sound natural and organic and he does a lot of research.
I mean like, all right. All right. Research being a relative term because he's not the one in a laboratory, performing experiments. He reads about scientists and people doing experiments and then he goes and talks to them and tries to explain to us what these mean and what could this, you know, uh, tell us about human beings.
Right. He's a good writer. I appreciate his style. I think he does have a way with words that is effective and well done. But as far as the research my biggest gripe with him is that he's uh a writer right by background and it's like he's masquerading as a social scientist or a psychologist and drawing these conclusions and sort of cherry-picking the studies.
Across different domains and trying to weave them together and connect them to suit his narrative which some of that might work some of it might be accurate, but I was just skeptical of the whole thing. I knew you were. Yeah, not everything but a fair amount so okay.
Um, no, I mean. I was not skeptical I was not I did not have any negative. You believe everything in this book? No, I mean no like but I feel like I don't think there's a that that's a bad thing. If you do believe everything in this book, but that's just it I mean,
he's collecting experiments and research done by others in a manner to help try to explain how human beings make decisions. And these are the ones he chose to group together. So I I guess I can see your point about how he is. He could be seen as cherry-picking but I feel like he is selecting ones that he truly believes relate to each other and compliment each other's research and anecdotes to explain how human beings think.
And we can give specific examples of my studies. But I think my biggest problem with these is that a lot of them are just sort of isolated studies with small sample sizes that haven't been repeated. So to just, you know, take one here and one there.
It feels like you could find just about any study to justify any point of view. That's what I felt was not scientific about this. Sure but I think like that that's how the research gets started. Like they don't have I mean they do that they do enough. They have enough of a sample size to come up with a hypothesis of why the results they're getting or whatever but you know sure they might some things might need further exploration, but I also feel like these are published results in.
I would assume to be reputable, uh Publications that Malcolm Gladwell is finding these through so that I mean any of us, uh section of notes in the back at the book. I'm not saying they're not credible. I just think um, he studied if there are some one else could write a book and pick all the opposite ones, studies of that Malcolm Gladwell chose and come up with a completely different narrative. It's called a wink. It was stupid. Yeah, how long were you waiting for that one, but you could make the opposite but because he does just take one study to like justify one point of view. Yeah. I mean, yes, I did feel like it did get into the weeds a little bit about.
All these names of all these different people doing all these different studies, but I felt like he did a good job of referencing them later. Like he didn't just say the person's name like so and so believe this he said so and so who did this study that you remember from three chapters before also said this.
So one note about that. That's another thing that sort of bothered me because I know I'm coming off as pinky he threw so many stories in to hear that. I think his message would have been better if he just focused on the ones that were that could have been the most important and then when he tries to reference ones from earlier he’ll reference one from the first chapter in the last chapter and it's like it's hard to just place every detail.
So sure. I mean I can. Yeah, empathize with you there that uh, sometimes he starts talkin about. what was one? he started he was talkin about Paul Van Ripper and the Millennium challenge but then he goes then talks about improv.
So I mean kind of like, you know, I wanted to know more details about the Millennium challenge I guess but. Uh, he that wasn't the point the point was, focusing on how he managed his team during the Millennium challenge. It jumps around a bit with a little disoriented right? Sorry didn't disorienting but uh to his credit he is a good Storyteller and I think he's good at um, setting the stage and introducing the characters and his language of describing them, but.
Why don't we just go through a few examples of studies? We liked and didn't like okay, I might yeah drill down I mean. So is that what your that was your focus is like you were some of the studies you liked and some that you didn't is it was at the thing like your least favorite part was a certain study and your favorite part was another study or was it kind of like just the way he intertwined things or it's a combination?
There were studies I like and ones I didn't like and then I do have kind of issues with the overall approach they took but I think it might help if we just dive down and studies and then sure piece it. Oh, that's fine. So like what's one you liked or didn't like and why? Oh, I like the Pepsi challenge.
Really that was my least favorite. Why is it felt like oh simple and like corporate branding like, you know, It's just like But like everyone remembers the Pepsi challenge. I well I mean the idea of okay. Okay, you might be a little young a big part of my life. I think it was like yeah 80's 90's or whatever.
But anyway, I like that because I mean it kind of well, I like it for reasons that aren't even really what this book is about. It's just about personal preference and how. Taking a little sip. Well, I guess that's kind of what this book is about a small it is your beef too. If you take a small sample size of Pepsi people like Pepsi better than Coke, but if you're going to drink a whole can of it or buy a case of it to take home have in your fridge.
You're not always going to like the sweeter, Pepsi over the the coke, right? Yeah, well, it's like you were saying initially this story about a little bit out of place with the other ones because a lot of them were more social scientists oriented and then this was more like business.
Yeah, but this one was in the chapter about that musician and I think that whole chapter was about what do people like what do consumers like right and the same reason like all the music executives thought this musician Kenna was very good, but he didn't rate well with the public and so how can we trust what the public thinks they like like if the public thinks you we you know, there's marketing teams out there all across the country for on multiple in multiple branches of consumerism that pole consumers to see what they like and don't like but when asked directly do they even really know what they like and don't like.
Because then he went on after the Pepsi challenge thing. He went on about margarine versus butter how margarine had to be yellow because people were used to spreading yellow things on toast. And so margin was initially white and they had to change it to yellow and then it would could sell better. The Brandi I think was another one.
Well one Brandy company was clearly in the taste test better than the other but when he put their bottle side by side, The other one was doing better because I had a fancier bottle look more like a brandy bottle than the better tasting Brandy. So like it wasn't a true reflection of what the book is about thinking instantaneously.
But it's just about like do we even really know what we like and don't like when given the chance to rate something. Yeah, I can understand his issue with market research and how they try to come up with a simple opinion of a product to give a story about it, but it's not always that easy to break down or whatever but like in other parts of the book he touches on like social justice and health care in these pretty heavy topics and I think it undermines it a bit to just go into like this consumer world.
That's a little dry sure. Yeah, I mean I could make the argument that he used, rounding it off, in multiple Fields. So it's not all just Healthcare and and social sciences. It's also marketing and PR and stuff like that. I can understand that. To me, It felt a little scattered sure and.
But as far as what you mentioned about Kenna the musician, I have a rant about that go go. So did you have you heard of before I looked up? No, I haven't I have I have any other. Yeah, I looked up some of his music. Okay did not like it. Um, like you said, he in the book Malcolm Gladwell said Kenna, uh was really liked by these music Executives, but the General Public couldn't get into him maybe because he wasn't easily assigned to certain categories. Like was he hip-hop or jazz or R&B or whatever and um, so he's saying like, Oh, even like Fred Durst from Limp Bizkit said he was the top music. I'm like what the hell does Fred Durst know? Like, why would he even put that in your book?
It doesn't so it was really strange and I looked up his music and like yeah, he's just like not I don't think he's good. And he does have a following like they were musicians who don't get publicity who end up getting huge especially with the internet these days and this was written in like early 2000s.
So it didn't take into account like people going viral or whatever. So I felt like that whole chapter that whole section pretty silly so so okay. So did it miss did it completely miss the mark for you because it was written 15 years ago and missed out and it didn't factor in to how people can be famous on the internet because in early 2000s you didn’t even know.
Well, it's like how you were saying. He says this guy Kenna didn't become popular because you know people can. Find a way to categorize them and it's like no he didn't become popular because he just sucks and his music sucks. I mean shouldn't play music. Sorry Kenna. He like donates all these nonprofits and stuff.
So I think it's a good person. But I did I did YouTube one of uh song of his. You can like it was that one that was added in like what do we know? We're not Fred Durst. All right, I mean, all right. So that was just one. I don't know. I I can't say I had a favorite study or or anecdote he talked about.
I mean, I don't know or at least favorite. Did you have one that specifically stood up the Pepsi challenge was your least favorite for real? Yeah. Okay. Well Kenna probably yeah. Okay, Kenna that whole chapter. What was your favorite then? I really like towards the end the one about blind auditions for um, like symphony orchestras.
So it used to be that very few women if any would get in. Um, Get into an orchestra because the judges were all like men and the conductors and they would come out and play the instrument and even if they sounded better than a male musician, uh, the inherent biases wouldn't let them get um into the show.
So they started doing blind auditions just like behind a screen. Made me think of that reality show The Voice or whatever that music show like American Idol, but their backs are turned which is pretty gimmicky. But like it's a good idea because then you're not judging them. I watched the whole season of The Voice and I liked it. I’m judging you now, their chairs turn around.
Yeah, I mean Adam Levine and Blake Shelton the dynamic they have their makes the show. I mean and then later they can steal people and I mean, it's it is much more involved. And I do like the fact that it is a blind audition. Yeah. Yeah, and I like that part of the book too. Yeah, so I thought that's a good like it connects to his message the thing in general about his message though as he starts off.
Like I'm going to show you why quick, uh judgments are good and we should trust our like quick instincts and then he gives all these examples about why we shouldn't well, I mean the evidence was against that I feel like that. I don't think he explicitly said that we should always trust our gut initial instinct when we. But it's like the first story is about the statues that experts can tell are fakes instantly and he's kind of leads into the book and it's called blink.
Like it's supposed to be like blink of an eye like yeah have you should trust your hunch more something right? And I think that's that's what he's getting at is yes, trust your hunch more but in that same vein your hunch through social being socialized may be biased like those conductors in the orchestra.
Their initial hunch was to be biased against women. So trust your hunch, but also, analyze your hunch and make sure it's not misappropriated against a certain people or certain things because you have that other bias but it wasn't that clear cut to me when to trust when they analyzed.
Yeah, because I don't think there is a definitive answer. Hold on. I highlighted something about okay. so he says when should we trust our instincts and wind should we consciously think things through on straightforward choices deliberate analysis is best when questions of analysis and personal choice start to get complicated when we have to juggle many different variables than our unconscious thought processes might be superior.
Now. That's very general. It is like straightforward. All right. What is that? And then? You know questions of analysis and personal choice, like that's everything. I just feel like his language is so broad and then he tries. And in general you just tries to be more profound than he is where it's like okay trust your hunch, but sometimes don't oh really profound Malcolm like changing the world here it’s pop science and pseudoscience Brian. but counter that how that I tried reading like, Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, which is like, A lot of research more research oriented and that one like some I think it would know about Prize or something.
Like he did he won a Nobel Prize for he’s an economist. Yeah, like Behavioral economics or yes, right and and he references him in the book to Malcolm Gladwell references Daniel Kahneman. But what I'm trying to say, this book was more well-written than that. It's more story to story oriented. That one's a little dry.
It's more dry and kind of harder to get through. Okay, so I will say he's a good writer. I just don't necessarily like his approach. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um another one I light was the wedding the marriage expert who could who could watch. Just two couples talking about their relationship and predict like 90 percent certainty whether or not to be married 10 years later or something like that.
I like that study as well, but I'll also say he didn't elaborate on a lot of the statistics like how many people that he analyzed the get that 90% metric or like, you know what I mean? Sure but like so you want the more nuts and bolts you want to know the details of. Why is Malcolm Gladwell trusting this study? But we just want to accept it at face value, right?
But I mean, I feel like you could always go and find more about it. Yeah, and I think I think what you said comparing this book to Thinking Fast and Slow brings up a good point is that Malcolm Gladwell is a journalist and he's a writer. David Kahneman or Kahneman Daniel Kahneman, Daniel Kahneman. Is an economist or behavioral Economist by trade and I think that's where you see the different styles of the books. And he is a Storyteller so he is not going to get bogged down with all those details in the study, you know, and I don't I personally don't need them to I'm I'm fine accepting the fact that this marriage expert could predict with ninety percent certainty other couples would be married or divorced later. Yeah. I'm just wary of him extrapolating from one small isolated study a big conclusion to apply the like, you know, everything that's all but go into the marriage study more because I like I did like that one, right? Oh, yeah, I and they had um these different emotions like they each second of the video they like.
Graded the man and the woman with a specific emotion and like they had them ranked or they just had a numbered 1 through 20. So for shorthand that people could just write down numbers for each second with like, you know, he'll he was Defensive with then he with a slight contempt, but then he then he shielded it by deflecting or something like that, and I found that very interesting and how I think they boiled it down to what they call the four horsemen.
So for this marriage, um, the 20 different emotions that go on in these interactions the boiled it down to the what they call the four horsemen defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt. And in fact, there was one emotion that he considers most important of all and that is contempt.
So if one of those existed in the relationship Dynamic it was very likely to I think I think it was that it was that contempt persisted. Not just the existence of contempt like it persisted throughout I think. But your saying if if there was one of those four or a combination of those four, it was a likely to work out.
Yes, correct. Yes and condemned was the worst. Yes, and it makes sense someone in a relationship. It's probably going well. And they said another thing that I found interesting was, for interactions they need to have a five-to-one positive the negative ratio. Which I found was kind of heavy in the positive.
But I guess that makes sense, because you want continuous positive feedback when you're communicating with somebody or living with somebody or married to somebody so that you know, you maintain the comfort of knowing you're on good terms and things are going well. It's an interesting study.
I just wish it were replicated more and uh more transparent. So you want this book to be basically twice as long. No, I don't need like study study study, but I just want like not this one guy and his little lab out here. I'm just supposed to believe that this is the case. Well, I'm guessing that's what he was trying to get at. Malcolm Gladwell wasn't taking multiple studies with marriage counselors and reviewing them.
He was taking one study of one marriage counselor and one study of a tennis coach who could predict when people are going to double fault and the story of those art experts that knew the statue was a fake the moment they saw it. He’s just laying out these examples in different fields by different people that show that their gut reaction is genuinely the right one, but then he also shows, With the brand study and then the Warren Harding effect.
I'm basically saying my point is that instead of focusing on the very specific topics. He is taking multiple topics from various fields.
And trying to thread a common theme and I think you're saying is that you just don't buy it that all these different topics have that same thing. I'm just skeptical. I mean, maybe he's stretching at times but some of the I'm just skeptical of taking the study and then extrapolated and cherry-picking but also a lot of these studies it's kind of common sense like, you know an expert in tennis might have a hunch about when someone might double fault or an expert in marriage counseling might be able to tell the signs of like, you know, so like that's not entirely as profound as I thought he made it out to be.
Yes, that's true. But I think yeah, but doesn't I think at one point doesn't he go through the marriage videos and when he knows what to look for like that's his thing is like if people are coached they can know what to look for and I think.
I mean another part I want to talk about is is the police chapter. Well, let's talk about Warren Harding. Oh you want to talk about Warren Harding first? I did like that. You have some more. Well Warren Harding error is basically people thought he looked like a good presidential person because he was like handsome and kind of tough looking or something and so he became a politician eventually became president and he was like a terrible president.
So that effect just applies to a whole bunch of different things where it's like in business like. Tall people get promoted more become CEOs and things like that. And yeah, like I think that's worth noting and it's something to um to discuss. Yeah, but so yeah, I found that interesting to this CEOs are like 6 foot average height when the average height of a male's like five nine or something like that.
So that doesn't that doesn't have any weight in you're like you're like, oh well. There's not enough studies of about CEO’s height to determined that. I just said it. Okay. All right identify this story. That's enough data. Okay for me. Okay, there's a pattern here. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, but we can talk about the police.
I mean, yeah, I like the war in hard. I think he's from Ohio did yeah. Yeah, proud of that. I know I don't think so um, But yeah, um, so the police story basically someone uh gets shot because these policemen acted quickly and they thought he was a criminal and he was just like pulling out his wallet and he was uh, just sort of scared of them because it was two guys have undercover cops like approaching him and they thought he was being suspicious and in a panic shot him.
Right, right. Yeah. That was I mean I like the part of the book and I think I have several quotes from that section. I think I'll bring up what when we do our favorite quotes, but it just was you said this book was written early 2000s, but it's still resident that part still resonates very much today.
And I think that was where he was so Malcolm Gladwell in the first part of the book was talkin about these experts in statues and tennis and marriage counseling. To point out that these experts can tell in a blink of an eye that whether you know, something is good or bad and when it comes to police officers and in situations, I think he he addressed that by I felt like his tangents in that chapter were very relative because he went on to talk about autism after he brought up the cops story and how people with autism do not pick up on facial expressions and cannot judge a person's feelings based on their physical appearance. And then he related that to first-hand accounts of police officers and stressful situations and how they just become face-blind. I think is the way said and so I found that fascinating especially the autism thing about because he said the highly functioning person with autistic Behavior.
Was watching a movie a very dramatic movie who was Afraid of Virginia Woolf and then like during emotional moments. He was off watching a light switch or something else on the screen and as a person who doesn't know about much about autism. I thought that was very interesting. Then also then leading into the first hand accounts of the police officers and how they kind of go face blind and then how officers he also had a little bit about.
When they do when I forget what Police Department it was but they were they were following they were tracking the police officers like how they interacted with people and how they followed their training and most of the time they were good but then like leading up to a highly stressful situation, they would be bad.
And so that would put them in the position to have to react quickly and possibly make wrong decisions. And then he particular points out to uh police officer that says like he the police officers were, you know recounts his encounter with a 14 year old who is pulling out a gun from his pants, but he the police officer could tell by the 14 year olds facial expressions and by language that he could have he could take another second.
He doesn't have to shoot him. He doesn't have to shoot him. And then eventually the guy put the gun down. So I that chapter to me was very, I guess you could say it was powerful because it still was resonate today and how you know, we're so quick both sides the people who the people who support police officers no matter what and the people who side with the victim no matter what.
Um, they are always quick too, Uh accusations on the other side, whereas this book really highlights the fact that in those split seconds, it's what's going through your mind. So is so fast and the events passed by so quickly that you just react and it doesn't really mean that you're a bad person either side, you know. I agree, but I also think it's not defending those officers because.
Right. I'm not saying you're saying that no, but the thing is he also mentioned that they did things that were wrong. Like they shouldn't have gone out and approached. This guy who was just hanging out on his doorstep, because what he noticed or what he uh wrote was that they didn't put themselves in his shoes like his perspective, right like just because he's panicking doesn't mean he's guilty of something.
He's just nervous about these people, chasing him or something. So, That's what I thought was interesting. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I I didn't mean to say that I defend either side the cops in that main story about about what seven seconds in the Bronx. They definitely messed up.
Yeah, but just because they mess up it's so unfortunate that when police officers mess up that people get seriously hurt or potentially die because they're human, you know, everybody is human and we all make mistakes and and. And just because you make such a grave mistake. That's why I am never going to be ever thought about being a police officer, and you know doesn't mean that that they're racist but at the same time, some people need to recognize the fact that there are implicit bias, you know in everybody and just because you have it and I think that's the downside is that.
Sometimes people when they worry about having an implicit bias, they don't want to acknowledge it because acknowledging that means oh you secretly hate certain type of people. They're not even saying that you hate people. It's just our world around us were surrounded by, these views of a male a white male, you know.
We're surrounded by these white male Christian views of the world that can't help but affect how we view the world around us and just because you have implicit bias does not make you a bad person, but I think you need to acknowledge that still. Yeah. I mean, yeah, he's trying to get at that.
We all have subconscious biases whether we realize it or not and that's kind of going back to the blind audition example of Symphonies where even though a conductor might not be biased against women like consciously that just because maybe he's only played with male musicians or thinks of men has better musicians or playing like certain instruments like the French horn that he thinks they're better so. And connecting that to like the social element to um, he talked about how we should have blind uh courtrooms and at the same as blind auditions, which I think is really smart. Actually, I like that idea a lot because it's about removing those biases like a jury would have looking at the um perpetrator victim or whoever and then basing their sentence on that or their verdict guilty or not guilty.
So instead of seeing the victim, they should or the perpetrator they should be separated and should be blind because then you're not, you know, it's not being based on like Race or class or whatever right? I found that so fascinating and like that's like the very end of the book like in the afterward.
Yeah, and you're absolutely right. I think that's the way things should be done because there is a disproportionate amount of minorities in the prison system, uh in relation to their you know ratio of the population. Why that is, I mean, I think you're absolutely right they just. Remove the perpetrator from the courtroom and like he said they communicate through email or through uh, uh intermediary and handle things at way and remove the name or just remove any indication of their race or class because class has a big thing to do with it to or whatever so that the decision can be made completely impartially.
I agree. Because he says justice should be blind so. And it seems really easy like what it's just like a social thing holding us back from changing are like tradition or whatever. I think I think it's heavily steeped in Tradition because like isn't the isn't in the Constitution like you have a right to a fair trial trial like a jury of your peers.
Yeah. They're like face. Yeah, right. I don't know. I just I I think I think that I mean you talk, I mean that's ingrained in the Constitution or the way the country was founded so. I think that is definitely part of it. That's why it's been such a part of our culture for 250 years. We can update it. I think it'd be fair.
Oh, I completely agree. But like come on. I mean in the state of the data management. Yeah, but are we ever gonna have another amendment to the Constitution because because there's just not to be an amendment to the Constitution never right? But but you're touching on a little bigger point though, like will there be another amendment to the Constitution?
I don't think there will be because. No government wants to admit, no Congress is willing to admit that the constitution needs changing when that's the whole point of the Constitution. There’s like 30-27. I think right but still when was the last one was it I forget I don't even know. This is not a civics or government.
Yeah, let's go back to the but. Yeah that that afterward about the Blind Justice should be blind was that was my favorite idea from the book and I think he had a great point. Yeah, um so new quotes or yeah, we can I'm good to go to quotes now. I guess one thing I'll start out as saying is maybe not a direct quote.
But he mentioned that his style is kind of like an intellectual adventure story, which I think is a good way to capture it this genre so I thought that was a good way to describe it.
Well, I mean this was in the I think first chapter about the marriage counseling but then he says he talks about thin slicing is as terminology for basically taking a very thin little sample size. And trusting that that represents the larger picture, I guess this is your biggest. This is the whole beef you have with this book.
Is that all he all Malcolm Gladwell is doing is thin slicing and saying that with our hunches we can trust our hunch a lot of times and so he says: thin slicing is part of what makes the unconscious so dazzling, but it's also what we find most problematic about rapid cognition. How was it possible to gather the necessary information for a sophisticated judgment in such a short time? The answer is that when our unconscious engages in thin slicing. What we are doing is an automated accelerated unconscious version of what Gottman the marriage counselor guy does with his video tapes and equations can really be understood in one setting. Yes it can and so can lots of other seemingly complex situations.
Yeah, but it's just what okay, you know what in the marriage chapter the yeah-but was it was one of their little passive-aggressive things that people do did you catch that because yeah because. You act like you're agreeing but you're really disagreeing. It’s a good thing we're not married or not married to his book. What bothers me is his definitive tone because he'll say like that's what allowed Gottman to understand marriage in x amount of seconds.
It's like he just he sounds so sure about it when I'm saying. Oh, no, Tim. I completely agree. Your gripes have validation, but you just grab about everything. I'm just gonna I praised the book a lot of ways. It just bothers me when anybody's too confident. Yes. I know like any kind. It's just because you're so insecure about everything you just. I'm saying that he could have more humility in his approach.
He's not even a scientist. He's a journalist. The world needs more scientists. Oh god. so this quote is actually him quoting Freud, but I think it explains his thesis better than he did. Oh, you're using the Freud quote at the end towards the end. Yeah. Yeah. I like that one. Go ahead. Uh
When making a decision of minor importance, I've always found it advantageous to consider all the pros and cons in vital matters however, such as the choice of a mate or a profession. The decision should come from the unconscious from somewhere within ourselves in the important decisions of personal life. We should be governed I think by the Deep inner needs of our nature.
So yeah, I mean basically it just boils down to trust again.
Yeah. We've all heard that advice right he um, you know verbalizes it well or articulate it. Well, yeah. Yes he does
here's a good one. I think this is about there was these two ladies he had lunch with that work food critics or food, professional food tasters or whatever and he was so he was like, where do you go for lunch with people who are you know, their job is to taste food, and he when he talked about the lunch which sounded great but here was another quote I liked
Our unconscious reactions come out of a locked room and we can't look inside that room. But with experience we become expert at using our behavior and our training to interpret and decode what lies behind our snap judgments and first impressions. It's a lot like what people do when they are in psychoanalysis. They spend years analyzing their unconscious with the help of a trained therapist until they begin to get a sense of how their mind works.
I think that might be my favorite quote of the book. That and the Freud quote Yeah, because yeah because that's what he's getting at is that these instantaneous thoughts these of thin slicing a small sample and we come up with a conclusion do we know that that conclusion is definitive?
No, but a lot of times our gut is you know, what our mind processes in nanoseconds that we would process over. I think he has another quote here that just because we are taught that you know decisions made with a more information take more time to come up with a definitive answer are more thorough than snap decisions.
But this is saying that our unconscious can make these. Decisions so fast for us. There's like inside a locked room. So we have to take the time to analyze why we think that so fast and is that right? and then finally here for people who do spend time in psychoanalysis.
They spend the years learning about themselves and their brain and like this is where Do you trust your gut or maybe you have an implicit bias and maybe you don't have to adjust for things where you don't want to jump to conclusions because you may be wrong and this is where I think that determining when to trust your gut and when not to comes in like he's saying just be aware.
But do you think in general in this day and age to trust your gut is good advice with how quickly people are getting like angry and how heated intense the atmosphere is. The whole point of thinking fast and slow a lot of those studies are basically showing how people are bad at judging statistics and have all these biases that cause them to make assumptions that are very inaccurate.
And so and you see that a lot in the political environment people come up with these crazy, um opinions and ideas. So I think it's almost a little dangerous advice to be like we should trust our gut more. Yes, I agree. Um, It can be dangerous to say trust your gut in these times but I think also that Thinking Fast and Slow I haven't read the book but Behavior economics focuses on mass people the mass Society, right and that mass Society is gonna.
Behave rationally and take the best course for their bottom line or whatever, right? No. No, it's all about how people believe behave exactly. I mean that's that's the whole that's why he won the Nobel Prize though is because all economist's thought that when given time that's why I'm getting that is that's why he won the Nobel prizes because he turned it on a head that said no people don't behave rationally because they believe whatever they believe and then act upon that.
So you're right. I mean, I don't know where I stand on all this but like I'm just trying to say this is what Malcolm Gladwell saying. Yeah, you know at the end of the day, I guess all I'm saying is I wish he made it a little more clear cut about trust your gut in these situations and be more skeptical in these ones.
I know he touched on it, but I think he could have touched more on it. I don't think you can I don't think you can say like an XYZ trust your gut but ABC don't. Because I think everybody's different it's about it's about introspection about who you are and do have the expertise to say like I can't go to the uh, the was that the museum in LA that bought that statue I can't go to that museum.
Look at that statue and say it's a fake because I don't have the expertise and I can acknowledge that I don't. But you know, If you if you spend time to analyze how you process things and learn about yourself. Then maybe you know that yes these things I feel certain about I feel certain that when I go to Chipotle I'm gonna get the same thing.
You know, you're an expert on. Yes, right. I can trust my gut when it comes to Chipotle, right? But, I can't trust my gut when I'm going to look at a statue. I guess one counter-argument though is even with experts in certain areas. A lot of the time they can get sort of um tunnel vision and then not be open to other ideas.
You know what I'm getting. Sure sure. I mean that's what the museum kind of got into trouble with is that they had all the scientific stuff. They sampled the marble and it had aging on the surface or whatever, they did the scientific stuff. Right that was ton of one thing in all these experts are saying another okay.
I can think of a good case study. I think that illustrates this point so remember the healthcare one, um chest pains. Yes. So basically, um in when patients would go in for chest pains a lot of the time it wouldn't get diagnosed as at risk for a heart attack. So this one Hospital started focusing just don't like three or four just a handful of like main factors and it turns out that those are the most important factors.
So they were better at accurately diagnosing potential heart attacks, which makes sense. But then he sort of says you don't need any of this other information. It's not useful just focus on this set of information, but to me, it felt like a false dichotomy where it's not like more information is bad.
It's just that this is. This should be weighted more like these three factors and then it saves the doctor. It frees them up their decision-making ability to focus more on the patient and like connect with them. So it makes sense in a way but I don't think more information is inherently bad just because some information is more important. But I think I think people fall victim to information overload though.
And so I there's a quote here about the heart stuff the heart attack, warning signs stories in the same chapter is the Millennium challenge with the military and so his whole point in that chapter was that more information is not always better that The Blue Team the good guys were taking time to have all these meetings and discuss and analyze all this data where the red team Paul Van Ripper was letting guys go out and shoot from the hip and just trust their gut and then he talked about the heart attack, checklist there as well. And he says, extra information is more than useless.
It's harmful. It confuses the issues what screws up doctors when they are trying to predict heart attacks is that they take too much information into account. And you think that is BS. Right? Okay. Let me let me quickly expand in my point. So I agree information overload is an issue and that more information isn't necessarily always better.
But for him to say more information is harmful just as a statement is just sort of absurd because like that doesn't make sense. It's just about how you interpret the information and how well it informs your decisions and how you're acting upon it right but. But that heart checklist thing was vital because it gave doctors specific things to look for and so they could disregard the noise, if they had other things pop up that they you know, all they knew that it was those four things to admit the person in the hospital and that is valuable. Yeah, but okay, let me give you this perspective. I agree but. Yeah, but um, so if you had an algorithm predicting, uh someone at risk for a heart attack, so you're just going to ignore this information and never think to include any of these finer details when to unbeknownst to us.
There are things that contribute to a heart attack that we have no idea of and for us to neglect that and say nothing else is important. I feel like we might be missing out on stuff that could help inform our um prediction. Okay, you're looking at a purely from a data point of view, right? I mean, yeah kind of and I guess I guess his whole point is the fact that doctors are smart people.
They know they they take in all that information and they try to analyze build a picture when really all they need really need to do is worry about those four things because. I mean like and he also says it's not to belittle what doctors do it's because like we don't know what to listen for when we are listening to somebody's lungs that are filling with liquid because their heart is failing or whatever, you know, yeah, we don't know how to do that doctors have the training to do that.
It's just they have to it's just pointing out the important things that supersede all the other data. I found it interesting how it was hard to get a lot of doctors on board with this approach because everyone's kind of got their ego or Pride to deal and they say it can't be this simple as these three things.
I have to come up with a conclusion like on my own which is not to say every doctor is like that but like, um, in any job or role you want people want to feel kind of autonomous and. oh, yeah, like they're independently coming up with some and if and another point is like if doctors are making the decision and signing off on it.
They want to make sure that there are certain in their mind. So it just I think it also took a while for them just to trust that. Oh, these are the only things that you need to worry about because like you said they wanted to take in all that data. Yeah. Yeah. My only they now take away point is just let's not neglect more information to the Future.
That could be like, you know what I mean? I know what you mean. You have another quote. Um now you go ahead you sure all right now, all right. So this was about this was in the afterward because he was talkin about Chancellorville. We didn't touch on that one yet about this general for the in the Civil War. general for the union had Robert E. Lee basically surrounded and outnumbered but Robert beat him because he was just more confident and I don't yes more experience and could just outwit the union general. but so this is where he talks about the second lesson in blink, but I feel like this can. I'll read it
Understanding the true nature of instinctive decision-making requires us to be forgiving of those people trapped in circumstances where good judgment is imperiled.
And that I instantly think of the police the story because we have no idea what it's like to be in that situation. Now granted, they put themselves in a bad situation and nowadays they're having more training and things to go along with that. But yeah, we just gotta be empathetic and forgiving and realize that just because someone has implicit bias doesn't make him a bad person and people need to be more accepting of themselves if they have implicit bias. Because if they acknowledge it they can get training to improve upon it and I think that would solve a lot of issues. Yeah, and it's not always implicit bias though because if someone is pulling out their wallet and it looks like you see a dark object and it's night time, then you might assume it's a gun when they're just trying to show you their ID or something.
So. Yeah, but I agree that a lot of it is implicit and right right. And it's just about being forgiving to other humans when they make human errors and even if those errors hurt people, unfortunately. One of the things I thought was interesting was that between one officer squad cars and two officers squad cars the one officer one's getting much fewer situation like, um, you know incidents right which I mean it makes sense because like. They probably wouldn't put themselves in those situations as much just out of like their own self-preservation, but also in general they're nicer to people so as a police force, you might think two officers together safer and more they think things over better but one is really more.
Um, easygoing probably wouldn't put themselves at risk for ya something. Yeah. Good point. I'm glad we brought that up because that was a point. I found very much interesting in the book. I think that's worthwhile. Yeah Malcolm. Okay, one more. Uh, I don't think I have a specific quote from this but you mentioned this earlier that autism part and the facial recognition.
I thought that whole section was interesting. And uh, also there were these scientists who studied facial recognition in general and they could tell certain emotions based on the position of your eyebrows or lives. And then I watched some videos of them in like yeah, really?
Yeah, it was really cool because uh because they would have a subject and tell them to like furrow their brow and move like this here and that there and like I like tried it and you start feeling sad instantly depending on how they position your face or like, you know, there's all these subtleties to our motions.
It's not as simple as happy sad whatever it's just you know contempt or like some specific emotion, depending on very certain parts of your face. And then to talk about people with Autism, you know on the other side of where they just can't recognize anything at all that facial blindness.
I thought that was interesting. Yeah. Yeah that whole facial section was very interesting as well. I mean, that's just I I mean, I like this book because it just was had a lot of little interesting tidbits through it. and. What was the I had a thought about the facial one. How when the two guys were studying all the movements the face can make they noticed that when they were during a section when there are making a repeated sad or angry faces they were having lousy days. It just goes to show how you know, we like I think he says in the book. We assume that our feelings dictate, our internal feelings and emotions dictate how we look and act and feel when in fact we can you know manipulate our feelings based on how we look and act and feel and that's what those scientists discovered when they were doing all the sad and and depressing faces they felt sad and depressed. It's just helpful to be reminded that the fake it till you make it mentality of like if you put on a positive if you sis stand up straight and smile and try to be jovial maybe that can help you get through a bad day or you know uplift your spirits when needed. So thanks Mister Rogers.
I just kidding. It's very inspiring but I just feel like I've been so I mean I didn't mean to harp on the police. The police um topic so much but it was something I found very meaningful still today. It's an important topic and yeah, definitely still I wanted more uplifting to yeah. Yeah, that's good.
I emotions follow facial, um, you know cues or positioning but at the same time how relevant is that to Blink or the overall message of the black thrown these interesting tidbits, but it's like does it connect to the larger thing? Well the facial the facial. Movements section was having been I think led to the autism one which helped explain that police or people in stressful situations become face blind.
And so they can't read he was basically saying you like in stressful situations, you can't always rely on yourself to be able to read other people because yours just in tunnel vision, so to speak or something like that, but. His words were I think police officers become temporarily autistic.
He literally said that which first of all, insensitive, but also it just sort of that's him as a journalist making some overarching scientific assumption. Oh he was yeah, he's a journalist. He's allowed to be a little expressive with his language Tim. Is that a crime?
No, I don't know. All right, should we do rating? You have any more quotes? I think I'm all quoted out. I think I think I think we do get I think we touched on pretty much every section. Yeah, I think I covered what on that was good. So what do you want to read it? Well, it was my pick. I picked this book.
I'm glad I picked it. I wanted to read Malcolm Gladwell and I’m glad I did now but yes a lot of interesting stories, but to me, it's still three out of five. I just. That's you know, I I think he's a good writer. It's just I think maybe some of his other books. I might like better. We'll see.
Outliers, David and Goliath. I think I think I think David and Goliath would be one that I think I would like I haven't read anything else, but I mean probably won't all right. I'm torn between two and three. Yeah, you wanna cop out? You can cop out if you want like.
Um, you said no half I did say no, but that's just more of a personal Maxim than it is. Well, that's so you don't choose 3 and 1/2 so you don't choose 7 4 6 and 8, but I feel like with two and three it's like it's a big difference. Yeah, so like five out of ten is still a rating 7 out of 10 is a cop-out.
I mean I see so I know through and half Stark is the new rule. I just I I really overthinking this I just blink and just use my gut reaction. Yeah, Tim did you learn nothing from the book? Pretty much. What did you learn? Oh, man. I I'll just say I'll give him credit for bringing these topics to the mainstream pop culture.
I had a lot of critiques but at least he's getting some ideas out there. Yeah, but still, all right, let's find him. Uh, what are we next time? We are reading a book called the Moviegoer by Walter. I think um Walker Percy is a walker. It might be. I don't know. It's it's a book that I feel like has flown under the radar for a lot of people me included.
I just saw it on someone's like recommended reading list and it sounded really interesting and we both like movies a lot and its set in like New Orleans. Um, so I should be a good book. Okay? Yeah, and yeah, I'm looking forward to reading it because our class what do we like really last? Oh, we are last couple of not been fiction.
This is going to be a fiction, right? So yeah, it's gonna be nice to change it up and then uh, yeah go to our website. Two guys one book dot com and you can read the books with us leave comments and we'll discuss them. Yes, absolutely. Thanks for listening. All two of you. All right, is that good? Yeah, okay.