Malcolm Gladwell

If being too trusting around strangers can get us into trouble, being too suspicious can be worse. So suggests Malcolm Gladwell in his intriguing 2019 book “Talking to Strangers.”

Gladwell uses the example of an episode of “Friends” in which, even if you turned the sound off or didn't understand English, you could understand exactly what is going on. That is because actors know how to portray guilt, suspicion, compassion, deceitfulness and so forth. The trouble is, in real life people show more don't always act the way we think they should act. Looks can be, and often are, deceiving. Even experienced judges, police officers and spy masters can't tell when someone is lying, for example, and Gladwell gives examples of each.

Most of us "default to truth," in the author's phrase, and this, he says, is actually a good thing. Society couldn't function very well without it. We need to trust each other, even if some people will take advantage of us.

Gladwell begins and ends his book with the case of Sandra Bland, a young black woman stopped in Texas for a minor traffic violation. She ended up in jail, where she committed suicide. The officer chose to view her suspiciously because, in his eyes, she was acting suspiciously. In truth, she was just a woman already under stress put under more stress by an officer making a lot out of very little. What should have concluded with a warning and a "have a nice day" led instead to an arrest and the death of an innocent woman.

The book might have been strengthened by more Sandra Bland-like examples and fewer examples of "default to truth" leading to trouble. If you fail to read the entire book, you could easily get the wrong idea about what the author is trying to say. As with strangers, you don't want to make snap judgments with Gladwell. show less

Why do seemingly average people succeed in life while others who appear to be geniuses fail? Why do certain countries tend to produce the worst airline pilots? Why were lawyers born in the 1930s likely to be far more successful than those born just a single generation earlier or later? Subtitled The Story of Success, this book provides a fascinating look at the answers to such questions. Relying on a considerable amount of primary research from fields as diverse as economics, sociology, show more linguistics, history, and psychology, Gladwell does an excellent job of synthesizing these disparate themes in a way that is both thoughtful and engaging.

Above all else, successful people work really hard; that is what ultimately separates the fates of two people gifted with equal skills at birth. In what is probably the most frequently quoted passage from the book, Gladwell stresses neurologist Daniel Levitin’s observation that it requires 10,000 hours of concerted effort for someone to become a world-class expert in his or her field. Intelligence matters as well, naturally, but only up to a point. To be successful, you just need to be smart enough, but not necessarily smarter than everyone else.

Of course, needing intelligence and drive to succeed is hardly controversial. Far more provocative are the other requisites—opportunity and cultural legacy—because they challenge our view of the self-made individual. Gladwell illustrates the first determinant with several interesting examples. For instance, Canadian hockey players born in January are far more likely to excel than those born at the end of the year, but not because they are more talented. Rather, January 1 is the cutoff date for age-specific youth all-star teams and so a person born on that day is almost twelve months older than a player with a December birthday. Mistaking physical maturity for superior skill, these early-in-the-year players are chosen more frequently for select teams, which in turn provides them with opportunities (e.g., superior coaching, better competition, more practice time) that make the ultimate difference.

The role played by one’s heritage is a more difficult argument to make, but the author does just that in the second half of the book. His thesis is that we are all deeply bred with the traditions and ethos that define our cultures and this legacy offers advantages to succeed in certain areas and disadvantages in others. A notable example is that people from more rigid, hierarchal societies tend to perform worse in situations where free communication and cooperation across seniority lines are crucial (e.g., trying to land a jetliner in an emergency situation). Gladwell’s arguments for legacy are not as compelling as those for opportunity, but he nevertheless makes a strong case that our ability to succeed in life depends on factors that are simply out of our control. It seems that being in the right place at the right time and from the right background—along with hard work, of course—matters more than we care to admit. show less

Unexpected and wonderful listen as Gladwell organizes diverse examples to build his case.

How long will the challenge stick with me—to pause when I slide into thinking that I understand a situation or another person's experience based on ideas that Gladwell has clearly exposed as deeply faulty? Who knows?

However, I feel compelled to hold close the practices of patience and respect with greater intention as I interact with strangers.

Brilliant structure, fascinating interviews and case show more studies. Totally engrossing.

Default to Truth
The Fallacy of Transparency
Coupling (the powerful influence of time and place)

So engrossing that I had to listen/read it again two months later! show less

De nuevo, un libro de Malcom Gladwell [MG]. MG ha escrito un ensayo sobre cómo nuestro pensamiento subconsciente (lo que se suele llamar “la primera impresión”) es muchas veces más certero que nuetro pensamiento lógico cuando nos enfrentamos a un problema nuevo. A lo largo de libro nos habla de muchas historias en las que los protagonistas supieron desde el principio cuál era la solución a un problema (descubrir si una estatua era falsa, ver si una pareja aguantará junta cinco show more años…), aunque costara mucho tiempo llegar a fundamentar racionalmente tal decisión.
El libro, estimados lectores, tiene sus pros y sus contras. Su principal atractivo para mí es que todas las historias que cuenta son extremadamente interesantes. Me encantan. Son realmente entretenidas y el estilo del autor es fluido y didáctico. El punto en contra es que todas las historias juntas no consiguen convencerte de la tesis del autor. La segunda mitad del libro, de hecho, habla de cómo nuestro subconsciente puede verse engañado por esa “primera impresión”, echando por tierra todo lo que nos había contado en la primera parte. Curioso. En The tipping point sucedía algo parecido. Las historias son todas interesantísimas, pero uno no acaba convencido de lo que quiere demostrar el autor. La impresión que da es que ha juntado muchas historias para intentar imbricarlas en un todo, sin conseguirlo. Cada historia tiene su moraleja, pero no siempre es la moraleja que el autor quiere darle.
Hay además un fallo de bulto: en una de las secciones, el autor intenta demostrar que si uno es más alto tiene mayores probabilidades de ser director de una empresa (CEO). Como prueba, mira las estaturas de los directores de las principales empresas norteamericanas y comprueba que son superiores a la media. Cae de lleno en la falacia post hoc, ergo propter hoc (después de, por tanto a causa de). El hecho de que una cosa suceda a continuación de otra NO implica que está causada por ella. Pueden estar ambas causadas por una tercera cosa o pueden ser independientes. Clamoroso fallo en un libro por lo demás medianamente bien argumentado.
En cualquier caso, les recomiendo el libro. No lo miren como un ensayo razonado sino como una colección de historias interesantes. En eso sí que es un libro superior.
Mi nota: Muy entretenido show less