For the most part, I find Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" to be an enlightening read because it challenges the way we think, and forces us to look at ourselves in a new light. However, what I don't like about the book is how Gladwell blatantly outlines his thesis on pages 14 and 15, thereby removing any and all surprises to come for the reader. And having spent two-thirds of my undergraduate career in English Literature courses, I instinctively knew that I was no longer reading a book after page 15, but rather a well researched psychology paper instead (an idea I wasn't too keen on at first because the last thing I wanted to do was to read another "essay":). In fact, Gladwell is so desperate to prove his arguments that his tone even becomes condescending at times. For instance, Gladwell says "I'm being a bit insulting. You think you really do know your way around Pepsi and Coke...I urge you to test yourself" (185). This example clearly illustrates how he tries to force his arguments onto readers rather than allowing them to come to their own conclusions. Moreover, I feel Gladwell fails to deliver on his promise of offering solutions to help the reader change his/her first impressions (or at least tell us something we don't already know). Gladwell says people can treat minorities better by being "exposed to minorities on a regular basis" and to "become familiar with the best of their culture" (97). But for all Gladwell's faults, he does offer more than enough shining moments to make up for it. Some of my favorite parts in the book include how a marriage needs at least a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative emotion in a given encounter to survive (26), a tennis player actually hits the ball blindly since it's moving too fast to be seen (68), "an inch of height is worth $789 a year in salary" (88), doctors don't support the use of algorithms for diagnosis in fear of being replaced by them since anyone can follow an algorithm (139), offering less choice to consumers generates more sales (142), Pepsi is designed to excel in a sip tests versus Coke (159), and the description of the genuine smile whose absence can unmask false friends (210).
Perhaps if there had been a "screen" in place (i.e. if I was unaware that the book was a #1 National Bestseller, I never studied English Lit courses and I discovered the book on my own rather than hearing rave reviews from trusted sources), I think "Blink" may have even been able to garner a perfect rating from me. But in the end, I stand behind my 4/5 rating because I don't necessarily agree with Gladwell's lesson in how we should try to change our "Blink moments" and solve our prejudices (252) once we become aware of our "corrupted" snap judgments. I mean, who's to say what's the right thing to do? We all know that we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of appearance, gender, ethnicity or age, but what about the rest of the things in the world? For instance, if a person looks at a chocolate bar and "thin-slices" by using a knife and fork to eat it with, does that behavior have to be corrected? And more importantly, I feel that our individual prejudices and stereotypes are what inherently defines us as unique individuals and if we were to all think or react the same way, then there'd no longer be any conflict, reason to evolve, interesting news to report, and the world would be a boring place to live. How can there be good without evil or triumph without failure?
To learn more about this author, visit Kevin Lee's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
|
|
|
