BLINK TWICE ON "BLINK"
Malcolm Gladwell’s eagerly anticipated second book, “Blink,” is for sale now. I haven’t gotten a chance to read it but I have seen excerpts and skimmed book reviews. And I have to say that while I am a fan and believer, I am skeptical about the premises of “Blink.”
Ironically, his premise might be what keeps me from accepting his premise. “Blink” argues that our intuition, often formed in seconds, is remarkably accurate. He uses examples from a variety of fields: art experts who instantly knew that a particular piece was a fraud when other experts’ extensive analysis said it wasn’t; athletes who rely on instinct rather than thinking their steps through; and psychologists who could predict with 90% accuracy which marriages were destined for success based on thirty seconds of observation.
I’m sure the book is well-written, engaging, and more nuanced than my above summary. Nevertheless, I am leery of the power of first impressions to create a filter by which everything about something gets processed. In other words, Gladwell writes about how when we meet someone, we form an almost instantaneous impression about them based on something, and then we extrapolate everything about them based on that something. If I notice that someone is clean-shaven, I make assumptions about what his work desk looks, what job he has, what kind of communications style he uses. And Gladwell argues that more often than not, I am surprisingly correct.
You might think I’m going in a certain direction with this argument, but I’m not. Such thinking as described above can lead to pre-judging and stereotyping and stubbornness, yes. It is noble to withhold judgment; to not make assumptions; and to be open-minded enough that if the second thing you learn about someone doesn’t fit the profile you’ve created about them after you learned the first thing, you change the profile. All well and good, I agree.
I guess where I’m coming from is Billy Beane’s “Moneyball” school of thought. I’m a contrarian who believes there’s money to be made and advantage to be gained by going against popular and simplified opinion. The masses tend to overvalue certain things and undervalue other things. And these misvaluations are usually based on first impressions, impressions that may hold some truth to them but filter out other, larger truths. Dan Quayle was a laughingstock in the mid-1990’s for a couple of verbal gaffes, obscuring a decorated vice-presidential administration. People fawn over Derek Jeter for being such a clutch player, but in fact his statistical performance in “clutch” situations is at or below his normal performance. Procter and Gamble got unfairly beat up in the media a few years ago, and investor lemmings sold in a panic, dropping prices well below what they should be.
Smart people know how to take advantage of these misvaluations. In the political realm, smart administrators know to choose what works over what sounds good. The Oakland A’s have fielded a competitive team at a fraction of the New York Yankees’ payroll by buying up undervalued players. And value investors make a lot of money snatching up out-of-favor stocks that tend to regain their losses once the masses realize the fundamentals are still there.
So is Malcolm Gladwell advocating the kind of “herd” mentality I abhor? I’m sure he doesn’t, or if he does it isn’t as simple as that. I hope I don’t let this first impression of “Blink” create an unwavering profile of the book such that when I finally get around to reading it, I’m able to keep an open mind. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
Malcolm Gladwell’s eagerly anticipated second book, “Blink,” is for sale now. I haven’t gotten a chance to read it but I have seen excerpts and skimmed book reviews. And I have to say that while I am a fan and believer, I am skeptical about the premises of “Blink.”
Ironically, his premise might be what keeps me from accepting his premise. “Blink” argues that our intuition, often formed in seconds, is remarkably accurate. He uses examples from a variety of fields: art experts who instantly knew that a particular piece was a fraud when other experts’ extensive analysis said it wasn’t; athletes who rely on instinct rather than thinking their steps through; and psychologists who could predict with 90% accuracy which marriages were destined for success based on thirty seconds of observation.
I’m sure the book is well-written, engaging, and more nuanced than my above summary. Nevertheless, I am leery of the power of first impressions to create a filter by which everything about something gets processed. In other words, Gladwell writes about how when we meet someone, we form an almost instantaneous impression about them based on something, and then we extrapolate everything about them based on that something. If I notice that someone is clean-shaven, I make assumptions about what his work desk looks, what job he has, what kind of communications style he uses. And Gladwell argues that more often than not, I am surprisingly correct.
You might think I’m going in a certain direction with this argument, but I’m not. Such thinking as described above can lead to pre-judging and stereotyping and stubbornness, yes. It is noble to withhold judgment; to not make assumptions; and to be open-minded enough that if the second thing you learn about someone doesn’t fit the profile you’ve created about them after you learned the first thing, you change the profile. All well and good, I agree.
I guess where I’m coming from is Billy Beane’s “Moneyball” school of thought. I’m a contrarian who believes there’s money to be made and advantage to be gained by going against popular and simplified opinion. The masses tend to overvalue certain things and undervalue other things. And these misvaluations are usually based on first impressions, impressions that may hold some truth to them but filter out other, larger truths. Dan Quayle was a laughingstock in the mid-1990’s for a couple of verbal gaffes, obscuring a decorated vice-presidential administration. People fawn over Derek Jeter for being such a clutch player, but in fact his statistical performance in “clutch” situations is at or below his normal performance. Procter and Gamble got unfairly beat up in the media a few years ago, and investor lemmings sold in a panic, dropping prices well below what they should be.
Smart people know how to take advantage of these misvaluations. In the political realm, smart administrators know to choose what works over what sounds good. The Oakland A’s have fielded a competitive team at a fraction of the New York Yankees’ payroll by buying up undervalued players. And value investors make a lot of money snatching up out-of-favor stocks that tend to regain their losses once the masses realize the fundamentals are still there.
So is Malcolm Gladwell advocating the kind of “herd” mentality I abhor? I’m sure he doesn’t, or if he does it isn’t as simple as that. I hope I don’t let this first impression of “Blink” create an unwavering profile of the book such that when I finally get around to reading it, I’m able to keep an open mind. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
Comments