2011 Book Review #107: Blink

[jethrien]

Title: Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking
Author: Malcolm Gladwell
Genre: Pop psychology
Thingummies: 4

Synopsis: Analysis of the unconscious mind through entertaining anecdotes and a little psychology research.

Thoughts: Gladwell has perfected the form of the anecdote-laden pop psychology book. After The Tipping Point, he seems to have capitalized on his success, and if you liked that or Outliers, you'll probably like this one as well.

There's a lot of revelation-through-stories here, whether it be the story of a possibly forged Greek statue or that of Amadou Diallo. They help a lot with making the grand pronouncements seem sensible and relevant. Fortunately, he also spends a lot of time talking to and about researchers in the field, so it's not all anecdata. Most of his point is that our unconscious is a very powerful tool that is also easily misdirected, and that we should learn how it works so that we can train it to work for us rather than against us.

While I find many of his points to be very interesting, I'm not sure I always agree with the conclusions he draws from them. For example, he discusses the fact that what causes people to sue for malpractice is not how badly they were hurt but how they feel about the doctor. Doctors who are cold and domineering are a lot more likely to be sued, even if they are making the same number or fewer mistakes than ones who are warm. And the impression these doctors give can be analyzed just through tone of voice--the way they start speaking immediately can be linked to how likely they are to be disliked and thus sued. But Gladwell then tries to generalize it for us, saying that if a doctor makes you feel uncomfortable, you should get a new one because most likely this one has a higher malpractice rate. That doesn't actually follow, though--the mean doctor is no more likely to make a mistake on you. They're just more likely to make you mad. It isn't a case of your subconscious working for you, but rather of it working against you. The only relevant conclusion I can see is for doctors--be nice, and your malpractice suit rate will go down.

So it's a fascinating read, but I'd take some of the conclusions with a grain of salt.

Comments

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I once got into an infuriating argument with some House fans who were saying they wish their doctor was like House in real life. I was trying to convince them that it's only the framing device of the show that lets you know he's brilliant. If a doctor just walked into your hospital room and acted like that? You'd hate him.

Medical outcomes are so often ambivalent, I find it easy to believe that people sue cold doctors more than kind ones.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

I had a specialist once who had the worst bedside manner imaginable, although he was great over the phone. He was House without the charm. Yeah, you do NOT want that for your doctor.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

It's not ideal, no. But if a doctor makes you uncomfortable in that way, the reason to leave is because he makes you uncomfortable. Not because he's more likely to make a mistake on you. Because that's what he just proved--that cold doctors are sued more not because they cause more harm but because they're disliked. In fact, a really nice doctor with the same rate of malpractice suits as a cold doctor might actually be more likely to make a mistake and they're just not getting called on it because they're likable.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, I'm not saying that Gladwell's reasoning was sound! It seems circular and quite flawed, in fact.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

It's a pity. But I still did really enjoy the book. Even if I don't agree with all his conclusions, there's a lot here to think about.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

I really need to read one or more of his books. I find the concepts interesting, if nothing else, and I feel like I'm missing out by not reading them.