in Search
Welcome to Neopoleon - Sign in | Join | Help
Navigation: Home | Forums | Galleries

Blink: The Review

I read Blink recently.

If you haven’t heard of it, then that’s weird. It’s one of those books that everybody seems to be talking about. All my friends are reading it/have read it/are going to read it, and I’ve been getting impromptu and unsolicited reviews on the book from everybody and his mamma over the past month or so.

I decided that, for once, I wasn’t going to let a big piece of pop culture phenomena pass me by, so I went down to the store and picked up a copy.

“Have you read that yet?” asked the cashier.

I thought that was kind of a stupid question since I was buying it. While it’s possible that I was buying it as a gift after having initially read and fallen in love with it, it’s much more likely that I had not, in fact, read the book.

“No,” I replied.

“You really should,” was the cashier’s follow-up.

I thought that was good, sound advice. I probably never would have thought of doing that WITH THE BOOK I WAS BUYING RIGHT THEN AND THERE GOD DAMN IT WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO ****ING DUMB AND STUPID AND HOW DOES HE EVEN TIE HIS GOD DAMNED SHOES IN THE MORNING AND…

[ahem]

Sorry.

I’m a little hormonal right now.

Anyway, I took the cashier’s fabulous advice, went home, and got going with the book.

If you haven’t heard much about it, here’s a summary of the entire book, condensed into one small paragraph for your cerebro-ocularescent feasting pleasure:

Blink is a book about snap judgments and decisions and how they’re often more important than the decisions we arrive at after actually thinking and reasoning. This is stated both on the book flap as well as in the first chapter. The next 972 pages consist of anecdotal evidence to support the author’s boring, stupid claim.

My snap judgment? The book sucks.

My reasoned, thought-out judgment? The book really sucks.

I don’t want to be little Mr. Negativitypants, but this book is a serious stinker. It’s reminiscent of the conversations I used to have with my friends after cramming large quantities of illegal drugs into our bodies.

“Duuuuuuuuude… Wouldn’t it be crazy if… if TV watched us? Whoooooooooooooaaaahhhhh….”

Sure. It’s a fun thought, but it’s not the kind of thing you want to write a whole book about.

The other reason I’m opposed to all this “Blink” philosophy is that I think there’s quite a bit too much of this “Blink” thought going on already.

Salesman: This bracelet has energized Q-Particles which cure herpes, insomnia, and bad luck. They were used by Cleopatra, who got them from the Atlanteans before they mind-warped to the Gamma Quadrant. They come in blue and purple because those colors exist in the Magna-Ether Energy Band. They’re only $99 a piece - what do you think?

[.000024 seconds later]

Sucker: Q-Particles? Sounds good! I’ll take two.

If anything, we need less BlinkThink(TM).

The idea behind this book strikes me as the kind of thing people in suits get excited about because they think they’ve just been shown a new portal to consumers’ souls. If you’re stuck in a rut with your regular old mode of thought, then this book might shake the Etch-a-Sketch that is your brain into a new way of looking at the world, but only if you’re really, really desperate.

I realize that I’m kind of pooping all over this book, but I’m left with the impression that the author is riding the coattails of his own success, and used the opportunity to push this sucker out the door to throngs of impatient fans of his previous stuff.

That, or this is just a contractual obligation book, in which case the author is hereby absolved of all responsibility to produce a work that doesn’t stink.

Either way, I want my $25.00 back.

My final ratings are as follows:


Metric:  Haggi

Explanation: How many servings of haggis I would eat before reading this book again (the graphic is supposed to look like a stomach, ‘cause that’s, like, what haggis is).

Rating: Blink_haggis Blink_haggis Blink_haggis Blink_haggis Blink_haggis 4/5 Haggi

I would have given this book more haggi, but the problem is that my stomach has its own limits, and I don’t think I could possibly eat more than four haggi in one sitting.

Fortunately, after eating so much haggis, I think I’d probably pass out, rendering myself unable to read the book, so four is probably safe.


Metric: Star Wars: Episode One Light Sabres

Explanation: How many times I’d be willing to watch that godawful movie before I’d turn to other forms of entertainment, like Blink, to save my brain.

Rating: Blink_lightsabre Blink_haggis Blink_haggis Blink_haggis Blink_haggis 1/5 Star Wars: Episode One Light Sabres

This was a tough one. I had to choose between having my brain assaulted by something lame, and something utterly retarded.

I opted for the former. I could probably only sit through Episode One once before running, screaming, for a copy of Blink.


Metric: Limbs

Explanation: The number of my limbs you’d have to chop off before I’d recommend this book to a friend.

Rating: Blink_blank Blink_blank Blink_blank Blink_blank Blink_blank 0/5 Limbs

Bad as this book is, I’m not about to give up any of my limbs. I’ll recommend this book to you up and down, day and night, before I let anybody get anywhere near one of my pinkies with a meat cleaver.

Plus, misery loves company, so I invite you, now, to pick up a copy of Blink and enjoy it as much as I did.

Published Sunday, April 17, 2005 8:35 PM by Rory

Filed Under: ,

Comments

 

paul said:

I haven't read the book and don't feel as if I need to. I sat eight feet away from this Malcolm Gladwell for twenty minutes before he gave his talk at SXSW and he never looked at me. I snapped twenty photos of him and they all came out strange as if he is from Mars or something. He is a great speaker, got to give him that, but he really doesn’t have much to say. http://www.flickr.com/photos/30325889@N00/6837152/
April 17, 2005 9:37 PM
 

George said:

Rory,

Since you didn't like the book do you mind if I borrow it to read? You have me all curious about it now.

Kind of like sniffing the air and asking me if I smell that. Of course I'm going to sniff so I can share in the misery of the god awful smell.

So can I?
April 17, 2005 10:56 PM
 

Jeff Atwood said:

There is actual data supporting the hypothesis that that people make decisions rather quickly. I've never read "Blink", but you might want to check out the book "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions"

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000248.html

--- Quoting Steve Krug from "Don't Make Me Think"

I'd observed this behavior for years, but its significance wasn't really clear to me until I read Gary Klein's book Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Klein spent 15 years studying naturalistic decision making: how people like firefighters, pilots, chessmasters, and nuclear power plant operators make high-stakes decisions in real settings with time pressure, vague goals, limited information, and changing conditions.

Klein's team of observers went into their first study (of field commanders at fire scenes) with the generally accepted model of rational decision making: Faced with a problem, a person gathers information, identifies the possible solutions, and chooses the best one. They started with the hypothesis that because of the high stakes and extreme time pressure, fire captains would be able to compare only two options, an assumption they thought was conservative. As it turned out, the fire commanders didn't compare any options. They took the first reasonable plan that came to mind and did a quick mental test for problems. If they didn't find any, they had their plan of action.
---
April 18, 2005 12:10 AM
 

Rory said:

Paul -

"He is a great speaker, got to give him that, but he really doesn’t have much to say"

That's how I felt about his writing - very clear, but little substance.

He also had a broken record thing going on - repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating...

I hate to say it because of how harsh it sounds, but I probably could have gotten just as much information from reading a *review* of his book. It really all comes down to his thesis, which was simple and focused. The lack of serious data to back it up was what made it feel airy - lacking in substance, as you said.
April 18, 2005 6:05 AM
 

Rory said:

George, my dear friend -

"Since you didn't like the book do you mind if I borrow it to read?"

Of *course* you can.

Whenever we hook up next - I'll get it to you.
April 18, 2005 6:08 AM
 

Rory said:

Jeff -

"There is actual data supporting the hypothesis that that people make decisions rather quickly."

I don't doubt it, but the quote you posted references people with some seriously specialized knowledge.

Take chess players for example - what might seem like a quick decision isn't even really a decision in many cases. Many players are going to play their games based on knowledge of openings, historical data on the middle game, and an understanding of the end game (which they might not even arrive at).

There's quite a bit that can be done on autopilot, and I think that the *better* you are, the more likely you are to go on autopilot for some positions and games.

It isn't rare for the same game to be played over, move for move, by different players at different times. But, the best will do so *knowing* that they're playing a position that has been "proven" to be advantageous.

So, where's the reasoning or decision making?

I don't think the chessboard is a good analogue for the real world where decisions are made with a combination of knowledge about the past, but also new information from the present context. I've heard people say silly things like, "The number of chess games that can be played is near infinite." Aside from the stupid phrase "near infinite," the reality is that, for good players, there are only so many games - you can, for example, scratch out every game which would begin with moving flank pawns out so that rooks can be brought into the game immediately (something you'll see five year olds do). This really limits us from the number of *possible* games to focus only on the number of *likely* games, which is much, much smaller.

If life were as simple as choosing between a king pawn opening and a queen pawn opening, then I could see how the split-second decision making process of chess could apply, but since daily life is quite a bit more complex, I don't feel that the example holds up.

I could argue similarly for firefighters, nuclear plant operators, and so on - they're dealing with *mostly* closed systems where decisions can often be made "by the book."

- Touch the doorknob to see if it's hot - if it is, don't open the door

- Look at the meter-thingy to see if the radiation thingies are too thingied - if they're too thingied then thingy the thingy that thingies the things

And so on.

'Course, I could be wrong. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm on some motion sickness meds because I've had the spins today :)

I guess that what I want to say is this: People can make split-second decisions, but they aren't necessarily better. Reason can kick instinct's butt up and down the schoolyard when properly applied (instinct says that I should be making sexual advances at every passing "acceptable" female, but reason, fortunately, keeps those feelings at bay - at first, it was a process that required thinking about the repurcussions about such actions, but now I've internalized this behavior, and the decisions seems to be plucked from a cache - kind of like a CPU's instruction cache).

I'd better shut up, though. I'm drug rambling.
April 18, 2005 6:28 AM
 

a Fred you know said:

Heinlein once said that you could assess a self-proclaimed intellectual by asking his or her opinion of astrology. Me, I just ask what they thought of "The Da Vinci Code." I suspect the same people who made that a success are now recommending "Blink," so thanks for saving me some time.

WRT decision making, I don't doubt that many of us make snap judgments, but those decisions go through the heuristic algorithms we've all used with varying degrees of success since birth. I don't find the fact that most of us make snap judgments to be all that newsworthy--that's one of those "man on the street" discoveries--but instead find myself fascinated by the actual process. Silicon's got nothing on neurons for massively parallel processing.

Say you've just met someone, and decide you don't like that person. If asked later, you'd have to analyze the myriad sources of input and experience that went into that supposedly-snap decision in order to give a complete answer. I don't think any of us are in touch with the real mechanism enough to identify every single factor, though.

To Rory's point, reason might give better answers in the long run. But you'd have to assess all the criteria consciously, weighing every factor, and perhaps most importantly learn to distrust the voice of your subconscious. And I don't know about you, but my subconscious kicks my conscious mind's ass nearly every time.
April 18, 2005 7:20 AM
 

a snappy one said:

Geez. I've always thought that snap decisions were the way to go. Why? Because it gives you more time to correct your mistakes when you discover that it was the wrong decision. :)
April 18, 2005 2:49 PM
 

skicow said:

Maybe the author is on to something here about snap decisions....but then again he might have read Al Jaffee's "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions" as a child and thought that the snappy answers were so brilliant that he decided to let the world know what it was missing....Meh.
April 18, 2005 3:13 PM
 

Ian said:

Rory, if you have a 'that's innapropriate' cache it must have come from a ZX81 mate ;-)
April 18, 2005 3:46 PM
 

Maurício said:

Zero out of *FIVE* limbs?
April 19, 2005 3:41 PM
 

Rory said:

Mauricio -

"Zero out of *FIVE* limbs?"

I've been waiting patiently for someone to notice that :)
April 19, 2005 4:00 PM
 

Stuart said:

If you're wondering about Rodawg's fifth limb, Don Box is an excellent resource.

http://neopoleon.com/blog/posts/263.aspx
April 20, 2005 9:54 PM
 

Mark Freedman said:

Maybe I should read the book before making this comment (well, maybe not), but it sounds like this book tries to validate the people who don't want to actually "think" because thinking is hard work. "Wow, I really don't have to think things out? Cool! I'll just wing it!"
April 21, 2005 5:01 PM
 

Jason Scheuerman said:

It's brilliant recursive marketing. It's a book about making snap descisions without thinking. The message being, "Don't think about it, just buy the book!" Rory, you've fallen into their little trap. Mwhahahaha
May 3, 2005 3:13 AM
 

TrackBack said:

The Man Who Invented the Mall
May 5, 2005 9:46 PM
 

Neopoleon said:

Remember those weird goth kids you went to high school with? The ones who wore fishnet stockings, painted...
December 7, 2006 12:35 AM
 

Craig Fratrik said:

I would have recommended the book to you, as I have other people, so I feel morally obligated to offer you $25 in exchange for your book. I'll probably just give it as a gift to someone else.
December 7, 2006 6:17 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled

About Rory

I *own* this site, you loser.