Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

From what I have read of negative reviews here- most people who don't like the book don't like it because they disagree with it. The idea itself is quite controversial, and I'm not sure I fully agree with Gladwell, but the manner in which he presents it is entertaining and enjoyable to read. His anecdotes do show some examples where "thin slicing" can come quite in handy, but he doesn't say this should overrule thought out processes- his point is that sometimes we can "thin slice" and be right, when overanalyzing leads to the wrong conclusion.
The book is very well written and great for anyone who likes to have something to talk about. I also recommend this book to anyone who likes the book "Freakonomics" because Gladwell uses a similar anecdotal writing stye to Levitt and Dubner.
You shouldn't let your doubts keep you from reading this book- you don't have to agree with Gladwell just because you read it. It's fun read even if you disagree.

As it's title suggests `Blink' is essentially about what happens within those first few seconds of meeting someone new. Reading the book, we quickly learn that first impressions are more important than we realize.

Gladwell uses stories as diverse as dating scenes and military maneuvers to show us just how powerful a first impression is and then shows us how we can use this to our advantage.

For a job seeker in particular, this can be a very powerful tool. Knowing how to give the right first impression can make an astounding difference to how successful we are in job interviews and life in general.

Danny Iny
Author of the free eBook "Forget Everything You Know About Looking For a Job... And Actually Find One!"
HuntingToHired, [...]

Having read The Tipping Point for our book club, I was looking forward to reading this book with the same group, and was not disappointed. Fascinating insights into a fairly obscure topic. Makes one really think about ones own prejudices and intuitions.

Although I found "blink" engrossing, Gladwell's talent as a writer often lets him get away with murder. The distinctions he makes sometimes seem arbitrary, particularly if one takes just a little more than 2 seconds to mull things over. Some of his extrapolations not only seem unjustified but mislead. For example, in his discussion of malpractice, Gladwell urges his patients to find their doctors "wanting" if they appear not to be listening or talking down. But the research on which Gladwell bases his malpractice discussion simply found a correlation between this sort of behavior and a physician's likelihood of being sued. There was no discussion of whether the physicians who were sued more frequently when this sort of behavior was present also had delivered less appropriate care with any greater frequency. While many of us would prefer a doctor who takes the time to listen, we also want a competent doctor. Would it necessarily be wise to pass up a doctor with an excellent clinical reputation simply because he/she was a cold fish? In a discussion about hospital emergency departments, Gladwell asserts that "what screws up doctors when they are trying to predict heart attacks is that they take too much information into account." He bases this conclusion on research performed in the 1970s that produced an algorithm for determining heart attacks that considered far less data than traditional methods of diagnosis and was far more accurate and safe. What seems obvious, however, is that the algorithm worked better not because it required less information but rather because it had identified the right information to use. And the algorithm had been developed after only "feeding hundreds of cases into a computer", so there also appears to have been nothing intuitive about which data would prove to be the best data to use in assessing the likelihood of heart attack. Gladwell ends his Afterword with the suggestion that, given the demonstrated bias against black defendants in criminal trials, "the accused shouldn't be in the courtroom" and "should answer all questions by e-mail or through the use of an intermediary." In this manner, the jury's and judge's bias would be mitigated. Constitutional issues aside, if juries and judges are on average (at least unconsciously) biased against black defendants, why shouldn't those same biases affect jury and judge perceptions of black witnesses? Do we also need to remove all witnesses from the courtroom? But after having removed all witnesses and defendants from the courtroom, how much potentially valuable information is lost by the inability to view witness and defendant (if the defendant chooses to take the stand) facial and body language of the sort that Gladwell earlier in the book asserts is so meaningful? Has one type of injustice been "solved" in exchange for creating the possibility of many more? My gut tells me that figuring out how to remedy courtroom racial bias is going to require more thinking than blinking.

I really love a good story, and the stories in this book were fascinating, especially since you weren't sure where each one was going. So much food for thought-- you may just read it in a few days, but spend weeks thinking about it (or telling your husband about it over and over...). Great!