Talking to Strangers

4.5 stars.

This was not at all what I thought it would be. Granted, any new book by Malcolm Gladwell gets added to the library list, regardless of what it's about, so I didn't even read the description.

It is not about how to make better conversation with strangers. It is a thought-provoking look at the kind of assumptions we make about reading people that are so deep we would never think about them if we didn't read books like these. Mostly. There were some sections that I felt were rather obvious, if not still instructive: Succeeding in public society is partly tied to your ability to present yourself well, whether you can be trusted or not. That's common sense. But can you tell who is accurately representing their character? Nope. And neither can intelligence agencies, judges or law enforcement. Because they're strangers. It's rather depressing to see studies on this and reminds me of some of the research showing that algorithms are better at investing than people.

The biggest takeaway, for me, was the origin of police officers making up ridiculous traffic violations in order to pull people over to look for bigger problems. This is such an obvious tactic that has happened to myself and multiple people in my family. Knowing that it originated as a solution to extreme crime for use in a certain way in a certain part of town and has been extrapolated to the entire nation... wow. A classic example of copycat strategy without understanding why the strategy worked in the first place. And is clearly causing more harm than good. I feel almost like this theme, which seems to be the goal he's working toward, should almost be a separate book. Not that everything in the middle isn't interesting, but this topic could stand alone. It feels like he started with his premise and wrote backwards.

Coupling, related to this, was also interesting, which is roughly another way to describe context. When you understand how reductionist Western society is compared to other parts of the world this isn't surprising.

I enjoyed his chapter on transparency, illustrated by the tv show Friends (which I have never watched), because I absolutely despise sitcoms, and I wonder if this is why. Not only are the plots unrealistic, the expressions are too.

I enjoy Malcolm Gladwell's books because they're a mile wide and foot deep. He makes you think in an engaging way, and his books are a quick read. It's enough to pique your curiosity or inform you of new research. The more in depth books—deep dives into a narrow field of study—are what I prefer to read, so his books give me references to more material (reading about his oversimplification of the “10,000 hours rule” vs. reading Peak, the book by that researcher, for example). Also my expectation of pop nonfiction isn't super high. This isn't his best work, but if you enjoy a little history, psychology, science and drama, it's an enjoyable book and will make you think twice the next time you're trying to read a stranger.

I've been listening to podcasts and other things instead of reading lately, so I thought this audiobook would be a good transition back, it's produced like an episode of Gladwell's podcast.

I like Gladwell's ability to find interesting stories/people and draw broad conclusions from them. He generally stays on a topic just long enough for it to remain interesting before moving on to a tangentially related but fairly different one.

I enjoyed this book, but it didn't interest me as much as some of his other's. Concepts such defaulting to truth or mismatched presentation were well explained, but I didn't think the conclusions that were reached from some of the stories told about them were as thought provoking as I hoped they would be.

Having never read a book by Gladwell previously, I enjoyed this more than I thought it would. I struggled through Sapiens and thought I would with this book as well because of it's non-fiction nature. For the most part I enjoyed the book, but sometimes Gladwell can go on tangents only somewhat related to the topic. Still, I had some good takeaways from reading Talking to Strangers.

4.5 stars. Of the non-fiction books I've read in recent memory none of them have challenged the way I perceive fellow humans like this book. Gladwell, after a string of racially fuelled incidents between law and enforcement personnel and civilians roughly between 2014 and 2016, reached his own tipping point and began to wonder how we as individuals approach, judge, and assume the intentions of strangers; folks we know absolutely nothing about. Through a great collection of historical ponderings, psychological inquiry, and modern day stories from the US and abroad, I was taken on a full-blown expedition of how rash thinking can ensnare the humane side of humanity. I felt my own mind, at times, getting defensive at some of the conclusions he was making, which is usually a telltale sign (for me at least) of a long-forged conclusion getting nudged into a new line of thinking. I thank this book for that, and feel compelled to broaden my senses for the better as I live alongside folks I too quickly place in a box.

I struggled to connect with where the book was going at the start so as a result I put it away for a while. Then when I picked it up today I immediately caught on and read it through. I was captivated the whole way. As always Malcolm Gladwell's analysis is always captivating and really thought provoking, whether you agree with it or not. It not only changed the way I view my interactions and perspectives about strangers but also made me reflect on my own personal biases. I'll definitely carry these ideas with me and think about them more. At the end, I really enjoyed this book

Great story-telling, great audio production, but very little in actual analysis or advice. Gladwell's main points are that we don't know people as well as we think we do. Our natural instinct is to trust that people are being truthful, yet that can get us into trouble.

While I wasn't aware of the details of many of the discussed stories, that wasn't why I was reading the book. I wanted more social science, and less entertaining stories about the atrocities of our day... as I see them already. It is very apparent that we are not good at determining whether or not strangers are who they say they are. From the small, everyday misunderstandings or betrayals to the large and terrifying ones, it is obvious that people are different and do not think the same. This book offers few points of actual advice or solution. These stories are important to hear and understand, but I don't know if this is the right book in which to tell them.

Listened to the audiobook. Definitely felt like a podcast. Good quality.

“Don't look at the stranger and jump to conclusions. Look at the stranger's world.”

Don't get me wrong - I can never put down a Malcolm Gladwell book or article. However, this one was a harder one to keep me engaged. The premise and the theory are there. So are the intertwining examples. I just feel this could have less examples to connect the dots - at times it felt a bit repetitive. Never felt there was a conclusion, a statement of facts or a final summary. Something to bring it all together.

This sits somewhere between a 3.5 to 4 for me.

He is definitely an amazing story teller.
Very interesting, detailed, captivating real life stories. And sensitive topics.

That said, for some reason, I never got his message: We don't know how to talk to strangers, we can be easily deceived because we default to truth, drinking cloud our judgement (and ok to rape an unconscious woman??), sexual abuse cases are complicated hence we can't hold higher ups responsible?? Not sure ..
It definitely didn't leave a good taste in my mouth.

A lot of good material, well presented, but what an unsatisfying ending. I got the feeling that Gladwell has let his (excellent) podcasting skills bleed into his writing: “Setup setup setup. Rhetorical questions? Pithy one-liner–in its own paragraph. Repeat.” It mostly worked, possibly because the book is short, but was grating at times and I think it diminished his impact somewhat.The material, as I said, is very good: on how bad humans are at detecting lies, and he takes that into intriguing directions, zigging and zagging along seeming tangents but it's always clear where he's going – he's developing a case, showing us the building blocks and letting us put them together. It's just that, at the end, it feels like a (sorry) cop-out. He takes on the brutal U.S. police system but basically just ends on a tut-tut note. (Admittedly, this was published in 2019, and the social conversation has taken a new tone since then). I was also disappointed that he doesn't even touch on the links between gullibility and religion. (Then again, that would've hurt sales).Three point something stars. I tried really hard to round up to four, flipping through it over and over, rereading choice parts, skimming gestalt of particular sections, but I can't justify the bump. Please don't let that discourage you from reading it: I still recommend it. It was informative and entertaining and thought-provoking. Just... ultimately unsatisfying.Biggest takeaway: I want to read Timothy Levine's [b:Duped 46168432 Duped Truth-Default Theory and the Social Science of Lying and Deception Timothy R. Levine https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1560072441l/46168432.SX50.jpg 71125637].

There's something about Malcolm Gladwell's books that makes me turn page after page like an addiction. Maybe it's the style with which he tells a story, maybe it's the out of the box conclusions that make me think hard and consider different points of view. I do not agree every time. But I take great pleasure in having that invisible argument with him in my head.

Despite the obvious correlations not causations fallacy, I thought the stories and the gimmicks in Gladwell's books make for an easy yet interesting read. But this book set such horrible precedent in the introduction itself where he is kinda defending Brock Turner. I stopped reading at that point and looked up interviews or articles about this. There's well deserved backlash and criticism out there.

Someone recommended this as an audiobook because of the way interviews and transcripts are included as audio (some are recreations) which is neat! But it opens with the recording from the Sandra Bland traffic stop, which is incredibly stressful and potentially triggering. There are a couple other content-warning worthy inclusions, the US gymnastics doctor, the football coach, and the Brock Turner rape which are hard to listen to.

Otherwise, there are a number of interesting investigations into why we are bad at catching people lying, different types of policing, where our expectations for “appropriate” reactions to stressful situations may lead us astray.

Scrolling through the multiple 1 star reviews, their points are valid and I wholeheartedly stand with the victims. The way Malcolm handles some of the cases are not great. Messy, and oversimplifies conclusions to simple take-aways. However, I'm not one to throw the whole book out because 50% of it is shit. The examples were argued badly, but the core lessons were useful to hear.

I benefitted from learning about the default to truth problem. Admittedly, I am an optimistic person always giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I see now how that can blind me from seeing people as who they truly are; strangers, acquaintances, especially those of authority. People who you assume are supposed to have your best interests at heart when in fact the only person who can help you is yourself. I knew that, but this helped reinforce it.

This is one of many lessons that I take away from this book, and that, at least, gives me reason to rate this book at least 3 stars. It's not perfect, but it's not all shit either. As long as you know where you stand in the arguments he makes, you can come away with the lessons, and leave the rest where it belongs: in the trash.

I'm more than a little gobsmacked by this one.

When did Malcolm Gladwell get red-pilled into a right wing apologist? Or is it just after countless bestselling books and a lucrative podcast empire he thought he'd just go for it with this Fox News ready hot-take?

I mean it starts with Sandra Bland, pulled over in Texas, arrested, jailed and found dead by suicide in her cell three days later. In a book called Talking to Strangers about our inability to properly communicate with people we don't know, this seems a narrow view of the whole interaction. It's like the conversational equivalent of “you shouldn't have worn that dress.”

Let's ignore the fact Bland was jailed 3 days for a failed lane signal. That Starbucks baristas have better de-escalation skills than the arresting officer who was, let's not forget, indicted for perjury. This reads like yet another story of “driving while Black” not one of crossed wires and an incomplete transfer of information.

But then Gladwell decides to weigh in on the case of campus rapist Brock Turner.

Brock Turner of course is the former Stanford University swim star, son of a civilian contractor for the United States Air Force who was charged for “20 minutes of action” and served 3 months of a six month sentence after Judge Aaaron Perskey (a Stanford Alumnus himself) felt that prison would have a severe impact on him.

And here comes Gladwell using this, of all incidents, to put forward the notion that sexual assault is a failure to agree on the rules of consent because alcohol causes mental myopia. That Brock Turner simply was ill-equipped to know what he was doing when we was raping an unconscious woman, neglecting the fact he still somehow had enough of a self-preservation instinct to try and run away when he was discovered.

That we're to minimize this is a crime of violence where individuals exert their power and control over another individual sexually and instead speak of it as miscommunication - to shifting the blame to the victim for their failure to communicate clearly is a hard fucking no. And it's not just reprehensible on the page, it has real world ramifications. In fact, just this year the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that it isn't rape to have sex with an unconscious woman if she's gotten drunk voluntarily. What.The.Fuck.

And there the book goes from being willfully dumb, narrowly focused, and cherry picking whatever helps the preexisting argument to downright dangerous. I've just read a 300 page opinion piece from a Conservative rag with all the hard-hitting, well-researched rigour of an online anti-vaxxer. Hard pass.

A good example of the parts being better than the whole.

Some interesting parts; the concept of alcohol myopia, the depth and stupidity of the systemic issues with police stops, the physical reasons torture doesn't work. He tried to tie it all together but it didn't hold up.

It's always suspicious when the author continues to use the title of the book all the time to make it clear how this all relates together.