Blink is a book about the power of judging a book by its cover, and how our snap decisions are often completely right. It is well written and laced with comprehensive examples and expert research and opinions. It provides a compelling argument for the power of training, and the usefulness of quick evaluations; and for the times when the snap decision is not quite as useful.
Dealing with such wide-ranging issues as art-experts being able to instantly spot a fake, the uses (and failures) of market research, and why policemen sometimes get things tragically wrong, 'blink' looks at situations we experience, or hear about on a regular basis. It takes each one apart, explains the inner workings, and then puts it back together again, polishing it off with the new knowledge gained from an understanding of the unconscious mind.
If you have the slightest interest in how the human mind works, then I would recommend 'blink' as an example of brilliant pop psychology. It is written for an interested, non-technical audience, and is very accessible. It is also very readable, occasionally witty and often thought-provoking. As I read 'Blink' I started to view the world in a subtly different light. I don't think I will ever dismiss a gut-instinct as easily again.
2 comments:
Annise,
I respectfully disagree with your analysis about this book. I would encourage you to read it again, while asking yourself some questions:
the author seems to be laying groundwork for the endorsement of fMRI imaging technology and impulsive snap judgments based upon visual cues over history, historical context and experience.
I think the author confuses impulse for intuition. If I'm right, that's a recipe for trouble.
The author routinely "goes to the videotape" for proof, in effect to trust television. Everything on television is suspect. Lookup Ernie Kovacs on youtube for evidence.
As a Liberal Arts major, I read the Greek Classics (i.e. Aristotle-Rhetoric) as well as the Medieval and Renaissance writers (i.e. Romance of the Rose-Guillaume de Lorris/Jean de Meun) for example, and historical writings are rife with cautionary tales of how our eyes can deceive us, that our optical senses are our least reliable.
Check also: JL Austin, Argument from Illusion;[philosophy] "If you look at an oar in the water, it looks bent. But you know it isn't, right? But your eyes say it is so.."
The author provides no footnotes. References would certainly be helpful, and in 2008 with Wikipedia and Google, he should at least provide footnotes.
On page 46, he seems to suggest that we can draw confident conclusions about Tom Hanks, not from "knowing [him] for months and months to get at [his] true self"
but
from the roles he plays on the screen. The author seems to suggest that we accept simulation for truth.
The author seems to agree with the prevailing attitudes of neuro-cognitive types that free will is an illusion, that we are defined by the chemicals coarsing through our blood. And that those chemicals can be manipulated with pharmaceuticals.
The author seems to place credibility on the IAT test, which utilizes images on a screen, english words or phrases and electronic pushbuttons that test our reaction speed and that this somehow reveals our biases. (Q: would an Aborigines pass this test?)
Keep searching for truth...
I took a psychology course in university, so I'm not a complete novice to the subject. Our course focused a lot on neuropsychology and neuroscience as opposed to the more 'pop' things, so I am aware about many of the issues you raised, and I still think blink was very good.
fMRI is a very useful tool and I don't see why endorsing it would be such a bad thing. Plus, in the whole book, he mentions it maybe three or four times? Possibly even less. Considering the number of psychology studies there are, many (even most, nowadays) using fMRI, I don't see why this is such a bad thing. Also, while fMRI isn't a perfect analytical technique, and never will be, it has proved incredibly useful in analysing the effects of certain types of brain damage, so applying this information to other situations is reasonable.
Also, he says that snap judgements can work in certain situations, but they are always much better when backed up by experience (the best example being the statue; the snap-judgement of experts was 'fake' while the science said truth). He also says that judging things solely by appearance often leads to incorrect conclusions in many cases.
I'll give you that going to videotape may be a problem... I'd have to look more closely at the research to see the validity. However, I have a very keen eye for when scientific method is suspect (the experience of a four year science degree), and nothing flagged up as outright ludicrous or unprovable. Plus, while TV is easily manipulated, it can be reliable if used properly.
Optical senses can deceive us in many cases... in very clever ways (about a third of my psych course dealt with this) but when it comes to reading faces, we are very very good. Surprisingly good, in fact... the brain is wired up for reading faces, because it provides a massive social advantage. We may think the moon appears bigger when it's near the horizon, and we may see the oar as bent, but we can recognise anger, fear, contempt in other people. Not perfectly, but very well.
There was an references section in the version of the book I read... I didn't look through it in detail (perhaps I will now) but while it may not have footnotes (which would put off a large proportion of the readership), it wasn't completely unreferenced.
With Tom Hanks, I disagree again... I don't think he said our conclusions would always be accurate... he just said that we do make those conclusions. (I'd have to check this in the book, of course... but I don't have it with me at this moment).
The free will thing, I sort of agree with... he does imply that biochemistry and unconscious thought give the illusion of free will. I however have always had another spin on things: saying that because our unconscious 'makes' the decision doesn't mean that we don't: the unconscious is part of 'us' it is defined by our experiences and personality as much as our conscious mind. Just because the decision-making isn't as transparent as we think it is doesn't mean we don't have choice; it just means that it's a different part of ourselves making the decision than we thought. Saying that the conscious decisions are the only ones to be trusted is like saying the 'conscious mind' is a little person in our head that controls things but is separate from everything else; it's not, it's just the level of thought that we are aware of. And yes we can influence biochemistry to affect our decision making: that's why a lot of mind-altering substances are banned.
IAT tests, like IQ tests, will have a cultural bias, but when you are testing people from very similar immediate background but different ethnicity then we can make fair conclusions, as long as we don't make sweeping statements about all humanity. Many tests can be culturally 'normalised' within different groups, and while still not perfect, it will give an indication. When testing reaction times, they measure relative values rather than absolutes: people take 'longer' to recognise one thing than another; they don't necessarily take 'X milliseconds for A, and Y for B'.
So while I appreciate your point of view, and your comment, I have already thought about many of the things you mentioned, and Blink was still very interesting... though I would never accept it as absolute gospel truth... it's just a slightly different way of thinking about things, which I find fascinating.
Post a Comment