Scan barcode
Reviews tagging 'Suicide'
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don't Know by Malcolm Gladwell
83 reviews
shapa's review against another edition
3.0
- Can simply be summarized as: do not make assumptions about strangers, and do not generalize the connection between their expressions and their thoughts, intents, etc.
- A lot of interesting stories, but bloated for the amount of concrete points made about what we should know about strangers.
Graphic: Pedophilia and Rape
Minor: Suicide
rosedeleeuw's review against another edition
3.5
The audiobook included clips from interviews that allowed you to hear people’s own voices
Trigger warning for difficult topics
Graphic: Child abuse, Sexual assault, and Suicide
rystonlentil43's review against another edition
4.25
Graphic: Child abuse, Pedophilia, Suicide, and Torture
Moderate: Death, Gun violence, Rape, Police brutality, and Alcohol
flickflickcity's review against another edition
4.0
I will note I did skip the Chanel Miller chapter because I didn’t think I could handle it spoken about at length - so I’ll have to defer to other experiences RE: that chapter but please note I didn’t read that chapter in full when reading the following.
I’ve read a lot of reviews that have been highly critical for Gladwell’s “reductive” and/or “victim blaming” approach around heinous crimes. From the parts I read, I feel like that summary could be perhaps be in bad faith. Understandable because this book contains a lot of heavy themes and even for me with the Chanel chapter… I knew I’d not be able to take anything in in a measured way because I feel so emotional about the case. In other chapters I was brought to tears over simple case facts being recalled - so it certainly took a lot of effort to look past my impulse to be enraged we were seeking to ‘understand’ varying parties with varying guilt (from perpetrators to bystanders), but I did my best and here are some initial thoughts. Certainly this book’s theory reduces social/cultural phenomena in a sense - but does so necessarily to try and find a productive way of explaining the roots of our misunderstandings, and in that provides a useful prompt for us moving forward. I felt that rather than achieving breadth, it achieved an actionable impetus for me moving forward. No, my gut response is not to let parents that disbelieve children about abuse off the hook, but I also thought about a similar responses to other reported social infractions of lesser degrees and note that most people are guilty of not wanting to believe the difficult thing especially at first. (AKA “I heard your new friend is not very nice and betrays people’s trust” “ok thanks but I’ll figure that out for myself”) The point I take is that this is a human thing, but also something we can overcome personally (e.g. understand our impulse is to disbelieve deceit and malice and try to push against it where possible in order to learn the truth), and understand broadly (e.g. people may be resistant to things because it takes longer to process that someone is deceptive/awful). Do I think that it’s all good and dandy? No. But I don’t think Gladwell does either, he just wants us to notice it. As for the reductionist arguments regarding culture impacts, I keep thinking about the AI vs the judge example. He is just taking us through one theory, not expecting us to abandon other beliefs. But when ruminating on other considerations, the prompt seems to be for us to be critical about our own statistical inability to be fully accurate with our appraisals. Not that we are all wrong, but that people are more complex - more complex than even a steady understanding of cultural nuance can understand. Considering those factors is not invalid or a waste of time perhaps, it’s just not perfect or foolproof like we may feel it is. Of course, using stats about reoffending etc is an interesting data point given the cultural contexts that *cause* those stats… but again I think if anything this text has allowed me to think and articulate these contributing factors clearer and with more confidence because I am inherently going up against the argument that these complexities make me less accurate not more, and in that sense the book has encouraged me to interrogate and feel more certain in some patterns I see and debunk others.
Anyway, even if I/you don’t agree with all of these theories about coupling, transparency etc. - it’s certainly good for thought.
Moderate: Child abuse, Physical abuse, Racism, Sexual assault, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Torture, Police brutality, Suicide attempt, and War
bratreadsalot's review against another edition
5.0
Graphic: Racism, Suicide, and Police brutality
nothankyouuu's review against another edition
5.0
Graphic: Child abuse, Rape, and Suicide
Moderate: Alcoholism
k_ro's review against another edition
4.5
Minor: Adult/minor relationship, Sexual assault, Suicide, Violence, and Police brutality
raisinreads's review against another edition
Graphic: Child abuse, Pedophilia, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Suicide, Police brutality, and Suicide attempt
jake36d's review against another edition
1.5
Graphic: Rape and Suicide
fkshg8465's review against another edition
1.0
He's a great storyteller, but to me, that's all he is. I find him lacking in critical thinking and full of biases in his writing. I find this dangerous because other people may go along without giving it much thought, precisely because he is a great storyteller. I'm so frustrated by his conclusions that have little or no basis. I'm sure he researched everything, and presenting facts is fine, but when he draws conclusions on those facts without backing any of it up or without having demonstrated any logic behind it, I get mad.
I find him dangerous because he leads people to his conclusions without room for doubt when he uses words like, “obviously” to jump to a conclusion that may or may not be logical and in some cases are clearly biased by western outlooks (I see it as the equivalent of mental grooming). In one chapter, he shows a picture of a face he thinks is clearly angry, but in actuality, it can be just as easily interpreted as a confused or frustrated face. Yet, because his standards of correctness is his own interpretation, and because the rest of the argument as based on it, the critical logic falls apart for me.
I also hated that he put rape on trial. Women and victims have a hard enough time being believed, and with his dangerous way of presenting, he’s now given people more reasons to doubt.
One of my own triggers is the police epidemic in the US, and I didn’t appreciate his past treatment of this topic in the other books I’ve read by him, especially because he’s half Black. He seemed to lack sensitivity, and it angered me. He did better in this book, but I hated his treatment of trying to understand Brian Encinia from page one. I admit my own anti Gladwell biases popped up over and over again while reading the book and that it probably was a better book than it felt like for that reason. I only read this book because it was on a must-read list. Never again. Even if just to preserve my own mental health. This man triggers me more than the topics in his books. Henceforth, he’s banned from my future reading list!along without giving it much thought because he is a great storyteller. I'm so frustrated by his conclusions that have little or no basis. I'm sure he researched everything, and presenting facts is fine, but when he draws conclusions on those facts without backing any of it up or without having demonstrated any logic behind it, I get mad. he uses the same examples from book to book. Where’s his originality??
I find him dangerous because he leads people to his conclusions without room for doubt when he uses words like, “obviously” to jump to a conclusion that may or may not be logical and in some cases are clearly biased by western outlooks (I see it as the equivalent of mental grooming). In one chapter, he shows a picture of a face he thinks is clearly angry, but in actuality, it can be just as easily interpreted as a confused or frustrated face. Yet because his standards of correctness is his own interpretation, and because the rest of the argument as based on it, the critical logic falls apart for me.
I also hated that he put rape on trial. Women and vocations have a hard enough time being believed, and with his dangerous way of presenting, he’s now given people more reasons to doubt.
One of my own triggers is the police epidemic in the US, and I didn’t appreciate his past treatment of this topic in the other books I’ve read by him, especially because he’s half Black. He seemed to lack sensitivity, and it angered me. He did better in this book, but I hated his treatment of trying to understand Brian Encinia from page one. I admit my own anti Gladwell biases popped up over and over again while reading the book and that it probably was a better book than it felt like for that reason. I only read this book because it was on a must-read list. Never again. Even if just to preserve my own mental health. This man triggers me more than the topics in his books. Henceforth, he’s banned from my future reading list!
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Bullying, Confinement, Death, Gun violence, Mental illness, Miscarriage, Panic attacks/disorders, Pedophilia, Racism, Rape, Self harm, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Violence, Forced institutionalization, Police brutality, Antisemitism, Suicide attempt, Schizophrenia/Psychosis , Alcohol, War, and Injury/Injury detail