Scan barcode
A review by flickflickcity
Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know by Malcolm Gladwell
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
fast-paced
4.0
Minor-ish spoilers?
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.
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.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child abuse, Physical abuse, Racism, Sexual assault, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Torture, Police brutality, Suicide attempt, and War