I'm now reading Malcolm
Gladwell's 'Blink - The Power of Thinking Without Thinking' and although I think it's really interesting and I'm really enjoying reading it, initially I had a feeling of uncertainty about his arguments.
The concept is that before our conscious has even had time to analyse situations (meaning anything from first impressions of a new person, to the method behind a card scam, to whether a work of art is a fake), our unconscious has already made a snap judgment that,
Gladwell argues, is often much more accurate or sensible. This is also what happens when someone feels a 'hunch' or leaps to a decision, our unconscious has already made a decision we're not actually aware of. This is what
Gladwell refers to as 'thin-slicing'. Likewise, 'thick-slicing' is when our mind take the full situation and all it's details into account.
Gladwell argues that, when 'thin-slicing', our unconscious throws out all irrelevant details and information, and therefore makes a far more rational conclusion. He goes on to argue the power of the first impression/hunch. All really interesting and, to me, entirely feasible. It's something I buy completely, and the examples and experiments that he details are fascinating.
Where the feeling of discomfort began to grow,
Galdwell then writes about his time spent with psychologist John
Gottmon. In a method far too long, advanced (and interesting) to explain here,
Gottmon has "perfected" his study of married couples and, with an apparent 95% accuracy, can predict the success or failure of the marriage's future just by analysing one 15 minute conversation between any couple, and is convinced the same accuracy can be applied to just a 3 minute segment of that 15.
I soon realised the problem I had at this stage is not that I don't believe this is feasible, it's that I don't
want to believe this is feasible. But in the end I have no argument as to why it shouldn't be.
Gladwell gives enough information and fact atop of his theory to remove any immediate rejection I had.
He then goes on to apply his 'thin-slicing' theory to subconscious biases of race and age and even height that we are completely unaware of. Something that sounds typical, rudimentary and not exactly original. But he doesn't just discuss and describe them, assuring you they're there, as has been implied in psychology so many times before. He shares methods and research and actually involves the reader, revealing to you that these subconscious biases do actually exist. Which, to someone that sees themselves as being entirely unbiased (like myself and presumably the majority of society) is actually quite disturbing.
Constantly borrowing from various other studies that he's spent years researching and involving himself in to back up and further his theory, there's something unsettling and at the same time brilliant about the way he manages to open you up and actually reveal these things, convincing the reader that this is something more than just theory.
Even as someone extremely interested in the idea of the unconscious and subconscious thought/actions, I'd like to believe against the idea that you can get a better impression of someone without actually speaking to them, or that the survival of a marriage can be predicted in such a short space of time (I actually have a bit of a reservation about the idea of marriage as a whole, I find it slightly unnatural and don't exactly have a lot of faith in its survival rate anyway), and I'd love to be able to say I wouldn't even consider the fact that I harbour any kind of bias, be it racial/sexual or otherwise. But this book is so revealing and so effective (so far) and I've found that the reason I was initially dubious is because the theory is so relevant to me (in the same way as it would be to any other reader) and really does make you question yourself as well as tear apart the accuracy behind peoples descriptions or constructions of themselves. It can feel extremely disconcerting.
I'm really getting quite taken in with this book. I'm really impressed with the originality of the thought and the amount of effort, research and fact that's gone into the writing. I was curious about whether any contemporary psychological theory could really stand by itself against all the classic, established theories.
Gladwell's managed to put forward an original idea that builds on the idea of the unconscious (here with the theory of 'the locked door' within the mind) without relying on Jung or anyone
else's work to provide a backbone to his thinking.