<![CDATA[Slashdot | Blink, Take 2:
Forget Dilbert cartoons for a second: all this book does is bring attention to a phenomena that should surprise no one, least of all someone who has had any contact with research scientists, research mathematicians or inventive computer scientists. It simply tells us that smart people can have really good intuitions about problems that emerge in a “blink.” He then coins a word for this phenomenon: “thin slicing.” Whoopee, a new word for an old phenomenon
I felt the same way about Gladwell’s previous book, too. It’s full of anecdotes that look darn fine as book jacket arguments, but the over-arching insight doesn’t add to my understanding. The first 100 pages of my copy of The Tipping Point is covered with notes pointing out the conflicting logic of the many examples and then it just goes blank because the book wasn’t going anywhere. When I picked up Blink, my first reaction (my “blink”) was that it was more of the same.
Gladwell is a great conceptual recorder and redactor, but come on, the faddishness of his books and the loyal following they inspire screams intellectual laziness among readers.
It reminds me of the requests I used to get for more hockey-stick graphs in Digital Media, just another data point to drop into a business presentation that hadn’t been thought through—and that would ultimately be blamed on the source of the graph rather than the presenter. That’s what happened to George Gilder. Remember George Gilder’s newsletter (it’s still out there, but it isn’t quoted anymore)? All hockey-stick graphs all the time.
And folks wonder why I rub people the wrong way…. But it the truth hurts, it’s better to recognize it early rather than build a business on blink dreams and telecosm promises. I’ll probably never be a guru, because I don’t want to make people feel good, I just want them to think for themselves.]]>