Tuesday, April 14, 2009

BLINK, dont think

Blink (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking  
The Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
AuthorMalcolm Gladwell
CountryUSA
LanguageEnglish
Genre(s)PsychologyPopular Psychology
PublisherBack Bay BooksLittle, Brown
Publication dateJanuary 112005
Media typeprint (hardback &paperback) &audiobook
Pages320 p. (paperback edition)
ISBNISBN 0-316-17232-4 &ISBN 0-316-01066-9(paperback edition)
Preceded byThe Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Big Difference2000

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking is a 2005 book by Malcolm Gladwell, in which he explores the power of the trained mind to make split second decisions.

Contents

 [hide]

BUSH Blinked, he didnt THINK


The Blink Presidency

It should come as no great revelation that George W. Bush is a wantonly decisive President. He decides Ariel Sharon is good and Yasser Arafat is evil, even though seasoned diplomats tell him it is not wise to make such sweeping judgments. He decides that Social Security needs to be transformed and that private investment accounts are the way to do it, even though the experts say there is no great crisis and his way won't solve anything. He decides to invade Iraq, with minimal contingency planning. He decides to cut taxes drastically and then to spend an outlandish sum on a Medicare prescription-drug benefit. His presidency has been exhilarating and nerve-racking, imprudent and visionary—and now we learn that it is another thing as well: it is a prime example of the latest fad.

Bush is the ultimate "Blink" President, to use author Malcolm Gladwell's catchy term, and recent title, for instantaneous, subconscious decision making. The slogan on Gladwell's book jacket—"Don't Think—Blink!"—is a perfect mantra for an attention- deficit-disordered society, and an apt description of the electric jolt Bush has brought to politics and policy. It certainly was the subtext of the 2004 presidential campaign: Kerry's thinking seemed tortured, paralytic; Bush's blinking seemed strong and decisive.




read MORE

criticism

Don't Blink, Think, Part 2

An Interview with Michael LeGault, author of Think!
March 10, 2008. By Vern Burkhardt
Last week we ended with my question to Michael R. LeGault, author of Think! Why Critical Decisions Can’t Be Made in the Blink of an Eye, regarding fear. We continue this week with his answer to that question and a number of other questions.

Vern Burkhardt (VB): You say that the things people fear have not changed, but that people’s awareness of negative things has increased. You observe that while the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency experts did not rank radioactive waste and radiation from nuclear accidents as an environmental health danger, a study by the EPA found that these two things were the biggest environmental fears of the public. Is this an example of the negative effect of sensationalistic journalism? The type that reports the “scare of the moment”, and exaggerates to stimulate our emotions?

Michael LegaultMichael LeGault: Radioactive waste is a health danger of course, but it is not one that experts rank as a high risk to the public. These experts ranked indoor air quality of office buildings as a bigger risk to health than, for instance, highly publicized and feared exposure to chemicals in drinking water and food. It would help if someone would explain the fundamentals of toxicology—dose, frequency and concentration—but you generally won’t find it in any article on environmental exposure to toxins. Everything is toxic to some extent and, visa versa, below a threshold (dose, frequency, concentration) every substance is not toxic. If you drink 8 gallons of water in a short period of time you could die. On the other hand a nanogram of arsenic is not going to harm you.

People’s perceptions are influenced by the media and the media is incapable of reporting or analyzing complex, nuanced issues. I have worked in the media and my feeling is that part of it is deliberate—either they want to scare people to capture attention or, as I believe is the case with global warming, there is something akin to a politically-motivated intent to censor nuance and dissenting views. What’s interesting about the man-induced global warming theory is that it is not proven. In fact it is not even testable. A theory that can’t be tested is not science; it’s conjecture or worse, religion. This is a paraphrase of a famous statement made by the science philosopher Karl Popper. 



SOURCE

Welcome

"Blink," Don't Think

epstein.jpgRichard Epstein 
is James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law and director of the law and economics program at the University of Chicago.

One of the central themes of Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” is that too often we suffer from too much information. Whether we proceed by intuition, or complex protocol, often the best approach is to look at a few salient features and then make up our minds. This view should lead us to rethink the exhaustive disclosure requirements that mar the law of medical malpractice, product liability and securities regulation.

It should also lead us to rethink the endurance contest for nominees to the high court that passes under the name deliberative democracy. Truth is that most people will make up their minds whether they like a candidate or not on the strength of a resume, a reputation, and quick first impression. The rest is largely posturing in an effort to bolster the record one way or another.

Judge Roberts does not need any buildup to pass the blink test. He has a stellar record, a sterling reputation, and an excellent demeanor. So the only purpose of further hearings has to be negative. Those who dislike him because he is too conservative, hope that they can find something that will make an easy case into a hard one. All this is difficult because it cannot be right to say that he is disqualified because he is too conservative. The first democratic nominee will be out because he or she is too liberal.

So let us hope that this nomination will move to the back pages. I would have more confidence that the process should include a vigorous cross examination if there were any chance that any senator would change his or her view in response to any answer that he might supply. It is not going to happen. We shall decide better if we deliberate less.




SOURCE