Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know

Malcolm Gladwell is the best non-fiction writer working write now. He does such a great job of using engaging stories to convey his points that you often forget that he is building towards an overall thesis. This book is no exception . . . while I think that this one may be more controversial than many of his other books, it's just as important. Gladwell boldly takes on two of the most complex social issues we face today, sexual assault and racial discrimination. He asks an important question, which is that maybe we don't understand strangers as well as we think we do. Maybe, the media makes assumptions to fit their narrative, and the public quickly goes along with it. We assume that we are able to discern other's motives and reasoning, even though the vast majority of the scientific evidence states the opposite. I live and work about 15 miles away from where the Sandra Bland arrest occurred. I had no idea that the book would focus on this when I pre-ordered it, but was interested to see what he had to say. In my opinion, he gave a very balanced account. He goes beyond the 'bad apple cop' vs. 'victim who didn't act properly' debate and exposes a much bigger issue in our criminal justice system and our world, namely that we don't know as much as we think we do. I'm betting that he will get criticized because of this, but its important to note that by pointing out larger societal problems with how we train and expect officers to behave, it does not diminish personal responsibility. In fact, by writing books like this that expose problems to the system for all, I believe it increases personal responsibility for those who have authority. My main purpose in writing this review is not not to persuade those who loved Gladwell's previous books (like me) - they will buy it. Nor is it to persuade non-readers to read this, as they likely won't. But if you are a reader who reads a negative review about and decides to dismiss the book without reading it, I think you are making a mistake. Assume the best in Gladwell, just as he advocates in this book, and read with an open mind - you will learn something, and you will enjoy doing it. Be sure you read the endnotes as well, some great stuff there too. PS - The most shocking chapter to me was the one on the Sandusky case. I had never gone beyond the narrative portrayed by the media and was very surprised to read about how things played out here. Will be picking up at least one book on this case to read based on this chapter.

I definitely appreciate the authors, balanced perspective. I love how he weaves multiple stories together into a single thought. It gives insight into human psychology as affects all of us and especially police officers.

Malcolm is the a truly great storyteller one of the people that I really admire in this book is an indication of how persuasive he is how well informed. Chock full of insights.

Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don't Know is a non-fiction book by Malcolm Gladwell. In the book, Gladwell examines how we interact with people we don't know and why those interactions can sometimes go wrong. Gladwell argues that humans are not very good at detecting deception in others, and we often default to trusting people we don't know. He uses several case studies, including the case of Amanda Knox and the Stanford prison experiment, to illustrate how our assumptions about people can lead us astray. Gladwell also explores the concept of "default to truth," which is the idea that people generally believe what others tell them. This can be a useful heuristic in many situations, but it can also lead to disastrous consequences when we trust the wrong people. Throughout the book, Gladwell weaves together insights from psychology, sociology, and criminology to shed light on how we can improve our interactions with strangers. He argues that we need to be more aware of our own biases and limitations when it comes to understanding people we don't know. Overall, Talking to Strangers is a thought-provoking book that challenges readers to think more critically about how they interact with strangers. Gladwell's accessible writing style and engaging anecdotes make the book an enjoyable read, while his insights and ideas will leave readers thinking long after they've finished the book.

I always look forward to reading Malcolm Gladwell's books, because I never fail to learn new things. When I saw that his latest book was entitled "Talking To Strangers," I assumed that it might include research into the most effective ways to reach out to strangers in social settings. I quickly learned that the scope of his work here is much broader than that. He addresses the many ways in which we fail to read signals from strangers about who they are and what they are thinking and feeling. As he always does, the author draws from a broad spectrum of real world settings to discuss the principles of communication and miscommunication that are the norm in today's world. A through thread in this book is the case of Sandra Bland. This African American woman from Chicago was in Prairie View, Texas interviewing for a job at the local university. As she was driving away from the campus, she was pulled over by officer Brian Encinia, ostensibly for changing lanes without using her turn signal. The encounter, which should have been innocuous, escalated to the point where she was arrested for failure to comply with the officer's orders. Three days later, she hanged herself in her jail cell. Throughout the book, Gladwell returns to this incident to point out the many levels at which Officer Encinia failed to read correctly the signals that Ms. Bland was sending as she sat in her car, boiling with rage at having been stopped for "Driving While Black"! Gladwell makes the point, in the the case of Sandra Bland and many others, that we often fail to perceive others correctly because of a mismatch between the signals that the suspect was sending and the interpretation that the officer attributed to those signals. The author eloquently summarizes the dilemma we face in meeting and understanding strangers: "This has been a book about a conundrum. We have no choice but to talk to strangers, especially in our modern, borderless world. We aren't living in villages any more. Police officers have to stop people they do not know. Intelligence officers have to deal with deception and uncertainty. Young people want to go to parties explicitly to meet strangers: that's part of the thrill of romantic discovery. Yet at this most necessary of tasks we are inept. We think we can transform the stranger, without cost or sacrifice, into the familiar and the known, And we can't. What should we do? (p. 342) Along the way, Gladwell uses a wide variety of case studies: CIA failures to discover a highly placed double agent, enhanced interrogation techniques, police training, date rape at a frat party, Neville Chamberlain's naivete in dealing with Hitler, Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, Sylvia Plath's suicide, and a murder in Italy - each case highlights the many ways in which we think we know people, but really do not. As he often does, he draws from research in multiple fields: cognitive psychology, sociology, criminology, diplomacy, and economics. The resulting book causes us to rethink how we evaluate the strangers that we meet. Enjoy!

This book has its moments, but suffers frequently in my opinion substantively.. We begin with “Default To Truth” a fanciful phrase for what is taught in Psych I. People generally believe what they want to believe..to which psychiatrists would add..what they have to believe..We want to believe that people are telling us the truth, or, more precisely, what they understand to be true..Nothing new here at all. This easily explains in general terms the examples of Hitler, the Queen of Cuba, and numerous other situations explored..The additional stories of judges assessing bail and the Sandusky case, are clothed in a legal overlay of rights and exposures to liability, with down the road exposure to charges of defamation particularly as to Sandusky, which the author largely ignores..Both as to Sandusky and Brock Turner and Emily Doe, we are dealing with judges and juries making determinations not because anybody ultimately knew the truth about strangers but because the legal system demanded an outcome..whether true or just or not.. The Amanda Knox illustration teaches us next to nothing..about dealing with or believing strangers.. Knox was unlikely a murderess from the get go..But she was great tabloid fodder..To label her as immature and flaky would be an act of kindness..She was young and beautiful..That always gets things going..But the “transparency” adopted as described in the behavior of the lead prosecutor and his off the wall rationalization for a conviction reflects stupidity in the extreme..The reference to television in general and “Friends” in particular says more about television actors exaggerating facial and body language to make sure the audience “gets it” than any principle called “transparency.” We come back to the initial example of Sandra Bland and Officer Brian Encinitas..Without detailing, here we have a perfect storm for disconnects because aside from all that is stated on the pages, most significant to me, to start and end with, is an adversarial situation, where a ticket happy traffic patrolman in a Texas outpost confronts an educated Black woman, where the strangers talk to each other with little to no communication.. Yes..believing strangers is the more comfortable way to carry on the business of life..And it soothes our egos to firmly assess our persona as unworthy of being duped or treated in any way aside from above board..The price we pay seems quite small

First, I'm an avid Gladwell fan. I love his work. I've read every book, can't wait for each Revisionist History episode (his podcast), and read his works in various publications. I love his ability to convey a story, delve into data and nuance while maintaining interest, and perfectly make a sharp and often novel point by the end. I purchased the audiobook at the recommendation of his podcast after listening to the sample he posted and was not disappointed in the production quality. I'm an Audible member and always buy audiobooks. This one set a new standard for the format. It was captivating to listen to - masterfully done in the same style as his podcast. However, (SPOILERS - stop now) that sharp point so notorious in his work was missing in this book. The storytelling was great, but the premise (that we cannot understand others, discern their intentions, or understand their context as well as we think we can or at all) was not the profound perspective shift I've grown to love about Gladwell. Yes, there were some interesting points made, like that overly paranoid behavior with strangers is counterproductive as an alternative to a "default of truth" and that we tend to judge others as transparent 1-dimensional people we can read clearly, but do not believe the same judgement should be applied to ourselves. The stories were told brilliantly and I enjoyed listening to all of them, but they were told in service of a thesis that did not, in my opinion, justify such arduous dissection. All of that, to be honest, still would have gotten this book 5 stars from me - but, I was left with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth in the way some stories were portrayed, especially when it comes to Brock Turner and Sandra Bland. For example, with Brock Turner, Gladwell uses this to make the point that there's a fine line of consent. Men and women see things differently. Under the influence we see things differently. A lot is left up to interpretation. However, in this case, there was no "miscommunication" and a mismatch of signals interpreted as what was consent or not... the victim was literally unconscious. There are millions of stories that could be used to show the nuance of communication and interpretation in consent - some involving celebrities... this was not one. I get the points these stories were designed to illustrate, but I felt they were used for their notoriety, not their ability to underscore the point. Gladwell's podcast episode on a police-involved shooting illustrated this book's point better than the somewhat clumsy and also disconcerting analysis of the Sandra Bland case. I still say this book is entertaining and extremely well done (of course it is; it's Gladwell). It's still worth the time. The point is a good one to learn, but not Gladwell at his best.

This books seeks to address our ignorance about strangers and important concepts required to ameliorate it. Concepts like default to truth, transparency and context give us some insight into our unconscious bias and how we can now control these when engaging with strangers. Once these limitations are improved by us it limits the damage caused by our ignorance. This was a good read and I encourage others to try it.