34 of 37 people found the following review helpful
Too much psuedo science!,
This review is from: Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (Paperback)
The brain and thought analysis are always interesting subjects. Gladwell uses quirky anecdotes to present his hypotheisis which is essentially that visceral or instinctive thinking can sometimes out perform rational analysis. Although some of the anecdotes are interesting and thought provoking (particularly the one on racism), I found the lack of scientifc methodolgy in his arguments extremly annoying. Something is either appropriate for scientific analysis or it is not. One would think thought and brain analysis fits perfectly into the scientific remit. But this book subsituites science with psuedo science. All too often anecdotes are used. But anyone can cherry pick anecdotes to argue anything, so what's the objective of this book? Is it a scientific hypotheisis or just some writer looking for a "wow".
I think the art of popular science writing is the ability to explain something complicated, in simple terms and thus bring something which is esoteric to the masses. There are many talented writed who can do exactly this: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking or Robert Winston.
However, I am always a bit apprenhensive when a journalist with little or no scientific background enters the scientific paradigm. All too often, they substitute the scientific approach for the "wow wow wow" approach. By the end of this book, Gladwell didn't make change my mind.