Blink is about the first two seconds of looking--the decisive glance that knows in an instant. Gladwell, the best-selling author of The Tipping Point, campaigns for snap judgments and mind reading with a gift for translating research into splendid storytelling. Building his case with scenes from a marriage, heart attack triage, speed dating, choking on the golf course, selling cars, and military maneuvers, he persuades readers to think small and focus on the meaning of "thin slices" of behavior. The key is to rely on our "adaptive unconscious"--a 24/7 mental valet--that provides us with instant and sophisticated information to warn of danger, read a stranger, or react to a new idea.

Pleasurable to look, touch, and read

Malcolm Gladwell has a very easy writing style that makes for a good read. Throughout the book he discusses the fenomenon of "blink" decisions made without thinking, based on "thin slice of information". These decisions often prove to be much better ones than the ones made after long analysis and considering all pro's and con's. The book is filled with a lot of interesting stories that makes it read like a novel.

I cannot argue whether Gloadwell's theory is right or wrong, but one thing is certain: my decision to buy this book was based on a first good impression and the decision was good. I like "Blink" a lot and intend to keep it. The other purchasing decision that was based on a "thin slice of information" was to get "Can We Live 150 Years?" by M. Tombak. I was again right - it is another great book, although I do not like its cover. By the way, "Blink" has a great, elegant cover. Pleasurable to look and to touch... Only four stars, because I hardly ever give 5 stars. Tombak's book 4.5 stars (bad cover).

Biased One-sided Agenda Research

I was enjoying the interesting concept of this book until, in the last half, Gladwell's agenda came out with clear force. I was set-up. Use real world cases and all sides of the case until you want to push the agenda and then tell only one side, and what only one side should have done to avoid snap judgements. It's incredibly irresponsible to have left out what was left out of the last half of this book.

If there's 100 points of data that tell the whole story of "blink", Gladwell hand-picks the 20 that fit his desire to demonize police while laying no responsibility on individuals who act as criminals and completely disregards crime-to-race proportions. You must suspend reality to believe Gladwell's assumption that gun-related crime is totally unrelated to race in bad neighborhoods. Because clearly no one should assume based on real numbers and shady behavior in an out of the ordinary situation that anything out of the ordinary is occuring. Gladwell would have us assume, and control our reaction in a life or death situation in the "blink of an eye", that dangerously acting individuals in incredibly dangerous places and situations should be treated as if they were 80-year-old grandmothers in broad daylight.

No mention is made of what the criminals could have done to avoid the confrontation. Perhaps he left it out since my 8 year-old nephew could spell it out. If police yell "POLICE! DON'T MOVE!" then you might want to stop moving. If you continue to move and dig in your pockets you are not only asking to be shot, you should be shot. Gladwell's one-sided agenda is sickening in this particular part of the book.

It's a clearly picked-evidence piece that takes a conveniently limited, one-sided cross-section of the research to slide it's agenda onto the bestseller list under assumed pretenses. If you appreciate personal accountability, total fairness on all sides of a situation, and true responsibility, don't bother buying/reading this biased disappointing opinion.

Statistical (and other) Nonsense

Gladwell begins with a story about a supposed Greek statue that some experts, using scientific testing, could not detect as a fruad, while others were immediately suspicious. (So, some people look at the forest for immediate clues, before examining the trees in detail.)

Another example involved a single tennis expert with an uncanny knack of foretelling when someone was about to double-fault. (The bad news is that he could not relate how this was done. Thus, what this proves is beyound me.)

Still another revolved around an officer playing a "rogue MidEast commander" vs. the regular Army. Anyone who has been in government knows that it moves at glacial speed, and can easily be outdone by much smaller groups with a modicum of intelligence and speed (eg. Lockheed's "Skunk Works," and Burt Rutan's "space ship."). So the rogue officer's success is hardly suprising.

To say that quick decisions - based on a few KEY VARIABLES - is better than studied analyses that include a multitude of minor issues is hardly surprising either.

Finally, readers need to keep in mind that there will always be statistical abberations - eg. someone who correctly predicts the flip of a coin 50 times in a row. However, that does not prove that they have any special talent, and they are just as likely to be wrong as right on the next toss.

Similarly, finding snap judgements superior to supposedly sophisticated statistical models does not necessarily support a conclusion supporting snap judgements - many statistical models are poorly specified and have embarrasingly large errors.

Not worth reading.