Talking to Strangers: How we read people wrong, and the consequences that follow
We assume strangers are easy to read. We assume wrong.
The Book in Two Lines.
It’s hard to understand the intentions of strangers. When we read people wrong, we can make really bad mistakes.
Should You Read This Book?
- An interesting enough read, but not much here.
Talking to Strangers is a collection of fables about the ways we read people wrong. Gladwell tells stories well, piquing your curiosity with scattered examples before pulling it together to build his argument. This book was like oatmeal in milk for me: gentle, easy to digest, but maybe not the most exciting or nutritious.
- The central premise is that people are bad at reading other people.
The book is a collection of high-profile examples of what happens when we read people wrong; for example when innocent people appear guilty because of shifty behaviour (Amanda Knox) and when guilty people appear trustworthy despite themselves (Bernie Madoff). So much for Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking?
- Gladwell says: Trust people. Have hope.
This book is Gladwell’s preachiest; even less sciency than his other pop-science books. He makes the argument for assuming the best of people (Defaulting to Truth) but the book is about all the ways it goes wrong. It’s an optimistic message but with no thrust.
Three Big Ideas from the Book
Quotes & notes from the book
The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight
“We think we can easily see into the hearts of others based on the flimsiest of clues.”
We all believe we know others better than they know us; that we have insight into them. This leads us to act with confidence, in situations where it might be misplaced.
“We jump at the chance to judge strangers. We would never do that to ourselves, of course. We are nuanced and complex and enigmatic. But the stranger is easy.”
2. “If I can convince you of one thing in this book, let it be this: Strangers are not easy.”
Judges make mistakes too.
“Judges don’t throw up their hands at the prospect of assessing the character of defendants. They give themselves a minute or two, then authoritatively pass judgment.”
INTERESTING DIVERSION: A famous paper examined how parole judges seemed to be more lenient at the start of the day or after lunch, and less so right before the break or at the end of the day (“Judges are more lenient after lunch”). A follow-up paper suggested that this was untrue, and that prisoners with no lawyers were scheduled at the end of sessions — and received harsher sentences because of the lack of representation (“Overlooked factors in the analysis of parole decisions”). Judging strangers is hard; we may have misjudged judges here.
3. We have a default to truth: our operating assumption is that the people we are dealing with are honest.
“We do not behave […] like sober-minded scientists, slowly gathering evidence of the truth […] before reaching a conclusion. We do the opposite. We start by believing. And we stop believing only when our doubts and misgivings rise to the point where we can no longer explain them away.”
“You believe someone not because you have no doubts about them. Belief is not the absence of doubt. You believe someone because you don’t have enough doubts about them.
“[…] doubts trigger disbelief only when you can’t explain them away. […]
“The right question is: were there enough red flags to push you over the threshold of belief?
The central premise of the book seems to be: don’t assume about strangers.
“When we confront a stranger, we have to substitute an idea — a stereotype — for direct experience. And that stereotype is wrong all too often.”
