HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Slate's Book Club has a good one going this week. Malcolm Gladwell, author of the new book "Blink", and James Surowiecki, author of "The Wisdom of Crowds," debate human decision-making. They're only on day 2 of 5 so far, but so far it makes an amazing read.

I'll be honest - I have yet to read either of these books, although both are atop my "wish list", and Gladwell's "Tipping Point" is a book I turn to over and over in my political science thinking. But even without having read either of them the debate is just fascinating. The human brain simply does not work the way most of us are brought up to believe, and if this debate is any evidence - and how could it not be - these two have done a brilliant job of piecing together current research to provide an overview that us non-scientists can understand. So... if you don't have time to read each of their efforts, at spend 5-10 minutes reading this debate. Good stuff.

In fact here's a bit of Gladwell's piece from Day One:

This is where, I think, you and I are on the same page, because Blink is also a critique of the Standard Model. One of the key arguments in my book is that human beings think in two very different ways. Sometimes we consciously and carefully gather all facts, trationally sort through them, and draw what we take to be a rational conclusion (the Standard Model). And sometimes we reach conclusions unconsciously—our mind quickly and silently sorts through the available information and draws an immediate judgment, which may be done so quickly and so far below the level of awareness that we may have no understanding of where our conclusions came from. I call this Rapid Cognition. I think the Rapid Cognition Model needs to be taken far more seriously—that it's smarter and more sophisticated and certainly more influential than we generally give it credit it for. So, like you, I'm arguing for a broadening of our understanding of what good decision-making looks like. The difference, though, is that my critique is not focused on the shortcomings of individual decision-making. It's focused on the shortcomings of deliberate decision-making. I'm simply not convinced that the "expert" sitting in his office, gathering all the facts and painstakingly sorting through each one, is necessarily in a better position than the expert who makes fluid, instinctive decisions in the moment.

Man I wish they had started this two or three weeks ago. I would've already ordered and read the books by now. But with school starting back up next week, well.... Ugh.

--------