Blink

I have recently finished reading the book "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell. I feel like I was clumsily on to the gist of this book in a previous post. In that post, I talked about how people are often deliberately dishonest in articulating the reasons for their behavior, which makes them appear crazy or irrational. What I hadn't considered is that perhaps people don't truly know why they do what they do.

One of the main points of "Blink" is that often people don't even consciously realize the reasons for their behavior. One example from the book is an experiment that a psychologist set up where two ropes are attached to the ceiling, a certain distance apart. While the ropes are hanging vertically, it is impossible to hold onto one and also reach the other; they're too far apart. Test subjects were asked to find a way to tie the ropes together. The room was empty except for the ropes. The only solution was to swing one of the ropes, go grab the other, and then catch the swinging rope as it swung back toward the subject. This solution evaded many test subjects until the experimenter would casually walk over to open a window, "accidentally" brushing one of the ropes and setting it into a slight swinging motion. This hint led the subjects to the proper solution. However, when asked how they arrived at that solution, almost all of them said something to the effect of "It just came to me." They didn't consciously realize that the hint came from the experimenter, so their conscious mind came up with the next best explanation.

Another example in the book dealt with how in the past, women were typically excluded from orchestras because of false beliefs about male superiority when it came to playing instruments. However, when orchestras started implementing a screen or curtain between those auditioning and the the conductors, suddenly women started being selected for chairs just as often as men. It goes without saying that the quality of an orchestra depends entirely on its sound. Thus, by eliminating all superfluous information relating to those auditioning (posture, facial expression, physical appearance, gender), conductors were able to make better and unbiased decisions as to who would play in their orchestras. Now if you had asked these conductors to articulate their reasons for accepting or rejecting any particular auditioner prior to the implementation of screened auditions, they probably would have expressed those reasons in terms of performance and sound quality, as would be expected. They wouldn't have referenced any irrelevant information such as appearance or facial expressions, being fully ignorant of the effect of such information on their perceptions. But the reality was that their perceptions were significantly affected by this meaningless information. As the book points out, they were listening with their eyes.

Those are a couple examples from the book. I am also reminded of something similar I observed several years back. Josh, my roommate during college, at one point bought a 1980ish Lincoln Towncar car from his parents because he [I] was tired of [him] bumming rides [from me]. The thing was a freakin' battleship. We called it the pimpmobile because it was anything but. Now Josh also happened to be a good-looking, very athletic volleyball player. He would often tell me: "Aaron, don't knock my car--girls think it is so cool!" (He actually might have used the word "sick," because we were bros back then and got stoked over all sorts of sick stuff.) I would always retort: "No Josh, girls don't like your car. They like you." And that's still my position. If Josh had been an acne-ridden geek weighing out at a buck twenty-five, I don't think girls would have been real thrilled about his set of wheels. It probably would have been just one more nail in his coffin. But I'm pretty sure if I had asked the girls Josh dated what they thought of his car or why they thought it was cool, they would have come up with some semi-plausible reasons. Maybe it was "quaint" or "cute" or reminded them of their grandparents. Who knows. Of course, the real reason would be that they just liked Josh and so who really cares what he drives. That was my point.

Other examples abound, I'm sure. The book is full of them--I'd highly recommend it. What's the take-away from all this? I'm not entirely sure. It seems counterintuitive to attempt a conscious examination of your unconscious mind. I don't know if that's even possible. Over time you might be able to identify certain stereotypes you are susceptible to and try to limit the information you get that would relate to those stereotypes, so that your decisions and judgment remain unclouded--just like the orchestra conductors. My take-away will probably be to conduct impromptu social experiments on my friends and then psychoanalyze them based on the results. Because, you know, I'm evil like that.

An excuse to fail, or an opportunity to succeed?

I think there's an important attitudinal difference that separates the lazy person from the hard worker, the cynic from the optimist. That attitude is expressed in the title of this post. It can be an uncomfortable introspection when applied to various areas of one's life. Are you looking for an excuse to fail? To maintain a dismal status quo? Or, are you eagerly on the lookout for an opportunity to succeed.

When someone spends their energy coming up with an excuse for their predicament, they are necessarily diverting energy that could otherwise be spent coming up with a solution. Invariably, the solution will require doing something differently, which usually means effort, work, and change.

Does the atheist spend more time thinking of excuses that justify the perceived impossibility of knowing any greater power, rather than looking for opportunities to find out what he thinks he cannot know?

Does the chronically unemployed person more readily blame his environment for his lack of employment, rather than getting off the couch and looking for a job?

Does the single person make excuses for not dating, rather than looking for ways to meet people? (Hmm, I don't like that one.)

Does the student who just failed an exam come up with excuses for failure, or an opportunity to learn from mistakes?

This is all just another take on what differentiates optimists from pessimists. I think optimists would be on the lookout for opportunities, while pessimists are content with playing the blame game.