Talk:Blink (book)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
Mentioning the example of Priming used in the book would benefit the article for hypertextual navigation on its subject matter. 71.162.255.83 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the entire thing. It didn't have enough detail. --Shreshth91 (eshtshray). 1 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
Should the info on Think be in this article? This article is about Blink not Think. I suggest someone make a new article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.161.143 (talk • contribs) .
- Done. Moved to Think (book).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Criticism needs to be added. I was thinking of Steve Sailer's and Judge Posner's criticisms, which Gladwell tries to adress here, http://www.gladwell.com/blink/biblio/chapter3.html . Sailer summarizes Blink thus: But as far as I can tell, his book reduces to two messages:
Go with your gut reactions, but only when they are right.
And even when your gut reactions are factually correct, ignore them when they are politically incorrect.
Contents |
[edit] External Links
[edit] Chapter Summaries
Readded link to chapter summaries for Blinkafter it was lost in a multi-tiered revert. The summary is a wiki under the GNU FDL license, so all text is "compatible" with Wikipedia. This page ads value in that it gives a more detailed view of the book that is outside of the accepted scope of Wikipedia. Geneffects 14:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
its not about intuition, its about rapid cognition. gladwell clearly states this on his website while also adding that not once does the word "intuition" appear in his book.
True, intuition does not have to be fast, however intuition means that we can not rationally or logically explain the action, gladwell's stories had that element in it though. I think if we have less time we use more intuition than logical thinking. It does not mean that intuition is better, just there is no time for other thinking. Ervinn 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV - Balanced view - citations to the book needed
After reading this article I cannot help but feel that the author Malcolm Gladwell of the book many have a NPOV.
1. For example "he explores the power of the trained mind to make split second decisions, the ability to think without thinking, or in other words using instinct." is flawed because meaning of instinct is not the same meaning as a trained mind reacting quickly. Instinct, relates to stuff that is hard wired into are bodies as opposed to something we learn. Just like a computer has firmware and software.
2. The second aspect of this article that worries me is the authors claim that "In other words, spontaneous decisions are often as good as - or even better than - carefully planned and considered ones." That he is putting value without proof that something is better than something else. This is demonstrating in my minds eye a NPOV.
I understand that the previous editors of the wiki have no control over the contents of the book, and the book author probably makes those claims, however being wikipedia I feel as user:Amazins490 does that citations to within the contents of the book are required..
This post is to highlight some concerns I have about what is in my view obvious glaring problems with the authors narrative. I must add however I have not read the book, and am unable to judge how well the author has backed up his claims.
--Joewski 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Reading the book you will actually understand why he writes that way. He makes a point throughout the book that what we call instinct actually is very much based on our prejudice and what we have learned. And how those hard-wired reactions can be controlled and are results of our lives. --Wmasterj (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- He also nicely shows that when quick actions are needed, prejudice and hard-wired reactions can produce mistakes and errors, but we can train ourself this to be better and more accurate. Ervinn (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blinkgla.jpg
Image:Blinkgla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Puff removed
Took out the Praise section because it was like book jacket puffery, however if anyone has time to find critical reception with refs feel free to improve it, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
