Blink or think?

Malcolm Gladwell’s best seller “blink” in 2005 argues that our minds possesses an adaptive unconscious that can “size up the world, warning people of danger, setting goals, and initiating action in a sophisticated and efficient manner”, and that “decisions made very quickly can be every bit as good as decisions made cautiously and deliberately.” One of the cases touted as examples was a 6^th century BC marble statue, a “kouros”, of a male youth presented to the J. Paul Getty Museum in California in 1983. All scientific tests indicated it was authentic. Fourteen months after their investigation began, the Getty was satisfied and agreed to buy the statue. But several experts felt something was not quite right when they saw it for the first time, without being able to explain why. Eventually, after much more thorough investigations, evidences were found that showed the statue might have been forged in a workshop in Rome.

Then in 2006, Michael LeGault published “Th!nk” which argued that “years of research and critical thinking about the topic must have laid the mental groundwork for such leaps”. It laments the decline of logic and reasoning in American life. It pointed to the years of declining student performances and institutionalized political correctness, moral relativism, trash culture, marketing, reliance on therapy, aversion of risk, the self-esteem industry, lack of standards in the workplace and classroom, and lax, hands-off parenting.

More people seem to identify with “blink” rather than “Th!nk”. It is better written, easier to read, and the philosophy it advocates is easier to follow. I think the position argued by “Th!nk” is sounder and more solid, although harder to live out. But ironically, the book feels more polemical than soundly-reasoned, although it does cite many references to support its arguments.

What do you think?