Blink #3

“At 175, we begin to see an absolute breakdown of cognitive processing… The forebrain shuts down, and the mid-brain – the part of your brain that is the same as your dog’s (all mammals have that part of the brain)—reaches up and hijacks the forebrain. Have you ever tried to have a discussion with an angry or frightened human being ? You can’t do it…”(p. 225)

In this chapter, Gladwell talks about “mind reading” and how your facial expressions are a huge part of this process. This is how our first impressions are created. He also talks about how our snap judgments can fail. In the quote above Gladwell is talking about how when we are anxious, and when our hearts are beating at a rate of 175 beats per minute our brain, our snap judgments are not working properly.

He does a case study on three officers who’s snap judgments failed. They were patrolling the Bronx one night, and shot an innocent man. The man was standing outside late at night getting some air, but the three officers decided that he looked suspicious, and than when he made the movement to his pocket they decided he was dangerous in a split second, but he was not dangerous he was scared. They thought the man was pulling out a gun, when he was really pulling out his wallet. These errors resulted in a man being shot, the officers were anxious, their brains shutdown and they ended up relying on stereotypes. Gladwell goes on to talk about how if the officers were trained better for this situation they would have reacted more calmly, and made better choices. This is because the more similar experiences you have to one another, your brain becomes better at mind reading, so you are able to predict what’s going to happen and have a better reaction to the situation. I think this is where the saying “practice makes perfect” comes from because the more we do something the better we get at that thing, and that is because our brain is able to predict the situation.

Can you mind-read?

"We can all mind-read effortlessly and automatically because the clues we need to make sense of someone or some social situation are right there on the faces of those in front of us." (213)

This is how we thin-slice other people, we mind-read.

When we express emotions on our faces it is an automatic action and they can be voluntary or involuntary. We as people always judge what a person is thinking or how they are feeling. In the blink of an eye these impressions simply come to us, because a face can be a rich map and source of emotion.

I have never connected autism with mind-reading but Gladwell has linked the two with such strength and understanding that I now view autism and mind-reading on a whole new level.

"Their first-impression apparatus is fundamentally disabled, and the way that people with autism see the world gives us a very good sense of what happens when our mind-reading faculties fail." (214)

People with this condition focus on what people say and their words, not a person's facial expressions and "nonverbal cues." Gladwell makes this point very clear when he says that when speaking with someone who is autistic you could pick your nose or pull down your pants and they would not notice.

Those with autism are mind-blind. When you lack this ability you cannot look at someones face and automatically mind-read. Faces are simply objects, and the emotion in them is lost.

An experiment which I read about that was fascinating consisted of watching a movie through the eyes of an autistic person and contrasting this to people without autism. Each group wore hats that tracked their eye movements. One example of where the eye movements were distinctly different was in a scene in the movie where a man says "Who did that painting" and then points to the wall. Someone with autism does not look to where the speaker is pointing or follow this path with their eyes because they are not able to interpret this action; they cannot mind-read. When hearing this line they will look for a wall and search for a painting. Say there are several paintings, they wouldn't know the specific piece.

People with autism are unable to mind-read, something that comes to most people as an automatic response done outside of their awareness.

Blink!

The Dark Side

Our adaptive unconscious makes snap judgements and decisions. This is called thin-slicing, "the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behaviour based on very narrow slices of experience." (23) Thin-slicing is what makes it possible to analyze only 15 minutes of a wife and husband talking and be able to determine with 90% accuracy if that couple will still be married in 15 years. We can determine which doctors will be sued for medical malpractice just based on listening to brief clips of how a doctor talks to his patients instead of studying the physicians past history.

Our unconscious is "sifting through the situation front of us, throwing out all that is irrelevant while we zero in on what really matters, and the truth is that our unconscious is really good at this, to the point where thin-slicing often delivers a better answer than more deliberate and exhaustive ways." (33)

What if in that blink of an eye we become blind?

In the history of American presidents, historians agree that Warren Harding was one of the worst. How is it possible that a man who is hesitant and uncertain of policies and unable to formulate a speech be elected as president. The answer is quite simple, Warren Harding looked the part. When thin-sliced by people he appeared to be a man who would make a great president. Although thin-slicing allows us to "very quickly get below the surface of a situation" (75) sometimes rapid cognition can lead us in the wrong direction. This is what Gladwell calls the Warren Harding error; the dark side to our adaptive unconscious.

The IAT (Implicit Association Test) shows the effects of our feelings and actions when in moments that require spontaneous thinking. Our attitudes towards areas such as race and gender are not only conscious but also have an unconscious aspect where "the immediate, automatic associations...tumble out before we've even had time to think." (85) This is why over 80% of people who take the race IAT have pro-white associations. We are unaware of these associations because they occur behind a locked door on an unconscious level yet they have the power to govern our beliefs and our behaviour. This part of our unconscious are opinions shaped from our experiences.

In that blink of an eye we are blind.

This happens outside of our awareness behind a locked door but it is still something that we can work to control Gladwell argues. It all comes down to our experiences.

Bob Golomb is an extremely successful cars salesman because he is able to control the way in which he thin-slices. He avoids the Warren Harding error by permitting himself from judging his customers based on their appearance or first impressions and instead thin-slices a persons intentions, needs and emotions. He balances his "deliberate and distinctive thinking" (141) and thats what makes his decisions and ultimate prosperity successful.

The power of thin-slicing is incredible but it is something that under certain conditions we must have control of. Malcolm Gladwell is a brilliant man.

The Answer is the Question

"The success of the scientific method in the past has encouraged us to think that with enough time and effort we can unravel nature's mysteries. But hitting the absolute limit of the scientific explanation - not a technological obstacle or the current but progressing edge of human understanding - would be a singular event, one for which past experience could not prepare us." [385]

This is quite the statement. It is potent with meaning and value beyond just the context of this novel. Greene is trying to establish the concept of pushing into the unknown; travelling farther down the rabbit hole. The reason for doing so is because he is concluding his novel. As it becomes more relevant throughout the novel, Greene does not have all the answers to every question we ask. Although it may seem ridiculous to think otherwise, we at least need to be assured that his work has the potential to provide us with the answers. If he can demonstrate that his work will provide us with new knowledge, then we will be convinced and amazed at the capabilities of Theoretical Physics, and come to use it in more common practice.

Up to this point in the novel, Greene has gone about building his structure. This structure is a collaborative process much like any academic subject would be: you must have the basics installed before you can progress. Sure you can buy a spoiler, some fluffy dice, and a little hula girl, but what good are they if you don't have car. The same applies to Greene's novel: if he didn't introduce you his premises you would never have understood nor accepted his ideas. So from that we can deduce that Greene has intentionally led us up to this point, and that if his structure and presentation were both sufficient, we should come to accept his final point.

We revisit Greene's purpose when he precedes the quote above with this idea; "The road from this "in principle" ratiocination to an "in practice" fact is encumbered by many hurdles." [383]

Here he is again, proving his intention of convincing society that his academic does, in fact, fit into the category of the Sciences. He labels the "gap" I discussed in my first blog as "hurdles". Then he goes on in explanation to fill this gap, the beautiful thing about this concluding chapter is that it is built from the previous ones. Due to this form of logic, it becomes so easy for the reader to follow his thoughts and agree with them. Because his previous arguments in each chapter were concise, clear, and well presented; appealing to the human’s intuition, we were led to accept each thesis from each chapter. If not, it was at least clear to see the point he had made, and like a well performed lawyer in a court of law, Greene leaves these points discretely disconnected until the very end when he collaborates his arguments and asserts his verdict to the jury. He shows the reader the path to believing and understanding conclusion and so I am awed at not just the material of the book, but the art of it as well. In any situation, Greene is proclaiming that we should expect the unexpected – as cliché as that may be. In doing so he has essentially grouped Theoretical Physics and Science into the same generalized idea; that if Theoretical Physics hits a dead end, then can be associated with the limits of Science as a whole. This brilliantly, again, persuades the reader to assume that they are of the same origin and nature. Nonetheless, he eloquently finishes his novel with a quote assuring us that life and life’s work is not about finding all the answers, but living fully in the pursuit of the answers. I, for one, was left satisfied and hopeful, with dazzling stars in my eyes.

“As we fix our sight on the future and anticipate all the wonders yet in store for us, we should also reflect back and marvel at the journey we have taken so far. The search for the fundamental laws of the universe is a distinctly human drama, one that has stretched the mind and enriched the spirit... We are all, each seekers of the truth and we each long for an answer to why we are here... And as our generation marvels at our new view of the universe – our new of asserting the world’s coherence – we are fulfilling our part; contributing our rung to the human ladder reaching for the stars” [387]

"The war is lost"

"[von Bronikowski] watched German officers with twenty to thirty men apiece, marching back from the front – retreating towards Caen.…..'They were drunk as pigs, their faces were dirty and the swayed from side to side.' Reeling by, oblivious to everything they saw, they sang 'Deutschland uber Alles' at the top of their voices. Bronikowski watched them until they were out of sight. 'The war is lost', he said aloud."

-Pg 275

By the final hours of June 6^th (American landing beach pictured top right), it had become apparent that the Germans could not push the Allied invaders out. German soldiers, shocked by the sudden appearance of dozens of allied divisions and thousands of warships, retreated in disbelief. Constant flyovers by Allied warplanes, bombing marshaling yards and strafing vehicle columns, had taken their toll. The Germans were truly crushed, and this occurred to everyone; from Rommel, who, when asked if he could throw the invaders back into the sea “shrugged, spread his hands and said ‘…I hope we can’” (Pg 277), to tank commander Colonel von Bronikowski.

Soldiers acted in different ways when faced with the reality of defeat; some merely broke down, fanatics stood their ground and went down in a blaze of allied bullets, and some turned to French alcohol, which the Germans had been compiling since their initial conquest of the nation some four years before. This quote really sums up the importance of “the longest day” - the Germans, for the first time in five years, had been dealt a defeat by the western allies in North-West Europe, and thus the disoriented Germans were on their way to a slow eleven month retreat back to Berlin itself, when the war would finally end. The Germans where routed, and Hitler's "Third Reich would have less than one year to live" (Pg 277).

By blending first-person accounts and the official records into one book, Ryan presents the history of D-Day in a way that is both interesting and gripping but at the same time lets you truly feel like you are on the front lines with the men who were there. While Ryan could have simply have stated that the Germans were dealt a serious blow from which they never recovered, by blending that thesis with first-person accounts, it has such a greater impact on the reader. This attitude has made Ryan's "The Longest Day" one of the best accounts of the D-Day landings.

“Awfully sorry, old man, but we simply landed here by accident”

"The General’s intelligence officer disarmed the two men and brought them up to the veranda. The astounded Reichert could only blurt out 'Where have you come from?' to which one of the pathfinders, with all the aplomb of a man who had just crashed a cocktail party, replied, 'Awfully sorry, old man, but we simply landed here by accident'."

-Page 116

Cornelius Ryan’s “The Longest Day” mixes both the official “big-picture” history of the D-Day landings and the personal, often humorous and unbelievable, stories that are often seen in veteran’s memoirs. Although works like this are usually immensely popular (all of Ryan’s books were New York Times bestsellers, and historians who have followed in his footsteps, such as Max Hastings, have enjoyed similar embraces), these types of books are rare; partially because of the time and effort it takes to write them. For instance, the author worked on this one for ten years – 1949 to 1959. This quote above is an example of how Ryan combines both of these.

In the hours leading up to the invasion, thousands of paratroopers were dropped behind the invasion beaches. Before these paratroopers, small teams of soldiers coined “pathfinders” (pictured, top right) were dropped. Representing the vanguard of the invasion force, their mission was to mark the landing zones for the rest of the airborne forces. However, due to high winds and disoriented pilots, these men were often dropped far off course. This quote pertains to one of these teams – who drifted far off course and landed in the front yard of 711^th Infantry Division commander Josef Reichert's command post. Swiftly captured by the General’s intelligence officer, one member of the British team nonchalantly delivered the line to the astonished general, who was still completely unaware of what was unfolding before him.

"The Longest Day"

“The first twenty-four hours of the invasion will be decisive….the fate of Germany depends on the outcome…..for the Allies, as well as Germany, it will be the Longest Day"

-Erwin Rommel on April 22, 1944 (pictured, to the right)

Often in history, victory and defeat will hinge on a few critical hours. These hours can ensure victory, or seal defeat. At perhaps no other time is this more evident than the events of June 6^th 1944, better known as Operation Overlord, or the D-Day landings. The defeat of the Nazi regime in Europe was sealed by hundreds of thousands of men; men from every walk of life, who came together to do something extraordinary - something that will likely never be equalled in our lifetime.

This quote; told to the author, Cornelius Ryan, by Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s former aide Captain Hellmuth Lang, is where the book get’s its name from. Once the famed “Desert Fox” who lead the Wehrrmacht in a string of victories across North Africa, Rommel is now in charge of defending occupied Western Europe from Allied invaders. Rommel, a student of history as well as a skilled tactician, is acutely aware that any invasion must be halted before the enemy can take a foothold. He believes that there is “only one chance to stop the enemy and that’s while he’s in the water” (Pg 27). Henceforth began the fortification of the coast, the maze of bunkers, trenches and dug in artillery – the things which were to soon become synonymous with any invasion. No longer in the Second World War, would an invading force be permitted a relatively unobstructed amphibious assault. The date of the invasion – yet unknown to Rommel and his commanders – was truly to become the longest day; and the one which sealed the defeat of Hitler’s regime.

This quote provides an excellent prelude to the book itself, as it is a rather foreboding outlook by Erwin Rommel, the man on whom the future of Europe hinged. Knowing the outcome of the battle, it carries even more weight, and makes you think about what could have been if the Field Marshall had his way and had not been limited by his own commanders.

Through this quote and the next two, I hope to give everyone a good feel of what the book is like, and a rough idea of how things progressed that day. This quote provides a view of the situation before the battle (feverish preparations), the next deals with the start of the landings (confusion for the Germans, optimism from the allies), and the last offers closure on the situation (Germans routed, in disoriented retreat).

Improvising

We usually think of improvising as a total spontaneous act that has no structure what so ever. It makes us wonder how some people have the ability to perform an improvised act based on a random idea. Gladwell talks about this in chapter four and studies an improvisation comedy group which uses random ideas from the crowd. It turns out improv isn't as random and chaotic as we may think. Gladwell said if you sit down with the cast of the improv group he worked with you would find "they aren't all the sort of zany, impulsive, free-spirited comedians that you might imagine them to be." (113). Then how, one may wonder are their improv plays so funny and well put together like it was planned? Gladwell explains that improv, believe it or not is governed by certain rules which have to be abided by on stage. The most important rule of improv is the idea of agreement where characters accept everything that happens to them. Spontaneity is also made possible when everyone undergoes highly repetitive and structural practices, which include running through plays over and over and criticising each other's performance. In this way one can practice for an improv performance by perfecting certain skills which will make it easier to engage in the "spur of the moment that makes for good improv" (117).


Before reading this part of the book I've always thought improv was a terrifying random occurrence. But after reading what Gladwell had to say I realized that a lot of work is done before the performance to create the right framework for a well acted improv scene. Characters also have to accept any suggestion given by another character in order to keep the dialogue interesting and from ending abruptly. These two main factors is what makes good improv seem "telepathic" and "pre-arranged" (116).

Physics is in Everything: is Theory?

"What happens to space if a massive object like the sun is present? Before Einstein the answer was nothing;... Einstein [led] to the remarkable suggestion that the presence of mass, such as the sun, causes the fabric of space around it to warp," [68]

Incredible! This picture illustrates Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. As you can see, the object in orbit to the earth is in fact falling down a curved slope. Another image you can have to understand this is that of a whirlpool in a sink or bath tub. You can see the small bits of soap or shampoo accelerating towards the drain, then once those items are in the whirlpool, they swirl downward into the drain. My first immediate thought was that this implies all objects in orbit are falling toward the earth. Which is frightening to think of at first, but then I realized that there is a simple explanation that fits nicely into this theory. The only thing that causes an object to fall into the earth is something that slows it velocity down. The reason why an object is slowing down might be friction. If there is friction experienced in outer space then, yes, the objects will slow down. Our atmosphere extends way beyond in outer space, as it does so, it decreases in it size and its dispersion increases. So a satellite for example comes into contact with a very small amount of our atmosphere while in orbit. This means that yes, our satellite is therefore falling towards earth, but at a very slow rate; so slow in fact that we don't need to worry about it in our lifetime. Although there are a great deal of unexplained reasons to this theory, it would seem at least intuitively correct to some degree.

The novel thus far has done an excellent job at portraying conceptual ideas to the reader. Through the use of visual diagrams and common analogies, Greene invites the intuition of the reader and captivates the imagination with his ideas. Now going back to my first point, I've labelled Greene's purpose to not only educate the reader, but to shift societies perspective on Theoretical Physics. As of late, he has done an exceptional job in my opinion because he has related his ideas to the same tangible and empirical ideas we use in Science. Once he shows us that the method of Theoretical Physics is the same as the Scientific Method, and yields exact and parallel results to that of Science, he can begin to shift societies perspective through our faith in logical reasoning.

We Must Accept; but how?

"...A book that takes on such an abstract subject with the intention of emphasizing the science, not the scientific personalities or the personal anecdotes, might cater to an even smaller audience."

Who would honestly want to read the Almanac? It would appear to be insane to pick up a book with facts and call it a "novel". Brian Greene is a famous physicist in the world of theoretical physics who understands the important connection between the appeal for learning, and the appeal for factual data. In the preface to his novel The Elegant Universe; he sets up the reader with, what appears to be, an honest remark: "This book will not appeal to everyone." (note: not actual quote from book)

After analyzing the first section, I have come to conclude other meanings for why he has used this quoted phrase. In order for you understand what this quote means to me, I must first inform you of its proper context. The page is roughly an introduction to why he wrote the book, how he did it, and to get the reader in a mindset that prepares them for the read ahead. He goes on to say that he was dedicated to writing the book regardless of its social appeal; that he would be satisfied if, "[He] reached one person,...that it would be enough." Of course the word "enough" means enough reason behind his purpose. So from the start we are made to believe that he intends to portray the Science as accurately as possible, regardless of its general appeal to society.

Science is the philosophy of deducing knowledge from your senses; Empiricism. Its hilariously ironic to call Theoretical Physics a form of Science because "theoretical" implies we haven't experienced it yet. Of course if Brian Greene came out and said, "This is technically not Science, but it does use the same process to achieve equally valid conclusions," his book and life's work would lose the potency of its meaning, especially in the hands of the layman. A book is written for society. If the intention of the book is to educate society with your knowledge, you appeal to the bias of the society. This is why Aristotle included the gods in Sophocles; that everyone would derive similar connections and meaning and use that connection to embrace Aristotle's ideas. So when Greene says this quote, and it implies that he is writing something similar to an Almanac, we assume that (because he his absolutely honest in this intention) we are receiving his facts with confidence; that they are accepted as true, and can be used as knowledge.

Today's society is infatuated with Empiricism; that is our bias. If Greene intends to write a novel about his subject, he must appeal to that bias; which he has done. He has underlined his preface with the idea that his knowledge is acceptable as Empirical knowledge. This underlying idea influences our intuition about his work; that we must strive to understand it rather than revoke it. This is brilliant because he has setup the reader's attitude with a bias towards the information he is presenting; we are no longer open minded about the subject matter. Again, there's irony in a Scientific novel proving itself to an Empirical audience. If we accept Science as true because we are Empirical, it would be redundant to write a novel proving what we already believe. Yet, he chooses to write a novel; a way through which we can accept his ideas as true, versus an almanac; just the result.

When we reconsider the irony of Theoretical Physics as a Science, we recall that there is a small disconnect between the two. Greene in this manner is no longer just proving the validity of his work, he's also trying to bridge that small gap between his field of study, and Science. I would love to go into detail regarding the various reasons as to why he might be doing that, but from here on I will keep my bias in perspective and continue to learn form what the novel offers.

To think or to blink?

"There can be as much value in the blink of an eye as in months of rational analysis."

How is it that after months of scientific analysis and investigation of a marble statue it is deemed to be real and bought for $10 million, but when the statue is presented to a group of art experts, in almost an instant they felt an "intuitive repulsion" and knew that the statue was a fake?

Malcolm Gladwell introduces his book Blink by questioning our instincts and proving that although we live in a world where we believe that decision making requires time and effort, decisions that we make very quickly, almost instantly, can be just as good.

When we make decisions we go about this in the same style that we use to learn. We experience things which we think through and develop a theory about, and then we come to a conclusion. Gladwell refers to this as our conscious strategy which despite being "logical and definitive" is also slow. In contrast to this we also have an adaptive unconscious. This part of our brain makes decisions quickly, almost immediately, and based on a small amount of information. It acts under our conscious level where our brain can reach a conclusion without us actually knowing it has done so. Gladwell demonstrates and proves this with the story about the marble statue.

We really on have trust in our decision making at a conscious level. "Haste makes waste. Look before you leap. Stop and think. Don't judge a book by its cover." These have all been installed in us from an early age, as this way of thinking is thought to be a superior and smarter way to the art of decision making. Gladwell argues that we must learn that there are times instead where we must trust the power of our adaptive unconscious and make decisions in the blink of an eye. This is not always the case as there can be times where it can be "thrown off," distracted, and disabled," but it is something that we can develop and foster for ourselves.

Gladwell does an excellent job introducing his book telling stories followed by straight forward yet interesting and thought provoking explanations about the power of a blink; the first two seconds which made more sense of an important art statue than months of rational analysis.