Talk:Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Popularity of the Phrase

The article summary strongly implies that the phrase "tipping point" was not in common usage, or at least much more obscure before publication. I, for one, have been hearing the phrase all my life, in and out of academic circles. Unless there is some sort of citation indicating that this book has popularized the phrase, I think this sentence should be rewritten.

Misc

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External Links

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Gladwell most certainly DOES use the word intuition in his book. Don't make stuff up! E.g: "Klein’s nurses and firefighters would size up a situation almost immediately and act, drawing on experience and intuition and a kind of rough mental simulation." It IS about rapid-cognition, but intuition is also an applicable term. --88.104.110.160 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

FIXED THIS BIT -------- --88.104.110.160 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Criticism section NPOV

Please see Literary criticism. Criticism of the book does not entail just negative reviews. With this book, there is both an opportunity to analyse the theory and the literary aspect of the book. As with any criticism, literary or theory, it has to be balanced. --RossF18 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Literary criticism" has, as you point out, a special meaning. However, the "Criticism" section of this article is NOT a literary criticism, nor is it intended to be. The meaning of the word "criticism" in this context is well understood by most readers of Wikipedia articles about books: disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings. As such it is valuable, although I agree it could be greatly improved. Disclaimer: I wrote the criticism section for The Tipping Point --gilgongo (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any original research

I changed the WP:OR template to {{nofootnotes}}.

I think that this article accurately describes the ideas presented in the book. I am sympathetic to the editor who commented that the argument consists mostly of examples, however, this is a flaw in the book, not in this article. Gladwell's book relies heavily on examples.

(I would guess that he deliberately eschews theory to create a popular book. People like to read stories, not read philosophy books. I think that Gladwell's ideas are drawn from continental philosophy, e.g., Heidegger's idea of ready-to-hand or Kohler's theory of gestalt, but continental philosophy is almost unreadable. So he left the unreadable theory out. That's not the article's fault.)

I do agree that, in general, it is always better to use page-numbered references into the book, for no other reason than to avoid getting tagged as WP:OR. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

Is there any particular reason that "thin slicing" redirects to this article, while "thin-slicing" is its own article? Should that redirect be changed?

Pyrophosphate (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blink (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Blink:_The_Power_of_Thinking_Without_Thinking"