Customer Reviews

Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(37)

 

 

Many of the reviewers here criticize this book because it isn't Blink (which by the way I think is an excellent book) but in my opinion, that is the wrong comparison. This is a book about critical thinking, Blink is a book about intuitive thinking.

The path to superior thinking is using both sides of the coin.

This book is a great look at critical thinking particularly as it relates to may of the not-thought-through group think decisions that many people make.

This is a great book for breaking down the critical thinking process and encouraging people to start thinking again in an age where many would have us not stop and question the avalanche of messages we get on a daily basis.

Read this book and Blink, you'll be a better thinker.

The author has some good points but he drags on for way too long. The book could have been easily shorter as he often enters in long winded descriptions - borderline rants - which add nothing to the points already expoused. I haven't yet read Blink!, so I cannot tell on whether he's correct or not in his assessment of the book. I do however feel strongly that this book is not immune from the typical polarization of much discourse in the US today. I share his dislike for "political correctness" when it becomes a hamper to the free flow and discussion of ideas, nonetheless his cartoonish depiction of the liberal left is a poor service to the critical thinking he aims to promote. He fails his own litmus tests. A couple of examples. He's extremely critical of global warming and says that the majority of scientist is unconvinced or not against it. Actually the majority of relevant scientist world wide is convinced that man made global warming is real although they may still disagree on the overall impact and best mitigation -if any - policy. Also he uses rethorical arguments which are the negation of critical thinking. Again in the case of global warming he criticizes those who "believe that carbon dioxide (a non pollutant) causes global warming". This is intellectually dishonest as it is meant to instill in the reader the equivalence non-pollutant=harmless. In other term since co2 is a not a pollutant - which is true - it cannot cause anything as dangerous a global warming is supposed to be. Too bad that pollution potential and ability to reflect electromagnetic radiation - and therefore have the potential for global warming - are absolutely unrelated. He's disonest because if he belives that co2 does not cause global warming, should argue that and not using unrelevant rethoric to bias the readers in a desired direction. That is a cheap trick that doesn't belongs to a book on critical thinking and demeans the whole argument he set forth to promote.
The author says rightly that while we all have our own ideology and our bias, critical thinking should allow us to see behind it and avoid ideology to become a screen that obfuscates our interpreation of the world. Sadly, I feel that several times he fail to heed his own advice and in doing so he's doing a disservice to his own message and several nonetheless relevant points raised by the book. Eventually once again those - like me - who are disenfranchised with the monopoly of debate held by the liberal left and the conservative right, will find scant comfort in reading this book.

Despite the title and the packaging, this book has little to do with critical thinking or with Malcolm Gladwell's book, BLINK. Former Washington Times columnist Michael LeGault's THINK is a thinly veiled rehash of familiar neo-con rants about the decline of American culture. The old villain in Allan Bloom's THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND, relativism, is recast as impulse or emotion. Unfortunately, THINK really pales in contrast to Bloom's already deeply flawed book. In Bloom's CLOSING, there were at least conceivably real identifiable "villains" arguing for relativism. Here, you have the privilege of reading an entire book attacking non-existent "straw men." Ask yourself: who would actually suggest that we should make important decisions based solely on impulse or emotion?

Malcolm Gladwell? On the surface, he would appear to be the villain in the piece. But where in BLINK does Gladwell suggest anything like making decisions on impulse or emotion? Gladwell gives examples of where intuition seems to outperform the straight science (or where intuition can be effective and useful). But all the examples deal with professionals and experts, eg, art experts, firemen, policemen, doctors, etc. Their experience trains them to make fast decisions. This is not the same as making decisions based on impulse or emotion - not even close.

Experts can draw correct conclusions based on very small data sets. Look at Gladwell's discussion of the psychologist who was able to figure out which couples would eventually divorce by observing them for extremely short durations. Why? Well, a trained expert is able to recognize a significant pattern of behavior in that first minute or so. The expert can safely draw his conclusion based on a small sample b/c the rest of the data will likely be redundant. That is, the husband will be the same jerk at minute 30 as he was in minute 1. It's not that complicated.

LeGault takes a stand against irrational decision-making. Well, good for him, but who the hell takes a stand in favor of irrational choices? No one.

Really, his heroic stand is nothing more than his attempt to attribute reason and objectivity to his conservative agenda. And guess who gets to look nutty and irrational? Those wacky environmentalists, those leftist extremists (ala Noam Chomsky), etc. Our society is imperiled by emotional and impulsive liberals and environmentalists; our salvation is in the being objective and rational. And that surprisingly coincides with a conservative and libertarian agenda. Amazing.

Don't buy this book to look at where Gladwell's BLINK goes wrong. It's not a book about psychology or about critical reasoning. Read it if you want to jump back into the culture wars.

If one were to take Malcolm Gladwell's advice to "Thin-Slice", they should just read the cliff notes of "Blink." Would reading just the chapter titles of "Blink" fairly explain the message in "Blink?" The answer is of course, NO.

Likewise, it appears previous negative reviews on this web site regarding Michael LeGault's "Think" were from readers who 'thin-sliced' "Think." The result was a misunderstanding of the message.

In part, LeGault's "Think" is a response (correction) to the theory expressed in Gladwell's "Blink" that most decisions including life threatening situations and monumental decisions made by government leaders can and should be made through 'thin-slicing', intuition, and gut feelings.

However, responding to Gladwell's hypothesis is not the main point of "Think." LeGault reminds the reader that bad decisions are based on greed or fast fixes (putting a band-aid on a pipe). While LeGault accepts that intuition can be a valuable part of the thought process, he articulates that failures are caused as a result on non-critical thinking. He provides examples of government (Katrina), business (GM and Ford) and social (every other kid on Ritalin and political correctness gone too far) failures supporting his message. That being, bad decisions are the result of irrational, "blink" thinking methods.

Previous reviews appear politically motivated. However, those reviewers misunderstood the message. This is not a "You are stupid because you are Democrat or ignorant because you are Republican" book. Rather, LeGault reminds the reader of the value of critical thinking and that incisive and analytical reasoning in America appears a lost art.

This is truly a good and positive read. "Think" is the modern "Common Sense" (Thomas Paine) and a must read for decision makers, government and business leaders.

I bought this after having gone through both "The Tipping Point" and "Blink", both by Malcom Gladwell.

Was expecting something similar I guess, however was greatly dissappointed.

Found that many of the observations made in Blink seemed to me to be missrepresented in this work.

LeGault seems to imply that in Blink, Gladwell is saying, dont worry, you don't have to microanalyse things, just go with your intuition.

I however felt that in Blink, Gladwell was saying that there are times when people can become so familiar with their field of expertise that their intuition can be incredibly perceptive. He also gives good examples of where intuition can be dangerously wrong.

Found my faith in this author damaged very early in the piece.

I do not recommend this book.

Legault writes this book in order to expose the lack of critical thinking skills inherent in the stunted thinking processes of a society with full stomachs and empty heads i.e. like the non-thinking of so many voters in their recent vote on Gov Scharzenegger's initiatives in the great state of California. Or, the thinking skills unused where it comes to critiquing the coming problems inherent in our social security and medicare/medicaid ponzi schemes.

As such, LeGault seeks to contrast objective thinking and reasoned analysis with the more subjective forms of decision making borne of emotion and ideals. He exposes the intellectual fraud of political correctness where the perfect is the enemy of the good (LeGault sees politcal correctness as a deceit and a dishonesty by drawing the distinctions between a moral code that sees the world as it is versus one where the viewer sees it as he thinks it ought to be.) He also upholds the kind of reasoning found in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" to the kind of scrutiny it deserves.

Gladwell essentially writes about the concept known today as "profiling" without uttering the word. In essence, profiling isn't about a snap, emotional analysis as much as it's about how one who has spent inordinate time in a particular environment arrives at instant decisions based on prior experiences and bouts of critical analysis, all of which have resulted in a myriad of successes and failures over a time contuiuum. From this, seemingly instant decisions are made when in fact they are more on the order of Darwinian instincts honed over time. Think of a rookie quarterback who after many hard knocks and errors learns his craft over several seasons of trial and error. The blink factor for him comes i.e. when he reads a blitz and adapts immediately by hitting a seam in the zone versus being sacked. Critical analysis is what he does in the film room. Practice is where he learns to change his habits. And, game experiences preceed his improvement as a quarterback. He learns to audible under pressure or he's out of the league or taken off the count, take your pick.

The truism is that all progress is the result of confronting truth with almost all great disparities between people the result of individual decisions, the way that they think and act upon their thinking. In an open system like that found in America disparities can be erased quickly by people deciding to change the way they think. To this he discusses how political ideology can lead to unclear lazy thinking among smart people, and amen to that (it makes you rethink the definition of smart; you'd think they'd look at the game films, would you not?)

He correctly identifies how bad thought and research can harm societies and he cites "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson as an example. Look no further than that tomes' ridiculous dunuciation of DDT, a claim based on junk science, which has resulted in so many unnecessary worldwide deaths over the last 35 years.

He also recognizes the importance of sound social policy based on factual evidence, sound critical thinking skills, and logical reasoning, all of which can result in a common ground beyond political partisanship. And in this regard, he scolds both sides of the political isle where looney decision making is to be found. Of note, he exposes Noam Chomsky, the assumed intellectual guru of the far left as not a thinker, but as a dogmatist, a pedant and an anarchist; plus, as a hypocrite as documented in Peter Schwiezer's latest book, "do as I say, not as I do." In the final analysis he begs the reason why people aren't more analytical with regard to all the available facts and not just the ones that support their position. I'll wait, but that's the book I want to read. Meanwhile, this one is pretty good.

This is a book I would really like to like; and has a premise that I think no rational, thinking person disagrees with: it is important and useful to apply critical thinking, use evidence and reason when making decisions. So far so good. However, the book fails by its own standards; apparently LeGault forgets that he is supposed to think.
One of the most annoying things is that LeGault does not properly cite sources or give any indication where he gets his stuff from. For example, when he discusses global warming, he claimed "in fact there is vehement disagreement among climate experts all around the world about many aspects of global warming theory" (111) yet he does not cite any expert who either advocates or is skeptical of global warming (there are none cited and there is no reference to any study, paper, review, book, TV program or expert in the references section either). This is just poor scholarship. LeGault also cites wikipedia (whilst wiki may be a good place to get information this information should always be verified). In another section he raves about child beating and the fact that his friends who were beaten were never disrespectful towards their parents (220). LeGault claims that "it is widely recognized that children not only need standards and rules for healthy social, ethical and intellectual development, they desire them" (219) yet he does not bother to tell us by whom it is "widely recognized". Further, he seems to suggest that parents must be authoritative contra his avowed sponsorphip of critical thinking. If we want to raise people who are better at critical thinking, rhetoric, analysis and argumentation shouldn't parents engage in reasoned discussion with their kids? No says LeGault, auhtority is a must so kids can be instilled a work ethic and the knowledge that actions have consequences.
LeGault wants children to spend more time outside as "the outdoors is a breathing space for the mind, a repository of unknown adventure" (227). Isn't the internet the biggest repository of information, and a valuable tool by which people can explore things? LeGault is a libertarian and this taints his views; he blames bad parenting for all the ills of society. LeGault is careless when making arguments because he does not justify them nor provide evidence to support his claims. Think is a vitrol against Blink. The author does not critical appraise his ideas; he merely supports things that align with his politics.

On the heels of the popular 2005 book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell--which argues that we know things a lot more subconsciously and immediately than we often realize--Michael LeGault says, "We make knowledge the old-fashioned way, we noodle it out."

LeGault holds that to arrive at knowledge requires a good deal of work in the pedestrian fields of logic. And the book, mainly by reference to modern-day omissions of that logic, shows us the importance of the fading art of thinking.

Think! is best when identifying widespread symptoms of unreason:

* By objective measures, performance in science, math,
reading, and problem-solving skills is worsening
dramatically, across all levels of American education.
* The number of people believing in paranormal phenomena
continues to advance at an alarming pace.
* Americans spend 170 minutes daily watching TV or video
images vs. 35 minutes reading.
* Children are becoming addicts to psychotropic drugs, chiefly
Ritalin and Prozac, in record numbers in the drug-free
zones of government schools.
* Assuring that children feel good about themselves has
become more important than giving them the conceptual
tools to survive and prosper.
* Political correctness in academia overrules science: when
studies--particularly those concerning race and gender--
conflict with emotions, emotions dictate policy.
* Many social commentators, particularly environmental
advocates, slip shoddy reasoning into their pointed
analyses.

Reading the author's comments on that last observation, it brings to mind that 75% of the American public believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 911. Or that some incredibly high number of people do not believe in anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming.

...

For my complete review of this book and for other book and movie
reviews, please visit my site [...]

Brian Wright
Copyright 2007

I found the content to be one part interesting and four parts boring and/or biased. I kept reading it hoping that there would be some payoff. I kept hoping that the few things I found of interest would eventually be expanded upon. They weren't.

From reading the book, you get the impression there are serious flaws in the book Blink.

I am now reading Blink and find it to be profound and insightful.

As a result I find the book Think spends too much time reacting to Blink and never gives a quality response to the facts and research provided in Blink. Blink provides the names and details of specific studies to support its conclusions. Think does not. If you dont like what Blink says, you should provide the names and details of specific studies that refute the conclusions outlined in Blink.

My impressions of the book Think:
- it is a knee-jerk response to the book Blink
- it does not compare to the book Blink in terms of quality or reliability
- it spends too much time reacting to Blink and not enough time supporting and elaborating on its own position.
- reminds me of a disgruntled unintelligent 8 year old who tries to spout off things to get your attention but does not have the facts to backup what he says. All noise and hot air. No substance.

This book spends too much time politicizing the process of thinking.

For a book that spends so much time reacting to Blink, it never truely addresses many of the points brought out in Blink. For example, what role does the unconscious play in the act of thinking?

This book does not deliver. Blink does deliver.

For unbiased and non-politicized books on thinking, refer to Edward de Bono. He could be more concise in his writing but at least he delivers.

Think! could have been better written. In places, LeGault's writing and thinking seem little more polished than the "blogs" and "posts" you can find on almost any topic all over the Internet. LeGault's thoughts are roughly strung together. His writing is often persuasive, but also too often uncomfortably close to a rant.

Normally that would have been enough for me to put down this book and move on to another. We are blessed these days to have many powerfully written and thoughtful books available, many more than a person can read in a lifetime. But despite the flaws, LeGault quickly captured my attention. Although I did not always agree with what he had to say, his thinking always seemed sharp, incisive, and clever. Just as he encourages us to be.

Rarely do I find that in a book like this. And although I enjoyed reading Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, and his Tipping Point, I was not impressed by what Gladwell had to say. Sparkly and entertaining, Gladwell's books look better than they are.

LeGault's book is the opposite. LeGault's presentation could be improved. His arguments could be refined. The whole thing would be worth a lot more if polished. But still, it is a diamond, albeit in the rough. At heart, the book is better than it looks.

As LeGault says, "More and more, large numbers of people substitute [politically correct] views, hard-line political ideology, or cultish balderdash for hard-won knowledge and flexible, powerful reasoning and problem-solving skills." Most books show mostly the former. Think! shows mostly the latter.

You can agree or disagree with LeGault's conclusions on some of the topics he discusses in this book. Like most of the other reviewers, I did not agree with some of what LeGault says -- on climate change, for example. But even though I liked reading Gladwell's books and have no qualms about his success, I have to say that LeGault is in a different class.

Gladwell blinks. LeGault thinks.