Blink and The Paradox of Choice

I know I’m really slow at review­ing Mal­colm Glad­well’s Blink: The Power of Think­ing Without Think­ing, since it’s been out for a couple of years now. I finally read it just in the last few weeks, after a col­leagure recom­men­ded that I read it and Barry Schwarz’s The Para­dox of Choice: Why More Is Less for a pro­ject I’m work­ing on.

I’d read a few sum­mar­ies of Blink, and some­how what stuck in my memory was the sound-bite that snap decisions are often the best ones. Wrong! The book shows that imme­di­ate reac­tions are worth listen­ing to, if you’re an expert in that par­tic­u­lar field. If you aren’t, your snap decision may be right, or it may be wrong. Mal­colm Glad­well talks about times when your first, snap decisions are right (speed dat­ing, but only if you don’t try to ana­lyze what people like), and times when they’re wrong (the Pep­si taste test shows what you like when you get only a few sips, not what you like when you’re drink­ing an entire glass). He also goes into depth about people’s inbuilt or sub­con­scious assump­tions, and how they can influ­ence a per­son into mak­ing mis­takes, some­times with tra­gic con­sequences. A good example, one that’s been repor­ted widely, is that orches­tras only star­ted hir­ing women in large num­bers after intro­du­cing blind audi­tions, where the oth­er orches­tra mem­bers could­n’t be influ­enced by wheth­er the play­er was male or female, white or black, tall or short (all poten­tial bases for bias). All they heard was the music, and since they were experts in music, a short audi­tion con­cen­trat­ing only on that was all they needed. More tra­gic con­sequences come when police or sur­geons make snap decisions that may not be the right ones.

In sum­mary, Blink is well worth read­ing, and most pub­lic lib­rar­ies should have it on hand if you don’t want to buy it.

I read Para­dox of Choice shortly after­wards and found it amus­ing how the same research is used in both books (and Stum­bling on Hap­pi­ness) to illus­trate dif­fer­ent points. Barry Schwar­z’s main mes­sage is that if you are con­fron­ted with too many choices, you either spend a lot of time mak­ing the abso­lute best choice, and then will often still be unhappy since you’re not sure that you really made the best choice, or you settle for some­thing that’s “good enough”. Which is often the bet­ter strategy, as most times it is good enough, and it frees up your time and men­tal band­width to con­cen­trate on things that mat­ter more to you. It’s abso­lutely true that in many places there is too much choice; I went into the loc­al pet store the oth­er day to pick up some more cat food. Every time I go in there seem to be more choices for dry cat food, all said to be good and healthy, with the con­sequence that I end up pick­ing some­thing off the shelf that looks reas­on­able because I have no way of decid­ing which is the best. And if the cats eat it, I buy that brand again next time as it’s as good a meth­od as any for mak­ing a choice.

There is also a deep­er point to the book — if your choices are unlim­ited, then if you fail, it’s your fault. So the bur­den of hav­ing to prove at all times that you are doing the abso­lute best, that you are as thin as you should be, or as rich, or as well-read, puts a lot of pres­sure on people. The author points out that the Amer­ic­an “hap­pi­ness quo­tient” has been going down over the last couple of dec­ades; as people have had more choices they have become more unhappy, per­haps as a res­ult of feel­ing like they made bad choices, or per­haps because of not meet­ing their own stead­ily increas­ing expect­a­tions. The counter-intu­it­ive idea that if you have less, you might be hap­pi­er, is not one that would make the con­sumer­ist bene­fi­ciar­ies happy, but is worth think­ing about. In sum­mary, The Para­dox of Choice is worth read­ing, and it might even help make you hap­pi­er with your life.

Montréal in August

Sum­mer would­n’t be sum­mer without a sum­mer con­fer­ence or two. There’s some­thing about walk­ing the streets or sit­ting in cafes, talk­ing about tech­no­logy, in balmy weath­er (well, when it does­n’t rain like it did at last year’s CSW XML Sum­mer School in Oxford). This year I’m off to Mon­tréal for Bal­is­age in the middle of August. Even if the weath­er decides to be nasty, and the streets are too unpleas­ant to stroll, there will be lots of inter­est­ing people to talk tech­no­logy with and cafes near the con­fer­ence hotel to fre­quent. If you missed the dead­line to speak, there’s no need to pan­ic just yet. There is still room on the sched­ule for late-break­ing talks as long as you get your pro­pos­al in by June 13. I was one of the review­ers of the main batch of talks so I got a sneak peek at some of the sub­mis­sions. There is thought-pro­vok­ing stuff on the pro­gram and I expect lots of hefty dis­cus­sion, at the talks and in the cafes after­wards. Warm weath­er, inter­est­ing people, good food — I guess I should brush up on my French a little for those restaurants.

Middle East Complexities

Tim poin­ted at a piece list­ing immor­al solu­tions for Gaza, a piece which nicely proves that find­ing a good solu­tion is impossible, and find­ing the best of the bad solu­tions often seems equally impossible.

I’m sure I’m not the only per­son flab­ber­gas­ted by the whole Israel/Lebanon/Palestine mess, and I’ve read a few books try­ing to make some sense of it. The only one I whole­heartedly recom­mend is Thomas Fried­man’s From Beirut to Jer­u­s­alem. The book is old; it was first pub­lished in 1989, but it is (unfor­tu­nately) still rel­ev­ant in that none of the prob­lems it describes have been solved. Many of the people are no longer in power, or no longer on this earth, but the prob­lems they did­n’t man­age to solve are still here, still affect­ing the lives of those who live in that part of this world.

I’m not going to try to sum­mar­ize the book; there are lots of reviews out there. Suf­fice to say that if you don’t know much about the Middle East, but do want to know some­thing about why people dis­agree so viol­ently and why a solu­tion still seems so heart­break­ingly out of reach, get this book and read it. You may dis­agree with lots of it, you may find char­ac­ters described with­in it worthy of respect or you may find them despic­able. I learned a lot about some of the fault-lines with­in Leban­on, Israel, and Palestine soci­et­ies, and the hor­rible con­sequences that have come of well-mean­ing actions.

Retreating Fibre

I went to my first fibre retreat ever over the week­end (actu­ally, a four-day week­end, includ­ing Valentine’s Day, which struck me as iron­ic). The organ­isers of the retreat did a great job, giv­en that the hotel was being ren­ov­ated, with some of the res­taur­ants and pub­lic spaces closed, and work­ers crawl­ing over much of the rest of the hotel’s pub­lic spaces. It was run just like a tutori­al-style con­fer­ence, with three-hour classes where the instruct­or talked a bit, showed a tech­nique (for tech­nique classes) or samples of end res­ults (for the artist­ic ideas classes), and then got you to try it out while they came around and helped. There were lots of tables set up for inform­al get-togeth­ers, out­side the classrooms and the marketplace. 

The dif­fer­ences to tech con­fer­ences were obvi­ous — not a laptop to be seen, although I’m sure some people went back to their hotel rooms at the breaks to blog or check email, giv­en that many people appeared to work at loc­al tech­no­logy com­pan­ies, and the male/female ratio was even more skewed than for most tech con­fer­ences (I saw about five men at the retreat, out of about 200). The mar­ket­place was busy selling as well as show­ing (unlike exhib­it halls at most tech con­fer­ences), though the vendors looked just as exhausted by the end of the four days as I can remem­ber being after long days on the booth at any oth­er conference.

I learnt a lot (I’ll post more details of the knit­ting high­lights on my craft­ing blog), saw a bit of Tacoma (where the retreat was held), met a few people, and hung out a lot with Eve and Yvonne. Culin­ary high­lights included a yummy din­ner at Wild Ginger where we downed a good bottle of cham­pagne (Inflor­es­cence Blanc de Noirs brut, 100% pinot noir, from Jean-Pierre Bouchard and Cédric Bouchard), Eve’s home-made bore­kas, and a good quick tagine, which I’ll be mak­ing again. 

I’m slowly catch­ing up on sleep; just like any con­fer­ence it was pretty intense and was both invig­or­at­ing and exhaust­ing at the same time. 

Toddler Books

Our tod­dler daugh­ter (18 months old) likes hav­ing books read to her. Some of them are def­in­ite favour­ites, to be read as often as pos­sible, while oth­ers are the ones she likes when she’s told to go and get anoth­er book. They’re not neces­sar­ily books I would choose myself, but it’s not my taste that counts <grin>. The ver­sions we have are mostly board­books, well worth­while at this age since she often sits on the floor and looks at her books on her own, and she can turn the board­book pages eas­ily enough that she does­n’t get frustrated.

Her top favour­ites cur­rently are We’re Going on a Bear Hunt by Michael Rosen and Helen Oxen­bury (Pow­ell’s link), I Love You With All My Heart by Noris Kern (Pow­ell’s link), and Moth­er, May I? by Grace Mac­car­one (Pow­ell’s link).

The next bunch of books also hold her atten­tion for a bit, but she tends not to bring them over to be read as often as the books in the first group. Sandra Boyn­ton fea­tures heav­ily here, and her books are small enough that the girl can hold them while she’s being changed. They’re fun to read as well, as they lend them­selves to silly voices. We have Hip­pos Go Ber­serk (Pow­ell’s link), Barn­yard Dance! (Pow­ell’s link), and Moo Baa La La La (Pow­ell’s link). Round­ing out this are A. J. Wood’s Hubble Bubble, Cauldron Trouble (Spooky Tales) and Nina Laden’s Grow Up! (Pow­ell’s link), where she really likes the chick­en page for some reason. 

Of course, by next week the favour­ites might be a com­pletely dif­fer­ent set of books.

Physical Insights

Lest any­one think that phys­i­cists don’t care about the real world, Bob Park pub­lishes a short weekly news­let­ter that touches on sub­jects ran­ging from sci­entif­ic hoaxes to incon­sist­en­cies in the way the U.S. Admin­is­tra­tion handles vari­ous issues. It mostly con­cen­trates on sci­ence and tech­no­logy, but not only. The Fri­day, Octo­ber 26, 2007 news­let­ter also dis­cusses the suc­cess­ful meth­ods WWII sol­diers used to inter­rog­ate Nazis, while the Fri­day, Novem­ber 2, 2007 news­let­ter includes the quote “John Mar­bur­ger, head of the White House sci­ence office, real­ized that the situ­ation she described was ser­i­ous; decis­ive action was needed at once — so he deleted half the report. ”

The tagline on the site is Opin­ions are the author’s and are not neces­sar­ily shared by the Uni­ver­sity, but they should be. I’ve been read­ing the news­let­ter for years and it’s always been interesting.

Pro­fess­or Park also wrote a book, Voo­doo Sci­ence: The Road from Fool­ish­ness to Fraud, that neatly debunks a lot of hoax (or mis­guided, to be more char­it­able) sci­ence in a read­able way.