[MD] Blink

[Case]

dmb says:
Exactly. Well, almost exactly. It seems to me that Blink is about the 
primary empirical reality, the pre-intellectual reality but I'd disagree 
with the assertion that this depicts DQ as "just what we do" RATHER than 
being "mystical or mysterious". Intead, I'd argue that mysticism is just 
what we do. I think this is what it means to say that we are all enlightened

already, that enlightenment is right in front of your nose all the time and 
yet we fail to realize this.

[Case]
I will resist probing your implication that DQ is not related to mysticism
and agree then with your implication that mysticism is not "mystical or
mysterious." While it may be true that some of us fail to realize it, I
think it is pretty obvious to most people, once you point it out, that
consciousness and rational thought are largely absent and irrelevant to our
everyday existence. If this is all one needs to achieve enlightenment it is
difficult to see why it would take years of arcane practice to get there.

One of the things Gladwell points out is that instant judgments, the kind
we make all the time, are not so much a function of what we attend to but we
are able to ignore. I have long suspected that the most Zen state most of us
have is driving. This is a highly dangerous activity in which conscious
effort does nothing but get in the way. Young drivers are terrified and
terrifying precisely because their conscious rational processes are too
engaged. Learning to drive is as much about figuring out what to ignore as
what to attend to. Experienced drivers run mostly on autopilot and instead
focus their "consciousness" on listening to the radio or checking out hot
drivers of their preferred sex or eating a burger while adjusting the kids'
car seat.

So I guess if this is the sort of thing you mean by mysticism color me
mystical but what's that got to do with cosmic consciousness and oneness
with the universe?

[dmb]
I also want to point out that the picture painted by this book seems to lend

tons of support to radical empiricism. As William James put it, "There must 
always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are

static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing."

[Case]
I agree that much of what Gladwell say is relevant to James. One of the
things James is noted for is the James-Lang theory of emotions. Most people
of his day and ours for that matter would say that when you see a bear in
the woods you become frightened and the fright causes to run. James inverted
this and said that when you see a bear in the woods you start to run and
that causes you to be afraid.

Gladwell cites the work of a psychological study where researchers measured
a set of physiological responses of two groups of subjects. The first group
was instructed to think about a stressful situation from their past. The
second group was taught how to make the kinds of facial responses people
under stress make. In other words the second group was instructed simply to
"act" as though stressed. The physiological indicators were identical for
both groups.
 
In this same chapter his talks about how a trained observer can read with
incredible accuracy the emotional states of individuals across cultures from
their facial expressions. In other words our unconscious action and mental
states are biologically and physiologically hardwired. So much for free
will. (Ok, I said that just to irritate the legions of individualists and
whoever that is sure to annoy.)

[dmb]
You get off the stove in the blink of an eye and the linguistic network of
meanings that may later be assigned had nothing to do with the movement that
saved your ass. 

[Case]
Exactly, but please not the hot stove again I have enough scare tissue from
that one to sit comfortably on my Ben Franklin until the ashes are cold.

[Ian]
I've read a couple of Gladwell books and blogged about him and had arguments
about him elsewhere.

[Case]
His website indicates he has only written two books. He is a writer for the
New Yorker and a fairly young one at that. His first book the Tipping Point
was kind of about the butterfly effect in a round about sort of way. He was
looking at how cultural change and trends emerge from small but influential
people and groups. That is, relatively large shifts in ideas and fads can
result from small starting points. Over all I don't see his stuff as all
that controversial.

[Platt]
I was also disappointed at his analysis. I bought the book when it first
came out because it promised a direct connection to DQ. But, it failed to
connect the familiar practice of making quick decisions and instant
judgments to any broader prspective. So we see a painting and instantly like
or dislike it. So what? I knew that before I bought the book.

[Case]
Seeing connections in this instance would require three things. First you
would have to read it. Second you would have to be able to understand it and
third you would have to be able to see how what you are reading integrates
into what you already know. Come on this wasn't politics you are usually
pretty good when you move away from jingoism and flag waving. On the one
hand his analysis of Warren Harding's rise to the presidency based on his
ability to project well despite his total lack of substance must have stung.
But on the other the bit about how the facial recognition expert pegged
Clinton as a guy who wanted you love him even when you caught him with his
hand in the cookie jar must have given you the warm fuzzies.

[Ant]
I'll put it on my to read list!

[Case]
You might want to hold off. It seems to get mixed reviews. I am not finished
with it and there is a certain irony in the fact that my audio is a bit
scrambled. Bits repeat or stutter and sections play out of order. It is very
annoying but kind of interesting to piece together the whole from scattered
parts. Want to borrow my copy?