What do you think?
Rate this book
Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye
Identifying what the author calls an "intellectual crisis" in America today stemming from factors that encourage people to act impulsively, an analysis of the negative influences of pop culture and commercialism cites the consequential outcomes of numerous snap decisions and calls readers to live with more responsible levels of personal accountability. 100,000 first printing.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
26 people are currently reading
461 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
May 1, 2013
Unfortunately for Mr. LeGault I actually am a student of critical thinking and I am not very impressed with his critical thinking skills. Here is why I do NOT recommend his book.
First, his criticism of Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink, is dishonest. The point he is criticizing is not accurate, and the illustration he uses to prove his point is a very poor comparison of BlinkThink vs critical thinking skills, which is what his book is really about. In the end, it is crystal clear why he named his book Think and took aim at Blink---he wants readers to buy his book and tying to a well known author will entice some to read his book. It did me! However, in the end, his book is not a criticism of the book Blink but merely a dissertation of how people need to exercise critical thinking skills and the warning that our society is not going in that direction. That point I agree with 100%, but what he purports as his premise on the front of his book is not his premise in the book and therefore dishonest.
Second, his book is boring. Mr. Gladwell does a masterful job of taking scientific research about how the brain works and simplifying it so that the average person can start to understand more complex science. Mr. LeGault should applaud rather than criticize the work that Mr. Gladwell is doing. In fact, one walks away after reading a Gladwell book with the desire to think more and to question more rather than jumping to quick conclusion. Even in his book, Blink, Mr. Gladwell was not encouraging people to walk around making snap judgments. He was saying that some people after a lot of experience in certain fields have the ability to quickly come to conclusions. Mr. LeGault totally missed that point. Again, Mr. LeGault wants to sell books and picking on a well know author, even dishonestly, helped him do it.
Third, one gets the impression that there are very few original thoughts from Mr. LeGault in Think. He cites so many sources that one starts to want to read his sources rather than his boring book. It reads like a research paper and his examples are brief and often boring. Mr. Gladwell understood that to write a book about a boring subject---psychology and sociology---one must use interesting examples and studies to keep the reader interested. For example, Mr. LeGault has a chapter on "fear" and how fear prevents people from thinking rationally. Great subject. However, he does little to make it interesting. He could have described studies done to show how fear makes people do certain things. Instead he just talks about it as if we should stop fearing and get our emotions under control. Everyone knows that. Duh! Show us the science. Describe the science. Explain the consequences. Teach. Don't lecture.
Lastly, the only group his book is good for is the group that is least likely to read it---the non-critical thinkers. If you read books like Mr. Gladwell's then you don't need this book. You are already well on your way to thinking critically. If, on the other hand, you read mostly novels then this book could benefit you, yet I would recommend Mr. Gladwell's books hands down, or Thomas Friedman's books, or many others that hit the top-10 best seller list.
When my only thought as I went further and further through the book was how bad of review I was going to write then one wonders why I didn't just put the book down. Because, after all, even a bad book teaches us something---what authors to avoid. If the author ever reads this review please drop me a message through GoodReads. I would enjoy debating these points with you.
First, his criticism of Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink, is dishonest. The point he is criticizing is not accurate, and the illustration he uses to prove his point is a very poor comparison of BlinkThink vs critical thinking skills, which is what his book is really about. In the end, it is crystal clear why he named his book Think and took aim at Blink---he wants readers to buy his book and tying to a well known author will entice some to read his book. It did me! However, in the end, his book is not a criticism of the book Blink but merely a dissertation of how people need to exercise critical thinking skills and the warning that our society is not going in that direction. That point I agree with 100%, but what he purports as his premise on the front of his book is not his premise in the book and therefore dishonest.
Second, his book is boring. Mr. Gladwell does a masterful job of taking scientific research about how the brain works and simplifying it so that the average person can start to understand more complex science. Mr. LeGault should applaud rather than criticize the work that Mr. Gladwell is doing. In fact, one walks away after reading a Gladwell book with the desire to think more and to question more rather than jumping to quick conclusion. Even in his book, Blink, Mr. Gladwell was not encouraging people to walk around making snap judgments. He was saying that some people after a lot of experience in certain fields have the ability to quickly come to conclusions. Mr. LeGault totally missed that point. Again, Mr. LeGault wants to sell books and picking on a well know author, even dishonestly, helped him do it.
Third, one gets the impression that there are very few original thoughts from Mr. LeGault in Think. He cites so many sources that one starts to want to read his sources rather than his boring book. It reads like a research paper and his examples are brief and often boring. Mr. Gladwell understood that to write a book about a boring subject---psychology and sociology---one must use interesting examples and studies to keep the reader interested. For example, Mr. LeGault has a chapter on "fear" and how fear prevents people from thinking rationally. Great subject. However, he does little to make it interesting. He could have described studies done to show how fear makes people do certain things. Instead he just talks about it as if we should stop fearing and get our emotions under control. Everyone knows that. Duh! Show us the science. Describe the science. Explain the consequences. Teach. Don't lecture.
Lastly, the only group his book is good for is the group that is least likely to read it---the non-critical thinkers. If you read books like Mr. Gladwell's then you don't need this book. You are already well on your way to thinking critically. If, on the other hand, you read mostly novels then this book could benefit you, yet I would recommend Mr. Gladwell's books hands down, or Thomas Friedman's books, or many others that hit the top-10 best seller list.
When my only thought as I went further and further through the book was how bad of review I was going to write then one wonders why I didn't just put the book down. Because, after all, even a bad book teaches us something---what authors to avoid. If the author ever reads this review please drop me a message through GoodReads. I would enjoy debating these points with you.
May 6, 2012
With a tone that was inconsistent, arguments that lacked convincing depths, and clear ideological positions that stood in contrast to the premise of the book (that we should all think more, more clearly, and more objectively), I found this book frustrating to read. While there were moments or points that had real merit, they were often lost in the indistinct inbetween, where simplistic put-downs of "radical" environmentalists and feminists, as well as comments re multiculturalism that seem to ascribe it as some evil ploy to reduce society to cultural relativism alone, left me asking for some CONCRETE criticism or FRESH take on theses "issues". Finally, for a book written in 2006 to treat climate change as an example of 'emotional' subjectivity was perplexing and troubling. It ultimately leaves me no choice but to question the author's understanding of science, evidence, and critical reasoning as a whole, and further undermining the persuasiveness of the book.
While interested in the debate I think should arise about snap thinking and reasoned critical thought, I did not find this book added anything to the conversation. 'Blink' was an infinitely more creative, intriguing, and ultimately more rewarding read.
June 28, 2011
So when I read about which promotes critical thinking and find its analysis shallow, its prose sloppy and its argument too reliant on conjecture and anecdotal evidence, it could mean that the author is brilliant in drawing out my critical faculties. Sadly, no. This was just one long whiny rant about the demise of good thinking.
LeGualt's chief selling point is a critique of Malcom Gladwell's Blink. I haven't read Blink yet, but as LeGault gave biased and superficial readings of absolutely every author whom I have read, I doubt he did Gladwell justice.
Are there salient points in the book? Yes, there are declining scores in literacy and math and people often lack good critical analysis. But should we argue for a return to rationalism? No. Unfortunatley this exactly what LeGualt is trying to do. He is very critical of postmodernity, radical feminism, environmentalism for their lack of thoughtful grappling with the facts. In some cases fair point, but seriously LeGault doesn't seem to want to do much better. So go read Blink, at least I heard that is interesting and this guy doesn't like it all that much.
LeGualt's chief selling point is a critique of Malcom Gladwell's Blink. I haven't read Blink yet, but as LeGault gave biased and superficial readings of absolutely every author whom I have read, I doubt he did Gladwell justice.
Are there salient points in the book? Yes, there are declining scores in literacy and math and people often lack good critical analysis. But should we argue for a return to rationalism? No. Unfortunatley this exactly what LeGualt is trying to do. He is very critical of postmodernity, radical feminism, environmentalism for their lack of thoughtful grappling with the facts. In some cases fair point, but seriously LeGault doesn't seem to want to do much better. So go read Blink, at least I heard that is interesting and this guy doesn't like it all that much.
November 4, 2021
I finished it. I cannot abide this book.
The author attempts to position it opposite the Malcom Gladwell book “BLINK!”, of course. As you can read in the liner notes, and so did I. I appreciated the idea of someone suggesting a good counterpoint. After all, critical thinking skills are under-appreciated. And I think it intuitive that even IF Gladwell’s conclusion is true, the best thinking of all are likely to be snap judgements formed in the mind of a practiced critical thinker. In other words, these are thinking styles that might be complimentary, so why not invest deeply in critical thinking skills in order to have the best intuition?
So, I thought a good, solid, challenging critical thinking exploration, even if I didn’t agree with it all, would be perfect. Better, even, that I didn’t agree with it all.
The first problem? Despite making heavy use of Gladwell’s book in the liner jacket, the book nowhere actually lays out any case for critical thinking as necessary. Yes, I might think it self evident, but if you’re directly using another more popular book as a foil and promising something better yet completely fail to actually debate the other book, that’s… not critical thinking. That’s coat-tailing and insulting the owner of the coat as you ride on it. It’s a jackass move.
But does it get any better, at least with its own content? No. In not a single chapter does the author appeal to anything other than cherry-picked sources to support grinding his personal axes.
So, to summarize:
1. Rude, unfulfilling reference to another book where it could have been a great debate.
2. Lousily and lazily researched.
3. Presents “critical thinking” as agreeing with the author rather than a process of research, analysis, discovery, and change.
Years later, the thing I remember most about it is how long the author worked at climate change denial inside one of the chapters, using the many rehearsed objections of the day that had decades earlier already been disproven by scientific consensus. The fact that that’s what I most remember about the book is thoroughly telling. It was emblematic of the whole thing. And memorable enough to give it a review from memory years later.
I regret not asking for a refund, but then again I did (resentfully) read it cover to cover, giving the author every chance to redeem the book.
Skip buying and reading it so you don’t also want a refund. Use my experience as zero trial learning. That’s probably the only satisfaction I’ll ever get out of it.
The author attempts to position it opposite the Malcom Gladwell book “BLINK!”, of course. As you can read in the liner notes, and so did I. I appreciated the idea of someone suggesting a good counterpoint. After all, critical thinking skills are under-appreciated. And I think it intuitive that even IF Gladwell’s conclusion is true, the best thinking of all are likely to be snap judgements formed in the mind of a practiced critical thinker. In other words, these are thinking styles that might be complimentary, so why not invest deeply in critical thinking skills in order to have the best intuition?
So, I thought a good, solid, challenging critical thinking exploration, even if I didn’t agree with it all, would be perfect. Better, even, that I didn’t agree with it all.
The first problem? Despite making heavy use of Gladwell’s book in the liner jacket, the book nowhere actually lays out any case for critical thinking as necessary. Yes, I might think it self evident, but if you’re directly using another more popular book as a foil and promising something better yet completely fail to actually debate the other book, that’s… not critical thinking. That’s coat-tailing and insulting the owner of the coat as you ride on it. It’s a jackass move.
But does it get any better, at least with its own content? No. In not a single chapter does the author appeal to anything other than cherry-picked sources to support grinding his personal axes.
So, to summarize:
1. Rude, unfulfilling reference to another book where it could have been a great debate.
2. Lousily and lazily researched.
3. Presents “critical thinking” as agreeing with the author rather than a process of research, analysis, discovery, and change.
Years later, the thing I remember most about it is how long the author worked at climate change denial inside one of the chapters, using the many rehearsed objections of the day that had decades earlier already been disproven by scientific consensus. The fact that that’s what I most remember about the book is thoroughly telling. It was emblematic of the whole thing. And memorable enough to give it a review from memory years later.
I regret not asking for a refund, but then again I did (resentfully) read it cover to cover, giving the author every chance to redeem the book.
Skip buying and reading it so you don’t also want a refund. Use my experience as zero trial learning. That’s probably the only satisfaction I’ll ever get out of it.
July 18, 2014
In the beginning I was constantly putting the book down - it was DENSE; it felt like reading a textbook! Then as I got further into the text I was ashamed to realize that I was exactly like the "America" LeGault was talking about - I wasn't willing to put forth the effort to really THINK about something; I'd much rather something be easy and able to "understand" in the blink of an eye. And as I continued my reading I was mortified to discover that LeGault wasn't far off the mark in classifying people like me. What happened to thinking for myself? When did I stop asking questions about the world around me? Why did I decide to take things at face value instead of questioning what I REALLY thought about it? Ugh. I am disgusted with myself; which I think was the point of "Think". LeGault really drove home the point that American society as a whole is slowly sliding downhill and that if we don't make the necessary changes now, our critical thinking and reasoning skills will atrophy and eventually die off completely.
All of that said, I was NOT a fan of his constant condescension toward Gladwell's "Blink" (hence the lack of a star in my rating). It is entirely possible to write a critical response that refutes an argument put forth by another WITHOUT the stinging barbs of a borderline personal attack. What happened to everyone being entitled to their own opinion? (Though this idea of paying attention to people's "feelings" and that opinions are the important things without there being a right or wrong answer is something that LeGault claims is leading to the destruction of American thinking.) I picked up this book because I wanted to read LeGault's take on the whole critical thinking concept...his intermittent bashing of "Blink" startled me and interrupted my flow of reading. Instead of considering the point LeGault made I found myself trying to remember what part of "Blink" he was referring to in his insult (not something that LeGault intended, I'm sure). His disdain was almost palpable - a huge turnoff for me.
But the points he makes saved the book for me; especially the end where he nicely wraps up all of the problems he cites by providing ideas for solutions. This book definitely got me thinking!!
All of that said, I was NOT a fan of his constant condescension toward Gladwell's "Blink" (hence the lack of a star in my rating). It is entirely possible to write a critical response that refutes an argument put forth by another WITHOUT the stinging barbs of a borderline personal attack. What happened to everyone being entitled to their own opinion? (Though this idea of paying attention to people's "feelings" and that opinions are the important things without there being a right or wrong answer is something that LeGault claims is leading to the destruction of American thinking.) I picked up this book because I wanted to read LeGault's take on the whole critical thinking concept...his intermittent bashing of "Blink" startled me and interrupted my flow of reading. Instead of considering the point LeGault made I found myself trying to remember what part of "Blink" he was referring to in his insult (not something that LeGault intended, I'm sure). His disdain was almost palpable - a huge turnoff for me.
But the points he makes saved the book for me; especially the end where he nicely wraps up all of the problems he cites by providing ideas for solutions. This book definitely got me thinking!!
December 23, 2010
I really wanted to like this book. The book jacket’s premise: “the decline of critical thinking in American life” is a topic I have been curiously about for some time. I am familiar with many of the sources Le Gault references. I read Blink and I even re-read parts of it as I read this book. I really should like Think!, but I don’t. Eighty percent of it (the first 270 of 336 pages) is a whiny, curmudgeon ranting about reality TV, video games, PC politics, pop culture, and permissive parenting. I don’t necessarily think any of Le Gault’s whining is terribly wrong; it’s just obvious and not very insightful. He certainly doesn’t offer much in the way of solutions. I kept reading and waiting for the insight, but it never came. Le Gault’s reactionary attitude got tiresome, but his extensive use of anecdotes and hasty generalizations to support his points is completely paradoxical. He laments the loss of logic and critical reasoning without effectively demonstrating either.
Le Gault’s major selling point is as a critique of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling Blink, but Le Gault’s understanding of Blink seems very superficial. As Le Gault sees it, Gladwell’s book promotes guessing and making decisions randomly. When I read Blink I felt it supported improved reasoning by creating awareness of how biases can skew critical thinking. Gladwell’s point – by my reading – is that much of what we know is subconscious and incorporated in what we commonly call “gut instinct”. An appreciation for how our subconscious affects our reasoning should actually improve critical thinking. Blink actually demonstrates Gladwell’s ability to make a reasoned argument. While there is certainly room to critique Gladwell’s work, Think! just doesn’t get it.
Le Gault’s major selling point is as a critique of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling Blink, but Le Gault’s understanding of Blink seems very superficial. As Le Gault sees it, Gladwell’s book promotes guessing and making decisions randomly. When I read Blink I felt it supported improved reasoning by creating awareness of how biases can skew critical thinking. Gladwell’s point – by my reading – is that much of what we know is subconscious and incorporated in what we commonly call “gut instinct”. An appreciation for how our subconscious affects our reasoning should actually improve critical thinking. Blink actually demonstrates Gladwell’s ability to make a reasoned argument. While there is certainly room to critique Gladwell’s work, Think! just doesn’t get it.
April 7, 2007
I do not want to diss this book because it contains some salient points about the art of making good decisions, but in an attempt to be relevant, the author tries to piggy-back on top of the popular NYT bestseller Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, which is a psychological assessment on the art of making skilled decisions quickly. LeGault dismsses Gladwell and other psychology as new age science, saying the downfall of our country is occurring because no one knows how to be analytical and make sound decisions based on observation. The author sights our growing economic and buisness decline in sound judgment as well as our lowly output of educated students. The only problem with LeGault is that few of his points are based on anything but anecdotes and second-hand sources. Who LeGault is mostly mad at are the people who make decisions he disagrees with politically (mostly liberals). If anyone read Gladwell's book, which LeGault pans, he or she would see that at the very least Gladwell backs up his observations and theory with research (which I would agrue is based on science and analysis even if it is psychological in nature). Because LeGault does not agree with the outcome does not mean Gladwell is not a "critical thinker." Any evolutionary psychologist could tell you that some of our behaviors are instinctual. It doesn't take an hour to size up emergency situations. But LeGault is correct to note that Americans tend to use emotion over reason way to much, particularly leaders making decisions of national importance. However, LeGault is being a bit deceptive when he claims to use critical thinking but choses to title his last chapter: How to Save Civilization in One Easy Step. Sound credible to you?
April 8, 2008
I had high hopes for this book but was pretty disappointed.
The thing that makes me smile is that I was let down by this book for the same reasons that I felt let down by Gladwell's Blink. There just weren't enough facts. They both read like someone was given an assignment and didn't take the time to properly research it, but instead filled the required number of pages with unsupported assertions, conventional wisdom, and anecdotes. Unlike Think though, at least Blink was entertaining.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author's opinion that we as a species are over all losing our critical thinking skills. I agree that, contrary to popular opinion, the USA isn't alone in this. However, I was looking for facts to back my opinions up and I didn't find them here.
Anyone who's read my reviews knows that I'm not a writer. However, I feel like given a copy of Gladwell’s book to try to refute and a good editor, I could have written this myself.
All that said, if you've read Blink, you should also read Think. They're two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, what both authors fail to understand is that both skills are needed.
The thing that makes me smile is that I was let down by this book for the same reasons that I felt let down by Gladwell's Blink. There just weren't enough facts. They both read like someone was given an assignment and didn't take the time to properly research it, but instead filled the required number of pages with unsupported assertions, conventional wisdom, and anecdotes. Unlike Think though, at least Blink was entertaining.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author's opinion that we as a species are over all losing our critical thinking skills. I agree that, contrary to popular opinion, the USA isn't alone in this. However, I was looking for facts to back my opinions up and I didn't find them here.
Anyone who's read my reviews knows that I'm not a writer. However, I feel like given a copy of Gladwell’s book to try to refute and a good editor, I could have written this myself.
All that said, if you've read Blink, you should also read Think. They're two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, what both authors fail to understand is that both skills are needed.
April 4, 2019
Bless him. I feel bad giving this book two stars, because LeGault clearly poured his life’s energy into this book. The low rating isn’t at all due to a bad premise, but it is simply almost impossible to get into. Written in critique of Blink, LeGault vehemently opposes Gladwell on nearly every point. He offers so many facts, quotes, and statistics that rehash the same points over and over, that it bogs down the overall narrative. Halfway through I just wanted to surrender so it would stop. I am glad I persevered to the chapters on the dumbing down of education, those were the most interesting of the whole book.
November 9, 2008
I really wanted to like this book--LeGault has a great premise, which is that in order to succeed as a country, Americans must engage in critical thinking and relearn critical thinking skills instead of simply relying on sound bites, the media, etc. for information. What the book ends up being is a mishmash of great ideas with solid evidence, potshots at Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" and an attempt to link him to feel-good psychology and political correctness, and a fairly substantial conservative/right-leaning bent. His attempted indictment of "Blink" as purely promoting using your gut feeling at all times without regard to experience or weighing evidence makes me think that he read the first couple of chapters of "Blink", threw the book across the room, shouted "balderdash!", and then started writing this book.
Funny enough, when I apply his thesis to his own book, it falls short. Time and again he takes shots at the "radical environmental" movement, but his endnotes include nothing to back up his assertions that global warming is real and that the Kyoto Protocol might actually help the earth and its inhabitants. He takes shots at the "radical feminists/minorities/political correctness/name of recent disenfranchised group here" movement for forcing the public to accept "common knowledge" that has "no evidence" to back it up. Funny, because every time he described some evidence to back up his assertions, I could think of one or more studies (to be fair, some were published after his book was) that refuted his angle. Even stranger is his book's refusal to really examine failures of critical thinking in situations like the handling of Iraq and the aftermath of Katrina--each of those barely received a page of attention. Really? No examination of the Downing Street Memo, of nominating an Arabian Horse judge to run FEMA?
I found myself questioning LeGault's own research and methodologies through the book, which is interesting given that his background is in science writing. I also began questioning my own background and judgments: here I agree with what he's saying, but over here I don't. Am I just being a reflexive liberal, or am I really not buying it? LeGault's book sets up a really interesting and timely premise, and a call to a return to critical thinking is for sure needed, but I'm not so sure he would want it applied to the book with his name on it. A wonderful concept that is overdue, but it feels sometimes like it's riding on the coattails of Gladwell's success in an attempt to get "flaky" American readers to read such a deep book, and it more than occasionally veers into conservative screed territory. However, if getting his reader to think critically was LeGault's goal, then in my case I believe he's done his job.
Funny enough, when I apply his thesis to his own book, it falls short. Time and again he takes shots at the "radical environmental" movement, but his endnotes include nothing to back up his assertions that global warming is real and that the Kyoto Protocol might actually help the earth and its inhabitants. He takes shots at the "radical feminists/minorities/political correctness/name of recent disenfranchised group here" movement for forcing the public to accept "common knowledge" that has "no evidence" to back it up. Funny, because every time he described some evidence to back up his assertions, I could think of one or more studies (to be fair, some were published after his book was) that refuted his angle. Even stranger is his book's refusal to really examine failures of critical thinking in situations like the handling of Iraq and the aftermath of Katrina--each of those barely received a page of attention. Really? No examination of the Downing Street Memo, of nominating an Arabian Horse judge to run FEMA?
I found myself questioning LeGault's own research and methodologies through the book, which is interesting given that his background is in science writing. I also began questioning my own background and judgments: here I agree with what he's saying, but over here I don't. Am I just being a reflexive liberal, or am I really not buying it? LeGault's book sets up a really interesting and timely premise, and a call to a return to critical thinking is for sure needed, but I'm not so sure he would want it applied to the book with his name on it. A wonderful concept that is overdue, but it feels sometimes like it's riding on the coattails of Gladwell's success in an attempt to get "flaky" American readers to read such a deep book, and it more than occasionally veers into conservative screed territory. However, if getting his reader to think critically was LeGault's goal, then in my case I believe he's done his job.
April 3, 2016
Do yourself a favor and don't read this.
Need reasons?
"The fact that the vast majority of children diagnosed with ADD or ADHD are boys naturally raises the suspicion that the trend is part of a larger feminist agenda." I don't need to give you context, just the simple understanding that this man had the gall to write that sentence.
Moving on:
"So what does it mean to say, on the basis of decades of test scores and grades, that women appear to have less "intrinsic aptitude" than men in math and the sciences? It certainly doesn't mean that women as a group can't do science, as the presence of many high-profile female scientists across all branches of the natural and physical sciences attest. It could mean that, on average, the female brain is not as adept at performing the types of abstract mental algorithms needed for math and science problems as the average male brain. It could also mean that women, on the whole, are not as naturally motivated and interested in studying math, science, and engineering subjects." Yes. That's right. Go ahead and read the damn book if you don't believe me.
His one decent claim is that the average American citizen has lost the desire to look at life critically. But then he writes this absolute genital-stomping flub of a book to prove his point. He fails.
Need reasons?
"The fact that the vast majority of children diagnosed with ADD or ADHD are boys naturally raises the suspicion that the trend is part of a larger feminist agenda." I don't need to give you context, just the simple understanding that this man had the gall to write that sentence.
Moving on:
"So what does it mean to say, on the basis of decades of test scores and grades, that women appear to have less "intrinsic aptitude" than men in math and the sciences? It certainly doesn't mean that women as a group can't do science, as the presence of many high-profile female scientists across all branches of the natural and physical sciences attest. It could mean that, on average, the female brain is not as adept at performing the types of abstract mental algorithms needed for math and science problems as the average male brain. It could also mean that women, on the whole, are not as naturally motivated and interested in studying math, science, and engineering subjects." Yes. That's right. Go ahead and read the damn book if you don't believe me.
His one decent claim is that the average American citizen has lost the desire to look at life critically. But then he writes this absolute genital-stomping flub of a book to prove his point. He fails.
May 23, 2017
LeGault thinks thinking is good, and not thinking is bad. He cheerleads for thinking so hard that I found myself, while reading, silently chanting “T-H-I-N-K that is what we’ll do today.”
But this book does more than just extol the virtues of thinking. It also “analyz[es] the causes of the decline of logic and reasoning in American life, and . . . propos[es] solutions for stopping and reversing this slide.” The thesis is “Critical thinking depends on analysis and logic, and action. It’s a two-step process.” The structure and highlights follow:
1. Causes of decline
a. Intuition is much easier than critical thinking
b. Critical thinking is difficult and time-consuming
c. Alternatives to critical thinking, such as self-esteem, have been in vogue for many years
d. Political correctness has squelched open inquiry, free speech, and the desire to learn
e. Marketing and the media appeal to snap judgments rather than laborious critical thought
f. People give in to stress and a notion of information overload; they replace critical thought with heuristics
2. Examples of great thinkers
a. Heraclitus – explicitly supported notion of objective reality, rudimentary thermodynamics
b. Einstein – discovered general and special relativity
c. Copernicus – replaced geocentric view of solar system with heliocentric view
d. Kepler – replaced spherical orbits of planets with elliptical orbits
e. Shakespeare – described the human condition well
f. Edison – held over 1,000 patents, invented incandescent lightbulb after thousands of failures
g. Darwin – theorized evolution by natural selection
h. Lynn Margulis – posited new theories of cellular evolution; the only woman on this list, she attributes her success to the University of Chicago’s Great Books reading list
i. Ed Witten – gifted mathematician furthering understanding of string theory
3. Fixes
a. Return to discipline and objective standards
b. Embrace risk and the accompanying possibility of greater reward
c. Embrace objectivity
d. Think critically
LeGault suffers from a weak premise. His support for the alleged decline in American society is a smorgasbord of random facts and musings (with careful omission of others). He cites declines in General Motors, American basketball fundamentals, musical lyrics, use of instruments, television, video games, newspapers, and test scores of U.S. students. He further cites the rise of ADD and ADHD, obesity (!), the use of psychotherapists, the use of electronic mixers, and stress. He sounds like a geriatric complaining that the world is going to a hell in a handbasket and that the next generation is worthless and doomed. It’s tiresome and unconvincing.
Critically think (as he encourages us to do) about LeGault’s list. These “problems” can’t all be explained with a simple and general “Americans need more critical thinking.” General Motors declined because of a combination of complacency and bureaucracy, new international competition, and gluttonous unions. LeGault himself noted that American car manufacturers have improved recently. American basketball dominance remains. It didn’t win the gold in 2004, but it did in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Musical tastes vary, and it’s absurd to say that one generation’s preferences are somehow better or worse than another’s. “Purple Haze” was not exactly a clarion call to critical thinking. Yes, children are more electronically inclined today than in the past. How and why is this a bad thing? People read fewer newspapers but they read a lot more on the internet; they have substituted one medium for another due to convenience and cost. People are fat because they consume more calories than they burn in exercise. More reading and thinking will not help them lose weight; to the extent these are sedentary activities, they will exacerbate the problem. There is more information available now than ever before, and new information is being created at a faster rate than ever before. Many formerly simple things now require expertise because technology is more precise and more complicated. Consider the difficulty of repairing a modern car versus an older, simpler model. Consider the thousands of pages of new regulations generated annually. Consider the rate software is updated and changed. Now try to navigate any one of these areas, let alone all of them.
With all this new information and changing technology comes more time plugged into work and more unfamiliar subjects requiring expertise. This is not a reflection of people not critically thinking. It is an adaptation to an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Entirely new skills such as typing, photography, video recording, video editing, programming, network engineering, data analysis, etc. are developed and improved all the time. None of these skills show up in tests of knowledge (such as the SAT) that have been around since the 1920’s. And perhaps this speedy flow of information is wreaking havoc on developing minds, leading to (over)diagnoses of ADD and ADHD. Meanwhile, crime is down, people are living longer than ever, and new inventions continue unabated. Perhaps critical thinking isn’t nearly as threatened as LeGault thinks it is.
So LeGault misdiagnoses or overstates the problem of lack of critical thinking. Worse, this book is unnecessary. It fails to entertain, enlighten, or persuade. Of course thinking is better than not thinking. Who could think otherwise? Answer: maybe Malcolm Gladwell, but probably not even him. "Think"’s raison d’etre is a counterweight to (or cash grab off) Malcolm Gladwell’s "Blink." "Blink" (easily the worst book by the popular but probably overrated Gladwell) praised some applications of snap judgment while simultaneously highlighting counterexamples. Here, LeGault argues that deep, critical thinking outperforms intuition and snap judgment. I agree. So much so that I don’t need 336 pages to confirm that agreement.
I even accept the validity of many of LeGault’s specific complaints. Too many kids are labeled ADD and ADHD. Too many people want to befriend their children rather than parent them. Self-esteem should not be an end in itself. Objective standards matter. Intelligence is not and should not be egalitarian. Carbon dioxide and global warming are probably not serious threats to our environment. Television can be shallow and dumb. The media and marketers use fear to motivate us. Radical feminists, environmentalists, and multiculturalists do more harm than good and lack reasoned arguments. Identity politics has the potential to destroy civilizations. Critical thinking, the scientific method, evidence, objective observation, and skepticism are not the exclusive domain of straight, white males—though that demographic has historically employed them more than others. These are systems open to all and beneficial to anyone who embraces them.
All of that is true. But LeGault’s prescription of MORE CRITICAL THINKING is too general to be useful. He might as well encourage people to do good rather than do bad. And those radical feminists, environmentalists, and multiculturalists would just as easily accuse LeGault of not critically thinking. I happen to agree with LeGault on some of those specific issues, but he doesn’t come close to resolving any of the most contentious issues he references.
People who might disagree with this book either won’t be bothered to read it or won’t find it persuasive because they don’t read or think well enough, according to LeGault. People who agree with this book don’t need to be told to think because they already value thinking and are trying to do it—for example, by reading this book. Thus, though thinking is something everyone should do, "Think" falls into a no-man’s-land in terms of appeal to readers.
Memorable Quotes:
“Sharp, incisive, clever thinking is steadily become a lost art, more and more the domain of specialists and gurus. The trend is troubling and raises the question, Is America losing its ability to think? If, for argument’s sake, we define thinking as the use of knowledge and reasoning to solve problems and plan and produce favorable outcomes, the answer is, apparently, yes.”
“The case is closed. . . . [S]tatistics and analysis almost always beat instinct and guessing.”
“Today, paralyzed by various cultural, political, and social trends from any meaningful use of critical thinking in the search for truth, we have largely tuned to emotion-based ‘analysis’ of any given situation or issue. For ours indeed has become the Age of Emotion.”
“The political economist and sociologist William Graham Sumner gave this definition of critical thinking: ‘[It] . . . is the examination and test of propositions of any kind which are offered for acceptance, in order to find out whether they correspond to reality or not. . . . It is our only guarantee against delusion, deception, superstition and misapprehension of ourselves and our earthly circumstances.’”
“Vincent Ryan Ruggiero says the three basic activities involved in critical thinking are finding evidence, deciding what the evidence means, and reaching a conclusion about the evidence. It follows that keen observation, both wide-ranging and specialized knowledge, memory, good information, and analytical tools will all be important in boosting critical thinking.”
“[W]hy should we care about reading? Because, in a nutshell, even in a world that is progressively visual and digital, the written word is still the best way of passing on and obtaining detailed, deep, primary technical and social knowledge about the world.”
“Just Think! Of the benefits, that is: a healthier body, a more secure job, new and improved interest in life and a stronger, safer country. And it doesn’t cost a penny.”
“Since 1985, a fifteenfold increase in the diagnosis of attention deficit disorder in American students, who are often prescribed drugs for treatment, despite the lack of a single, peer-reviewed paper claiming to prove ADD has an actual medical basis”
“From 1952 to 1994 the number of mental disorders listed in the APA’s DSM rose from 112 to 374, an increase of over 300 percent. But how does a mental disorder make it into the vaunted DSM? . . . According to Renee Garfinkel, a psychologist and representative of the APA who attended DSM meetings, . . . ‘The low level of intellectual effort was shocking. Diagnoses were developed by majority vote on a level we would use to choose a restaurant.’”
“To read about the evolution of the DSM is to know this: it is an entirely political document. What is includes, what is does not include, are the result of intensive campaigning, lengthy negotiating, infighting and power plays.” – Louise Armstrong, And They Call It Help
“PC also works to instill a fear and uncertainty in our academic institutions and wider society that acts as a poison to open inquiry and the values of material progress and high-quality critical and creative thinking. By restricting certain outcomes, PC acts to hamper the process of open, critical questioning and reasoning itself. In reality, however, PC isn’t merely about diversity and tolerance and hugging. It’s about power and the threat of legal action.”
“Discrimination is deplorable, but where does discrimination begin and end—a person overlooked for a promotion, an inappropriate phrase, an attitude? The PC police must be ever vigilant.”
“I believe the underlying and primary cause of obesity (other than a genetic or medical condition) is quite possibly the increasingly barren intellectual life led by many people.”
“[T]he forces of political correctness and the advocates of multiculturalism have had their way for so long that society’s first instinct is to accommodate rather than challenge or provoke.”
“Once parents begin to assert their right to high expectations, rather than defer to the lowest common denominator set by their child’s peers or self-image, an immediate fresh order is established. There is an outside, immovable force introduced into the equation. Everything is not negotiable. . . . [H]umans innately prefer structure over chaos.”
“[T]he environmental movement, in the guise of imagined, statistically insignificant or unprovable risks, has politicized reason and science. Because the environment is ‘good,’ it has become politically incorrect to rationally question not only the science, but the costs of environmental extremism for the economy, society, or human psychology.”
“Research has shown that material comfort alone does not ensure happiness. Is-ness is not freedom or release or fulfillment, it just is. To be truly happy a person needs to be engaged, using his or her mind. To be really happy a person needs to feel he or she has accomplished something.”
“[Sherlock] Holmes observes that the ideal detective must have three qualities: the power of observation, the power of deduction, and knowledge.”
“Feminists, environmentalists, and hosts of other disenfranchised groups disregard all the medical and everyday miracles worked by science and accuse rationalism of creating more problems than it solves, as well as imposing a white, male, Western value system on culture and society. And we thought we were just using our heads.”
“There are undoubtedly many alternative explanations for failures to properly carry out what otherwise might pass for sound thinking, or to fail to think at all, but I believe the simplest, most all-inclusive account is this: the widespread acceptance of a Blinklike mind-set. It is this diminishment of power once accorded to critical thinking and reason, the loss of the ability of reason to influence people, policy, and institutions, that is leading to a decline of good outcomes in America and Western civilization as a whole. It is the central challenge of our time to change this mind-set.
The task involves nothing less than willfully changing a pattern of thinking that has institutionalized emotion, dogma, political machinations, false science, aversion to risk, and guilt in place of empiricism, objectivity, and reason. The stakes are huge—nothing less than our standard of living, national security, and the possibility of raising the quality of life in other parts of the world.”
“Pork-barrel projects, bureaucratic redundancy, environmental and safety overkill, tort law, affirmative action programs, and biased or blatantly false reporting in the media have understandably instilled in the public’s mind a grave doubt that objectivity and truth still exist.”
But this book does more than just extol the virtues of thinking. It also “analyz[es] the causes of the decline of logic and reasoning in American life, and . . . propos[es] solutions for stopping and reversing this slide.” The thesis is “Critical thinking depends on analysis and logic, and action. It’s a two-step process.” The structure and highlights follow:
1. Causes of decline
a. Intuition is much easier than critical thinking
b. Critical thinking is difficult and time-consuming
c. Alternatives to critical thinking, such as self-esteem, have been in vogue for many years
d. Political correctness has squelched open inquiry, free speech, and the desire to learn
e. Marketing and the media appeal to snap judgments rather than laborious critical thought
f. People give in to stress and a notion of information overload; they replace critical thought with heuristics
2. Examples of great thinkers
a. Heraclitus – explicitly supported notion of objective reality, rudimentary thermodynamics
b. Einstein – discovered general and special relativity
c. Copernicus – replaced geocentric view of solar system with heliocentric view
d. Kepler – replaced spherical orbits of planets with elliptical orbits
e. Shakespeare – described the human condition well
f. Edison – held over 1,000 patents, invented incandescent lightbulb after thousands of failures
g. Darwin – theorized evolution by natural selection
h. Lynn Margulis – posited new theories of cellular evolution; the only woman on this list, she attributes her success to the University of Chicago’s Great Books reading list
i. Ed Witten – gifted mathematician furthering understanding of string theory
3. Fixes
a. Return to discipline and objective standards
b. Embrace risk and the accompanying possibility of greater reward
c. Embrace objectivity
d. Think critically
LeGault suffers from a weak premise. His support for the alleged decline in American society is a smorgasbord of random facts and musings (with careful omission of others). He cites declines in General Motors, American basketball fundamentals, musical lyrics, use of instruments, television, video games, newspapers, and test scores of U.S. students. He further cites the rise of ADD and ADHD, obesity (!), the use of psychotherapists, the use of electronic mixers, and stress. He sounds like a geriatric complaining that the world is going to a hell in a handbasket and that the next generation is worthless and doomed. It’s tiresome and unconvincing.
Critically think (as he encourages us to do) about LeGault’s list. These “problems” can’t all be explained with a simple and general “Americans need more critical thinking.” General Motors declined because of a combination of complacency and bureaucracy, new international competition, and gluttonous unions. LeGault himself noted that American car manufacturers have improved recently. American basketball dominance remains. It didn’t win the gold in 2004, but it did in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Musical tastes vary, and it’s absurd to say that one generation’s preferences are somehow better or worse than another’s. “Purple Haze” was not exactly a clarion call to critical thinking. Yes, children are more electronically inclined today than in the past. How and why is this a bad thing? People read fewer newspapers but they read a lot more on the internet; they have substituted one medium for another due to convenience and cost. People are fat because they consume more calories than they burn in exercise. More reading and thinking will not help them lose weight; to the extent these are sedentary activities, they will exacerbate the problem. There is more information available now than ever before, and new information is being created at a faster rate than ever before. Many formerly simple things now require expertise because technology is more precise and more complicated. Consider the difficulty of repairing a modern car versus an older, simpler model. Consider the thousands of pages of new regulations generated annually. Consider the rate software is updated and changed. Now try to navigate any one of these areas, let alone all of them.
With all this new information and changing technology comes more time plugged into work and more unfamiliar subjects requiring expertise. This is not a reflection of people not critically thinking. It is an adaptation to an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Entirely new skills such as typing, photography, video recording, video editing, programming, network engineering, data analysis, etc. are developed and improved all the time. None of these skills show up in tests of knowledge (such as the SAT) that have been around since the 1920’s. And perhaps this speedy flow of information is wreaking havoc on developing minds, leading to (over)diagnoses of ADD and ADHD. Meanwhile, crime is down, people are living longer than ever, and new inventions continue unabated. Perhaps critical thinking isn’t nearly as threatened as LeGault thinks it is.
So LeGault misdiagnoses or overstates the problem of lack of critical thinking. Worse, this book is unnecessary. It fails to entertain, enlighten, or persuade. Of course thinking is better than not thinking. Who could think otherwise? Answer: maybe Malcolm Gladwell, but probably not even him. "Think"’s raison d’etre is a counterweight to (or cash grab off) Malcolm Gladwell’s "Blink." "Blink" (easily the worst book by the popular but probably overrated Gladwell) praised some applications of snap judgment while simultaneously highlighting counterexamples. Here, LeGault argues that deep, critical thinking outperforms intuition and snap judgment. I agree. So much so that I don’t need 336 pages to confirm that agreement.
I even accept the validity of many of LeGault’s specific complaints. Too many kids are labeled ADD and ADHD. Too many people want to befriend their children rather than parent them. Self-esteem should not be an end in itself. Objective standards matter. Intelligence is not and should not be egalitarian. Carbon dioxide and global warming are probably not serious threats to our environment. Television can be shallow and dumb. The media and marketers use fear to motivate us. Radical feminists, environmentalists, and multiculturalists do more harm than good and lack reasoned arguments. Identity politics has the potential to destroy civilizations. Critical thinking, the scientific method, evidence, objective observation, and skepticism are not the exclusive domain of straight, white males—though that demographic has historically employed them more than others. These are systems open to all and beneficial to anyone who embraces them.
All of that is true. But LeGault’s prescription of MORE CRITICAL THINKING is too general to be useful. He might as well encourage people to do good rather than do bad. And those radical feminists, environmentalists, and multiculturalists would just as easily accuse LeGault of not critically thinking. I happen to agree with LeGault on some of those specific issues, but he doesn’t come close to resolving any of the most contentious issues he references.
People who might disagree with this book either won’t be bothered to read it or won’t find it persuasive because they don’t read or think well enough, according to LeGault. People who agree with this book don’t need to be told to think because they already value thinking and are trying to do it—for example, by reading this book. Thus, though thinking is something everyone should do, "Think" falls into a no-man’s-land in terms of appeal to readers.
Memorable Quotes:
“Sharp, incisive, clever thinking is steadily become a lost art, more and more the domain of specialists and gurus. The trend is troubling and raises the question, Is America losing its ability to think? If, for argument’s sake, we define thinking as the use of knowledge and reasoning to solve problems and plan and produce favorable outcomes, the answer is, apparently, yes.”
“The case is closed. . . . [S]tatistics and analysis almost always beat instinct and guessing.”
“Today, paralyzed by various cultural, political, and social trends from any meaningful use of critical thinking in the search for truth, we have largely tuned to emotion-based ‘analysis’ of any given situation or issue. For ours indeed has become the Age of Emotion.”
“The political economist and sociologist William Graham Sumner gave this definition of critical thinking: ‘[It] . . . is the examination and test of propositions of any kind which are offered for acceptance, in order to find out whether they correspond to reality or not. . . . It is our only guarantee against delusion, deception, superstition and misapprehension of ourselves and our earthly circumstances.’”
“Vincent Ryan Ruggiero says the three basic activities involved in critical thinking are finding evidence, deciding what the evidence means, and reaching a conclusion about the evidence. It follows that keen observation, both wide-ranging and specialized knowledge, memory, good information, and analytical tools will all be important in boosting critical thinking.”
“[W]hy should we care about reading? Because, in a nutshell, even in a world that is progressively visual and digital, the written word is still the best way of passing on and obtaining detailed, deep, primary technical and social knowledge about the world.”
“Just Think! Of the benefits, that is: a healthier body, a more secure job, new and improved interest in life and a stronger, safer country. And it doesn’t cost a penny.”
“Since 1985, a fifteenfold increase in the diagnosis of attention deficit disorder in American students, who are often prescribed drugs for treatment, despite the lack of a single, peer-reviewed paper claiming to prove ADD has an actual medical basis”
“From 1952 to 1994 the number of mental disorders listed in the APA’s DSM rose from 112 to 374, an increase of over 300 percent. But how does a mental disorder make it into the vaunted DSM? . . . According to Renee Garfinkel, a psychologist and representative of the APA who attended DSM meetings, . . . ‘The low level of intellectual effort was shocking. Diagnoses were developed by majority vote on a level we would use to choose a restaurant.’”
“To read about the evolution of the DSM is to know this: it is an entirely political document. What is includes, what is does not include, are the result of intensive campaigning, lengthy negotiating, infighting and power plays.” – Louise Armstrong, And They Call It Help
“PC also works to instill a fear and uncertainty in our academic institutions and wider society that acts as a poison to open inquiry and the values of material progress and high-quality critical and creative thinking. By restricting certain outcomes, PC acts to hamper the process of open, critical questioning and reasoning itself. In reality, however, PC isn’t merely about diversity and tolerance and hugging. It’s about power and the threat of legal action.”
“Discrimination is deplorable, but where does discrimination begin and end—a person overlooked for a promotion, an inappropriate phrase, an attitude? The PC police must be ever vigilant.”
“I believe the underlying and primary cause of obesity (other than a genetic or medical condition) is quite possibly the increasingly barren intellectual life led by many people.”
“[T]he forces of political correctness and the advocates of multiculturalism have had their way for so long that society’s first instinct is to accommodate rather than challenge or provoke.”
“Once parents begin to assert their right to high expectations, rather than defer to the lowest common denominator set by their child’s peers or self-image, an immediate fresh order is established. There is an outside, immovable force introduced into the equation. Everything is not negotiable. . . . [H]umans innately prefer structure over chaos.”
“[T]he environmental movement, in the guise of imagined, statistically insignificant or unprovable risks, has politicized reason and science. Because the environment is ‘good,’ it has become politically incorrect to rationally question not only the science, but the costs of environmental extremism for the economy, society, or human psychology.”
“Research has shown that material comfort alone does not ensure happiness. Is-ness is not freedom or release or fulfillment, it just is. To be truly happy a person needs to be engaged, using his or her mind. To be really happy a person needs to feel he or she has accomplished something.”
“[Sherlock] Holmes observes that the ideal detective must have three qualities: the power of observation, the power of deduction, and knowledge.”
“Feminists, environmentalists, and hosts of other disenfranchised groups disregard all the medical and everyday miracles worked by science and accuse rationalism of creating more problems than it solves, as well as imposing a white, male, Western value system on culture and society. And we thought we were just using our heads.”
“There are undoubtedly many alternative explanations for failures to properly carry out what otherwise might pass for sound thinking, or to fail to think at all, but I believe the simplest, most all-inclusive account is this: the widespread acceptance of a Blinklike mind-set. It is this diminishment of power once accorded to critical thinking and reason, the loss of the ability of reason to influence people, policy, and institutions, that is leading to a decline of good outcomes in America and Western civilization as a whole. It is the central challenge of our time to change this mind-set.
The task involves nothing less than willfully changing a pattern of thinking that has institutionalized emotion, dogma, political machinations, false science, aversion to risk, and guilt in place of empiricism, objectivity, and reason. The stakes are huge—nothing less than our standard of living, national security, and the possibility of raising the quality of life in other parts of the world.”
“Pork-barrel projects, bureaucratic redundancy, environmental and safety overkill, tort law, affirmative action programs, and biased or blatantly false reporting in the media have understandably instilled in the public’s mind a grave doubt that objectivity and truth still exist.”
May 7, 2015
The author explains the need to deliberate and think carefully before making decisions. He has framed and packaged his book in direct opposition to Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink!”. That would have been a good argument, but in fact, Gladwell had a lot of examples pointing out the PROBLEMS with making decisions with thin-slicing. The rest of the book has no thoughtful analysis of the arguments in “Blink!” – making the packaging somewhat deceptive. LeGault, instead, uses the general concept of deliberative scientific thinking to take some political potshots at environmentalists and other items not on the right-wing agenda. The flow-stopping biographies illustrate the hacked-up nature of the book – probably he had to meet a publisher deadline – how much more easier to add a few thousand words than that!
April 29, 2012
Good, but had a lot of political messages (the non-existence of global warming, the craziness of feminists and environmentalists, etc.) that got annoying.
June 19, 2021
Truly terrible book.
Poorly thought through.
Awful right wing dickhead.
Audio book.
Poorly thought through.
Awful right wing dickhead.
Audio book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 6, 2018
I first want to say this is not an invitation to debate. I appreciate others opinions and their points of view. I loved this book, I am not a PhD but understand the premise Gladwell makes in Blink perfectly well. He writes for itching ears and is very good at it. I love Tipping Point and used it in my business daily. I am more of a realist that seeing the Western world tuning out classical thinking and antiquated ways as modernization. We are truly devolving in the mind due to specialization and comfort. Western society is about avoiding difficulty, seeking praise for simply victories, and stay safe and in your “lane”. Gladwell promotes this thinking by suggesting with time in post, one can trust their instincts and stop analyzing. I agree completely, that some of the biggest hang ups in Western Culture in over analyzing, but the pendulum swings too far to Blink it! Risk is not evil if capability follows.
I think these two book are complementary not contradictory. Read Blink! but don’t run out and follow the principles suggested blindly; read Think! and make rational decisions with critical analysis and risk.
What Think! gave me...a reminder the classics are valuable, (literature, music, art) safe is dangerous if taken too often, acceptance of civil norms without question will lead to an end of our society, and spoiled kids and adults are useless for anything practical.
Think! Is not the best book I’ve read, (how sad would that be?) Neither is any of Gladwell’s, but he has an ability to bring an audience. I tend to steer away when it has mass appeal, usually means it only confirms not challenges.
J
I think these two book are complementary not contradictory. Read Blink! but don’t run out and follow the principles suggested blindly; read Think! and make rational decisions with critical analysis and risk.
What Think! gave me...a reminder the classics are valuable, (literature, music, art) safe is dangerous if taken too often, acceptance of civil norms without question will lead to an end of our society, and spoiled kids and adults are useless for anything practical.
Think! Is not the best book I’ve read, (how sad would that be?) Neither is any of Gladwell’s, but he has an ability to bring an audience. I tend to steer away when it has mass appeal, usually means it only confirms not challenges.
J
January 15, 2019
Yeah, this was really disappointing. I think it comes down to two things: 1) the author doesn't really try to argue his opinion; he simply claims those that think differently are obviously not thinking critically and are therefore bad. It's extremely amateur and undermines the entire premise and intent of the book. Then 2) the book is dated and not only are the anecdotes and stories dated (which would be fine), but the perspective and approach is dated. During the War in Iraq and recession years there was a certain style of writing that was very to the point, with little optimism in writing, and very limited attempts at exploring an idea. It either was or wasn't in the 2000's. it comes across here. So with those two problems this book comes off as pessimistic, self-serving, and unconvincing.
June 21, 2012
The author of this book may have awards and high acclaim, but it doesn't show here. This book needed to focus on a specific topic, and follow through by supporting that topic well. Instead of providing conclusive or even persuasive support for his ideas, the author gives examples that in many cases only tangentially fit the argument, and often are easy to argue when scrutinized. The end result of the book for me was that it resembled a windy evangelical tirade.
Where brevity would have been helpful, the author went on historical tirades to find historical snapshots that as stated were supposed to serve as support for his propositions. Unfortunately the constant historical allegories distracted from the central focus. They also weakened arguments simply because so much of history is an interpretation of sometimes unsupported tales that have become a consensus of what might have happened.
A recommended programming practice is to refactor code to achieve conciseness and better structure. The author's editors probably should have reminded the author that refactoring regular prose often helps, and in my opinion would have made a marked difference here. This appears as one long wide-ranging rant that is forcibly drawn back to a central thesis in some places where the current topic has only a marginal relevance to the main book topic.
In attempting to support his thesis by providing evidentiary examples, especially in the first two chapters, the author leaves himself open to reader's doubts when his explanatory evidence is analyzed. In the first case of auto windshields being damaged in manufacture due to poor user set-up and poor pin alignment, I couldn't help but wonder why time-and-motion studies hadn't detected the problem. It was also obvious that line managers and upper management had not consulted or sought input from direct workers who could have provided the necessary input that would have led to a more time saving and cost saving direct solution. The author did not mention the fact that there appeared to be little accountability for managers or personnel from the use of production measurements, as the final solution would have been as evident from that route of routine management measurement practice, as was the described consultant's method of investigation. This example looked to me to be a case of bad or poor management, which often contains elements of dominance, ignorance, social class thinking, and is often driven simply to provide individual financial gain rather than achievement of goals. A lot of the rants and examples in this book were representative of bad management practices, which might have had ulterior goals, rather than the failure to apply critical analysis and thought.
The second example of three pool repair estimates failed to provide critical details such as what the estimates cost and under what circumstances they were solicited. In attempting to debug a problem, the most common approach is to look for the obvious elements first. In this case there had been pool damage repair with large trucks driving over supply lines. It would be logical to look at those actions as a source of the problem if you were giving a free estimate on repair costs without being paid to perform a full analysis of equipment before beginning repairs. The third plumber consulted just happened to spot a leak where there should not have been one, and from there derive the final solution to the pump problem. He was walking the property and tracing lines on-site. The first two plumbers consulted may not have had the time in their schedule to perform a full site analysis before giving an estimate, particularly if the analysis was being provided for free. The third plumber arrived at the final solution to the pump problem indirectly by experience and follow-up, rather than by premeditated thinking. That was where I realized that the author was failing in his associative support for "Think', which should have been represented by cogitated premeditated thinking, rather than as opposed to the routine following of progressive investigative techniques.
After the first two supportive examples failed to be concretely demonstrative, it became much easier to simply skim through the winded narrative editorial provided by the author. While I agreed with him on most points, I felt that his individual topic statements had not been decisively supported for defense from other viewpoints. His argument regarding that global warming was largely an opinion and not scientifically supported sounded like a political opinion and had obviously not been researched for the intent to understand the problem and investigate the type of research and data being accumulated. He clearly failed to have a grasp of time frames for geological consequences and population dynamics, even though he constantly forced the reader to jump through his histrionic historic hoops.
I'll restate that I agreed with over 90% of the authors observations. Unfortunately the experience of reading the book for me can best be stated as an analogy to an uncle of mine who had served through much of the Pacific island fighting in WWII. That period was his sole claim to fame and success, as all of his other endeavors and personal relationships resembled failures. However he felt the need to loudly evangelise his opinions of the world at every opportunity that I met him. He didn't hold two-way conversations so any opinion initially expressed was not subject to change. Usually after suffering through his endless barrage of evangelically stated wisdom, I just wished that he'd shut up. Same feelings about the author.
Where brevity would have been helpful, the author went on historical tirades to find historical snapshots that as stated were supposed to serve as support for his propositions. Unfortunately the constant historical allegories distracted from the central focus. They also weakened arguments simply because so much of history is an interpretation of sometimes unsupported tales that have become a consensus of what might have happened.
A recommended programming practice is to refactor code to achieve conciseness and better structure. The author's editors probably should have reminded the author that refactoring regular prose often helps, and in my opinion would have made a marked difference here. This appears as one long wide-ranging rant that is forcibly drawn back to a central thesis in some places where the current topic has only a marginal relevance to the main book topic.
In attempting to support his thesis by providing evidentiary examples, especially in the first two chapters, the author leaves himself open to reader's doubts when his explanatory evidence is analyzed. In the first case of auto windshields being damaged in manufacture due to poor user set-up and poor pin alignment, I couldn't help but wonder why time-and-motion studies hadn't detected the problem. It was also obvious that line managers and upper management had not consulted or sought input from direct workers who could have provided the necessary input that would have led to a more time saving and cost saving direct solution. The author did not mention the fact that there appeared to be little accountability for managers or personnel from the use of production measurements, as the final solution would have been as evident from that route of routine management measurement practice, as was the described consultant's method of investigation. This example looked to me to be a case of bad or poor management, which often contains elements of dominance, ignorance, social class thinking, and is often driven simply to provide individual financial gain rather than achievement of goals. A lot of the rants and examples in this book were representative of bad management practices, which might have had ulterior goals, rather than the failure to apply critical analysis and thought.
The second example of three pool repair estimates failed to provide critical details such as what the estimates cost and under what circumstances they were solicited. In attempting to debug a problem, the most common approach is to look for the obvious elements first. In this case there had been pool damage repair with large trucks driving over supply lines. It would be logical to look at those actions as a source of the problem if you were giving a free estimate on repair costs without being paid to perform a full analysis of equipment before beginning repairs. The third plumber consulted just happened to spot a leak where there should not have been one, and from there derive the final solution to the pump problem. He was walking the property and tracing lines on-site. The first two plumbers consulted may not have had the time in their schedule to perform a full site analysis before giving an estimate, particularly if the analysis was being provided for free. The third plumber arrived at the final solution to the pump problem indirectly by experience and follow-up, rather than by premeditated thinking. That was where I realized that the author was failing in his associative support for "Think', which should have been represented by cogitated premeditated thinking, rather than as opposed to the routine following of progressive investigative techniques.
After the first two supportive examples failed to be concretely demonstrative, it became much easier to simply skim through the winded narrative editorial provided by the author. While I agreed with him on most points, I felt that his individual topic statements had not been decisively supported for defense from other viewpoints. His argument regarding that global warming was largely an opinion and not scientifically supported sounded like a political opinion and had obviously not been researched for the intent to understand the problem and investigate the type of research and data being accumulated. He clearly failed to have a grasp of time frames for geological consequences and population dynamics, even though he constantly forced the reader to jump through his histrionic historic hoops.
I'll restate that I agreed with over 90% of the authors observations. Unfortunately the experience of reading the book for me can best be stated as an analogy to an uncle of mine who had served through much of the Pacific island fighting in WWII. That period was his sole claim to fame and success, as all of his other endeavors and personal relationships resembled failures. However he felt the need to loudly evangelise his opinions of the world at every opportunity that I met him. He didn't hold two-way conversations so any opinion initially expressed was not subject to change. Usually after suffering through his endless barrage of evangelically stated wisdom, I just wished that he'd shut up. Same feelings about the author.
November 11, 2024
7.6/10- I avidly agree with the argument that critical thinking is a lost art, and I feel like the points made constructed a solid rebuttal of those that consider otherwise. I feel that I lost purpose in the exposition of some of the chapters but not so much I didn’t find the information engaging.
I am a fan of the book Blink By Malcolm Gladwell and I feel that these two others are speaking about two sides of the same coin which confused me in the statement that this book was the antithesis of Blink. To this end, I disagree.
I am a fan of the book Blink By Malcolm Gladwell and I feel that these two others are speaking about two sides of the same coin which confused me in the statement that this book was the antithesis of Blink. To this end, I disagree.
Read
June 19, 2017So, the edition in the possession of this reviewer has 355 pages.
On page 11, perhaps Congresswoman Smith could be invited to comment on what difficulties arise from we're-us-over-here-and-we're-looking-at-what-is-going-on-over-there-and-well-you-know-whatever and how such difficulties are best handled, addressed and resolved. Would there be (m)any concerns around the content of Chapter one more generally appearing to develop arguments along the lines of well-they're-them-over-here-and-they're-not-as-good-as-LeGault?
On page 35, the reader is offered: "On whose high horse did I ride into town proclaiming, in effect, that people need to get back to school? Where am I coming from when I implore America (and the world) to think more, better, and to practice (sic) the skills upon which the intellect breathes and grows? What exactly do I wish we'd think about, and how do I propose this would help us?" and it reminds this reader of, well, not now, perhaps at the end of the book. Oh, hang on, on p38, "I would argue, however, on the basis of evidence, that the vast majority of people do not even get near to thinking critically or creatively on a consistent, life-changing basis." hmmm.
#aphids - pp40-4, p64, p76, p78, p88, p89, p90, p91, p94, p96, p99, p159, p160, p161, p162, p163, p164, p165, p166, p167, p168, p171, p172, p173, p174, p176, p177, p179, p180, p181, p189, p190, p193, p194, p197, p200, p202, p203, p207, p208, p209, p224, p227, p234, p235, p237, p242, p243, p244, p247, p248, p250, p251, p254, p255, p256, p259, p261, p263, p265, p266, p267, p268, p269, p270, p271, p272, p276, p277, p280, p281, p284, p285, p286, p287, p288, p289, p290, p291, p292, p293, p294, p295, p296, p298, p299, p300, p302, p305, p310, p311, p312, p313, p316, p319, p320, p322, p324, p325, p329, p336.
On p77, what else appears to be generally relevant with respect to the issues and arguments presented? (Those on pp83-4, and separately on pp85-6, need to be handled and addressed with care at,in an appropriate time, setting.) On p79, what sort of arrangements might be available to handle and address before-the-fact sense, sensibility and the less abstract considerations, and to organise suitable assessments of materiality? And on p91, to what extent have satisfactory arrangements been found to address the limitations described in Louise Armstrong's assessment?
The conversation(s) on the issues related to the implied argument on p268 around if-you-can't-feel-pain-how-do-you-know-you-are-alive? should take place at,in an appropriate setting (those on p311 appear to be hedged; on p279, what could the significance of 'This is more than just a sign of self-absorption and callousness.' be?).
On p301, the reader is offered: "Flaws in reasoning can usually be traced to lack of rigor in our logic due to an emotional appeal o some sort." Who would like to go first?
On page 11, perhaps Congresswoman Smith could be invited to comment on what difficulties arise from we're-us-over-here-and-we're-looking-at-what-is-going-on-over-there-and-well-you-know-whatever and how such difficulties are best handled, addressed and resolved. Would there be (m)any concerns around the content of Chapter one more generally appearing to develop arguments along the lines of well-they're-them-over-here-and-they're-not-as-good-as-LeGault?
On page 35, the reader is offered: "On whose high horse did I ride into town proclaiming, in effect, that people need to get back to school? Where am I coming from when I implore America (and the world) to think more, better, and to practice (sic) the skills upon which the intellect breathes and grows? What exactly do I wish we'd think about, and how do I propose this would help us?" and it reminds this reader of, well, not now, perhaps at the end of the book. Oh, hang on, on p38, "I would argue, however, on the basis of evidence, that the vast majority of people do not even get near to thinking critically or creatively on a consistent, life-changing basis." hmmm.
#aphids - pp40-4, p64, p76, p78, p88, p89, p90, p91, p94, p96, p99, p159, p160, p161, p162, p163, p164, p165, p166, p167, p168, p171, p172, p173, p174, p176, p177, p179, p180, p181, p189, p190, p193, p194, p197, p200, p202, p203, p207, p208, p209, p224, p227, p234, p235, p237, p242, p243, p244, p247, p248, p250, p251, p254, p255, p256, p259, p261, p263, p265, p266, p267, p268, p269, p270, p271, p272, p276, p277, p280, p281, p284, p285, p286, p287, p288, p289, p290, p291, p292, p293, p294, p295, p296, p298, p299, p300, p302, p305, p310, p311, p312, p313, p316, p319, p320, p322, p324, p325, p329, p336.
On p77, what else appears to be generally relevant with respect to the issues and arguments presented? (Those on pp83-4, and separately on pp85-6, need to be handled and addressed with care at,in an appropriate time, setting.) On p79, what sort of arrangements might be available to handle and address before-the-fact sense, sensibility and the less abstract considerations, and to organise suitable assessments of materiality? And on p91, to what extent have satisfactory arrangements been found to address the limitations described in Louise Armstrong's assessment?
The conversation(s) on the issues related to the implied argument on p268 around if-you-can't-feel-pain-how-do-you-know-you-are-alive? should take place at,in an appropriate setting (those on p311 appear to be hedged; on p279, what could the significance of 'This is more than just a sign of self-absorption and callousness.' be?).
On p301, the reader is offered: "Flaws in reasoning can usually be traced to lack of rigor in our logic due to an emotional appeal o some sort." Who would like to go first?
June 7, 2019
The book, I think, failed to live up to the subtitle. It is a passionate defense of deep and critical thought, but fails to counter the Blink phenomenon, at least as it is covered in book.
The inspiration section did not help the overall cause by proving these people only came to their conclusion via critical thinking.
However, the call to arms at the end was well done and other parts of the book were engrossing. It would have been worth 4 stars if not for the miss on the subtitle.
The inspiration section did not help the overall cause by proving these people only came to their conclusion via critical thinking.
However, the call to arms at the end was well done and other parts of the book were engrossing. It would have been worth 4 stars if not for the miss on the subtitle.
October 9, 2018
While Mr. LeGault presents interesting ideas and concepts throughout the text many of them get muddled down. His political diatribes, parenting ideas and tearing down of our educational system in America dilutes the story severely. I really try to keep an open mind and listen to all sides of a point I am not sure it worked in this case.
September 30, 2019
Someone needs to tell Michael LeGault not to write angry. This book feels a bit like one long rant.
I wanted to like this book. I think the concept is a good one and the structure laid out in the contents was interesting but it is poorly written. Ironically for a book about critical thinking so many of the assertions made are supported by at best anecdotal evidence or a book Michael read.
I wanted to like this book. I think the concept is a good one and the structure laid out in the contents was interesting but it is poorly written. Ironically for a book about critical thinking so many of the assertions made are supported by at best anecdotal evidence or a book Michael read.
August 13, 2023
The juxtaposition of so many clearly biased statements with other very prescient ideas is nearly whiplash-inducing. Some claims seem totally prejudiced, but others appear more in alignment with a positive view of various trends in early 21st century. I believe a balance of Think and Blink are necessary for a healthy thriving society.
February 10, 2024
Not bad. There is good info in it. He does make some statements but no footnotes to check in audible. Makes it challenging to take at face value and for a book on critical thinking you’re primed to look for that. I’m trying to readjust my ratings so it’s a little lower because I wouldn’t recommend it over others I’ve read on the subject.
April 19, 2019
While I appreciate a good critique, this response of “Blink” was too long, pretentious, and felt the author was talking down to his audience. Some ideas were good, but most of the time it was short sighted.
March 24, 2021
Mostly an attempt to refute points made by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Blink. I found he missed the point of Gladwell's book and thus his book is diminished a a result. Only read this book of you've read Blink.
July 5, 2023
The text seems to lapse into periods of dogmatic prose. Then returns to research based prose. The stilted writing style, especially earlier in the text, is boring and unnecessary. I do not recommend it.
May 27, 2017
best referenced book on critical thinking in a long time.
September 13, 2017
Seemed like he was angry at Malcolm Gladwell for Blink.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews