Comments: Blink

Comments

Does Gladwell *advocate* the blink?

Cause Deleuze will argue strongly in most cases that nonrational thought--i.e., which he derives from Bergson's work on intuition--requires the intervention of memory, that is, of the virtual, that is, duration/temporality, and that this takes time, time for thought to occur

If Gladwell is basically saying (or you are reading him to say) that rational thought = deliberation and nonrational thought = instaneity, this does not bode well, for it results, as you say, in the weird privileging of _habit_, that is of automatic response, most likely not that of "nonrational" thought but of impulse.

Thought requires time: it can still be deliberative, lengthy, and involved yet nonrational. This is what I see Deleuze getting at, especially vis-a-vis his deployment of Bergson.

best, t

Gladwell doesn't advocate the blink, although there is a bias. He's got examples where it's brilliant and examples where it is a disaster. What he advocates is learning the blink, preparing for it, training it. Which meshes well with your interpretation of Deleuze/Bergson above. But then again there is still a bias towards the quick which is exactly what I was critiquing. But Gladwell never makes a slow = rational statement, the thin slice is just a methond he uses not an aspect of any theory he proposes.

Oh, I think Gladwell very much advocates the blink, or, at least, has an extremely strong bias toward it. Even though he sites examples, such as with the orchestra audition or, perhaps even more damning, with treatment of car shoppers based on sex and race, that demonstrate the untrustworthiness of thin slicing.

Gladwell tells some interesting stories, yes, but there's no coherent theory or philosophy on which to hang your hat. BLINK, in my eyes, is a failure.

I don't Peter, yes Gladwell's does have an affection for the blink, but he goes to pretty great lengths to counterbalance it. And there really is a philosophy there which is essentially that we are capable and in fact constantly making massive decisions in these "blinks". Sometimes the results are brilliant other times awful, but we can train ourselves to shift the balance toward the better.

your post was a very nice read, since i agree with so much of it. not the book, since i haven't read it yet. but i like your deleuzean angle.

to extend the matter further, i would like to point out that ancient vedic time-keeping involved the blink, where a 'paramanu' is the normal interval of blinking in humans, or approximately 4 seconds.

and the muslim notion of of time does not involve a continuum, but instants of great importance.

it's quite an interesting subject.

and you're right about that philosophers thing too.

dear author,

your post was a very nice read, since i agree with so much of it. not the book, since i haven't read it yet. but i like your deleuzean angle.

to extend the matter further, i would like to point out that ancient vedic time-keeping involved the blink, where a 'paramanu' is the normal interval of blinking in humans, or approximately 4 seconds.

and the muslim notion of of time does not involve a continuum, but instants of great importance.

it's quite an interesting subject.

and you're right about that philosophers thing too.

Hey Abe, of note at Massumi's talk this past weekend at Sinues of the Present [ radicalempiricism.org ] he talked about the "attentional blink" .. he sees this as one modulation of the perceptive apparatus (alongside, for example, Bergson's concept of perception as cinematographic, as Deleuze discusses in _Cinema 1_ and _2_). Thought you'd dig that. - tV

Blinks end before we notice they began. Then we live with the results. Not the blinks, but their consequences, can last lifetimes.

Very interesting blog!