More often than not, we are not being lied to, we are being told their truth. Their truth is incorrect because the person is lying to themselves, and convinced that they are telling the real truth.
I would suggest “their truth” does not match with demonstrable reality. But matches their stories. Look at “Better Call Saul” …? So many wars waged and destruction inflicted because people believe one story or another. Sigh.
If you judge people by their actions, you don't need to meet them. Most people judge others by their height and the sound of their voice and are convinced their judgement is rational.
*I found MG humane and authentic* - humane, because he seems to understand multiple perspectives within a situation and authentic, because he is prepared to say he was wrong, and even on a fundamental point in a book that made his name. Finally, he provides ways forward, without being prescriptive, eg on allowing time for trust to develop, or on hiring someone, "see if they can do the job", or on 'default trust' to "don't put all your money in one place", or systems, the simple and elegant solution of having two people in a room when a patient is under anaesthesia.
Have learned since his first book and interviews have loved this thoughtfulness of his "soul" came from the women who raised this good man would marry in a heartbeat now 70! Wisdom comes from deep thought and compassion!
Throughout the Trump presidency I must have posted this 50 times on various social media platforms: “It never ceases to amaze me, the almost infinite capacity of the human being to deceive himself.“ - Professor James Breedlove, DSW, Portland State University School of Social Work (c. 1992)
I may have even seen your post! I Tweeted earlier about the coup in Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi "Another warning about the cult of personality. We project our hopes and dreams onto a saviour-leader, who then turns and defends the system. The cycle restarts. We are the system seeking salvation from our imperfect selves. Cue postfactualism!" This relates somewhat to Gladwell's observations on Chamberlain being taken in by Hitler - though I am not making a direct factual comparison. Rather, it is a reflection on the ultimate unknowability of another, and often even ourselves!
Like what then - how people developed 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' and could deceive themselves into believing in 'Russia Collusion' and even pretend they didn't understand hyperbole so they could justify hating Trump etc?
@@jonathandewberry289 Except that all seventeen security agencies that work for the USA said that Russia did interfere. And hating a man who lies, uses faith to rip people off, is incompetent (the virus will go away like magic) and who watches in glee as his followers kill police officers in The Capitol has some merit.
For much of human history, during our hunter-gatherer days, we lived in small communities where we all knew each other. There was no way you could say, "I can hunt crocodiles" when everyone knows that is the sort of hunting you're bad at. They've seen you nearly get killed hunting crocodiles. On the other hand, they know that you're good at finding the right herbs to help someone overcome nausea. You don't need to explain that. So being a good liar only came in handy if you were deceiving a hostile tribe - and that may have been unnecessary if you each stuck to your own territory.
When it comes to sociopaths, it is better to read their words from a transcript than to interact with them or even watch their body movements. It is the choice of words that give people away. That is why after one is found out, people will go over comments made and suddenly it all makes sense.
Actions and impact. Judge people on what they do. Also judge them on your visceral first impression. If the little hairs go up on the back of your neck and little alarm bells ring, that is a million years of human evolution telling you to run.
@@casteretpollux Agreed. Interesting how both Obama and Trump would tell lies while in office. But yet, Obama expanded America's involvement in military campaigns overseas (i.e. drone wars), while Trump did not get us embroiled in any major conflicts and tried to lessen our involvement.
@@seekeroftruth5854 But he still managed to get 500,000 Americans killed with his incompetence and lies about COVID 19 which is more than the number of US troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. When you take that into account perhaps you start to understand why people are far more angry with Mr Trump than Mr Obama. Mr Obama said he would not send out more troops but after he took office he discovered new facts and changed his mind. This can happen to any president and while people may feel let down it is still to some extant forgiveable. On the other hand it has been shown that Mr Trump knew COVID was a deadly virus but deliberately presented it as harmless like the common cold. He also lied about winning the election. Both these actions brought devastating consequences to America in a way that Obama's actions never did.
I agree totally. Something that really has been standing out recently in many potentially great interviews, is the number of interviewers who seem more interested in making it all about them and not allowing their guest to answer without interruption.
Like the polygraph a lie can only be detected if people know they are lying themselves. If they believe the lie it doesn't work. "Do not onto others what you want done onto oneself" is a better measure of judging actions than detecting lies ...
I was pulled over late at night by a Shawnee Co sheriff's officer when I was 19. It was dark, I was nervous, and I had no idea why I had been pulled over. The officer approached my beat up Datsun pickup from behind and I rolled down the window to look up and see my step-dad. "Bring this thing over to the house tomorrow so I can fix the taillights," he said, "they're out."
Regarding the police doubting Amanda Knox, this perhaps happens more often than we might think. I recently watched a documentary on British serial killer Peter Sutcliffe in the late 1970s. For ten years, the police --- an all-male institution at that time -- were focused on a male with a particular accent targeting prostitutes and discounted all evidence to the contrary. Peter's first victim turned out to be a 14-year-old girl attacked during daylight hours who managed to escape and went to the police. They didn't seem to follow up on her case and several months later, the first murder victim was found, a lone woman walking at night, horribly bludgeoned and mutilated and assumed to be a prostitute -- because why else would a lone woman be out at night. The 14-year-0ld again came forward, saying, "This guy sounds like the guy that attacked me with a hammer." And the police said, "No, your case is totally different. You are not a prostitute, it was broad daylight and you escaped." Turns out over the course of ten years, Peter Sutcliffe, the actual killer, remained on the radar, was pulled in for interviews nine times and always released because he didn't fit the profile the police had in mind; he didn't have the accent, he was a steadily employed truck driver for a local company, he was so quiet and unassuming. Further, every time a body turned up, the police were quick to identify the victim as a prostitute whether there was any evidence of that or not. In another dramatization based on a series of rapes in Washington and Colorado that occurred between 2008-2011, the first victim was a teen-ager raped and held captive over several hours in her own bedroom. Her story was discounted because she was so traumatized, she was numb and stoic. In addition, the rapist's behavior was such that all evidence was destroyed before he left. Among other things, he made the victim take a shower. The police -- male -- decided she was lying; she didn't act like they thought a young rape victim ought to act. Several years later a female detective was assigned to a similar case in which the described rapist's behavior left no evidence, including forcing his victim to take a lengthy shower. This crime was in another jurisdiction so no connection was made between the two cases. It just so happened that the female investigator was married to an officer in another city, different jurisdiction, and she mentioned the case to her husband one night, citing her frustration and the lack of evidence. Her husband perked up and said, 'That's funny; that sounds like a case we had where we were never able to catch the guy.' Only then did the police begin to connect the dots and learn the same man had raped many women, always following the same pattern, but doing it in different counties and cities, even states, and only once in each place.
I enjoyed that conversation very much- I’m a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell. I was particularly struck by his comments about coupling and suicide. It brings the issue of police suicides into clearer focus. I hope researchers find a way to incorporate this concept into finding ways to reduce the recent upward trend.
The book is great, however I think Gladwell, in talking of the dangers of certain assumptions, like suicide risk and causes of rape, and not seeing them in the terms he's arguing against is falling into exactly the same trap he's trying to avoid. He's arguing that the previous assumptions are too simplistic and therefore wrong whilst putting forward alternative assumptions that are also to simplistic and therefore wrong. The issues of self harm suicidal ideation and the reasons behind the crime of rape are far more complex than he's arguing here. He's putting forward an alternative way of seeing these things yes. But his alternatives are no less flawed than the assumptions he's addressing. People who have long standing severe thoughts of suicide will absolutely seek alternative methods, the fact that one method has been closed off may dissuade some, of course it will, but it will by no means dissuade all. And, whilst alcohol use of obviously a factor in some rapes, either making a perpetrator more likely to commit the crime, just as they're more likely to become violent and get into a fight in a pub, or more likely to commit an act of vandalism, or more likely to commit car crime/dangerous driving etc, there are far more factors to all crime including rape, than alcohol use. In reading the book society runs the risk of ignoring one set of assumptions in favour of another, equally incomplete set of assumptions.
I always think the old saying stands up well: You don't know someone until you've either worked with them or lived them for at least 6 months. The only exceptions would be people who are gifted with psychic abilities. I have met people like that, but even these people often choose the wrong partner etc.
It would be interesting to hear more, especially on the process of getting sucked in and perhaps your observations on 'default truth'. Do people go along with stuff until it is too late? And how do they realise this?
One apparent factor we might include is: Those who get an impression of Hitler or any what we call 'charismatic person' and sees from a distance he is "bad news" is in general probably much less likely to want to or even try to visit them in person. The person who is initially attracted is much more likely to make repeat visits. So can we begin to form a deeper view of what is going on here by taking into account we have a self-selection factor here. However it is a good observation for forming a hypothesis about it. And we can rather quickly see that the number of 'in person visits' or 'up close and personal' visits is not the deeper factor we want to understand. One line of further consideration might be: What sort of person is it that can tell when someone is lying to promote their own selfish or narrow self interest. (In the study of some psychology, I remember one factor that might be in play is that some people are "field dependent" in their perception and other people are more "field independent". What makes some people 'highly suggestible" or easily falling for that which is not true? Are there people in the population that are so completely integrated in their personality and being, that they can more or less accurately sense when someone is lying to them; or at least form the question: Is this person truthful or is he somewhat or severely lacking in this quality? Now we have the question: Do we really know what allows one to be an integrated person? If we read a book called Deeper Man by John G Bennett, we might begin to see a framework that will allow us to ask and pursue such a question. What are the inner factors of fragmentation of consciousness and possible integration of that consciousness that can result in the mind and personality and ability to make sound judgments? What allows a person to be a person that is fully integrated at all levels of his functioning, being and will? First we have to begin to understand what are these three aspects of the individual. Then we might begin to see how they can be fragmented or misaligned and how they can be integrated and aligned. J G. Bennett describes such and we can see that there are many levels or gradations of integration. Yet there is some truth to "it takes one to know one" so we may have to do some further investigation and integrating of our own self to be sufficiently integrated to see these levels more clearly. Certainly closely studying the book Deeper Man can point the way to at least asking what is the deeper question that we need to look at. I once heard an old wise man say that in general to the extent you are integrated to much that same extent you can know when someone is lying to you.
In a society based on Narcissisms and Psychopathy where "Greed Is Good" it is a "good" idea to stop trying to pick "Good" people and simply randomly invite the next monster into your life.
Hi, Rick. Can I come in? The 'Greed is Good" idea is the by-product of Organized Crime, which was made an ethos for pseudo-intellectual legitimacy by Ayn Rand and her Objective-ME. It's funny that objectivists don't see that she didn't give a damn about them or that they exist, iF they do. In her time they were just a meal ticket.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 Welcome.. The greed is warm.. There is an observation about the unconscious psychopath that looks to be accurate "Confession thru projection". To be fair to Rand, I think she is just another case of the zeitgeist expressing itself through an unconscious "Narcissist" projecting here demons on the world. Rand's Demons (bureaucrats) with there lust for power and mooch like ethos in her simple dualistic epistemology had to invent a "Powerful" opposite. Duality always leads to conflict with the shadow.. The unfortunate fallacy to here perfect dualistic epistemology was that she didn't take into account: Power Corrupts... Government is a dark age dominance hierarchy with a king and so is a Corporation.. When we say power corrupts I think we would be better served to say "Power over Other Corrupts". The real cultural mover are the greedy advertisers. Edward Bernays looks like patient zero that really professionalized Hollywood on its course to infect the world with full spectrum psychopathy. In the new digital age of marketing, the first step is referred to as "capturing eyeballs", monetization comes later. Life supporting utility... Not on the agenda.. Just tagem Bagem and shagem.
@@rickfucci4512 I couldn't possibly say iT the way you did, but yeah, I think I agree with you completely. I'd sort of imagine that unconscious psychopath, which is a new idea to me, may be tied to the fact we have to pretty much consume some biological matter to live. There's not a lot we don't eat without killing something, not that there aren't exceptions. As for power over other corrupts, that's going to happen with a free market. I don't suggest anything else, but we're losing our ability to rationally defend ourselves. Whoever can afford the most injustice is going to get preferred justice. Lawyers are no better than building contractors.
@@wernerstapela4616 she sorta tried to equivocates in tv interviews when asked about altruism. She tried to say you should never force someone to volunteer, but there was nothing wrong with volunteerism / altruism. It just had no place in here oversimplified objectivist philosophy. She, like most fame seekers are just out to make a buck deep down. Like someone else mentioned in this thread "we all eat" it is just that some of us are greedy pigs. As Plato mentioned,, our stomach drives us.
.sorry folks I'm not buying it! I remember at University the professor always accused me of being a pessimist and always looking at "the negative side", always mistrusting the establishment/the news, always expecting the worst! One day he called me into his office and told me that I needed to find an alternative course and that I didnt fit in- and even most of the students agreed with the "pig". Years later one of those students said to me:" you started the revolution!" Apparently, several years after I had left the university, the students had voted to get rid of that pig of a professor . . And so I say to you that I am the one who will be telling you all , as we board that train to Auschwits, " I told you so!" cheers
I'm not convinced about the comment regarding Chamberlain. If he had fallen under Hitler's spell, why did he immediately order a rearmament program immediately upon returning from Munich. Giving a largely appeasement supporting public what they wanted in the form of "peace in our time" whilst preparing for war, does not sound like a man who took Hitler's promises at face value.
What about in a hyper televised era.. Many people who had never met Trump .. might of felt as if they still had met trump on TV in a sorta of quasi first person audience sense ... so felt as if they'd met him in person .. and again .. got the real man all wrong
My god, people watch actors all the time, and can’t get it through their heads that, most acting doesn’t take place on a stage or on a screen! 99% of actors never play a role other than their own life. No, Virginia, you can’t know what an other’s motives are! If you want to know a person’s character don’t talk to them, look at how they act and how they behave. Batman Begins - 'It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you.'
This tally’s very well with Robert Greene’s ‘48 Laws of Nature’. That human nature is irrational for the most part. Even just to understand that fact is the beginning of seeing it oneself and awareness is the start of becoming more rational
We as humans are pattern discoverers, and we think linear with patterns. When we look at faces as children we can learn to distinguish between different faces in the same racial group but as we don't have a big enough sample size we can't determine faces outside a facial group. This is similar to people of different cultural-linguistic styles. This is considered system 1 and system 2 thinking in economics. One side of your brain does the fast and dirty heuristics while the other thinks things through thoroughly. You assume people tell you the truth because that's the pattern you usually faced, your sample size is mostly people tell the truth. that's why it said that good relationships have 16 positive interactions to 1 negative one. Every so often you will be faced with something new, you don't know how to categorize it and start a new pattern recognition modality and create a new heuristic with the sample size you have. A black police officer deals with poor black men in crime-riddled neighbourhoods, there is more of a chance that they deal with criminals, and even if they didn't they are trained by TV and other mediums in thinking at the least that this is the heuristic they should start with. In a small town, you get to learn about people in more depth and the heuristics/generalizations tend to become more nuanced, the groupings become more individualized rather than too general.
I like how you attempt to appear educated by using academic vernacular; then you expose yourself as poorly educated by assuming that: 1. a “black police officer” would work in a predominantly black neighborhood; 2. all black neighborhoods are “crime-riddled”; and 3. most (or all-you failed to specify) black American neighborhoods are urban. You weren’t even wise enough to compare two groups in two similar areas; instead, you make huge assumptions that aren’t even true, considering that most African Americans live in the US South, which isn’t what Americans typify as “urban,” and there is great economic diversity among black Southerners, especially, since these communities have been long-established. However, there are plenty of affluent black enclaves in both western and northern urbania and suburbia as well. The fact that you’re unfamiliar with this truth says more about your own lack of exposure and access to culture than it does about the black people you stereotype. You remind me of the people whom I encountered as an undergrad at USC, the ones who assumed that I was from South Central LA and a first generation student. (I’m from Manhattan’s Upper East Side.) Meanwhile, my mother’s side has been planted in the black middle class for generations, and both of my parents are early 1970’s college graduates. I will always remember how, when asked to do research by interviewing my grandparents about the Great Depression, I returned to my 3rd grade classroom with the story of how my grandfather bought two cars and a house, locally dubbed as “the pink palace,” while working as a skilled tradesman with his background in the Navy, during the so-called Depression. I was the only black child in the class (and only one of 3 at the whole school), and the teacher wasn’t nearly as enamored with my report as I was. I was beaming and proud, just as I am today.
@@KamalasNotLikeUs That was an accident. I meant white officer. I didn't say all black neighbourhoods are bad only the bad ones are bad. You, my friend, have deep-seated issues. Probably trauma from people who have abused you in the past. I didn't say this in a derogatory way. I am only sharing the research as it stands. What i was trying to say was that most white people if they were exposed to more black people they would relise that they are pretty much the same as white people.
Malcolm yep well I’m glad you have me, but yea man, got few days off from the stumping, then they just coded within the hour and are trying to assume there’s a fine with it. I never was fine with it, how? So. For the last hour it’s being face off between whomever keep persecuting me in a manner of speaking like intelligence. So the deputy or at my window with the lights on as I run the bath water, there attempting to get me familiar so it was fight! Now I have to be fine with it continuing, and I wasn’t. So what can I do ... you know thanks
It manifests harbor was a rare gem bright spot in today’s world, it’s just me, and I’m good person I don’t know whom are good, that’s how after 850 days of that’s it was code and I responded and now it’s a fight
Amanda Knox turned cartwheels at the police station when being interrogated. The police were stunned by her behavior. After, she never agreed to take a lie detector test. If one is innocent, why would they not agree to a lie detector test? There was a list of specific things that tied her to the night of the killing-I think blood was found on her clothes that matched the blood on the knife---I don’t have the facts, but the Italian police clearly believed she was involved in the murder. Will we ever know? My gut feeling is that she was involved, but it’s only a feeling.
Chamberlain was weak minded, devious, a shallow man and at the time quite ill; he wanted one thing: a miracle to stop another Somme; a battle so disastrous that it haunts the imagination of Britain even today.
.I'm an artist, I cherish my negativity, I enjoy my loneliness/isolation/Melancholia, my disappointment/disgust with the world. I have many dislikes in this world: I dislike dog owners and their dogs, I dislike newsreaders' false smiles, I dislike the stink of your perfume or your garlic breath- it's a long list! My latest series of sculptures all have one function in common- they are all "suicide note holders" . . . cheers
Pretty simple! Churchill was “ just a wiser judge of character and able to recognize a lie much better than the other guy”. Once again, there was a lot going at the time. For example, Britain was not prepared for war with Germany at the time. On and on. These people who write these books create straw-men, can purposely be blind to circumstances and lazy. Maybe it’s more sophisticated lying.
I really enjoy these chats, but please could you provide written text in these moments of enthusiastic overtalking that obliterates what's being said? See 12:20.
A so so interview. Gladwell uses some pretty extreme examples (most notably Hitler v. Churchill) to demonstrate his points, which are quite big generalisations to begin with, if you ask me. The interviewer is way too effusive in his praise to be taken seriously. Hard to imagine he'd challenge anything the author says with a critical mind, as he barely leaves any time for anything else after his incessant ass kissing.
H'aHH, I don't even want to listen to iT. I just know we fall for lies because lies work. iT's really really really hard to even get at the lies we tell ourselves because iT's hard to start to even wonder about iT. Who's got the time? Who's worth the truth? iT gets depressing.
@@redactedmane Damnit, now that I got your comment I started listening to this video. iT's ironic that they were talking about a book called "Talking to Strangers" because that's essentially what these comments are about, iF you can get someone to talk. Geez, I don't give a damn about Chamberlain and Churchill. No one is more false than a politician, and by extension a lawyer, and by further extension any clergy. I was watching a video yesterday where someone wanted to do a comparison of a speech Kennedy gave and a speech John Galt from Atlas Shrugged gave, and Kennedy starts out early on saying you may recall the New York Globe (or some such newspaper) from 1850 . . . an 1850's newspaper? Seriously? That's like Bush dredging up Dredd Scott. Sorry for my rambling.
Using Michael Jackson in your example is pretty uninformed. There's a difference between blindly defending someone has been proven guilty (R. Kelly) and simply presenting the facts on someone who has not been proven guilty and for whom the evidence points to innocence (Michael Jackson)
MJ is a great example. If a regular man, who had sleepovers with children he was not related to, was accused of pedophilia, I doubt people would come up with such theories to prove his innocence. But because the man was beloved and respected Michael Jackson, a lot of people blinded themselves to reason and evidence in defence of him.
43:43 "There should be far more random hiring." This is something I have thought so often. Of course you have to show that you have the skills to do the job in question, but the rest is mostly bias and prejudice.
i would love to see the source evidence for his claim regarding we are horrible at assessing deceit, and that we should just wait to trust people. not a game theory I would run with dealing with human beings. nope. no sir.
Prof. Robert Sapolsky out of Stanford has some deep research on human behavioural psychology, or you could go to Neuroleadership Institute for the neuro-physiological evidence of behaviour and experience. The research is supportive.
Theres plenty of research showing how people can easily be conned into decieving themselves to just going along with the "crowd". Even when to an outside observer it appears obviously absurd.
If we are horrible at assessing deception, waiting to trust people does make sense. But in a very measured way, like limiting initial interactions until trust is earned. And listening to our bodies which are absolutely correct about predatory people. Gladwell seems naive and not very grounded.
Why aren't we teaching people to think critically about *all* media? USAer ahistoricity goes a long way toward an easily duped people. Have you read The Jakaarta Method yet? Is that something you don't want to know? Might all partisans be equally deplorable? Regarding people who work in finance, why are you telling people we don't need re-regulation? Bias is a terrible place to start navigating what people should believe.
The one thing you guys don't seem to remember to mention is due to Ronnie H chapter 5 when you get to the commandment though show not why though shelt not barefoot sweetness just find out if a person is a believer in Jesus Christ and that's 1 way you can find out that they don't lie as much even though people who even believe in Jesus Christ are still sinners but they walk in the word and they follow Jesus precepts so they are decent people you guys are just such full of that's full of Bologna I can't stand it I'm gonna get off your channel
It's possible Langan has been duping, exaggerating and defrauding investigators but as far as ABC's 20/20 could determine he did indeed score a perfect SAT and they say their Dr and test was a 195 (the ceiling) but ABC is fully capable of creating Fake News and exaggerated BS, Langan has taken verified IQ tests but yes its still possible he's got some scam, cheats, prepackaged answers? He certainly has a high IQ and demonstrates the ability to handle higher concepts, he can hold his own with other High IQ types, he does have a freakish recall - however - sure, its possible its exaggerated. I don't know that Gladwell 'falls for anything' but just takes the accounts as reported and points out how a very high IQ, in itself, does not necessarily mean much at all. Langan is the example of someone who never really does enough with it.
@@jonathandewberry289 what has he contributed? And don't say CTMU, his work is a bunch of mumble jumble bullshit. He uses large words for no use but to sound intelligent. He's no da Vinci, Galileo, Shakespeare, polyglot, mathematician, software genius, successful businessman, or accomplished academic. He has contributed nothing. He is chalk full of excuses. He wouldnt come up with excuses if he was content with his life.
@@samsmith9075 sure but so do a lot of High-IQ Geniuses. If Bond 007 movies have taught us anything - that is exactly what supergeniuses do. Mind you, Langan didn't poison his teacher for egotistical and resentful reasons. That was Oppenheimer, supergenius of The Manhattan Project and more. The higher the IQ the more ego and resentment, hand in hand.
so this guy juxtaposes Trump and Hitler at 12:30 after an unbelievably tedious description of Chamberlain and Hitler conversations, and conversations that didn't occur, prior to WW2. I cancelled this little putz at 12:45.
This conversation was disappointing to me. Listened for 45 mins. I just cannot help thinking it would be so differently valuable and pertinent if people of color and women- anythg but two white men - were engaged with these ideas. The absences/blind spots here are really loud.
Watch four more talks by Malcolm Gladwell here! ua-cam.com/play/PLFIigLLitqDnA-v1mjS-F7y9OzNZrAeG4.html
I always come away from listening to/reading Malcolm Gladwell with lots to think about. This was just a wonderful pearl of a conversation.
More often than not, we are not being lied to, we are being told their truth. Their truth is incorrect because the person is lying to themselves, and convinced that they are telling the real truth.
That is how you use words. You would make a great teacher
I would suggest “their truth” does not match with demonstrable reality. But matches their stories. Look at “Better Call Saul” …? So many wars waged and destruction inflicted because people believe one story or another. Sigh.
how can one not continue to love and admire Malcolm Gladwell. A bright light of insights and sanity in a world fallen under the specter of chaos.
💛💗💛
He’s over-rated, it’s “populist” science!
Don’t let Gladwell bamboozle you! There are many others that understand the human condition and the spiritual transformation of your mind.
@@sandynunez7444 Gladwell isn’t a cult, he’s a highly intelligent observer of the human condition. He’s not asking anyone to be his “follower.”
Because he broke up the Beatles ?
If you judge people by their actions, you don't need to meet them. Most people judge others by their height and the sound of their voice and are convinced their judgement is rational.
*I found MG humane and authentic* - humane, because he seems to understand multiple perspectives within a situation and authentic, because he is prepared to say he was wrong, and even on a fundamental point in a book that made his name. Finally, he provides ways forward, without being prescriptive, eg on allowing time for trust to develop, or on hiring someone, "see if they can do the job", or on 'default trust' to "don't put all your money in one place", or systems, the simple and elegant solution of having two people in a room when a patient is under anaesthesia.
overly trusting someone is mean to that person
Love u Gladwell! I really want schools to make this book apart of their curriculum. It’s so important.
i can listen to this guy all day..lovely voice..very inteligent and thought provoking
Have learned since his first book and interviews have loved this thoughtfulness of his "soul" came from the women who raised this good man would marry in a heartbeat now 70! Wisdom comes from deep thought and compassion!
Throughout the Trump presidency I must have posted this 50 times on various social media platforms: “It never ceases to amaze me, the almost infinite capacity of the human being to deceive himself.“ - Professor James Breedlove, DSW, Portland State University School of Social Work (c. 1992)
I may have even seen your post! I Tweeted earlier about the coup in Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi "Another warning about the cult of personality. We project our hopes and dreams onto a saviour-leader, who then turns and defends the system. The cycle restarts. We are the system seeking salvation from our imperfect selves. Cue postfactualism!" This relates somewhat to Gladwell's observations on Chamberlain being taken in by Hitler - though I am not making a direct factual comparison. Rather, it is a reflection on the ultimate unknowability of another, and often even ourselves!
Like what then - how people developed 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' and could deceive themselves into believing in 'Russia Collusion' and even pretend they didn't understand hyperbole so they could justify hating Trump etc?
You still believe in a bogus Russian conspiracy about Trump don’t you?
In many ways early childhood socializing seems to prime humans to be decived by authority figures.
@@jonathandewberry289 Except that all seventeen security agencies that work for the USA said that Russia did interfere. And hating a man who lies, uses faith to rip people off, is incompetent (the virus will go away like magic) and who watches in glee as his followers kill police officers in The Capitol has some merit.
Here I am listening to strangers. I don't know Malcolm, but I'd trust him with anything of value to me. If HE'S deceiving me, I give up.
For much of human history, during our hunter-gatherer days, we lived in small communities where we all knew each other. There was no way you could say, "I can hunt crocodiles" when everyone knows that is the sort of hunting you're bad at. They've seen you nearly get killed hunting crocodiles. On the other hand, they know that you're good at finding the right herbs to help someone overcome nausea. You don't need to explain that. So being a good liar only came in handy if you were deceiving a hostile tribe - and that may have been unnecessary if you each stuck to your own territory.
When it comes to sociopaths, it is better to read their words from a transcript than to interact with them or even watch their body movements. It is the choice of words that give people away. That is why after one is found out, people will go over comments made and suddenly it all makes sense.
Actions and impact. Judge people on what they do. Also judge them on your visceral first impression. If the little hairs go up on the back of your neck and little alarm bells ring, that is a million years of human evolution telling you to run.
@@casteretpollux Agreed. Interesting how both Obama and Trump would tell lies while in office. But yet, Obama expanded America's involvement in military campaigns overseas (i.e. drone wars), while Trump did not get us embroiled in any major conflicts and tried to lessen our involvement.
@@seekeroftruth5854 And yet if you try to read one of his speeches, you see the wacko
Wow, interesting point. Thank you.
@@seekeroftruth5854 But he still managed to get 500,000 Americans killed with his incompetence and lies about COVID 19 which is more than the number of US troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. When you take that into account perhaps you start to understand why people are far more angry with Mr Trump than Mr Obama.
Mr Obama said he would not send out more troops but after he took office he discovered new facts and changed his mind. This can happen to any president and while people may feel let down it is still to some extant forgiveable.
On the other hand it has been shown that Mr Trump knew COVID was a deadly virus but deliberately presented it as harmless like the common cold. He also lied about winning the election. Both these actions brought devastating consequences to America in a way that Obama's actions never did.
A very good interview. Smart questions, based on understanding the reading, and no talk over.
I agree totally. Something that really has been standing out recently in many potentially great interviews, is the number of interviewers who seem more interested in making it all about them and not allowing their guest to answer without interruption.
Like the polygraph a lie can only be detected if people know they are lying themselves. If they believe the lie it doesn't work.
"Do not onto others what you want done onto oneself" is a better measure of judging actions than detecting lies ...
Unreasonable Happiness when considering uncomfortable Actuality, ..do Right and Right will be done. Thanks for this example M Gladwell.
I was pulled over late at night by a Shawnee Co sheriff's officer when I was 19. It was dark, I was nervous, and I had no idea why I had been pulled over. The officer approached my beat up Datsun pickup from behind and I rolled down the window to look up and see my step-dad. "Bring this thing over to the house tomorrow so I can fix the taillights," he said, "they're out."
Regarding the police doubting Amanda Knox, this perhaps happens more often than we might think. I recently watched a documentary on British serial killer Peter Sutcliffe in the late 1970s. For ten years, the police --- an all-male institution at that time -- were focused on a male with a particular accent targeting prostitutes and discounted all evidence to the contrary. Peter's first victim turned out to be a 14-year-old girl attacked during daylight hours who managed to escape and went to the police. They didn't seem to follow up on her case and several months later, the first murder victim was found, a lone woman walking at night, horribly bludgeoned and mutilated and assumed to be a prostitute -- because why else would a lone woman be out at night. The 14-year-0ld again came forward, saying, "This guy sounds like the guy that attacked me with a hammer." And the police said, "No, your case is totally different. You are not a prostitute, it was broad daylight and you escaped." Turns out over the course of ten years, Peter Sutcliffe, the actual killer, remained on the radar, was pulled in for interviews nine times and always released because he didn't fit the profile the police had in mind; he didn't have the accent, he was a steadily employed truck driver for a local company, he was so quiet and unassuming. Further, every time a body turned up, the police were quick to identify the victim as a prostitute whether there was any evidence of that or not.
In another dramatization based on a series of rapes in Washington and Colorado that occurred between 2008-2011, the first victim was a teen-ager raped and held captive over several hours in her own bedroom. Her story was discounted because she was so traumatized, she was numb and stoic. In addition, the rapist's behavior was such that all evidence was destroyed before he left. Among other things, he made the victim take a shower. The police -- male -- decided she was lying; she didn't act like they thought a young rape victim ought to act. Several years later a female detective was assigned to a similar case in which the described rapist's behavior left no evidence, including forcing his victim to take a lengthy shower. This crime was in another jurisdiction so no connection was made between the two cases. It just so happened that the female investigator was married to an officer in another city, different jurisdiction, and she mentioned the case to her husband one night, citing her frustration and the lack of evidence. Her husband perked up and said, 'That's funny; that sounds like a case we had where we were never able to catch the guy.'
Only then did the police begin to connect the dots and learn the same man had raped many women, always following the same pattern, but doing it in different counties and cities, even states, and only once in each place.
I enjoyed that conversation very much- I’m a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell. I was particularly struck by his comments about coupling and suicide. It brings the issue of police suicides into clearer focus. I hope researchers find a way to incorporate this concept into finding ways to reduce the recent upward trend.
Big fan of Malcolm and his books
That is very insightful. The police suicides after 6th Jan were such a tragedy.
The book is great, however I think Gladwell, in talking of the dangers of certain assumptions, like suicide risk and causes of rape, and not seeing them in the terms he's arguing against is falling into exactly the same trap he's trying to avoid.
He's arguing that the previous assumptions are too simplistic and therefore wrong whilst putting forward alternative assumptions that are also to simplistic and therefore wrong.
The issues of self harm suicidal ideation and the reasons behind the crime of rape are far more complex than he's arguing here.
He's putting forward an alternative way of seeing these things yes.
But his alternatives are no less flawed than the assumptions he's addressing.
People who have long standing severe thoughts of suicide will absolutely seek alternative methods, the fact that one method has been closed off may dissuade some, of course it will, but it will by no means dissuade all.
And, whilst alcohol use of obviously a factor in some rapes, either making a perpetrator more likely to commit the crime, just as they're more likely to become violent and get into a fight in a pub, or more likely to commit an act of vandalism, or more likely to commit car crime/dangerous driving etc, there are far more factors to all crime including rape, than alcohol use.
In reading the book society runs the risk of ignoring one set of assumptions in favour of another, equally incomplete set of assumptions.
I always think the old saying stands up well: You don't know someone until you've either worked with them or lived them for at least 6 months. The only exceptions would be people who are gifted with psychic abilities. I have met people like that, but even these people often choose the wrong partner etc.
Very enlightening conversation. I highly recommend this conversation and book.
As a former cult member and student of cult influence, I found Gladwell's book Talking to Strangers, an excellent read.
It would be interesting to hear more, especially on the process of getting sucked in and perhaps your observations on 'default truth'. Do people go along with stuff until it is too late? And how do they realise this?
I'd love to hear more about how the book helped you.
Malcolm Gladwell is always amind-expanding read.
Great interview! Thank you.
Great. Great talk.
Why did you fall for the lies malcolm!!! Why!! You were the chosen one!!!
Money is just a piece of paper if nobody believes it.
Cotton and linen for some
As long as it buys food and pays bills, the believers will remain faithful.
KIND OF LIKE AN ABSENTEE BALLOT.
I feel like I'm hardwired to be skeptical of authority and what they're telling me always
If you 'feel' it, it's probably not hard-wired
Ive been that way for as long as I can remember also.
@@theeditorseye573 yes, like laughter.
Great interview. Thought provoking.
I am afraid that Malcom himself is too charismatic. He starts talking and ALL OF MY GUARDS go down.....not good
If your guards didn't go down, maybe you would not have absorbed his message and ideas?
@@seekeroftruth5854 huh...?
@@augurcybernaut4785 Did you not understand his message?
@@seekeroftruth5854 Wasn’t part of his message that familiarity with a charismatic personality makes the listener even more amenable to their message?
What's the difference between Malcolm G & Sadguru!!
One apparent factor we might include is: Those who get an impression of Hitler or any what we call 'charismatic person' and sees from a distance he is "bad news" is in general probably much less likely to want to or even try to visit them in person. The person who is initially attracted is much more likely to make repeat visits. So can we begin to form a deeper view of what is going on here by taking into account we have a self-selection factor here. However it is a good observation for forming a hypothesis about it. And we can rather quickly see that the number of 'in person visits' or 'up close and personal' visits is not the deeper factor we want to understand. One line of further consideration might be: What sort of person is it that can tell when someone is lying to promote their own selfish or narrow self interest. (In the study of some psychology, I remember one factor that might be in play is that some people are "field dependent" in their perception and other people are more "field independent". What makes some people 'highly suggestible" or easily falling for that which is not true? Are there people in the population that are so completely integrated in their personality and being, that they can more or less accurately sense when someone is lying to them; or at least form the question: Is this person truthful or is he somewhat or severely lacking in this quality? Now we have the question: Do we really know what allows one to be an integrated person? If we read a book called Deeper Man by John G Bennett, we might begin to see a framework that will allow us to ask and pursue such a question. What are the inner factors of fragmentation of consciousness and possible integration of that consciousness that can result in the mind and personality and ability to make sound judgments? What allows a person to be a person that is fully integrated at all levels of his functioning, being and will? First we have to begin to understand what are these three aspects of the individual. Then we might begin to see how they can be fragmented or misaligned and how they can be integrated and aligned. J G. Bennett describes such and we can see that there are many levels or gradations of integration. Yet there is some truth to "it takes one to know one" so we may have to do some further investigation and integrating of our own self to be sufficiently integrated to see these levels more clearly. Certainly closely studying the book Deeper Man can point the way to at least asking what is the deeper question that we need to look at. I once heard an old wise man say that in general to the extent you are integrated to much that same extent you can know when someone is lying to you.
In a society based on Narcissisms and Psychopathy where "Greed Is Good" it is a "good" idea to stop trying to pick "Good" people and simply randomly invite the next monster into your life.
Hi, Rick. Can I come in? The 'Greed is Good" idea is the by-product of Organized Crime, which was made an ethos for pseudo-intellectual legitimacy by Ayn Rand and her Objective-ME. It's funny that objectivists don't see that she didn't give a damn about them or that they exist, iF they do. In her time they were just a meal ticket.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 Welcome.. The greed is warm.. There is an observation about the unconscious psychopath that looks to be accurate "Confession thru projection".
To be fair to Rand, I think she is just another case of the zeitgeist expressing itself through an unconscious "Narcissist" projecting here demons on the world. Rand's Demons (bureaucrats) with there lust for power and mooch like ethos in her simple dualistic epistemology had to invent a "Powerful" opposite. Duality always leads to conflict with the shadow..
The unfortunate fallacy to here perfect dualistic epistemology was that she didn't take into account: Power Corrupts... Government is a dark age dominance hierarchy with a king and so is a Corporation.. When we say power corrupts I think we would be better served to say "Power over Other Corrupts".
The real cultural mover are the greedy advertisers. Edward Bernays looks like patient zero that really professionalized Hollywood on its course to infect the world with full spectrum psychopathy. In the new digital age of marketing, the first step is referred to as "capturing eyeballs", monetization comes later. Life supporting utility... Not on the agenda.. Just tagem Bagem and shagem.
@@rickfucci4512 I couldn't possibly say iT the way you did, but yeah, I think I agree with you completely. I'd sort of imagine that unconscious psychopath, which is a new idea to me, may be tied to the fact we have to pretty much consume some biological matter to live. There's not a lot we don't eat without killing something, not that there aren't exceptions.
As for power over other corrupts, that's going to happen with a free market. I don't suggest anything else, but we're losing our ability to rationally defend ourselves. Whoever can afford the most injustice is going to get preferred justice. Lawyers are no better than building contractors.
To Ayn Rand's credit, she never pretended otherwise.
@@wernerstapela4616 she sorta tried to equivocates in tv interviews when asked about altruism. She tried to say you should never force someone to volunteer, but there was nothing wrong with volunteerism / altruism. It just had no place in here oversimplified objectivist philosophy. She, like most fame seekers are just out to make a buck deep down. Like someone else mentioned in this thread "we all eat" it is just that some of us are greedy pigs. As Plato mentioned,, our stomach drives us.
.sorry folks I'm not buying it! I remember at University the professor always accused me of being a pessimist and always looking at "the negative side", always mistrusting the establishment/the news, always expecting the worst! One day he called me into his office and told me that I needed to find an alternative course and that I didnt fit in- and even most of the students agreed with the "pig". Years later one of those students said to me:" you started the revolution!" Apparently, several years after I had left the university, the students had voted to get rid of that pig of a professor . . And so I say to you that I am the one who will be telling you all , as we board that train to Auschwits, " I told you so!" cheers
This is so interesting!
I'm not convinced about the comment regarding Chamberlain. If he had fallen under Hitler's spell, why did he immediately order a rearmament program immediately upon returning from Munich. Giving a largely appeasement supporting public what they wanted in the form of "peace in our time" whilst preparing for war, does not sound like a man who took Hitler's promises at face value.
One must be careful-----------skeptical-----------non-trusting ---------to protect oneself in today's world on dangerous false information.
What about in a hyper televised era.. Many people who had never met Trump .. might of felt as if they still had met trump on TV in a sorta of quasi first person audience sense ... so felt as if they'd met him in person .. and again .. got the real man all wrong
Dishonesty comes from both parties not just one or the other
"Conversations that go awry between strangers"?? how about conversations between psychopaths and there victims.
My god, people watch actors all the time, and can’t get it through their heads that, most acting doesn’t take place on a stage or on a screen! 99% of actors never play a role other than their own life. No, Virginia, you can’t know what an other’s motives are! If you want to know a person’s character don’t talk to them, look at how they act and how they behave. Batman Begins - 'It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you.'
This tally’s very well with Robert Greene’s ‘48 Laws of Nature’. That human nature is irrational for the most part. Even just to understand that fact is the beginning of seeing it oneself and awareness is the start of becoming more rational
They got hitler wrong like they’ve gotten trump wrong.
Finally something the extreme left and extreme right can agree on
WE do not fall for lies. Some of us fact check...
But sometimes, the fact checkers are also wrong or biased (and therefore wrong). Snopes is a prime example.
Unfortunately not all fact checkers are reliable.
We as humans are pattern discoverers, and we think linear with patterns. When we look at faces as children we can learn to distinguish between different faces in the same racial group but as we don't have a big enough sample size we can't determine faces outside a facial group. This is similar to people of different cultural-linguistic styles. This is considered system 1 and system 2 thinking in economics. One side of your brain does the fast and dirty heuristics while the other thinks things through thoroughly. You assume people tell you the truth because that's the pattern you usually faced, your sample size is mostly people tell the truth. that's why it said that good relationships have 16 positive interactions to 1 negative one. Every so often you will be faced with something new, you don't know how to categorize it and start a new pattern recognition modality and create a new heuristic with the sample size you have. A black police officer deals with poor black men in crime-riddled neighbourhoods, there is more of a chance that they deal with criminals, and even if they didn't they are trained by TV and other mediums in thinking at the least that this is the heuristic they should start with. In a small town, you get to learn about people in more depth and the heuristics/generalizations tend to become more nuanced, the groupings become more individualized rather than too general.
I like how you attempt to appear educated by using academic vernacular; then you expose yourself as poorly educated by assuming that: 1. a “black police officer” would work in a predominantly black neighborhood; 2. all black neighborhoods are “crime-riddled”; and 3. most (or all-you failed to specify) black American neighborhoods are urban. You weren’t even wise enough to compare two groups in two similar areas; instead, you make huge assumptions that aren’t even true, considering that most African Americans live in the US South, which isn’t what Americans typify as “urban,” and there is great economic diversity among black Southerners, especially, since these communities have been long-established. However, there are plenty of affluent black enclaves in both western and northern urbania and suburbia as well. The fact that you’re unfamiliar with this truth says more about your own lack of exposure and access to culture than it does about the black people you stereotype. You remind me of the people whom I encountered as an undergrad at USC, the ones who assumed that I was from South Central LA and a first generation student. (I’m from Manhattan’s Upper East Side.) Meanwhile, my mother’s side has been planted in the black middle class for generations, and both of my parents are early 1970’s college graduates. I will always remember how, when asked to do research by interviewing my grandparents about the Great Depression, I returned to my 3rd grade classroom with the story of how my grandfather bought two cars and a house, locally dubbed as “the pink palace,” while working as a skilled tradesman with his background in the Navy, during the so-called Depression. I was the only black child in the class (and only one of 3 at the whole school), and the teacher wasn’t nearly as enamored with my report as I was. I was beaming and proud, just as I am today.
@@KamalasNotLikeUs That was an accident. I meant white officer. I didn't say all black neighbourhoods are bad only the bad ones are bad. You, my friend, have deep-seated issues. Probably trauma from people who have abused you in the past. I didn't say this in a derogatory way. I am only sharing the research as it stands. What i was trying to say was that most white people if they were exposed to more black people they would relise that they are pretty much the same as white people.
Well, in the UK in 2021 we fall for lies because we believe them. We do this because tellyman tells us it's all true. We are not stupid in the UK.
37:41 cat stretch 😸
When you get into a car with a person who says; "I'm a really good driver..." It's all about the time and personal cost?
Malcolm yep well I’m glad you have me, but yea man, got few days off from the stumping, then they just coded within the hour and are trying to assume there’s a fine with it. I never was fine with it, how? So. For the last hour it’s being face off between whomever keep persecuting me in a manner of speaking like intelligence. So the deputy or at my window with the lights on as I run the bath water, there attempting to get me familiar so it was fight! Now I have to be fine with it continuing, and I wasn’t. So what can I do ... you know thanks
It manifests harbor was a rare gem bright spot in today’s world, it’s just me, and I’m good person I don’t know whom are good, that’s how after 850 days of that’s it was code and I responded and now it’s a fight
Amanda Knox turned cartwheels at the police station when being interrogated. The police were stunned by her behavior. After, she never agreed to take a lie detector test. If one is innocent, why would they not agree to a lie detector test? There was a list of specific things that tied her to the night of the killing-I think blood was found on her clothes that matched the blood on the knife---I don’t have the facts, but the Italian police clearly believed she was involved in the murder. Will we ever know? My gut feeling is that she was involved, but it’s only a feeling.
Chamberlain was weak minded, devious, a shallow man and at the time quite ill; he wanted one thing: a miracle to stop another Somme; a battle so disastrous that it haunts the imagination of Britain even today.
Cause they're more fun than truth.
.I'm an artist, I cherish my negativity, I enjoy my loneliness/isolation/Melancholia, my disappointment/disgust with the world. I have many dislikes in this world: I dislike dog owners and their dogs, I dislike newsreaders' false smiles, I dislike the stink of your perfume or your garlic breath- it's a long list! My latest series of sculptures all have one function in common- they are all "suicide note holders" . . . cheers
Because we are not given the evidence for both sides.
Pretty simple! Churchill was “ just a wiser judge of character and able to recognize a lie much better than the other guy”.
Once again, there was a lot going at the time. For example, Britain was not prepared for war with Germany at the time. On and on. These people who write these books create straw-men, can purposely be blind to circumstances and lazy. Maybe it’s more sophisticated lying.
We can only judge by what we know. If we don't know evil we can't see it.
depends on the profession. for politicians and lawyers, you would be right most of the time, if you assumed they were lying. (IMHO)
I really enjoy these chats, but please could you provide written text in these moments of enthusiastic overtalking that obliterates what's being said? See 12:20.
I always turn on closed captions on my device. Problem solved
A so so interview. Gladwell uses some pretty extreme examples (most notably Hitler v. Churchill) to demonstrate his points, which are quite big generalisations to begin with, if you ask me. The interviewer is way too effusive in his praise to be taken seriously. Hard to imagine he'd challenge anything the author says with a critical mind, as he barely leaves any time for anything else after his incessant ass kissing.
Volume too low
why did i fall for clicking on this?
H'aHH, I don't even want to listen to iT. I just know we fall for lies because lies work. iT's really really really hard to even get at the lies we tell ourselves because iT's hard to start to even wonder about iT. Who's got the time? Who's worth the truth? iT gets depressing.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 i fell for reading his book outliers where theres a chapter about how awesome gill bates is smh
@@redactedmane Damnit, now that I got your comment I started listening to this video. iT's ironic that they were talking about a book called "Talking to Strangers" because that's essentially what these comments are about, iF you can get someone to talk. Geez, I don't give a damn about Chamberlain and Churchill. No one is more false than a politician, and by extension a lawyer, and by further extension any clergy. I was watching a video yesterday where someone wanted to do a comparison of a speech Kennedy gave and a speech John Galt from Atlas Shrugged gave, and Kennedy starts out early on saying you may recall the New York Globe (or some such newspaper) from 1850 . . . an 1850's newspaper? Seriously? That's like Bush dredging up Dredd Scott. Sorry for my rambling.
Using Michael Jackson in your example is pretty uninformed. There's a difference between blindly defending someone has been proven guilty (R. Kelly) and simply presenting the facts on someone who has not been proven guilty and for whom the evidence points to innocence (Michael Jackson)
MJ is a great example. If a regular man, who had sleepovers with children he was not related to, was accused of pedophilia, I doubt people would come up with such theories to prove his innocence. But because the man was beloved and respected Michael Jackson, a lot of people blinded themselves to reason and evidence in defence of him.
This interviewer maddens me. He’s pedantic and strays off-course repeatedly. Matthew is a class act making a silk purse out of a sow's ear
43:43 "There should be far more random hiring." This is something I have thought so often. Of course you have to show that you have the skills to do the job in question, but the rest is mostly bias and prejudice.
Gorgeous sleeping Siamese 😻😻😻
i would love to see the source evidence for his claim regarding we are horrible at assessing deceit, and that we should just wait to trust people. not a game theory I would run with dealing with human beings. nope. no sir.
Prof. Robert Sapolsky out of Stanford has some deep research on human behavioural psychology, or you could go to Neuroleadership Institute for the neuro-physiological evidence of behaviour and experience. The research is supportive.
Theres plenty of research showing how people can easily be conned into decieving themselves to just going along with the "crowd". Even when to an outside observer it appears obviously absurd.
If we are horrible at assessing deception, waiting to trust people does make sense. But in a very measured way, like limiting initial interactions until trust is earned. And listening to our bodies which are absolutely correct about predatory people. Gladwell seems naive and not very grounded.
Love how the cat in the background is not giving a f... Nice talk though.
Because I don’t believe man set foot on the moon, much less went out of earth orbit, I’m labeled a flat-earther.
I wouldn’t call you that.
Only if you want to be one
Weak... pathetic education system.
Word.
So Sandra "was't " murdered ?
Don't give him/her ur money .
Sandra commits suicide?
Really?
You are propagating the cop's deceitful and malevolent story.
I suggest reading Alexander Lowen' book Narcissism The Denial of the true Self and The Fear of Death if you want some real answers.
Why aren't we teaching people to think critically about *all* media? USAer ahistoricity goes a long way toward an easily duped people. Have you read The Jakaarta Method yet? Is that something you don't want to know? Might all partisans be equally deplorable? Regarding people who work in finance, why are you telling people we don't need re-regulation? Bias is a terrible place to start navigating what people should believe.
Pretty ironic title
Gladwell brillant and amazing. The journalist though... never do interviews again, plain annoying and empty.
Job Rotations. Simple solution that is waaaaaay underutilized. Try someone out. Give it time.
Funny how you think you know so much LOL. You already have me wrong and I guess you would consider me an exception LOL LOL LOL
🤔....smh😊. Loading
sub-title: Why people believe CNN and other media
Unwatchable with this guy blabbering around. Just let Malcolm tell his story.
Interviewer has a grating voice and talks too much. I almost left before Macolm came on.
The one thing you guys don't seem to remember to mention is due to Ronnie H chapter 5 when you get to the commandment though show not why though shelt not barefoot sweetness just find out if a person is a believer in Jesus Christ and that's 1 way you can find out that they don't lie as much even though people who even believe in Jesus Christ are still sinners but they walk in the word and they follow Jesus precepts so they are decent people you guys are just such full of that's full of Bologna I can't stand it I'm gonna get off your channel
Malcom gladwell believed Chris Langan was some super genius... idk how he fell for that..
It's possible Langan has been duping, exaggerating and defrauding investigators but as far as ABC's 20/20 could determine he did indeed score a perfect SAT and they say their Dr and test was a 195 (the ceiling) but ABC is fully capable of creating Fake News and exaggerated BS, Langan has taken verified IQ tests but yes its still possible he's got some scam, cheats, prepackaged answers? He certainly has a high IQ and demonstrates the ability to handle higher concepts, he can hold his own with other High IQ types, he does have a freakish recall - however - sure, its possible its exaggerated.
I don't know that Gladwell 'falls for anything' but just takes the accounts as reported and points out how a very high IQ, in itself, does not necessarily mean much at all. Langan is the example of someone who never really does enough with it.
@@jonathandewberry289 what has he contributed? And don't say CTMU, his work is a bunch of mumble jumble bullshit. He uses large words for no use but to sound intelligent. He's no da Vinci, Galileo, Shakespeare, polyglot, mathematician, software genius, successful businessman, or accomplished academic. He has contributed nothing.
He is chalk full of excuses. He wouldnt come up with excuses if he was content with his life.
@@jonathandewberry289 not to mention, it wouldnt be the first time someone cheated an i.q. test
@@jonathandewberry289 he has more resentment and ego than anything
@@samsmith9075 sure but so do a lot of High-IQ Geniuses. If Bond 007 movies have taught us anything - that is exactly what supergeniuses do. Mind you, Langan didn't poison his teacher for egotistical and resentful reasons. That was Oppenheimer, supergenius of The Manhattan Project and more.
The higher the IQ the more ego and resentment, hand in hand.
Mg, heck yo dm in. Heterosexual way smh, hhhhhaaaaa, good lookin on outlet I need ya I type, write very hectic I Need to vent then I vent I’m good,..
so this guy juxtaposes Trump and Hitler at 12:30 after an unbelievably tedious description of Chamberlain and Hitler conversations, and conversations that didn't occur, prior to WW2. I cancelled this little putz at 12:45.
yt:
The funny thing pathologically number because night comprehensively soak till a waiting bank. redundant, juicy place
Hello my name is Donald Trump. I love stupid people: quot.
blablabla................such crap
This conversation was disappointing to me. Listened for 45 mins. I just cannot help thinking it would be so differently valuable and pertinent if people of color and women- anythg but two white men - were engaged with these ideas. The absences/blind spots here are really loud.
Do you know Gladwell’s héritage ? 🤣