sanguinity: (geek (2) as x approaches infinity)
[personal profile] sanguinity
19. Atul Gawande, Better.

Let me be up front about this: the way folks talk about Malcolm Gladwell is the way I feel about Atul Gawande. Gladwell is a bit too pop and shiny for me, and his "look at this in a new way" perspectives often seem a bit of a stretch. Sure, I learned some neat stuff, but it's mostly shiny factoids -- his framework ideas seldom reach my personal threshold of whoah.

Atul Gawande, though-- Well, I've got a great, big, sciencey crush on Gawande.

Part of my crush, of course, is that our interests match up astonishingly well. We both think of the world in terms of systems, we both are constantly poking at the structural, meta- causes of why things fail. We also both wrestle with personal responsibility, both what it means to do right, and what actually doing right (in the real world, non-theoretically) requires. When I read Gawande, it's clear that we've both been thinking about, and wrestling with, the same things. And it's clear that Gawande has been thinking about them better.

Gawande's most recent book, Better, is a natural follow-up to Complications -- not simply an elucidation of how and why systems fail (the main topical theme of Complications) -- but a discussion of what success looks like, and what is required to bring that within practical reach. (Or rather, what improvement looks like. Gawande, like me, believes that any practical notion of success is best defined as improvement.) Gawande's essays are drawn from his experiences as a surgeon, but the specific topics are diverse: medicalization of state executions; the success (and its unanticipated non-monetary costs) of the new improvements in battlefield medicine; changing global medical demographics and the struggle of local medicine to keep up; the reason that the C-section has become ubiquitous in modern medicine while less-traumatic birth techniques have become all but forgotten. And through it all, Gawande twines his questioning about the world. It is difficult to say whether Better is a work about science, about philosophy, about the structure of reality, or simply the struggle to live a meaningful life.

Yum. Those of you who know me, you can see why I have a crush on this man, yes?

In his afterword, he highlights a recurring theme of the book: that groundbreaking advances in science often don't come from institutional researchers, but from folks in the field trying to get through the actual, practical work that needs doing. (I concur: my greatest science heroes are folks who "simply" noticed things that had not been previously noticed, and who then made them noticeable to others.) Gawande obviously feels that a good portion of fulfillment in life comes from the ability to make things better, and to not feel like a cog in a machine. He makes five suggestions that he has found useful -- suggestions that could almost as easily be retitled "A Layman's Guide to Fulfillment Through Doing In Situ Science":
  1. Ask an unscripted question.
  2. Don't complain.
  3. Count something.
  4. Write something.
  5. Change.
I could write essays on most of those -- especially the first and third. And I could draw great parallels between that list and why I participate in this group. But I won't. Let me just say that I find this book crazy-inspiring, and not in the flash-and-charisma way, but in the quiet, deep, this-is-life-the-universe-and-everything sort of way.

So. Yeah. I'm a crushity-happy science geek. Who, fresh out of Gawande books, is comforting herself with his New Yorker archives.
sanguinity: woodcut by M.C. Escher, "Snakes" (Default)
[personal profile] sanguinity
14. Malcolm Gladwell, Blink.

Gladwell has a readable, story-centric style that tends toward science-by-anecdote: that's either a mark for him or against him, depending on how firm a footing you like under your science writing. (Disclosure: I like something of a firmer footing than Gladwell tends to give. Fortunately, I can indulge myself by hitting some of the primary literature when I'm done reading the book.)

In Blink, Gladwell does a nice job of describing the light and dark sides of unconscious cognition. On the upside, unconscious decision-making is far faster, and thus far more useable, than rational, conscious decision-making. Unfortunately, it is also subject to incorporating irrelevant inputs, and worse, of not leaving any evidence in your conscious mind that it has done so. Even though double-blind testing will show that you think that ice-cream tastes better because it is packaged in a round container, if you ask yourself why you liked that ice-cream better, you will never get back an answer that mentions that high-class half-pint package. Gladwell spends a while developing how irrelevant inputs work in the neutral ground of product packaging, before he wades into his discussion of implicit racism, implicit sexism, and the other big uglies of the unconscious mind.

I've run across Project Implicit before -- a study that measures racial biases through reaction times to particular cognitive tasks. (That website has an opportunity to test yourself, if you're interested. Find yourself an undistracted fifteen minutes and click "Research".) However, I hadn't run across Claude M. Steele's work on stereotype threat -- an impairment in performance induced by the fear of conforming to a negative stereotype.

I spent some time exploring the stereotype-threat literature yesterday afternoon, and it is disturbing -- basically, if you know that there is a negative stereotype about your group, and you're in a situation where it might be fulfilled, it'll screw up your ability to perform well on academic tests. Which is rotten for folks who are battling stereotypes about academic performance.

Long digression, summarizing some of the literature on Stereotype Threat )

Only a relatively small portion of Blink is explicitly about race. Gladwell, as always, ranges far and wide in his exploration, asking you to consider familiar examples from another view: police work, firefighting, war games, classical orchestras. Unfortunately, there is a section on decision-making under stress that concerns me -- I'm not well-versed in the social politics of autism, but I suspect that Gladwell's referring to certain kinds of bad decisions as "temporary autism" skates very close to offensive, if it doesn't actually cross the line.

Otherwise, Blink is an engaging read, and brings up some interesting research findings. It isn't going to satisfy your curiosity on any one subject -- that isn't what Gladwell does. But it does give you some interesting ideas to explore, and some resources if you want to pursue any of the topics further.

-----
footnotes for stereotype threat )

Profile

50books_poc: (Default)
Writers of Color 50 Books Challenge

August 2024

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 10th, 2025 01:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios