Review by Robert McCool
“Talking to Strangers” is a look at miscommunication.
Malcom Gladwell's 2019 nonfiction book is a look at how communication fails when there are no common expectations between strangers in the language they use.
“Talking to Strangers” (Hachette Book Group, ISBN978-0-316-47852-6) presents cases where spoken language is subverted by non-verbal cues that can be misconstrued by the observer to mean something other than what they are meant to be.
The case studies range from Fidel Castro's spy, and Adolf Hitler, to Jerry Sandusky, the fallacy of facile expression in the TV show “Friends”, Amanda Knox's guilt in Italy, a drunken fraternity encounter that goes horribly wrong with a sexual assault, a imprisoned terrorist, poor Sylvia Plath signaling her death warrant to her acquaintances, and most importantly, the American police arresting an innocent women which leads to her death.
Malcom uses the theories of psychologist Tim Levine to demonstrate how we are hard-wired to believe the best of strangers, as long as their eyes meet ours, or they physically defer to us in a conversation. England's World War II era Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed Adolf Hitler didn't want a war because he looked der Fuhrer in the eyes and saw what he thought was honesty. Better he should have listened closer to Hitler's words.
Why do some cops escalate aggressive behavior when their authority is challenged? Are they able to differentiate stress reaction from guilt? Not with the training they receive in order to become a law-enforcer.
They are the exception to the innocent theory. They have no automatic assumption of the truth when confronting suspects, instead, they look for guilt first and follow wherever that assumed perception leads. People sometimes die, especially in today's world, because of that training.
African Americans and Latinos suffer significantly more of this than Whites, due to built-in biases and automatic racism in police work. Again, people die.
Does drinking alcohol lower inhibitions? Or rather, does it give the drinker myopic vision so all their focus is on what their intentions really are? Is communication sometimes turned toward seeking sex while under the influence?
Is that what goes horribly with one or two drunken people who are looking for simple physical contact? Is it less aggressive when it happens between couples that are unable to give or receive clear permission with the other? No. No means no, and should be that way no matter how much one or both of them drinks. No should be the given, not a challenge or competition to score social significance by predatory miscommunication.
Speaking of predators, few cases stand out as horrific as Jerry Sandusky's years long sexual brutalization of young male children in his care. As a coach he had access to hundreds of trusting boys. How was he able to hide his crimes in plain view without the subjects of his assault saying anything? How did he hide what a monster he was.
This is a case of assumed innocence gone beyond all reason. He gave so much time and interest to the children, how could he be so bad if he acted as a father figure to so many kids? People at Penn State knew what he was doing, yet they did nothing to stop him.
He was one of the good guys for so many years, he communicated innocent interest in his victims, and none of them came forward to complain during his years of “giving” them attention they wouldn't have received anywhere else. He was a sanctified liar, and people believed him. Until they didn't. Trust is gained through the filter of our own experiences, and he destroyed all of “his” boys trust in innocence.
This is a thick book well worth the time invested in reading it. It is also a relief from reading pop-fiction. It says a lot in a clear, concise tone that sticks with one for a long time.
It was December's book club selection, and I thank the library Director for making the choice to read it. The sub-title of the book is, “WHAT WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE PEOPLE WE DON'T KNOW,” and it gives us a sharper, clearer, and hopefully more intuitive way of understanding the people in our lives.
