Behavior: Jumping to Conclusions

• Share

(2 of 2)

But if Gladwell sometimes plays fast and loose with his evidence, he's easy to forgive because going fast is so darn fun. It's hard to say what Gladwell is trying to prove with a section on professional food tasters, for instance, but, hey, did you know that food scientists have a 15-point scale for measuring crispiness, on which Quaker's Chewy Chocolate Chunk Granola Bars are a 2 and Kellogg's Corn Flakes a 14? What Gladwell is saying in Blink is often less compelling than the facts he uses to back himself up. Who doesn't know that tall, good-looking people get preferential treatment? But Gladwell's analysis of the political career of Warren G. Harding--who was a lousy President but (apparently) a hot, hot man--is mesmerizing.

Remember the Pepsi Challenge? It was what we can call a "Classic" example of the limits of Blink-style thinking. According to Gladwell, Coca-Cola executives were so distraught over statistics showing that Pepsi beat Coke in those blind, one-sip face-offs that they came up with New Coke. New Coke beat Pepsi in taste tests, but it flopped spectacularly in the market. The geniuses at Coca-Cola had forgotten that the real world is very different from a focus group. Nobody drinks Coke blind, nor do they just take one sip. Consumers drink a whole can, and that affects how they make their choices.

Which proves what, exactly? My conscious mind has no idea. But to Gladwell's credit, my unconscious found it royally entertaining. ???