Reading Malcolm Gladwell’s work makes me feel intelligent.
Not because Gladwell’s writing is akin to the final season of Lost, more so because at the end of each chapter of Gladwell’s previous books, I felt like I learned something.
This is why I was irrationally excited to read, What the Dog Saw, a collection of Gladwell’s essays from the New Yorker. Instead of several opportunities to learn about parts of one idea, like snap judgments in Blink, each essay was an opportunity to learn something new.
Over 19 essays, I learned about the evolution of feminism through hair dye advertising, the difference between choking and panicking (especially relevant as I read that essay during the 2010 Winter Olympics), a more effective method for conducting job interviews and why we have multiple mustard choices in our grocery stores, but essentially only one type of ketchup.
For me, the two most relevant essays were a profile of Cesar Milan and a comparison between pit bull bans and racial profiling.
The former helped make my walks with my dog much more pleasant when we meet other dogs and their owners. Now I don’t even look at the other dog, I keep my eyes totally on the other person. You’ll have to read the essay to find out why
The latter was an interesting study in how overreaction can have unintended consequences (my boxer falls under Ontario’s pit bull ban for having similar physical characteristics to a pit bull) and how often problems with animals (and by extrapolation, humans) aren’t germane to the animal, but to the animal’s situation. To paraphrase, Chip and Dan Heath in Switch, “what we have is a situation problem, not a people problem.”
Shortly before, What the Dog Saw was published, Gladwell wrote another canine-influenced essay investigating the similarities between dogfighting and football. I highly recommend reading that essay as well.