I'm not overly excited about this book, and I'm having a really hard time getting through it.

"Blink", on the other hand, although it was also somewhat aimless like this book, at least it was enjoyable to read.

Whereas I couldn't put "Blink" down, I just can't seem to pick up this one.

It's as if the author has a personal grudge against the other book, yet at the same time, completely missed the essence of "Blink".

I'll leave you all with this thought. It is crucial to both think and blink.

You do the math...if you're able to make a rapid decision, then go ahead and do it.

If it requires more time, then it simply needs to take longer.

There you have it, and I didn't even have to read "Think" all the way through.

This shows that sometimes, our initial impressions and gut feelings can be just as important as careful thought and analysis.

We should learn to trust our instincts while also being willing to take the time to consider all the facts.

Maybe the author of this book would have benefited from doing just that.

I do not wish to disparage this book as it does contain certain salient points regarding the art of making good decisions.

However, in an effort to be relevant, the author attempts to ride on the coattails of the popular NYT bestseller Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, which is a psychological assessment of the art of making skilled decisions rapidly.

LeGault dismisses Gladwell and other psychology as new age science, stating that the downfall of our country is happening because no one knows how to be analytical and make sound decisions based on observation.

The author cites our growing economic and business decline in sound judgment, as well as our meager output of educated students.

The only issue with LeGault is that few of his points are founded on anything other than anecdotes and second-hand sources.

Who LeGault is mostly angry with are the people who make decisions he disagrees with politically (mostly liberals).

If anyone were to read Gladwell's book, which LeGault criticizes, they would see that at the very least Gladwell supports his observations and theory with research (which I would argue is based on science and analysis, even if it is psychological in nature).

Just because LeGault does not agree with the outcome does not mean Gladwell is not a "critical thinker."

Any evolutionary psychologist could tell you that some of our behaviors are instinctual. It doesn't take an hour to assess emergency situations.

But LeGault is correct in noting that Americans tend to rely on emotion over reason far too much, particularly leaders making decisions of national importance.

However, LeGault is being somewhat deceptive when he claims to use critical thinking but chooses to title his last chapter: How to Save Civilization in One Easy Step. Does that sound credible to you?

The only reason I continued to read this book was because I hoped I would walk away with at least one interesting tibit.

I kept turning the pages, anticipation building within me. I thought surely, among all these words, there would be something that would catch my attention, something that would make the reading worthwhile.

But alas, as I reached the end of the book, I was met with disappointment. There was nothing. No captivating story, no profound insights, no unique ideas.

It was as if the author had failed to deliver on the promise that the book held. I felt a sense of frustration and a bit of sadness that I had wasted my time on something that ultimately had no value.

Perhaps I had set my expectations too high, but still, I couldn't help but feel let down. I closed the book with a sigh and wondered if there would ever be a book that could truly satisfy my thirst for knowledge and entertainment.

Please provide the article that needs to be rewritten and expanded so that I can help you.

While Mr. LeGault presents interesting ideas and concepts throughout the text, many of them unfortunately get muddled down. His political diatribes seem to overshadow the other aspects of his work. Additionally, his parenting ideas and the way he tears down our educational system in America severely dilute the story. I truly try to keep an open mind and listen to all sides of a point. However, in this case, I am not entirely sure if it worked. It's as if there are too many elements vying for attention, and the overall message gets lost in the shuffle. Maybe if he had focused more on one or two main themes and developed them thoroughly, the text would have been more impactful. As it stands, it feels a bit disjointed and hard to follow at times.

I had wanted to read Blink, but after this experience, I THINK that it would be a waste of time. There are some excellent points in it, no doubt.

However, based on what I have learned so far, I'm not sure if it would offer me anything truly new or valuable. Maybe it has some interesting insights into the power of our first impressions and snap judgments.

But perhaps I can gain similar knowledge from other sources that are more relevant to my current interests and needs. I don't want to spend my precious time on a book that might not have a significant impact on my thinking or understanding.

I'll probably do some more research and consider other options before making a final decision. Maybe there are other books out there that will truly capture my attention and provide me with the kind of intellectual stimulation that I'm seeking.

It seemed like he was extremely angry at Malcolm Gladwell for his book "Blink."

Perhaps he had some strong opinions and disagreements with the ideas presented in the book. Maybe the concepts put forward by Gladwell in "Blink" clashed with his own beliefs or experiences.

It could be that he felt that the book was not well-researched or that the arguments were not convincing enough. Or perhaps he was simply offended by the way Gladwell presented certain topics.

Whatever the reason, his anger towards Gladwell was palpable. It was as if he couldn't contain his frustration and had to express it.

Maybe this anger would lead to further discussions and debates about the book and its ideas. Or perhaps it would simply remain as a personal feeling that he would carry with him.

Only time would tell what the outcome of his anger towards Malcolm Gladwell for "Blink" would be.

I have rather mixed feelings regarding this book.

On one hand, the premise, which emphasizes that decisions demand critical thinking and study, is clearly and well-stated. Moreover, there is an abundance of evidence provided to back it up. However, for a person who already holds this belief, it is quite challenging to discover anything truly new within its pages.

Although the book isn't overly long (336 pages excluding the notes), I feel that it could have been significantly condensed. The same points seem to be discussed repeatedly without much advancement in the thought process.

Nevertheless, this book did manage to make me reflect on my life to a certain extent. Do I truly take full advantage of my opportunities, such as education or the ability to read, when I am surrounded by an overwhelming amount of information? This realization didn't occur until the last third of the book, but it is sufficient to warrant a somewhat positive review.

While I haven't read "Blink," reading LeGault's arguments has piqued my curiosity about what Gladwell has to say. Perhaps I will pick up "Blink" once I have made my way through the stack of books I currently have on the go.

LeGault's观点认为思考是好的，不思考是坏的。他极力倡导思考，以至于我在阅读时不自觉地默默念叨着“思考，这就是我们今天要做的”。

然而，这本书不仅仅是在颂扬思考的优点。它还“分析了美国生活中逻辑和推理能力下降的原因，并提出了阻止和扭转这种下滑趋势的解决方案”。其论点是“批判性思维取决于分析、逻辑和行动。这是一个两步走的过程”。其结构和要点如下：
1. **下降的原因**：
    - 直觉比批判性思维容易得多。
    - 批判性思维困难且耗时。
    - 多年来，诸如自尊等批判性思维的替代方案一直流行。
    - 政治正确性压制了开放的探究、言论自由和学习的欲望。
    - 营销和媒体倾向于快速判断，而不是费力的批判性思考。
    - 人们屈服于压力和信息过载的观念，他们用启发式方法取代了批判性思维。
2. **伟大思想家的例子**：
    - 赫拉克利特——明确支持客观现实的概念，基础热力学。
    - 爱因斯坦——发现了广义和狭义相对论。
    - 哥白尼——用日心说取代了地心说。
    - 开普勒——用椭圆轨道取代了行星的圆形轨道。
    - 莎士比亚——很好地描述了人类的状况。
    - 爱迪生——拥有超过1000项专利，在经历了数千次失败后发明了白炽灯泡。
    - 达尔文——提出了自然选择的进化论。
    - 林恩·马古利斯——提出了新的细胞进化理论；她是这个名单上唯一的女性，她将自己的成功归功于芝加哥大学的伟大书籍阅读清单。
    - 爱德华·威滕——有天赋的数学家，进一步推动了对弦理论的理解。
3. **解决方案**：
    - 回归纪律和客观标准。
    - 接受风险以及随之而来的更大回报的可能性。
    - 拥抱客观性。
    - 进行批判性思考。

LeGault的前提存在缺陷。他对所谓美国社会衰落的支持是一堆随机的事实和思考（小心地省略了其他一些事实）。他列举了通用汽车的衰落、美国篮球基本功的下降、音乐歌词、乐器使用、电视、电子游戏、报纸的衰落以及美国学生考试成绩的下降。他还进一步列举了注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADD和ADHD）的增加、肥胖（！）、心理治疗师的使用、电子搅拌机的使用以及压力的增加。他听起来就像一个老人在抱怨世界正在走向地狱，下一代毫无价值且注定失败。这很烦人，也没有说服力。

正如他鼓励我们做的那样，批判性地思考LeGault的清单。这些“问题”不能都用一个简单而笼统的“美国人需要更多的批判性思维”来解释。通用汽车的衰落是由于自满和官僚主义、新的国际竞争以及贪婪的工会等多种因素共同作用的结果。LeGault自己也指出，美国汽车制造商最近有所改善。美国篮球的统治地位依然存在。它在2004年没有赢得金牌，但在2008年、2012年和2016年赢得了金牌。音乐品味因人而异，说一代人的偏好比另一代人更好或更差是荒谬的。《紫雾》并不是对批判性思维的明确呼吁。是的，现在的孩子比过去更倾向于电子设备。这怎么会是一件坏事呢？人们读报纸少了，但他们在互联网上读的更多了；由于方便和成本的原因，他们用一种媒体替代了另一种媒体。人们肥胖是因为他们摄入的卡路里比他们在运动中消耗的多。更多的阅读和思考并不能帮助他们减肥；就这些是久坐的活动而言，它们会加剧问题。现在比以往任何时候都有更多的信息可用，而且新信息的产生速度比以往任何时候都快。许多以前简单的事情现在都需要专业知识，因为技术更加精确和复杂。想想修理一辆现代汽车与一辆旧的、简单的汽车的难度。想想每年产生的数千页新法规。想想软件更新和变化的速度。现在试着在这些领域中的任何一个领域中导航，更不用说所有领域了。

随着所有这些新信息和不断变化的技术的出现，人们投入工作的时间更多了，需要专业知识的不熟悉的学科也更多了。这并不是人们没有进行批判性思考的反映。这是对一个日益复杂和相互关联的世界的适应。诸如打字、摄影、视频录制、视频编辑、编程、网络工程、数据分析等全新的技能一直在不断发展和改进。这些技能在自20世纪20年代以来就存在的知识测试（如SAT）中都没有体现出来。也许这种快速的信息流正在对发育中的大脑造成严重破坏，导致（过度）诊断出ADD和ADHD。与此同时，犯罪率下降了，人们的寿命比以往任何时候都长，新的发明也在不断涌现。也许批判性思维并没有LeGault认为的那样受到威胁。

因此，LeGault错误地诊断或夸大了缺乏批判性思维的问题。更糟糕的是，这本书是不必要的。它未能娱乐、启发或说服读者。当然，思考比不思考好。谁会有不同的想法呢？答案可能是马尔科姆·格拉德威尔，但甚至他可能也不会。《思考》的存在理由是对马尔科姆·格拉德威尔的《眨眼之间》的一种制衡（或从中捞钱）。《眨眼之间》（这位受欢迎但可能被高估的格拉德威尔写的最差的一本书）赞扬了一些快速判断的应用，同时也突出了反例。在这里，LeGault认为深入的批判性思维优于直觉和快速判断。我同意。以至于我不需要336页来确认这种共识。

我甚至接受LeGault的许多具体抱怨的有效性。太多的孩子被贴上了ADD和ADHD的标签。太多的人想和他们的孩子做朋友，而不是做父母。自尊不应该是目的本身。客观标准很重要。智力不是也不应该是平等主义的。二氧化碳和全球变暖可能不是对我们环境的严重威胁。电视可能是肤浅和愚蠢的。媒体和营销人员利用恐惧来激励我们。激进的女权主义者、环保主义者和多元文化主义者弊大于利，缺乏合理的论据。身份政治有可能摧毁文明。批判性思维、科学方法、证据、客观观察和怀疑精神并不是直男白人男性的专属领域——尽管历史上这个群体比其他群体更多地使用了这些方法。这些系统对所有人开放，对任何接受它们的人都有益。

所有这些都是真的。但LeGault提出的“更多批判性思维”的处方过于笼统，没有用处。他还不如鼓励人们做好事而不是做坏事。而那些激进的女权主义者、环保主义者和多元文化主义者也会同样轻易地指责LeGault没有进行批判性思考。我碰巧在一些具体问题上同意LeGault的观点，但他并没有接近解决他所提到的任何最具争议性的问题。

可能不同意这本书的人要么不会费心去读它，要么不会觉得它有说服力，因为根据LeGault的说法，他们读得不够好或思考得不够好。同意这本书的人不需要被告知要思考，因为他们已经重视思考并正在努力这样做——例如，通过阅读这本书。因此，尽管思考是每个人都应该做的事情，但《思考》在对读者的吸引力方面陷入了无人问津的境地。

值得注意的引语：
“敏锐、深刻、聪明的思考正逐渐成为一门失传的艺术，越来越成为专家和大师的领域。这种趋势令人担忧，并引发了一个问题：美国是否正在失去思考的能力？如果为了便于论证，我们将思考定义为利用知识和推理来解决问题、规划和产生有利结果，那么答案显然是肯定的。”
“案子结了……统计数据和分析几乎总是胜过本能和猜测。”
“今天，由于各种文化、政治和社会趋势的影响，我们在寻找真理的过程中无法进行任何有意义的批判性思考，我们在很大程度上转向了基于情感的对任何给定情况或问题的‘分析’。因为我们的时代确实已经成为了情感的时代。”
“政治经济学家和社会学家威廉·格雷厄姆·萨姆纳对批判性思维给出了这样的定义：‘批判性思维……是对任何被提出以供接受的命题进行检查和测试，以确定它们是否与现实相符……它是我们防止错觉、欺骗、迷信和误解自己及我们的尘世环境的唯一保证。’”
“文森特·瑞安·鲁吉罗说，批判性思维涉及的三个基本活动是寻找证据、确定证据的含义以及得出关于证据的结论。因此，敏锐的观察力、广泛而专业的知识、记忆力、良好的信息和分析工具对于提高批判性思维都将是重要的。”
“为什么我们应该关心阅读呢？因为简而言之，即使在一个日益视觉化和数字化的世界里，书面文字仍然是传递和获取关于世界的详细、深入、主要技术和社会知识的最佳方式。”
“想想吧！想想好处，那就是：更健康的身体、更稳定的工作、对生活新的和改善的兴趣以及一个更强大、更安全的国家。而且这不需要花费一分钱。”
“自1985年以来，美国学生中注意力缺陷障碍的诊断增加了15倍，尽管没有一篇经过同行评审的论文声称证明ADD有实际的医学基础，但他们经常被开处方药进行治疗。”
“从1952年到1994年，美国心理学会（APA）的《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》（DSM）中列出的精神障碍数量从112种增加到了374种，增长了超过300%。但是一种精神障碍是如何进入备受推崇的DSM的呢？……据参加DSM会议的心理学家、APA代表蕾妮·加芬克尔说，……‘智力努力的水平之低令人震惊。诊断是通过多数投票决定的，就像我们选择一家餐馆一样。’”
“阅读DSM的演变过程就会知道这一点：它完全是一份政治文件。它包括什么，不包括什么，都是激烈竞选、冗长谈判、内斗和权力游戏的结果。”——路易丝·阿姆斯特朗，《他们称之为帮助》
“政治正确性还在我们的学术机构和更广泛的社会中灌输了一种恐惧和不确定性，这种恐惧和不确定性对开放的探究以及物质进步和高质量批判性和创造性思维的价值观起到了毒害作用。通过限制某些结果，政治正确性阻碍了开放、批判性提问和推理的过程本身。然而，实际上，政治正确性不仅仅是关于多样性、宽容和拥抱。它还关乎权力和法律行动的威胁。”
“歧视是应受谴责的，但歧视从哪里开始和结束——一个人被忽视晋升、一个不恰当的短语、一种态度？政治正确警察必须时刻保持警惕。”
“我认为肥胖的根本和主要原因（除了遗传或医疗状况外）很可能是许多人日益贫瘠的智力生活。”
“政治正确性的力量和多元文化主义的倡导者已经得逞了这么久，以至于社会的第一本能是适应而不是挑战或挑衅。”
“一旦父母开始主张他们对孩子有高期望的权利，而不是屈从于孩子的同龄人或自我形象所设定的最低标准，一个立即的新秩序就会建立起来。在这个等式中引入了一个外部的、不可动摇的力量。一切都不是可以协商的……人类天生更喜欢结构而不是混乱。”
“环保运动以想象中的、统计上不显著或无法证明的风险为幌子，将理性和科学政治化了。因为环境是‘好的’，所以不仅对科学，而且对环境极端主义对经济、社会或人类心理的成本进行理性质疑都变得政治不正确了。”
“研究表明，仅仅物质上的舒适并不能确保幸福。存在并不是自由、释放或满足，它只是存在。要真正快乐，一个人需要投入，运用他或她的头脑。要真正快乐，一个人需要觉得自己已经完成了一些事情。”
“福尔摩斯观察到，理想的侦探必须具备三个品质：观察力、推理能力和知识。”
“女权主义者、环保主义者和许多其他被剥夺权利的群体无视科学所创造的所有医学和日常奇迹，指责理性主义制造了比它解决的更多的问题，并将一种白人、男性、西方的价值体系强加于文化和社会。而我们还以为我们只是在运用我们的头脑。”
“毫无疑问，对于未能正确进行原本可能被视为合理思考的行为，或者根本不思考的行为，有许多其他的解释，但我相信最简单、最全面的解释是这样的：广泛接受一种类似《眨眼之间》的思维方式。正是这种曾经赋予批判性思维和理性的力量的减弱，理性影响人们、政策和机构的能力的丧失，导致了美国和整个西方文明良好结果的减少。改变这种思维方式是我们这个时代的核心挑战。
这项任务涉及到有意改变一种思维模式，这种思维模式将情感、教条、政治阴谋、伪科学、对风险的厌恶和内疚制度化，以取代经验主义、客观性和理性。赌注是巨大的——不亚于我们的生活水平、国家安全以及提高世界其他地区生活质量的可能性。”
“猪肉桶项目、官僚冗余、环境和安全过度监管、侵权法、平权行动项目以及媒体中有偏见或公然虚假的报道，都可以理解地在公众心目中灌输了一种严重的怀疑，即客观性和真理是否仍然存在。”

The statement "Could have been shorter. Interesting thought on where the American society is heading." presents an interesting perspective.

It implies that perhaps the original content was a bit lengthy, but despite that, it contains an engaging idea about the direction in which American society is moving.

This thought-provoking comment makes one wonder what specific aspects of American society were being considered.

Is it related to social, political, economic, or cultural changes?

Maybe the author was reflecting on the impact of technology, globalization, or demographic shifts.

It could also be about the evolving values and attitudes of the American people.

Whatever the case may be, it shows that there is an ongoing discussion and analysis about the future of American society.

This kind of reflection is important as it can help us better understand the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

By considering different viewpoints and ideas, we can make more informed decisions and contribute to the shaping of a better future for all.

Overall, the comment serves as a reminder that the study of society is a complex and ever-evolving field, and that there is always more to learn and discover.

Challenge: A Book You Started but Never Finished

We all have that one book sitting on our shelves or in our e-readers that we started with great enthusiasm but somehow never managed to complete. It could be due to various reasons. Maybe the story didn't grip us as we expected, or life got in the way with its many distractions. Sometimes, the writing style might have been too complex or not to our taste.

However, not finishing a book doesn't mean it's a failure. It could be a sign that we're evolving in our reading preferences or that we simply need to come back to it at a different time. There are books that I've started and put aside, only to pick them up again years later and find that I'm now more receptive to their charm.

The challenge of a book we started but never finished can also be an opportunity for self-reflection. It makes us think about what we truly look for in a book and helps us to be more discerning in our future reading choices. So, the next time you come across that unfinished book, don't be too hard on yourself. Instead, consider giving it another chance or simply let it be a part of your reading journey.

Although I didn't like "Blink," I thought this book was very stupid in its arguments against Gladwell.

The author seemed to be nitpicking and didn't really understand the essence of Gladwell's ideas.

It felt like a waste of time to read through all the unnecessary critiques.

Instead of providing valid counterpoints, the book just seemed to be trying to discredit Gladwell for the sake of it.

I was disappointed that the author didn't offer any new perspectives or insights.

Overall, I would not recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Gladwell's work or in the topics he discusses.

It was a frustrating read and didn't add anything of value to the conversation.