It was an okay book.

However, it takes a different approach compared to "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. Instead of emphasizing on making snap judgements in a blink of an eye, it focuses on critical thinking.

The author does make some valid points about the significance of being curious and questioning the things around us. This aspect is quite valuable as it encourages readers to think deeper and not simply accept things at face value.

Nevertheless, the author seems to bash the book "Blink" quite a bit, which I don't particularly care for. I believe that both approaches have their merits and it's not necessary to discredit one in order to promote the other.

Overall, while the book has its good points, the constant criticism of "Blink" detracts from its overall appeal.

Love the idea and what the author probably has to say.

However, it is the slowest book that I have ever read.

So much so that I actually stopped reading it, which is something I never do!!

The pacing of the story was just too sluggish for my taste.

It felt like the author was taking their sweet time to unfold the plot and introduce the characters.

As a result, I found myself losing interest and getting bored.

I really wanted to like this book, but unfortunately, the slow pace was a major turnoff.

I hope the author can find a way to pick up the pace in future works, because the idea behind this book was really great.

Maybe I'll give it another try someday, but for now, it's sitting on my shelf unfinished.

This book is an extensive conservative diatribe that is simply overflowing with baseless claims and convoluted logic. It's so overwhelming that I'm truly at a loss as to where to begin critiquing it. Fortunately, a brief look at the reviews for the book on Amazon.com yielded some excellent summary phrases. For instance, one reviewer noted that it "could use a bit more thinking," while another said it was "not the book it claims to be." Yet another described it as a "painful attempt at a free ride," and one even labeled it a "Trojan horse for right-wing politics."

That's not to say there aren't any redeeming qualities in the book. After all, in 336 pages, there are bound to be a few good lines. LeGault is not a bad writer, which, in my opinion, only makes him more dangerous. The book does raise some issues that are worthy of discussion, although it adds very little of substance to those conversations.

"Th!nk" does indeed bring to light many of the problems plaguing America today, but not in the way the author had intended.

This book is in response to the book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell.

I have to say that I also rated "Blink" with 5 stars because I thoroughly enjoyed it. It presented some really interesting and thought-provoking ideas about the power of our unconscious mind and how it can influence our decisions.

However, "Think!" is a great rebuttal. Although it may be a bit more dry than "Blink", it offers a different perspective and challenges some of the assumptions made in "Blink".

I firmly believe that if you read one of these two books, you should definitely read the other as well. By doing so, you will gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and be able to form your own opinions.

Both books have their strengths and weaknesses, and by comparing and contrasting them, you can deepen your knowledge and critical thinking skills.

The author emphasizes the significance of deliberation and careful thought prior to making decisions.

He has structured and presented his book in a way that directly contrasts with Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink!”. This could have been a valid argument. However, in reality, Gladwell provided numerous examples highlighting the issues associated with making decisions based on thin-slicing.

The remainder of the book lacks a thoughtful analysis of the arguments put forth in “Blink!”, making the packaging somewhat misleading. Instead, LeGault employs the general concept of deliberative scientific thinking to take some political jabs at environmentalists and other aspects not on the right-wing agenda.

The flow-interrupting biographies further illustrate the disjointed nature of the book. Presumably, he had to meet a publisher’s deadline, and it was much easier to add a few thousand words rather than conduct a more in-depth analysis.

This approach undermines the credibility of the book and its overall message.

It began with the assertion that shallow and uncritical thinking is an issue in the present world. However, the author only presented shallow, uncritical, and anecdotal arguments to back up his claim. It seemed more like a string of rants about personal annoyances rather than a serious argument.

While his views might have some value, he failed to support them with evidence. Without solid proof, it is difficult to take his position seriously. A well-reasoned argument requires more than just opinions and stories. It needs data, research, and logical analysis.

Perhaps the author could have done more research on the topic and presented a more comprehensive and evidence-based argument. This would have made his case more convincing and likely to be taken seriously by readers. As it stands, his piece comes across as more of a发泄 than a legitimate contribution to the discussion on the importance of critical thinking.

I thought this book was okay.

LeGault makes some valid points on the lack of thinking that exists in American culture.

For example, he argues that in today's fast-paced society, people often make snap judgments without taking the time to really consider the facts.

I enjoyed Gladwell's book "Blink", which also explores the idea of rapid decision-making.

However, this book provides an interesting counterpoint by suggesting that we need to slow down and think more deeply.

At times, the book was riveting, especially when LeGault presented his own research and case studies.

Other times, it was a tough slog through his data and studies, which could be a bit dry.

Overall, though, I would say that this book is worth a read if you are interested in social commentary.

It offers a thought-provoking perspective on the state of American culture and challenges us to think more critically about our own decision-making processes.

LeGault's premise is indeed an interesting one.

However, he is not always straightforward in his interpretations. In the early chapters, he starts by giving a basic overview of the failings of intellectual inquiry in contemporary U.S. culture. But here's the catch: he uses rather questionable resources like blogs and magazine articles to do so.

Simultaneously, he critiques Gladwell's "Blink" for what seems like a peripheral stamp of approval for declines by presenting thin-slicing as unprepared thought. This is a rather disingenuous interpretation of Gladwell. To be fair, LeGault does clarify this later on in the chapters.

His anecdotal presentation of evidence stands in stark contrast to Gladwell's well-researched and documented text. Overall, this book gives the impression of being an attempt to ride on the coattails of "Blink's" success without really offering a truly meaningful critique. It leaves the reader wondering if there is more substance beneath the surface or if it's just a shallow attempt to capitalize on a popular trend.

This is an excellent book.

LeGault's work has truly challenged me in a remarkable way. It has compelled me to think more clearly and critically about various aspects.

This kind of challenge is indeed a very good thing. It forces me to step out of my comfort zone and engage with the ideas presented in a more profound manner.

By doing so, I am able to expand my intellectual horizons and gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

The book's ability to stimulate such thought-provoking responses is a testament to its quality and value.

I highly recommend it to anyone who is seeking to enhance their thinking skills and broaden their perspective.

It is a must-read for those who are eager to grow intellectually and embrace new challenges.

Overall, this book has had a significant impact on me, and I am grateful to LeGault for writing it.

Interesting case studies and neat ideas are presented in this book. It doesn't manage to draw any truly outstanding conclusions, yet it does put forward some valid and thought-provoking points. The case studies are diverse and engaging, offering different perspectives on various topics. The neat ideas presented within the book have the potential to spark new ways of thinking and approaching problems. Although it may not provide a comprehensive and conclusive answer, it does succeed in making the reader stop and reflect. It encourages one to consider different possibilities and to look at things from a fresh angle. Overall, this book may not be a definitive guide, but it is definitely worth reading for the interesting case studies and the food for thought it provides.

Bless him.

I truly feel bad about giving this book a two-star rating. The reason is that it's evident that LeGault has dedicated his life's energy to writing this book.

The low rating doesn't stem from a bad premise at all. In fact, the premise might have been quite interesting. However, it's simply almost impossible to get engaged with the book.

Written as a critique of Blink, LeGault strongly opposes Gladwell on nearly every point. He presents an overwhelming amount of facts, quotes, and statistics. Unfortunately, he repeats the same points over and over again, which really slows down the overall narrative.

Halfway through reading, I just wanted to give up and make it stop. But I'm glad that I persevered until the chapters on the dumbing down of education. Those particular chapters were the most interesting parts of the whole book. They offered some valuable insights and perspectives that made the effort of reading through the rest of the book somewhat worthwhile.

Overall, while the book has its merits in certain areas, the repetitive nature and the difficulty in getting into it prevent it from receiving a higher rating.

I first want to say this is not an invitation to debate.

I truly appreciate others' opinions and their points of view. I have a deep love for this book. Although I am not a PhD, I can understand the premise that Gladwell makes in Blink extremely well. He writes in a way that caters to those with itching ears, and he is very proficient at it. I have a great affection for Tipping Point and have even utilized it in my daily business operations.

I consider myself more of a realist, observing how the Western world is tuning out classical thinking and antiquated ways in the name of modernization. In fact, due to specialization and comfort, we are truly experiencing a devolution in the mind. Western society seems to be all about avoiding difficulty, seeking praise for even the simplest of victories, and staying safe within one's "lane". Gladwell promotes this kind of thinking by suggesting that with time and experience, one can trust their instincts and stop over-analyzing. I completely agree that one of the biggest hang-ups in Western Culture is over-analyzing, but the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of Blink! Risk is not inherently evil as long as one has the capability to handle it.

I firmly believe that these two books are complementary rather than contradictory. One should read Blink!, but not blindly follow the principles suggested. Instead, also read Think! and make rational decisions through critical analysis and by taking calculated risks.

What Think! has given me is a reminder that the classics, such as literature, music, and art, are of great value. It has also made me realize that always playing it safe can be dangerous if done too often. Accepting civil norms without question will ultimately lead to the end of our society, and spoiled kids and adults are of no practical use.

Think! is not the best book I've ever read (how tragic would that be?). Neither are any of Gladwell's books. However, he does have the ability to attract a large audience. I tend to be cautious when something has mass appeal, as it usually means that it only confirms existing beliefs rather than challenging them.

J