In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting chapter entitled “The Theory of Thin Slices: How a Little Bit of Knowledge Goes a Long Way.” “Thin slicing,” writes Gladwell, “refers to the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience.” The concept is demonstrated in the work of psychologist John Gottman, who for decades has been analyzing videotaped conversations of married couples, in an effort to understand the “language” of the subtle cue.
Gottman has become quite adept: after viewing only a short segment of a conversation, he is able to predict with 95 percent accuracy whether the couple will still be together in 15 years. Often Gottman’s analyses defy common expectations. An apparently healthy relationship may turn out to be essentially unhealthy, and vice versa. Gladwell writes that when he (Gladwell) tried his hand at analyzing conversations he was able to predict correctly only 50 percent of the time, that he “would have done just as well by flipping a coin.” The difficulty is that the cues–guarded words, fleeting expressions, frowns, changes of tone, and so forth–are numerous, subtle, and often ambiguous. What makes Gottman so accurate, Gladwell discovers, is that he simplifies his task, focusing not on every last detail, but on the more obvious, and more obviously important, cues, which he calls the “Four Horsemen”: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, and contempt.
Perhaps I’m just obsessed with communications pedagogy, but I’m wondering if any of this could be applied to the teaching of writing. Gladwell doesn’t mention (at least in this chapter) whether Gottman applies thin slicing prescriptively, and of course Gottman’s subjects wouldn’t be able to change behavioral patterns as easily as Gottman can recognize them. Yet it would certainly be helpful (I would think) for a marriage partner to know when s/he is being contemptuous, and to know that such behavior can undermine a relationship.
Similarly, it would be extremely helpful for student writers to know what they consistently do that undermines their writing. Might there possibly be writers’ “Horsemen,” tendencies that could be verbalized in more concrete terms than “unfocused argument,” “gaps in logic,” “organizational problems,” and the like? Might it be possible for an instructor to “thin slice” student writing, to quickly read through a short passage and be able to recommend, in a phrase or two, something that would have far greater consequence for the student than a close reading of, and copious commenting on, an extended essay? This would greatly reduce the labor-intensiveness of teaching writing, as well as more efficiently addressing the needs of the student. But perhaps this is an overly “pipey” dream.
Recent Comments
RSS