Book SummaryTalking to Strangers, by Malcolm Gladwell

1-Page Summary1-Page Book Summary of Talking to Strangers

In today’s society, people often find themselves in encounters with complete strangers. Judges have to grant or deny a stranger’s freedom. College students meet a stranger at a party and have to decide whether to give out their phone number. People invest large sums of money based on a total stranger’s recommendations.

This book is about why we are so bad at understanding the strangers we come across. By looking at stories from world history and recent news, you’ll begin to understand the strategies people use to translate the words and intentions of strangers. You’ll learn where those strategies came from. And, you’ll begin to notice how those strategies ultimately fail.

Two Puzzles

There are two major puzzles about interacting with strangers that this book will attempt to answer.

1. Why can’t we identify when a stranger is lying to our face?
2. Why does meeting a stranger face-to-face sometimes make it harder to make sense of that person than it would be without meeting them at all?

Three Answers

The problem at the heart of the two puzzles is that people assume that they can make sense of others based on relatively simple strategies. But when it comes to strangers, nothing is as simple as it seems.

There are three major strategies that people use to make sense of strangers:

1. People default to truth.
2. People assume transparency.
3. People neglect coupled behaviors.

These three strategies ultimately fail because they operate under the assumption that simple clues are enough evidence of a stranger’s internal thoughts or intentions. We will look at each of these strategies separately to see where they came from and why they often result in failed interactions with strangers.

Flawed Strategy 1: People Default To Truth

The primary reason that most people can’t immediately identify when a stranger is lying is that human beings default to assuming truth in others.

Truth-Default and How It Works

To understand and analyze the Truth-Default Theory, psychologist Tim Levine used hundreds of versions of the same basic experiment (referred to here as the Trivia Experiment). Here is how the Trivia Experiment works:

1. Levine invites participants to a laboratory. They are told that if they can answer a trivia test correctly, they will win a cash prize.
2. Each participant is given a partner. The participants don’t know that the partner works for Levine.
3. The test is administered by an instructor named Rachel. The participants don’t know that Rachel also works for Levine.
4. Halfway through the test, Rachel leaves the room. The partner points to an envelope lying on the table and asks the participant if they should cheat on the test. The participant is given the opportunity to choose whether or not to cheat.
5. After the trivia test is over, Levine interviews the participant on tape. He asks the participant if they cheated during the test.
6. After the completion of the interviews, Levine goes back to watch the tapes and categorizes them into two categories: Liars and truth-tellers.
7. Other people then watch the interview tapes and try to decipher which participants are lying about cheating and which participants are telling the truth.

Levine’s conclusion was this: When watching the tapes, most people will guess that each person interviewed is telling the truth, unless they see a behavior that distinctly makes them think the person is lying. In other words, the viewers default to assuming truth—they naturally operate under the assumption that the majority of participants are honest. This is the Truth-Default Theory (TDT).

Is Truth-Default Beneficial?

Ultimately, Levine concluded that human beings do not need to identify lies (from a survival standpoint) as much as we need to be able to have efficient communication and trusting social encounters.

He argues that truth-default is highly advantageous to survival because it allows for effective communication and social coordination. From an evolutionary standpoint, being vulnerable to deception does not threaten human survival, but not being able to communicate (the result of being skeptical of others’ honesty) does threaten human survival.

Truth-Default Example: The CIA

The CIA is supposed to be the most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world. But even some of the best CIA agents have failed to detect liars in their midst.

During the Cold War, Aldrich Ames, one of the most senior officers in the CIA’s Soviet Counterintelligence agency, was working as a double agent for the Soviet Union. Years later, one of the most highly-respected agents in the CIA, known as the Mountain Climber, said he had always held a low opinion of Ames. But the Mountain Climber never suspected Ames as a traitor—he defaulted to trusting Ames.

If the Mountain Climber, one of the best agents at one of the most selective agencies in the world, can’t pick out a liar among his own team of spies, how can the average person be expected to be able to catch a total stranger in a lie?

Flawed Strategy 2: Assumed Transparency

The primary reason that meeting a stranger face-to-face sometimes makes that person harder to understand is that people assume a stranger will be transparent—that he will present himself outwardly in a way that accurately represents his inner feelings or intentions. But that is not usually the case.

Transparency and How It Works

Humans are not transparent—it’s all a myth. Because we have all watched the same TV shows and read the same novels where a character’s “jaw drops in surprise,” we have been conditioned to believe that there is one expression associated with any particular emotion. But that is unrealistic.

In reality, it takes getting to know someone well to be able to see through them. With a close friend, you come to understand their idiosyncratic expressions and what they mean to express. **But when you...

Talking to Strangers Summary Introduction

What Happened to Sandra Bland?

On July 10, 2015, a young woman named Sandra Bland was pulled over in a small town in Texas. She was a tall, beautiful, African American woman who liked to post inspirational videos online. She had just gotten a new job at Prairie View A&M University, and she had big plans to work while studying for her master’s degree. That day, just blocks away from her new campus, Sandy was pulled over for neglecting to signal a lane change.

The police officer’s name was Brian Encinia. His interaction with Sandra Bland began courteously enough. But after a few minutes, Sandra lit a cigarette and the officer asked her to put it out. She refused, and the interaction dissolved from there.

Brian Encinia told Sandra Bland to step out of the car. She repeatedly said no, telling the officer that he had no right to ask that of her. Eventually, Encinia began to reach into the car and try to remove Sandra by force. Finally, Sandra stepped out of her vehicle. She was arrested and put in jail, where she committed suicide three days later.

Sandra Bland’s death came at a time in American history in which police brutality against African Americans became...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 1: Two Puzzles

There are two major puzzles about interacting with strangers that this book will attempt to answer:

1. Why can’t we identify when a stranger is lying to our face?
2. Why does meeting a stranger face-to-face sometimes make it harder to make sense of that person than it would be without meeting them at all?

This book will attempt to answer those questions, but first, let’s look at some examples of these puzzling patterns of human behavior.

Puzzle 1 Example: Spies and the CIA

The CIA is supposed to be the most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world. But even some of the best CIA agents have failed to detect liars in their midst.

In 1987, two years before the fall of the Iron Curtain, Cuban intelligence officer Florentino “Tiny” Aspillaga grew disenchanted with Fidel Castro’s style of leadership. On June 6, he defected from his service in the Cuban government. Aspillaga drove to Vienna and immediately found his way to the American Embassy there. This is known in the spy trade as a walk-in. This particular walk-in was one of the most important in the Cold War.

Aspillaga’s Story

After his surprising appearance at the door of the U.S. Embassy,...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 2-1: Why Can’t We Detect a Lie?

The primary reason that most people cannot immediately identify when a stranger is lying is that human beings default to assuming truth in others. This is called the Truth-Default Theory.

Truth-Default and How It Works

In an effort to understand and analyze the Truth-Default Theory, psychologist Tim Levine used hundreds of versions of the same basic experiment (referred to here as the Trivia Experiment). Here is how the Trivia Experiment works:

1. Levine invites participants to a laboratory. They are told that if they can answer a trivia test correctly, they will win a cash prize.
2. Each participant is given a partner. The participants don’t know that the partner works for Levine.
3. The test is administered by an instructor named Rachel. The participants don’t know that Rachel also works for Levine.
4. Halfway through the test, Rachel leaves the room. The partner points to an envelope lying on the table and asks the participant if they should cheat on the test. The participant is given the opportunity to choose whether or not to cheat.
5. After the trivia test is over, Levine interviews the participant. He asks the participant if they cheated during the test....

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 2-2: Is Truth-Default Beneficial?

Being able to detect lies seems like an unequivocal good. The Russian archetype of the Holy Fool demonstrates the benefits of being able to see the truth of a situation. The Holy Fool is typically an eccentric character, sometimes even a crazy one, who has access to truths that other characters don’t have access to.

For example, in “The Emperor's New Clothes” by Hans Christian Anderson, the king believes that he has a magic outfit that can only be seen by intelligent people. When he walks down the street, no one is willing to admit that the king is naked, for fear that they’ll be called stupid. Only a small child yells out over the crowd, “The king isn’t wearing anything!” The child is a Holy Fool.

In real life, the Holy Fool is a whistleblower. What sets whistleblowers apart from the rest of society is that they have a better sense of deception and are less likely to default to truth and to believe that liars are rare. Instead, the Holy Fool sees con men around every corner.

So why don’t more people think like the Holy Fool? Isn’t it beneficial to be able to spot a lie?

The Benefit of Truth-Default

If you think about it, Truth-Default Theory is the reason that...

Shortform Exercise: Consider Your Tendency to Default to Truth

Psychologist Tim Levine says that the cost of not defaulting to truth is the sacrifice of meaningful social interactions. But most people will default to truth until they have enough doubts about a person to reach the trigger point.

Consider a time that you suspected a stranger was lying to you. What ultimately triggered you to doubt that person’s honesty? How long did you harbor doubts about that person before you reached your trigger point?

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 2-3: When People Default To Truth

When scandals break in the news, one of the first things people tend to do is to blame the authorities who oversaw the criminal, like blaming the SEC for not catching Madoff sooner. People jump at the chance to judge that person or entity for covering up the criminal’s behavior or putting their own interests ahead of the truth. There’s a tendency to think of every scandal as a conspiracy.

But that interpretation is not always fair, and it doesn’t take Truth-Default Theory into account. Sometimes, the person in power is truly blinded by his own default to truth.

The Parents of Larry Nassar’s Victims

In 2017, USA Gymnastics team physician Larry Nassar was convicted on federal charges of child molestation. By the time of his trial, Nassar had over one hundred accusers with similar stories of sexual assault. The police retrieved 37,000 images of child pornography from Nassar’s personal computer. It was a very high-profile case in the media and one that was relatively open-and-shut.

But why did it take so long for Nassar to be convicted? In his 20+ years as a gymnastics physician and sexual predator, allegations against Nassar had been brought to people of power...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 3-1: Why Do We Misinterpret Strangers?

Meeting a stranger can make it more challenging to make sense of that person than not meeting him. That’s because people assume transparency in others.

Transparency refers to the assumption that the way people present themselves outwardly (through behavior and demeanor) is an accurate and reliable representation of their inner feelings and intentions. But that’s an unrealistic assumption to make when dealing with strangers.

Before we explore why we can’t assume others will be transparent, let’s look at how transparency works.

Transparency and How It Works

Facial expressions are one of the primary ways that we interpret a stranger’s feelings (because we mistakenly assume that a person’s demeanor is an accurate representation of his feelings).

Coded Facial Actions

Psychologist Jennifer Fugate is an expert in the system of coding facial actions (referred to here as FACS). FACS assigns a name, or “action unit,” to each of the 43 possible muscle movements of the face. This action unit is used to notate and score people’s facial expressions like music is scored by notes on a page. For example:

• The kind of soft, insincere-seeming smile you would...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 3-2: Transparency and Mismatching

The assumption of transparency is especially dangerous in interactions where one person is mismatched—when his outward demeanor is mismatched with his internal feelings and intentions.

Mismatching and How It Works

Remember Tim Levine’s Trivia Experiment, in which participants were asked whether or not they cheated when Rachel left the room and then viewers were asked to determine which participants were lying about cheating on the test.

The experiment measures how accurate the viewer is at detecting the participant’s lie. In this experiment, Levine found that the viewer correctly detects a participant’s lie 54% of the time on average. That percentage is only slightly better than chance. Why is that?

One answer is Truth-Default Theory. But Levine felt as though there had to be another reason that people tend to mistake lies for the truth. In particular, Levine was perplexed by the pattern that most lies are not detected until after the fact. (For example, Scott Carmichael missed all the clues that Ana Montes was a Cuban spy in the moment. But later, Carmichael could recognize those red flags.) In an effort to explain this pattern, Levine returned to the tapes of his...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 3-3: Alcohol and Transparency

The assumption of transparency is clearly a problem for trained police professionals attempting to make sense of a suspect and seasoned judges trying to read a defendant. But the assumption of transparency also has devastating effects for young people across the nation.

For example, approximately one in five American female college students has been a victim of sexual assault. Many of these cases follow a similar pattern:

1. Two young people (often strangers) meet and have a conversation.
2. At some point, a sexual encounter begins.
3. One party feels violated by the encounter.
4. Later on, it is difficult to reconstruct how things escalated: Was there consent from both parties? If not, did one person actively ignore the other’s objection? Or did one person simply misunderstand the other’s sexual intentions?

It has been established that it is nearly impossible to judge a person’s general intentions based on their behavior or expressions. So how can we expect young, immature people to judge a person’s sexual intentions based on their behavior?

There are two major elements that contribute to this pattern of sexual assault among young people:

1. **There are no...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 4: How to Talk to Strangers

Ana Montes and Bernie Madoff got away with criminal deception for years. Amanda Knox was held in prison for a crime she didn’t commit. And Emily Doe woke up in a hospital completely unaware that she had been sexually assaulted. All of these are evidence of the first two mistakes people make when trying to make sense of strangers:

1. We default to truth, which leaves us vulnerable to deception.
2. We expect others to be transparent, even though transparency is a myth.

So once you accept those two major shortcomings, what are you supposed to do to change them?

A Lesson: Trying Harder Isn’t Always the Answer

The lesson you need to learn about interacting with strangers is that strangers become more elusive the harder you try to get to know them. For example:

• Neville Chamberlain could’ve learned more about Hitler from reading Mein Kampf than he ever did from meeting Hitler.
• In searching for Sandusky’s victims for nearly two years, the police actually dredged up more confusion—victims who changed their stories and allegations that disappeared.

In other words, it is important to remember that the “truth” you hope to find out about a stranger is...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 5-1: Coupled Behaviors

The third mistake that people often make when dealing with strangers: We fail to recognize coupled behaviors, behaviors that are specifically linked to a particular context. For example, we fail to see how a person’s personal history might affect his behavior in a particular environment. Instead, people tend to operate with an assumption of displaced behaviors, behaviors that do not change from one context to the next.

Whereas default to truth and assumption of transparency both affect your understanding of a stranger as an individual, failure to recognize coupled behaviors affects your understanding of the context in which a stranger operates.

Once you understand that some behaviors are coupled to very specific contexts, you’ll learn to see that a stranger’s behavior is powerfully influenced by where and when your encounter takes place. Then, you’ll be able to recognize the full complexity and ambiguity of the people you come across.

Coupled Behavior: Suicide

Many people jump to conclusions when they hear of a stranger who committed suicide. But **suicide is a coupled behavior—it tells us more about the world in which the stranger lived than about the...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 5-2: Crime is a Coupled Behavior

A person’s likelihood to commit a crime is coupled with their context—like their personal history, their geographic location, or their access to guns. The Kansas City Police Department completed an experiment that proved this theory.

The Kansas City Experiment

In the early 1990’s, the Kansas City Police Department decided to study how to deploy extra police officers in an effort to reduce crime in the city. They hired criminologist Lawrence Sherman and gave him free rein to make changes in the department.

Sherman was sure that the high number of guns in Kansas City was a direct cause of the city’s high level of violence and crime. So he decided to focus his experiment specifically on guns in the 144th patrol district of Kansas City, one of the most dangerous areas in the city. Sherman’s experiment was a relatively simple one that made use of a loophole in the American legal system.

The loophole: The U.S. Constitution requires police officers to have a reasonable suspicion in order to search a citizen, which is a relatively difficult standard to meet when the citizen is at home or walking down the street. However, when the citizen is driving a car, the standards...

Talking to Strangers Summary Part 5-3: Sandra Bland and Brian Encinia

Sandra Bland’s arrest and subsequent suicide in jail is a tragic example of what can happen when two strangers use flawed strategies to try and understand each other. After Bland’s suicide, Brian Encinia was fired on the grounds that he did not conduct himself with courtesy and patience, as required by the Texas State Trooper Manual. But the case is about much more than that.

Everything that happened between Brian Encinia and Sandra Bland happened because Encinia behaved exactly as he was trained to—by police officials and society as a whole.

Brian Encinia’s Mistakes

Broken Default to Truth

At 4:27 p.m. on July 10, 2015, Brian Encinia noticed Sandra Bland go through a stop sign on campus. He was unable to legally pull her over at that time because the campus was outside his jurisdiction. So he drove up behind her to get a better look—to see if she had any signs of potential criminal intentions, like air fresheners or fast food wrappers. When Sandra Bland saw the police car behind her, she pulled over to let him pass. She unknowingly gave Encinia a lawful excuse to pull her over. She was pulled over for neglecting to signal her lane change.

When Encinia...

Shortform Exercise: Identify Common Strategies for Interpreting Strangers

The most common strategies people use when interacting with strangers are default to truth, assumption of transparency, and neglect of coupled behaviors.

Think of a time that you’ve had a meaningful conversation with a stranger. What did you talk about? What impression or conclusions did you make about the stranger based on your conversation?