Name:

Waleed Habib

Sap Id:
70112437

Section:
A

Assignment:
#3

Submitted to:
Sir Shaghil Baqa
 Assignment - Paraphrase chapters of Talking to Strangers Book
Book name “Talking to Strangers” author Malcolm Gladwell
(Chapter 4)
“The Holy Fool”
In 2003, investor Nat Simons didn't trust Bernie Madoff, but he didn't cut ties. Madoff turned
out to be running a huge fraud, and the SEC, despite warnings, didn't act. A guy named
Markopolos had been shouting about Madoff's scam since 2000 but wasn't taken seriously until
2009. The lesson: it's okay to question and not blindly trust, even if most people do.
Markopolos, a numbers guy on Wall Street, sees math as the truth. He doesn't trust people easily,
thanks to his Greek immigrant parents who ran a business with theft issues. He noticed Madoff's
shady dealings in the 1980s, way before others. Unlike Renaissance, who trusted the system,
Markopolos was skeptical and didn't believe everything at face value.
There's this idea called the "Holy Fool," an outsider in Russian stories who seems crazy but
knows the truth. Like the kid in "The Emperor's New Clothes," who spoke up when everyone
else stayed quiet. In today's world, whistleblowers like Markopolos play this role, exposing
deception. But researchers say humans aren't naturally good at spotting lies because it's more
helpful to trust others for smooth communication. So, giving people the benefit of the doubt is
seen as more useful than always being suspicious.
Markopolos tried to warn people about Madoff's scam, but many were invested, so they ignored
him. He even tried telling New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, but messed up by being too
paranoid. He disguised himself but couldn't deliver the evidence. Markopolos realizes he should
have used his important role to get through to Spitzer. The lesson is sometimes being too
suspicious can backfire, according to Levine's Truth-Default Theory.
When the SEC ignored Markopolos, he got scared for his safety and started carrying a gun. Even
when Madoff got caught, Markopolos thought the SEC would come after him. He became really
anxious, even keeping a loaded gun and a gas mask for protection at home.
(Chapter 5)
“Case Study, The boy in the shower”
A former football coach, McQueary, saw a coach named Sandusky doing something bad to a kid
in 2001. He told his boss, Paterno, who told higher-ups. The investigation started in 2011, and
many blamed Penn State leaders for the delay. Paterno resigned, and others were charged and
convicted for not acting sooner. Sandusky defended himself on TV, saying he wasn't a pedophile.
Gladwell questions if, given other cases and the Truth-Default Theory, we can really expect
Penn State officials to have acted differently. What do you think?
Jerry Sandusky, who had a happy childhood, started a charity for troubled boys. Suspicions about
him came up in 1998 and 2008, but nothing happened because people tended to believe him. It
took until 2010 for a witness, McQueary, to be taken seriously. The leaders' inaction for so long
angered many. The prosecutor said power corrupted them.
McQueary claimed he saw something bad but didn't stop it. Gladwell wonders why he didn't act
and why his story had inconsistencies. The doctor he told didn't report it because he thought it
didn't sound bad enough. McQueary later worried that the prosecution twisted his words,
making him look bad in the trial.
There was a doctor named Nassar who pretended to treat girls but really abused them. Many
people, even parents and authorities, didn't believe the victims for a long time because the
misconduct was so awful. Another case involved a coach and athlete abuse, but it's not as
straightforward. Gladwell explains how people tend to believe the most likely explanation,
making it hard to see the truth in these cases.
Some people initially defended Sandusky, saying nothing inappropriate happened. One guy even
claimed to be the person in a key incident. But later, he changed his story after talking to a
lawyer for other victims. Another victim testified to many abuses, but Sandusky's wife said they
remained friends for a long time. Gladwell says Sandusky's case is more complicated than
Nassar's because the victims didn't complain or avoid their abuser, making it harder to
understand.
The guys in charge at Penn State doubted McQueary's accusation because he didn't go to the
police right away. When they heard about it, they thought Sandusky's behavior was just playful
and didn't see it as something serious. They chose to believe Sandusky was harmless.
Curley and Schultz got charged first. Spanier, who believed their claims that Sandusky was just
playing around, stuck by them. Gladwell says Spanier's loyalty was a good thing, unlike
someone like Markopolos, who is always suspicious. He suggests that always being suspicious
isn't a good way to work because there can be downsides.
 (Chapter 6)
“The Friends Fallacy”
Friends, a show about six pals in New York, was super popular by its fifth season. Gladwell talks
about an episode where Ross's sister dates his best friend, Chandler. The story might sound
tricky, but when you watch it, it's easy to understand, even without hearing the words.
Gladwell gets a psychologist, Fugate, to analyze the facial expressions of characters in Friends
using a system that looks at muscle movements. They find that the actors' expressions match the
emotions in the story. This supports Gladwell's idea that you can understand the plot of a Friends
episode without hearing anything, just by looking at the actors' faces. Gladwell also talks about
transparency, where how someone looks matches how they feel inside, but it's harder with
strangers.
Gladwell looks at the idea of transparency, inspired by Charles Darwin's thoughts on expressing
emotions. Darwin believed it's important for survival. Gladwell gives an example of a judge who
thought seeing a woman's face would help him understand her in court. Gladwell questions if
judging someone by their face really tells us about their personality or motivations, arguing that
computers might be better at assessing people than judges.
Scientists went to a place called the Trobriands to see if people from different cultures
understand facial expressions the same way. They tested Spanish kids and Trobriand people by
showing them pictures of faces and asking what emotions they saw. Spanish kids did well, but
Trobrianders had trouble matching faces with emotions. This suggests that understanding facial
expressions might not be the same for everyone.
Imagine listening to a story in the dark, and when the lights come on, your friend looks serious.
You'd probably make a surprised face, right? Well, a study showed that most people thought they
looked surprised, but video footage proved they didn't. This means what we think is a universal
expression might not be true in real life. It's especially tricky when dealing with strangers, as we
might misinterpret their expressions based on stereotypes. Gladwell shares a story about his
father looking scared, but to a stranger, it might have seemed threatening. The point is, we often
use stereotypes instead of understanding people directly.
Gladwell explains why computers can be better at judging people than humans. He tells a story
about a judge who thought a man was calm and mild-mannered, so he lowered the man's bail.
However, the man later killed his girlfriend. This shows that judging someone based on their
appearance or expressions can be wrong. Even though it can have bad consequences, Gladwell
says we can't get rid of personal interactions. Talking to strangers is important, but we're not very
good at it.
(Chapter 7)
“A short explanation of the Amanda Knox Case”
A guy named Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher in Italy. Even though there was evidence
against him, police wrongly focused on Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.
Knox found the crime scene and called the police, but she and Sollecito were charged and
convicted of the murder. It took eight years to clear their names. Gladwell thinks it's a case of
misjudgment based on appearances, or transparency.
Gladwell looks at a study by Tim Levine about people's ability to detect lies. Some show typical
signs of lying, like nervousness, while others behave truthfully but still appear suspicious. There
are two groups: one where judges often get it wrong, and another where they are mostly right. It's
a case of people being bad at detecting lies when the person's behavior doesn't match their
expectations. For example, Bernie Madoff seemed calm and honest, confusing those trying to
catch him.
Gladwell sees Amanda Knox as an example of someone who seemed guilty but was innocent.
The media misunderstood her, focusing on her nickname and actions after the murder. Knox's
odd behavior and reactions during the investigation led to false assumptions about her guilt.
Levine's research indicates that law enforcement struggles to determine guilt or innocence based
on behavior, especially when people's actions don't align with stereotypes. They were only
accurate in judging mismatched individuals 14 percent of the time, raising concerns about
potential errors in the justice system.

(Chapter 8)
“Case Study, The fraternity Party”
Two graduate students, Peter Jonsson and Carl-Fredrik Arndt, stopped a man, Brock Turner, from
assaulting an unconscious woman outside a fraternity house. Turner claimed they had consensual
interactions at a party, but the woman, Emily Doe, woke up in the hospital uncertain about the
events.
College parties can lead to complex situations, and sexual assault is unfortunately common.
Gladwell points out the challenge of determining consent in such cases. He highlights a survey
showing that people have varied opinions on what actions imply a desire for more sexual
activity. Alcohol further complicates understanding consent.
Brock Turner and Emily Doe attended a party where both drank alcohol. Turner claims they
engaged in consensual activities, but the issue arises due to Doe's level of intoxication. The jury
found Turner's story unbelievable, and a photo of Doe near a dumpster influenced their decision.
Turner was convicted, and Gladwell attributes the problem to a "lack of transparency" in such
party encounters.
A grad student and his family went to Bolivia for research and found that the locals drank
incredibly strong alcohol regularly but didn't show more violence or alcohol-related problems.
This challenged the idea that alcohol always leads to aggression and changed how people think
about being drunk.
Alcohol affects people by making them focus more on immediate things and less on long-term
concerns. It transforms the experience based on the environment, challenging the idea that it just
removes inhibitions.
A guy named Brian Bree was accused of rape after a night of heavy drinking with a woman
named M. They had different views on whether the sex was consensual. Bree assumed it was, but
M felt otherwise. Bree got convicted, but the case was later dismissed on appeal. The situation
highlighted the confusion and challenges in understanding consent, especially in today's college
drinking culture.
When we drink, alcohol affects our brain, causing euphoria, impaired judgment, and blackouts
when the memory-forming part shuts down. College binge drinking, especially among women,
has increased the risk of blackouts and vulnerability. The culture needs to emphasize the dangers
of excessive drinking, holding both potential victims and perpetrators accountable. It's important
for both men and women to be aware of the risks associated with alcohol and sexual assault.
Emily Doe, who experienced a blackout due to excessive drinking, had no memory of meeting
Brock Turner. Turner's trial version of events differed from his initial statements to the police,
where he claimed to have "kind of blacked out." Doe, while acknowledging alcohol's role,
emphasized Turner's actions as the true issue. Doe disagreed with Turner's call for alcohol
education alone, stating both respect education and drinking awareness are essential. Gladwell
believes both lessons are interconnected, as alcohol complicates understanding strangers'
intentions.