Previous
Chapter 4
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Talking to Strangers, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Default to Truth
Limitations of Transparency
Coupling Theory and Context
Self vs. Stranger
Summary
Analysis
1. Chapter Five opens with a March 21, 2017 trial transcript between the prosecution and Michael McQueary, a former quarterback who in 2001 served as assistant coach for the Pennsylvania State University football team. The Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania, Laura Ditka, interrogates McQueary about witnessing Jerry Sandusky, who had just retired as defensive coordinator of the Penn State football team, molest an underage boy in the locker room showers one night in February 2001. At the time, Sandusky was a beloved figure in a community that took great pride in their football team.
The Penn State child sex abuse scandal is another case study that involves a powerful institution, Pennsylvania State University. Gladwell has thus far adopted a sympathetic approach toward people who want to choose the safety of society and institutions over embracing the truth. A major aspect of the Penn State scandal involved public outcry over university leadership’s decision to protect Sandusky and the economic interests of their institution, which effectively allowed Sandusky’s crimes to go unpunished for decades.
Themes
When McQueary confided in his boss, head coach Joe Paterno, about what he saw, Paterno seemed sad but passed along McQueary’s admission to his boss, Tim Curley, Penn State’s athletic director. Curley told the school’s president, Graham Spanier. An investigation took place, and Sandusky was arrested. Afterward, eight young men came forward to testify that Sandusky had abused them for years.
At a first glance, information regarding Sandusky’s alleged abuse seems to make its way up the administrative hierarchy seamlessly. Yet, while McQueary witnessed and reported the shower incident in 2001, it took another decade for an investigation to begin. To use Levine’s logic, it took a decade for administration to uncover evidence that was enough to “trigger disbelief.”
Themes
The most egregious element of the Sandusky case was that while McQueary witnessed the abuse in 2001, the investigation into Sandusky’s behavior didn’t begin until 2011. The court and the public would blame this delay of justice on Penn State’s leadership. Paterno was forced to resign, and Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, two high-ranking administrators, were charged with “conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and failure to report a case of child abuse.” Both men served time for their crimes. Attention later shifted toward Graham Spanier. Spanier had once been a beloved figure responsible for uplifting the university’s academic reputation. By November 2011, however, the court convicted him of child endangerment.
The findings of an independent investigation conducted by former FBI Director Louis Freeh revealed that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz had known about allegations of Sandusky’s child abuse as early as 1998—years before McQueary approached leadership with what he witnessed in the locker room showers in February 2001. Other reports indicate that Sandusky began assaulting children as early as 1971. If these allegations are true, the Penn State child sex abuse scandal is the most extreme version of defaulting to truth Gladwell has presented thus far. It’s worth noting that the veracity of certain details of Freeh’s report, too, have been up for debate.
Themes
At the height of the scandal, Sandusky spoke to NBC sports anchor Bob Costas. He claimed not to be a pedophile despite openly admitting to showering with young boys, and he used much of the interview to defend his actions. However, given the stories of Ana Montes and Bernie Madoff, and considering all these cases through the lens of Tim Levine’s Truth-Default Theory, Gladwell argues, is it really fair to believe that the officials at Penn State who allowed Sandusky’s behavior to continue could have responded any differently? And does the reader think they would have responded differently?
Gladwell uses Levine’s Truth-Default theory to challenge accusations that Penn State leadership had knowingly allowed Sandusky’s abuse to continue without repercussion, insinuating that officials had simply not been given enough evidence of any wrongdoing to “trigger disbelief.” Asking what readers think they’d do highlights that Gladwell’s arguments aren’t just fun and games. Hopefully, readers will be able to use what they learn to think more critically about how they fit into society, and how they can best react when things in their own lives don’t add up.
Themes
Get the entire Talking to Strangers LitChart as a printable PDF.
2. Gladwell summarizes Jerry Sandusky’s sports-centric childhood growing up in Washington, Pennsylvania. Sandusky grew up surrounded by the many children his parents fostered and adopted, and he wanted to carry the joy of childhood with him as an adult. In 1977, he founded a charity organization, Second Mile, for troubled boys from impoverished and unsettled homes. Sandusky played with the boys, gave them gifts, and tried to be the father they didn’t have. Suspicions about Sandusky’s behavior first emerged in 1998 when a Second Mile boy told his mother he and Sandusky had showered together in the locker room. The mother took her son to a psychologist, Alicia Chambers. The son saw nothing wrong with the interaction with Sandusky, so nothing came of the incident.
Chambers contacted Ron Schreffler, a University Park detective, following the mother’s report. When Schreffler reached out to the Centre County Children and Youth Service to investigate the allegations further, he was informed that the organization had a conflict of interest with Second Mile. As additional investigating agencies become involved, conflicting opinions begin to emerge about whether or not Sandusky’s actions were extreme enough to warrant pressing charges. Ultimately, it was agreed that Sandusky simply needed to be taught about boundaries, and by early June 1998, District Attorney Ray Gricar decided not to pursue the case. As more powerful people with institutional backing become involved, more conflicting opinions form, which prevents any single narrative of guilt to emerge to “trigger disbelief” in anybody who had power to push the investigation forward.
Themes
The next incident came in 2008 from a boy named Aaron Fisher who did feel uncomfortable with Sandusky’s physical behavior. Fisher met with a child psychologist over the course of a year, eventually uncovering his buried traumas and alleging that Sandusky had forced him to engage in sexual activity. Yet, due to Fisher’s “default to truth” —his impulse not to doubt Sandusky—neither of these complaints went anywhere. Even a caseworker assigned to the 1998 abuse case couldn’t definitively state that the incident could be considered sexual abuse. Likewise, Aaron Fisher’s claims about oral sex that occurred between himself and Sandusky changed too often to be credible, and in 2009, a grand jury twice decided not to indict Sandusky.
Truth-Default Theory might explain why the caseworker assigned to Fisher’s case and other adults who were aware of the abuse allegations doubted the veracity of Fisher’s claims. At the same time, it seems rather reductive to claim that Fisher was defaulting to truth by trusting that a revered adult figure in his life (Sandusky) wouldn’t do anything to harm him. There are more complex power dynamics involved in a relationship between a minor and an adult and culturally conditioned reasons why a child would “default to trust” adults in their life. At any rate, Gladwell includes cases like Fisher’s to portray the Sandusky case as more ambiguous than certain media portrayals of it would suggest.
Themes
Everything changed in November 2010, when an anonymous email advised the prosecutor’s office to talk to McQueary, who had supposedly witnessed an incident between Sandusky and a child. In McQueary, the prosecution finally had a credible witness to corroborate claims made against Sandusky. Leadership’s failure to act on McQueary’s accusation for eleven years drew outrage. Prosecutor Laura Ditka used the adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely” in her closing statement, suggesting that “Graham Spanier was corrupted by his own power[.]”
Gladwell establishes the prosecution’s narrative of the Sandusky case: that a system of morally bankrupt people knowingly and purposefully abused their positions of power to protect the public image of their beloved football team at the expense of innocent children. But, as Gladwell has hinted, does such a stance tell the full story? Were things really as black and white as the prosecution would suggest? Or was administration simply faced with an assortment of doubts that weren’t enough to “trigger disbelief?”
Themes
3. Michael McQueary was 27 years old and 225 pounds at the time he claims he witnessed a rape. Gladwell wonders why, if McQueary was so sure of what he saw, he didn’t interfere to stop the abuse himself. Why had he instead run home and confessed to his father, and later, his doctor? In trial, Jonathan Dranov, the doctor to whom McQueary confessed, states that McQueary could not specify which sort of “sexual sounds” he heard, nor could he describe what, exactly, he saw. As a physician, Dranov is legally obligated to report suspected child abuse. Why, then, Gladwell wonders, did Dranov not come forward upon first hearing McQueary’s admission? In trial, Dranov claimed that McQueary’s story didn’t sound “inappropriate enough” to report to Children and Youth Services.
The first way Gladwell challenges the prosecution’s (and, by and large, the public’s) understanding of the Sandusky case is by discrediting the notion that there was no ambiguity surrounding the allegations against Sandusky. Gladwell suggests that the accepted narrative surrounding the case falsely portrays Michael McQueary’s 2001 allegation as absolutely damning. Yet, if everyone—including McQueary—was certain that an incident of abuse had occurred, it makes no sense that they’d opt not to go to the police right away. Gladwell is suggesting that these people hadn’t heard enough damning evidence to “trigger disbelief.”
Themes
Furthermore, there were inconsistencies in McQueary’s story regarding the exact date he witnessed the shower incident that compromised his reliability as a witness, which the prosecution handled by simply pretending they “didn’t exist.” In fact, on reading the 2011 indictment, McQueary expressed concerns to lead prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach about his words being twisted. He wanted to alter them to convey his uncertainty about what he saw. In his letter to Eshbach, McQueary lamented how the indictment had painted him as a coward who clearly saw a rape and chose to run away to his parents rather than interfere. In short, the prosecution “had turned gray into black and white” to fit their chosen narrative and throw McQueary under the bus in the process.
Gladwell’s main issue with the prosecution’s handling of the Sandusky case is that it erases all nuance and ambiguity to present a more polished, compelling narrative of guilt. Such a narrative is problematic because it minimizes the subtle ways in which doubt influences a person’s willingness to believe or reject the presence of deception. As Levine’s Truth-Default Theory states, the degree of doubt matters more than the mere presence of doubt. People can have doubts about a person’s innocence and still remain on the fence about whether they’re truly guilty.
Themes
4. Gladwell compares the Sandusky scandal to the Larry Nassar case that unfolded a few years later. Nassar was a beloved team physician for the USA Gymnastics national team who had treated girls for years. His signature treatment was for “pelvic-floor dysfunction” and involved inserting his fingers into the patient’s vagina to massage the muscles that had been shortened by years of intensive gymnastics training. Nassar would engage in this treatment often and without gloves, and he would accompany the procedure with medically unnecessary fondling. In short, the supposed medical procedure was really a front for sexual gratification. Nassar was convicted on federal charges in the summer of 2017.
Gladwell invokes the Larry Nassar case—another infamous child sexual abuse case that remained undisclosed to the public for decades—to further argue for the Sandusky case’s ambiguities. Compared to the Sandusky case, the Nassar case was clear-cut and sufficiently documented. Despite numerous allegations gymnasts made against Nassar over the years—allegations that Gladwell seems to suggest are more credible than those of Sandusky’s accusers—Nassar’s trial, too, received the benefit of the doubt for years.
Themes
Gladwell categorizes the Nassar sex abuse scandal as “remarkably clear-cut.” Nassar’s seized computer contained abundant child pornography, as well as photographs of his young patients. Hundreds of athletes came forward to accuse him. Rachael Denhollander, whose allegations convicted Nassar, describes abuse that began at age 15. When she came forward to press charges in 2016, she was armed with an entire file of damning evidence. And yet, it took years for Nassar to be brought to justice.
Humanity’s bias toward truth necessitated the discovery of child pornography on Nassar’s personal computer before people were willing to believe the numerous allegations against him. Gladwell continues to establish the Nassar case as “remarkably clear-cut” compared to the Sandusky case to suggest that Penn State’s leadership’s actions weren’t all that illogical.
Themes
Another Nassar victim, Larissa Boyce, testified to abuse that began in 1997. When she told Michigan State gymnastics coach Kathie Klages, Klages confronted Nassar. Nassar denied the allegations, and Klages chose to believe Nassar, not Boyce. This pattern recurred throughout Nassar’s career. After a 2016 Indianapolis Star article broke the news of Denhollander’s accusations against Nassar, those close to Nassar, including his boss, the Dean of Osteopathic Medicine at Michigan State, sided with Nassar. Many parents of Nassar’s patients, too, believed in his innocence. It wasn’t until police discovered the images on Nassar’s hard drive that people began to believe the allegations.
Gladwell describes the substantial support Nassar received from his associated institutions—and even the parents of his victims—to show the immense power the bias toward truth has to make people second-guess their doubts and latch onto an easier narrative of Nassar’s innocence. Nassar’s case also shows how having a personal relationship with someone can exacerbate one’s ability to make sense of them, as Nassar managed to deceive parents and close colleagues for years.
Themes
One mother—a doctor herself—recalls sitting in on one of her daughter’s appointments and noticing that Nassar had an erection while treating her daughter. She thought it was “weird” but felt bad for the man and brushed aside her vague concerns. This situation, too, wasn’t unique: many other parents sat unsuspectingly in the examination room as Nassar abused their daughters.
This uncomfortable scene portrays an extreme example of the power our bias toward truth has to influence perspective and alleviate doubt. The mother had every reason to suspect that something “weird,” wrong, and criminal was going on in the examination room that day, yet her instinct to doubt herself allowed her to practically deny the existence of everything she saw.
Themes
Gladwell argues that the exceptionally “monstrous” nature of Nassar’s misconduct was what made it so hard to believe. Had patients reported smelling alcohol on Nassar’s breath or claimed he had treated them rudely, for instance, parents might have been quicker to complain. States Gladwell, “default to truth biases us in favor of the most likely interpretation.” Indeed, even Nassar’s victims initially stepped in to defend him. When a teammate confided in Trinea Gonczar about Nassar’s behavior, Gonczar brushed aside the girl’s apprehensions. Gonczar assured the girl that Nassar did those things to her “all the time!” Gonczar only changed her position once “the evidence against Nassar became overwhelming.” While the Nassar case presents an example of how “default to truth” influences a clear-cut case, however, the Sandusky case isn’t so simple.
Gladwell suggests that cases with abundant evidence like Nassar’s are just as liable to be doubted as cases like Sandusky’s, which are more ambiguous. Because “default to truth biases us in favor of the most likely interpretation,” we stand the chance of rejecting evidence that doesn’t conform to our ideas about how “monstrous” people are capable of being. In other words, the evidence against Nassar was simply too good to be true. It’s also worth noting that one might view Gladwell’s analysis of Gonzcar’s initial denial as rather oversimplistic. It does a disservice to survivors of sexual assault to construe Gonzcar’s impulse to trust Nassar as illustrative of a human urge to believe the best in people without also taking into account how the trauma Gonczar endured influences her perspective and compels her to compartmentalize her experiences.
Themes
5. After the public learned of the accusations against Sandusky, former Second Mile member Allan Myers rushed in to defend him. Myers insisted he had showered with Sandusky multiple times as a child and that nothing sexual had occurred between them. Furthermore, after reading the details of McQueary’s account, he affirmed that he was the boy in the story. According to Curtis Everhart, an investigator for Sandusky’s lawyer, Myers claimed that he and Sandusky were slapping towels at each other the night McQueary walked in on them in the locker room. Nothing sexual had occurred, and McQueary was lying. Only weeks later, however, after Myers began speaking with a lawyer who represented numerous alleged Sandusky victims, Myers changed his story and asserted that Sandusky had assaulted him. Ultimately, the prosecution felt that Myers’s story was too inconsistent and opted not to bring him in as a witness.
Gladwell explores Gonzcar’s testimony next to Myers’s to draw on their similarities. Both cases involve a minor who initially alleges they experienced nothing out of the ordinary by an accused sexual predator, only to backtrack and insist that they were mistaken in their initial statement. Gladwell emphasizes these similarities to show the lengths people will go to give another person the benefit of the doubt. Additionally, these conflicting witness statements invite the reader to adopt Gladwell’s sympathetic stance toward the adults and institutions who failed to believe the accusations against Nassar and Sandusky. If the alleged victims aren’t even sure if they were assaulted, how could people who didn’t directly experience the alleged assault be expected to believe that it had occurred?
Themes
Another notable Sandusky victim is Brett Swisher Houtz, a Second Mile kid who had been very close with Sandusky. Houtz was brought in as a witness and testified to dozens of sexual encounters with Sandusky. However, when Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, was called to testify, she claimed that Houtz and Sandusky had remained friendly until a few years ago—two decades after the alleged abuse had occurred.
Gladwell’s analysis of the Sandusky case within the context of Truth-Default Theory offers a new take on a messy, troubling case. Examining the case from this perspective allows us to see how witness testimonies were more ambiguous and inconsistent than the public might have been led to believe they were.
Themes
Gladwell asserts that the Sandusky case was more complex than the Nassar case because Sandusky’s victims hadn’t complained or confided in their friends. Instead, they acted as though nothing happened and voluntarily remained in contact and on friendly terms with their abuser well into adulthood. It's the “layers of shame and denial and clouded memories,” Gladwell observes, that make sexual abuse cases complicated.
Gladwell suggests that the Sandusky case was particularly complex due to Sandusky’s victims failing to behave as society believes victims of abuse should behave. Victims’ failure to act visibly traumatized or hurt made their claims less believable.
Themes
6. Gladwell wonders about the doubts Curley and Schultz must have had about McQueary’s initial accusation. After all, if what McQueary saw was so damning, why hadn’t he gone straight to the police? In his witness testimony, Penn State lawyer Wendell Courtney describes a conversation he had with Gary Schultz when the assault allegations first came to light. In this conversation, Schultz expressed his doubts that anything sexual had occurred in the locker rooms. He also claimed that McQueary never mentioned anything about hearing sexual “slapping sounds.”
Gladwell reemphasizes his earlier point about the inconsistencies in McQueary’s allegations. Focusing on these inconsistencies forces the reader to put themselves in administrators’ shoes and consider what they would have done if met with information as ambiguous as that which McQueary allegedly posed to Courtney.
Themes
Courtney considered Sandusky’s reputation for having a playful, goofy demeanor around the Second Mile kids in public and, in Gladwell’s words, “defaulted to that impression.” When Curley and Schultz approached Spanier about the allegations against Sandusky, they construed Sandusky’s behavior as “horsing around.” Spanier recalls feeling uncertain about how to move forward with such a vague accusation. Ultimately, he chose to believe “the likeliest explanation,” which was that Sandusky was the goofy but harmless man Spanier knew him to be.
It's worth noting that while Spanier’s conviction of one misdemeanor charge of child endangerment was overturned in 2019, it was reinstated by an appeals court in December 2020. The Freeh report (an external investigation into the handling of the Sandusky case) also concluded that Spanier, Curley, Shultz, and Paterno knowingly concealed Sandusky’s behavior, though Spanier’s attorney disputed these claims. At any rate, Gladwell emphasizes Spanier’s doubts here to further exemplify Levine’s notion of Truth-Default Theory.
Themes
7. Curley and Schultz were charged first. Spanier, who had sincerely believed the men’s claims that Sandusky’s conduct was mere “horseplay,” refused to distance himself from them. Gladwell argues that Spanier’s loyalty is what made people like working with him. In contrast, nobody would want to work with someone like Harry Markopolos, who constantly suspects the worst in people. But, Gladwell argues, condemning Spanier for defaulting to truth stems from people’s collective misapprehension that we should want our protectors to be on constant high alert for deception. Gladwell concludes the chapter by implying that there is a significant downside to being constantly suspicious with no regard for the possible consequences of that suspicion.
Gladwell draws on Levine’s notion of Truth-Default Theory and the evolutionary benefits of trusting one’s community to argue that we should have compassion and empathy for people like Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and Paterno who were placed in the difficult situation of having to pass judgment based on inconsistent and ambiguous information. Gladwell also implies that it is unfair to judge these men as if we can say with certainty that we would have acted differently in their situation. This is another theme Gladwell develops throughout the book: that we see ourselves as complex and nuanced but project an air of simplicity onto other people.
Themes
