Previous
Chapter 6
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. Rudy Guede, a “shady” character with a criminal history, murdered Meredith Kercher, a British exchange student, on November 1, 2007. Guede had been spending time around Kercher’s house in Perugia, Italy, around the time of her murder. The crime scene was covered in his DNA, and he fled Italy for Germany immediately after investigators discovered Kercher’s body. Despite the mountain of evidence against Guede, police focused their attention on Amanda Knox, Kercher’s roommate, and Knox’s boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito. It was Knox who called the police after returning home one morning and finding blood in the house she shared with Kercher. Knox and Sollecito immediately became suspects and were charged with and convicted of Kercher’s murder. The case dominated the media.
Gladwell introduces the infamous Amanda Knox case by comparing the type of evidence police held against Rudy Guede, the convicted murderer, to evidence they held against Knox and her boyfriend. The evidence against Guede was material: investigators found his DNA all over the crime scene. He also had a verifiable history of burglary and other crimes. In contrast, the evidence against Knox and Sollecito was circumstantial and presumptive: police used Knox’s action of calling the police to make all kinds of assumptions about her behavior, personality, and motivations.
Themes
In hindsight, it is ludicrous that Knox and Sollecito were ever convicted. There was neither physical evidence nor motive to tie them to the case. Knox was an average, if not slightly naïve, college-aged woman from Seattle. Yet, the Italian Supreme Court bought the prosecutor’s far-fetched scenarios of Knox and Sollecito’s involvement in “elaborate sex crimes,” and it took eight years for the pair to be exonerated. Gladwell forgoes a lengthy discussion of the many ways investigators botched their investigation into Kercher’s murder at the expense of Knox. To Gladwell, the Knox case is about transparency.
The botched investigation of Knox and Sollecito rested on investigators’ flawed logic that Knox’s behavior was a valid substitute for material evidence. Like Solomon (the judge from Chapter Two) or Neville Chamberlain, investigators believed they could know all they needed to know about Knox—their stranger—by looking her in the eyes.
Themes
2. Gladwell analyzes Knox’s case within the context of Tim Levine’s trivia game experiment. Levine’s findings in this experiment suggest people aren’t good at detecting deception. But why is this so? In Chapter Three, Gladwell identifies humanity’s tendency to be biased toward truth and willing to give others the benefit of the doubt as one explanation. But humanity’s inability to detect lies is more complicated than this. To illustrate his point, Gladwell describes the interview of one of Levine’s test subjects, a girl named Sally, whose face turned red when her interviewer asked her if she was telling the truth. Sally is lying. Another test subject, whom Gladwell calls “Nervous Nelly,” never stops fidgeting as she answers her interviewer’s question. Popular logic would suggest that Nervous Nelly, too, is lying. However, she’s actually telling the truth.
The reason Sally and “Nervous Nelly” seem untrustworthy is because they exhibit behaviors our (Western) culture typically associates with deception, such as fidgeting, blushing, and physical discomfort. The problem with this logic is that it assumes a person’s outer restlessness is a reflection of the inner moral restlessness that accompanies lying. In reality, as Gladwell suggests in the previous chapter, there is no universality to facial expressions and other physical responses to emotional stimuli. People’s responses to emotional stimuli are nuanced, complex, and rarely conform to cultural stereotypes about what certain emotions ought to look like.
Themes
Levine’s findings identify two distinct groups of people. The first consists of interviewees whom 80 percent of judges judged incorrectly. The second consists of interviewees whom judges judged correctly 80 percent of the time. Gladwell categorizes these findings as an example of “transparency in action.” We tend to think that lying people behave nervously: they avoid eye contact, fidget, and look uncomfortable. In reality, this simply isn’t true. It confuses us, then, when truthful people act stereotypically suspicious, and vice versa. Gladwell concludes that people aren’t necessarily bad lie detectors—they’re simply bad at detecting lies “when the person we’re judging is mismatched.”
Gladwell is suggesting that when people follow a social script—when their behaviors align with a society’s commonly held views about what emotion that behavior is supposed to signify—we have no problem judging them accurately. The problem arises when we encounter a person whose emotional responses fall outside of society’s prescribed, narrow ideas about how people ought to act in a given situation. The person who blushes and avoids eye contact as they tell the truth comes off as a guilty because they are mismatched: they act the way their culture believes a guilty person, not an innocent person, acts.
Themes
Get the entire Talking to Strangers LitChart as a printable PDF.
As an example, Gladwell describes financial journalist Michael Ocrant’s experience interviewing Bernie Madoff after Markopolos tipped him off to Madoff’s likely fraudulent activity. Ocrant recalls being struck by Madoff’s casual, calm demeanor during the interview. Madoff’s attitude made it impossible for Ocrant to believe he was guilty of the crimes of which Markopolos accused him. Gladwell reasons that this is because “Madoff was mismatched. He was a liar with the demeanor of an honest man.” Although Ocrant knew that Madoff was likely guilty, Madoff’s surprisingly calm attitude threw him off guard enough that he dropped his story.
Madoff’s “mismatched” behavior was convincing enough to compel Ocrant to doubt and dismiss the objective evidence of Madoff’s guilt. Ocrant’s actions show how social norms influence our bias toward truth: Ocrant’s failure to reconcile Madoff’s honest behavior with society’s idea of how a guilty person is supposed to look and act causes him to recant his belief in Madoff’s guilt. When Ocrant reverses his opinion of Madoff, he accepts that his personal views are less reliable than the views that social norms espouse.
Themes
3. To Gladwell, Amanda Knox is an apt example of the mismatched, of “the innocent person who acts guilty.” The media misunderstood and attacked Knox, fixating on her nickname, “Foxy Knoxy,” and pointing to her act of buying red lingerie the day after Meredith’s murder as evidence of sexual deviancy. In reality, Foxy Knoxy was a childhood nickname that referenced Knox’s agility on the soccer field, and she was buying underwear because she had no access to her personal belongings while police investigated her house as a crime scene. In reality, Knox was a nerdy, “quirky” young woman who had trouble fitting in.
Amanda Knox is like Nervous Nelly: her behavior does not align with society’s ideas about how a person in mourning ought to behave. Throughout the investigation and trial, the media and investigators seized on many of Knox’s easily explainable behaviors (i.e., buying underwear when she didn’t have underwear to wear). They drew from negative cultural stereotypes about female sexuality to advance a narrative that portrayed Knox as a morally bankrupt, sex-crazed woman whose deviance showed through in her visible lack of grief for Kercher’s death.
Themes
The public further attacked Knox when her odd behavior in the aftermath of Meredith’s murder didn’t conform to common stereotypes of how people in grief or in shock are supposed to act. She was aloof and unaccepting of comfort. Other times, she was overly affectionate with Raffaele or inappropriately goofy. The lead investigator of the case, Edgardo Giobbi, claims that his team determined Knox’s guilt based on her “psychological and behavioral reaction during the interrogation.”
Giobbi explicitly admits to using illegitimate, circumstantial evidence to convict Knox when he claims that her “psychological and behavioral reaction during the investigation” was somehow proof of her guilt. Giobbi subscribes to the myth of transparency: he believes that Knox’s unique behavior correlates to his culturally specific ideas of how guilt looks.
Themes
4. Levine’s findings also suggest that law enforcement agents aren’t any better at determining guilt or innocence based on behavior than laypeople. While law enforcement performed above average when determining the guilt or innocence of “matched” people, their judgement of mismatched people proved to be highly problematic. In fact, law enforcement correctly identified the guilt or innocence of mismatched people just 14 percent of the time. Gladwell wonders whether our inability to judge mismatched people can account for a fraction of wrongful convictions and other miscarriages of justice.
Gladwell insists that unfortunately, Knox’s poor treatment by the Italian justice system is far from unusual. Levine’s research reveals that law enforcement are no better at reading people’s behavior than lay-people. This is so concerning for Gladwell because it suggests that the methods by which law enforcement are trained to assess suspects are based on the myth of transparency.
Themes
