ME, MALCOLM GLADWELL, AND A BLINK OF THE EYE

Time to get back to the Gladwell Affair. He seems to have appropriated my previously published metaphor for intuition ‘a blink of the eye’ in Blink, and the book turned into a best seller. Check out Things Are Not As They Seem

I first published the metaphor along with the unusual experience in which it came to me in 1997 in a journal article in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine titled “Towards an Understanding of Intuition and its Importance in Scientific Endeavor." (See link to paper at end; the metaphor etc. is on page 4.) The metaphor may sound obvious, but like most powerful metaphors, this is only true once you have heard it. It is also at the core of a book I have written over a period of ten years that explores the science and experience of intuition.

Here are the facts. Early in 2002, at the suggestion of a former colleague, I wrote to Tina Bennett a literary agent in New York and asked her to represent my book on intuition. In my letter I included the citation to the paper I had published on the topic---to show I was qualified to write the book. She turned me down.

In early 2005, Malcolm Gladwell her client published Blink and did not cite my paper. The title is a clear reference to the metaphor, however this is legitimate in terms of copyright law since titles are open game. He crosses the line when he uses the metaphor as a synonym for intuition in the introduction (page 17) and said " ...there can be as much value in the blink of an eye as in months of analysis." The line is frequently quoted.


After Blink came out, I wrote to Gladwell, Tina Bennett, the agent, and Michael Pietsch, the head of Little Brown, the publisher of the book, asking them to cite my first use of the metaphor. They declined; a lawyer informed me that both Gladwell and the agent claimed they had not seen my paper.

It would be more comfortable for me in several ways if I could believe that my work was not the source of this metaphor, which had an important part in making Gladwell book a bestseller. But, alas, this comfort was not to be.

Early on, when I was in the midst of trying to convince myself my work was not their source for the metaphor, I had one of the most unusual spiritual intuitions I have ever had. Time slowed down, and soft, other-worldly inner light illuminated the stunning message that they had indeed taken the metaphor from my work.

I find the ordinary or clearly biologically-based aspects of intuition much more arresting than its potential extraordinary aspects at this point in my life. But because of the completely unbidden, even “contrary” nature of this experience---along with its strong spiritual surround, it intrigues me. (The connection between intuition and spirituality does interest me strongly.) Most of the time, I believe what it reported is true. At the very least, I cannot just ignore its uncomfortable message.

I have decided not to sue for copyright violation---at least for the time being. Eventually should I decide to do so, I sense there is a very interesting case to be made. For anyone who might be holding their breath, rest assured it does not depend on extraordinary knowing, but rather on the copyright law and the nature of metaphor. In fact whether or not Gladwell initially saw the paper is immaterial to the copyright issue. I informed of them my prior use of the metaphor, and they declined to cite it.

My unwitting connection with Malcolm Gladwell has made my book on intuition, which is a difficult book to publish, even more so. I sense publishers are uncomfortable with the fact that I actually first published this metaphor, which has cemented Gladwell’s role as the king of the publishing world. Alas this emperor---who claims he wants "to make a better world"---may be only scantily clad.

My book is inherently difficult to publish because it includes both scientific material about intuition and intuitions about intuition. (These intuitions, like my blink of the eye experience, are very powerful and rather extraordinary in their own way, but they do not require extraordinary intuition to account for them.) I was surprised and delighted to find these two different approaches bootstrapping on each other to reveal so much more about intuition than I would have ever imagined possible. Over time, the book turned into a bridge between our two ways of knowing.

What some might see as a risky partnership in which vast culture differences spell failure, I know to be an alchemical marriage in which both sides are transformed. Sometimes having to hang out with material that is alien to one's ordinary way of thinking and seems unclear has much bigger impact than information effortlessly absorbed. This kind of hard won impact is what is needed for the transformation I am hoping to have a part in bringing about. I am also convinced that there is a large audience for the book. Most people who have more than a passing acquaintance with this material have been deeply affected by it. We are all at some level longing for the sense of wholeness that this joining promotes.

I wish that this difficult experience had not happened. But it has had a silver lining. It has forced me to retink what is really important in living. Certainly I want a sense of completion for my long project, recognition for my work, and to share what I have found with others. But I have learned that many apparently lesser things are perhaps even more important to me---most especially the simple joy of being.

When Blink first came out, I asked myself half jokingly, “ If I had to choose between enlightenment and getting my book published, which would it be?” Had I responded from the place where I usually lived then, I would have answered that getting my book published was more important.

I am in no danger of getting enlightened any time soon, but something has started to switch. I sense that certain essential oils with spiritual overtones are concentrating and growing stronger in me---as sometimes happens to herbs grown in poor soil. My wish is more and more for wisdom in my efforts to serve. I sometimes still worry about the book getting published, but for the most part I know that it will happen when the time in right

My 1997 paper on intuition has not been readily available on the web. I have decided to make it so and eventually some of my other work on intuition. Anyone tempted to use my work without attribution--or any other work--beware of the risk! Alas this risk is so easy to overlook in the rush to get ahead---and ahead---and even further ahead. Though intangible, I suspect it is substantial---at least for those who care about an open relationship with their soul.