|
Review Summary: Flawed premise and lots of errorenous conclusion. Beware. |
Date: 2008-10-13 |
|
| |
Details: Someone used to say, a Ph.D from Ivy League is more dangerous and erroneous than your typical mexican day laborer who may not even finished grade school. At least most people don't put much credence on the opinion of a day laborer. when it comes to PhD from Ivy League, we tend to accept the opinion as truth or at least being intelligent or educated but in fact, history has shown us PhD from Ivy League or Nobel recipients could make the most gravest error in judgment or assessment yet due to his/her PhD hood ornament, most people accepted their thoughts without question. This book is one such book which is dangerous as almost all the information presented are half truth and some totally wrong and may lead readers to wrong conclusion.
Three fundamental errors of this book.
1. Infallibility of Gaussian (regression analysis). The writer upheld the infallibility of statistical linear regression (Gaussian) analysis and pointed out how people got it wrong because either they failed to apply the Gaussian principle correctly. The writer made the error of "Monday Morning Quarter Back" as most of his so called incorrect application of linear regression is "after the fact" analysis. It is like saying I should have picked the designated number AFTER the lottery result was released. More importantly, history has shown us most event in social sciences (sociology, history, politics, economics) don't follow the Gaussian principle which makes its prediction based on observation of historical events. Case in point, no sampling can help us to predict 9/11 or the present financial markets collapse. So the foundation of this writer's thesis is fundamentally flawed. When he analyzed why "faith healing" or "holistic medicine" does not work, the writer's citations of testing results certainly did not prove the existence of "faith healing" however, it also did not prove the non existence of faith healing. while so far nobody has been able to prove the existence of "faith healing" but the same can be said of no test has been able to prove the non existence of faith healing also. The writer committed the same "experimenter error" while he accused others of making the same.
2. The writer proposed some solutions to address the fallibility of human reasons as in teaching our children physical sciences (i agree) and social sciences (i disagree). The problem of our present social sciences is the academia pretends social sciences is like physical sciences that one can apply Gaussian and create "experimentation" by holding everything as "constant" and making variation on one variable. However, in our day to day life, such experimentation is not possible as human events have so many variables and synergy. Not surprisingly, the Gaussian methodology has so far failed to prove its "predictive efficacy" (to quote Deng, "the cat does not catch mouse"). teaching our kids to learn more social sciences and its methods of Gaussian is just replacing one set of flawed beliefs with another set albeit the new set is approved of by some Nobel recipients or professor from Cornell Univ (which the writer was a teacher).
3. The writer should have concluded that in social sciences, we have a lot of unknown and we don't really even know how much we don't know after his critique of the many flawed opinions we have (like hot hand in shoot basketball). If he had done that at Chapter 11 (the final chapter where he offered so called his "solutions"), this book would be so much more accurate and truth to fact. Yet, his "faith based" believe in Gaussian (Linear Regression) and the so called "social science" principles totally render this book useless, not helpful to guide us to understand the core reasons of our problems.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: It should intrigue you, and scare you. |
Date: 2008-05-29 |
|
| |
Details: Out of the thousands I've read, from Amazon and elsewhere, I rarely rate books. This was one I HAD to rate. I first bought and read this books seven years ago and, as far as 'psychology' books go, this is in my top 3 of all time. Human reasoning is indeed fallible, in fact so much so that it should scare you. I mean it. And none of us are immune. This book will clearly show you the factual evidence of this and WHY human reason is so fallible and what that means to you in everyday life. And as one begins to grasp the full ramifications of this, it is sometimes a wonder that we can function and communicate as a society at all.
In the context of everything from dealing with people at work, dealing with your family at home, all the way to that guy or girl that "got away" and seemed to have tragic misperceptions of you that just weren't true, this book goes deep into the mechanisms of how those false perceptions were probably formed to begin with.
Chapter Four: "PEOPLE SEE WHAT THEY EXPECT TO SEE." Somewhere in the beginning, upon meeting someone, you set up an expectation in that person (perhaps inadvertently) as to how they should see you. And from that time forward, regardless of what you do, they will see everything you say and do through the often distorted coloring of that mental filter. Ringing a bell here? Ever had that happen? The book WILL also force the reader to examine his or her own beliefs and actions. In fact I would go so far as to give this book something of a "READER BEWARE" label. It can sometimes be unsettling to come to terms with and reanalyze things you may have believed your entire life. The book may very well leave you thinking, "Why on earth have I been thinking about this issue/situation/person the way that I have for so long!"
Thank you for reading my review. I'm off to read the book yet again. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Highly recommended for anyone who cares about sound reasoning and critical thinking |
Date: 2008-03-23 |
|
|
| |
Details: This book excels in showing how and why people adopt questionable beliefs, and how/why people cling tenaciously to demonstrably erroneous beliefs, even when confronted to contrary evidence. The reasons are not simple narrow mindedness or gullibility, but several cognitive biases and circumstances that make us process information in certain ways. Processing our everyday experience without certain healthy habits of mind and sound reasoning can only too easily lead to the formation of those beliefs.
The first two thirds of the book survey some of the cognitive issues involved in the formation of questionable beliefs, while at the same time describing associated psychological literature and research. Numerous references are included pointing to studies supporting all the findings and facts presented.
The last third of the book goes over some typical questionable beliefs: the belief in ineffective "alterative" health practices, in ESP, and in the effectiveness of questionable interpersonal strategies.
At some points the book might feel in fact a bit too "academic." Thomas Gilovich, the author, is a social psychologist and researcher from Cornell University after all. Yet, this academic slant or style, in my opinion, just gives more precision and strength to all the information so well presented and explained in the book.
Gilovich closes the book stating that the healthy habits of mind required to avoid the formation of dubious beliefs actually are not as common as we might think; not even among people trained in the hard sciences! Apparently, the "soft" sciences have an advantage in more effectively teaching the kind of methodological skills most suitable for the sound evaluation of our own everyday experiences.
In summary, this book encourages us readers to question our assumptions; it challenges what we think we know, and also gives us some recommendations for building the right habits of mind to better learn how not to deceive ourselves and stay clear of dubious beliefs.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Not the Full Monty. |
Date: 2007-10-08 |
|
| |
Details: My main interest in this subject lies in a search for answers to the question of why perfectly sane and intelligent people put faith in God above reasoning. Why do so many choose to believe so strongly with so little evidence? Unfortunately Thomas Gilovich absolutely refuses to cast light on religious delusions, but mainly states that theists and atheist "both need to develop the habit of thinking more broadly." Not helpful at all and sort of a faux pas to include this lame comment in the book.
Never the less, the book is a good and thorough introduction to the subject of our penchant for faulty reasoning, but also somewhat dry and repetitive. I wasn't exactly rolling on the floor with laughter, which might be too much to ask; but the many examples and anecdotes could be presented with greater vigour without harming the seriousness and validity of the study.
May I recommend: "Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking" by Thomas E. Kida, which is very similar in content and reference a lot of the same sources, but is also more playful and entertaining. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Vulcans Should Read This Book |
Date: 2007-06-01 |
|
|
| |
Details: Hello, my name is Mr. Spock. You may know me from the TV series StarTrek. For years I've been tormented by the illogic of humans. Let's face it, Captain Kirk and Dr. McCoy are not the sharpest phasers in the intergalactic utility belt!
Then I read Gilovich's book. It helped me realize that humans are most illogical in times of uncertainty when there is no clear trend and not enough information upon which to make a good decision. In such cases, especially when a decision must be made, logic is not going to be of much help. As a result, people develop simple, but often inaccurate, theories to help them through painful states of indecision. The decision may be good or not, but at least a decision has been made, and that alone provides comfort.
Unfortunately, humans also have a strong desire to justify their theories, and this is where they get into trouble. Data that proves the theory is retained and emphasized, and data that doesn't is heavily discounted. So the theory takes on a life of its own despite the facts, which admittedly may themselves be ambiguous at times.
The bottom line is that this book gave me a greater understanding of humans. As a result, I feel more comfortable communicating with them, and just being around them in general. If you're part Vulcan like I am, or even a logical human, I strongly suggest you read this excellent book about human thinking and decision making. You won't be sorry. Live long and prosper!
Mr. Scot, I have completed my Amazon review, and have obtained the Chinese food and pornography magazines the Captain has requested. Please beam me up now.
|
| |
|
out of 36 Reviews
