Sold Out
Book Categories |
Discusses the processes through which we become convinced of the validity of questionable or false beliefs such as special psychological powers and New Age health practices.
Title: How we know what isn't so
WonderClub
Item Number: 9780029117057
Number: 1
Product Description: How we know what isn't so
Universal Product Code (UPC): 9780029117057
WonderClub Stock Keeping Unit (WSKU): 9780029117057
Rating: 4.5/5 based on 2 Reviews
Image Location: https://wonderclub.com/images/covers/70/57/9780029117057.jpg
Weight: 0.200 kg (0.44 lbs)
Width: 0.000 cm (0.00 inches)
Heigh : 0.000 cm (0.00 inches)
Depth: 0.000 cm (0.00 inches)
Date Added: August 25, 2020, Added By: Ross
Date Last Edited: August 25, 2020, Edited By: Ross
Price | Condition | Delivery | Seller | Action |
$99.99 | Digital |
| WonderClub (9290 total ratings) |
Donald Cawood
reviewed How we know what isn't so on August 17, 2009I thought this was a remarkable book - five stars all the way - up until the last couple of chapters when it really didn't live up to its initial promise. But I'm giving it 5 stars anyway, because the first two parts are so good they are more than worth whatever effort is necessary to get your hands on this.
It is a bit old now - first printed in 1991, but many of the ideas are still essential if you have any interest in how our judgement and decision making processes can land us in trouble.
The first two parts of this book are the most interesting - they deal with cognitive determinants and biases and then motivational and social biases.
Many of the mistakes we make about the world have to do with the fact that as humans we are not terribly good at working out what a random string of data might look like. And we do like to see meaning in things. This is the man who discovered that the 'hot hand' effect in basketball (that people believe that if you are scoring well that you should be passed the ball more often) is not supported by the data (in fact, the data suggests that you should probably pass to the person who missed their last shot as they will be more focused on not missing again). Interestingly, when he presented this data in a report 'sports experts' canned him as some academic know nothing coming onto their turf and making a fool of himself - effectively proving they had been fooled by randomness all their lives and were determined to remain fooled.
So that this review doesn't go on forever, I might just give a list of the biases discussed in these early parts of the book:
The problem of random data not looking random (he discusses the random falling of V2 bombs on London during the war and how these were felt to be targeted when in fact they were not).
Regression towards the mean. If you do really well or really badly in one attempt you are likely to do worse or better the next time. The Sports Illustrated Jinx is used as an example - people who appear on its cover are supposed to be jinxed immediately after - but you only get on the cover if you have had an incredible run of good performances so regression back toward your average is probably due, so not a jinx, just the way life is.
Self-fulfilling prophesies - where my behaviour on knowing you are an unfriendly bastard means either that I am generally cold towards you (thus confirming my bias) or I avoid you and never find out you are actually a darling - which leads to the not terribly comforting conclusion that while our negative first impressions are long lasting our positive first impressions are likely to be proven wrong. (How we ever end up with friends at all is an interesting question) You could call this the Pride and Prejudice bias.
Gambling - this stuff was fascinating. The myth is that gamblers remember their wins and ignore their losses, but in fact, the opposite is the case. Gamblers focus much more on their losses and remember their losses for much longer. The thing is that they also see their losses not as 'losses' but as 'near wins'. 'If only' being the key phrase here.
The problem of multiple end-points. A psychic predicts at the start of the year that a famous politician will die. Not only will this be confirmed if the President dies, but also, in some people's minds, even if he nearly dies. And of course, even in America, there tends to be more than one famous politician.
Excessive scrutiny of disconfirming information - the idea that, like the gamblers above, we put more effort into scrutinising information that opposes our views than we do to that which confirms our views, if only so we can prove why it is wrong.
One-sided events - that we tend to see confirmation more in data that is 'one-sided' - e.g. 'the phone always rings when I'm in the shower' seems true because when the phone rings when I'm in the shower it is a pain, but when it doesn't ring it goes unnoticed. The other side to this is, 'I always know when someone has had a facelift', well, accept when I can't tell, but then I don't know when that is, do I?
Flatter me - most people tend to believe flattering things about themselves. Most people think they are 'above average'. Interesting discussion on students deciding if they are either introverted or extroverted. First half of them are told that being introverted is strongly correlated to academic success - then the other half are told that being extroverted is correlated to success. Most students in either group then say they are the one that is related to success and go on to provide 'evidence' to show why they are either extroverted or introverted depending on the group they were randomly selected for (and can't we all do that?) Driving is another interesting example of this - everyone is a good driver, but the criteria changes. I'm a good driver because of my skills, you are a good driver because of your courteously, and he is a good driver because of his patience.
Telling a good story - we sharpen and level the facts to a story so as to heighten the point of the narrative, but this can cause biases. Discusses UFOs and how the media tend to report them much more favourably than the 'facts' would seem to justify for the good of the story. The effect? Lots of people believing in little green men buzzing crazies on lonely country roads.
For the greater good - we tell 'lies' because they are 'good' for people. Drugs are bad, but the lies we tell our kids about them make them sound infinitely worse. And what about this little beauty, "Research studies now project that one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That's by 1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me." Oprah Winfrey.
Plausibility - Did you know that Bobby McFerrin (aka, the guy that sang Don't Worry, Be Happy) committed suicide? Well, actually, he didn't, but it has the ring of truth about it, doesn't it? In that strangely ironic kind of way.
Social Projection - we believe others are much more likely to believe what we believe than they necessarily do. When they asked college students if they would wear a sign saying Repent! Of those who said they would they also believed that 60% of other students would also agree to wear such a sign. Of those who said they would not they felt 70% would also not wear such a sign. And that makes a mere 130%...
Victims of Circumstance - if we are studying law, say, we are much more likely to believe we 'got here almost by accident' but to then believe that everyone else got here due to their fundamental character. Although not discussed extensively in this book, this is one of my favourite biases. It helps us to blame others and excuse ourselves - worth its weight in gold.
Inadequate feedback - Sometimes there are things about us even our best friends won't mention, but have you ever considered using a deodorant? Their silence is often construed by us to be support of our views, when it is often anything but.
The first two parts are then followed by three chapters looking at examples of questionable and erroneous beliefs: belief in ineffective 'alternative' health practices (well worth reading, even on its own), belief in questionable interpersonal strategies and belief in ESP. I didn't think the ESP chapter in particular added anything to the book. Let's face it, the only people capable of believing in ESP are challenged by having to wear lace-up shoes, so the stuff in this chapter was the least interesting in the book.
The fact remains that while this book is discussing the types of errors we are prone to fall into and how to avoid them it is utterly brilliant. It is just a pity that the less great bits come nearly at the end and so one is left with them as the main impression (big mistake, but not fatal). The first two thirds of this book are packed to overflowing with fascinating information that will - quite literally - change the way you think about the world. Now, that can't be a bad thing, can it?
Anthony Gould
reviewed How we know what isn't so on December 31, 2008This book examines cognitive biases. Gilovich describes various dubious beliefs, such as faith healing and other homeopathic nonsense. He investigates the thought processes that affect our ability to make sound judgments. It encouraged me to examine the shortcomings of my own reasoning. Highly recommend.
Login|Complaints|Blog|Games|Digital Media|Souls|Obituary|Contact Us|FAQ
CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? CLICK HERE!!! X
You must be logged in to add to WishlistX
This item is in your CollectionHow we know what isn't so
X
This Item is in Your InventoryHow we know what isn't so
X
You must be logged in to review the productsX
X
Add How we know what isn't so, , How we know what isn't so to the inventory that you are selling on WonderClubX
X
Add How we know what isn't so, , How we know what isn't so to your collection on WonderClub |