You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
icallaci's review
2.0
The subtitle of the book is "Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts," but there is very little in here about why we do those things, except to say that our brain is hardwired that way. The brain has evolved to notice patterns, sometimes where none exist, and this trait has served as a fairly efficient survival mechanism, although it also leads us to rationalize the "foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts" of the book's subtitle. The unreliability of memory is also well documented, except that plenty of studies (for example, those involving Holocaust survivors) indicate that many memories are accurate. So how do you tell the difference between a valid or invalid pattern? A true or false memory?
Just telling stories about people who refuse to change their views when presented with conflicting evidence is not enough to show me how to recognize the same trait in myself. How can I identify my own biases? How do I know if my premises are reasonable? Am I seeing a pattern that isn't there? Should I assume my opinion is wrong if it goes against the majority view? How do I evaluate whether an expert I have relied on is mistaken or biased or lying? How do I decide whether to change my view or stick to my guns?
Hindsight is 20/20, especially when it comes to other people's mistakes. However, no real distinction is made between 1) rational decisions that end up being wrong, 2) unavoidable decisions made with incomplete information, or 3) wildly absurd beliefs that taint the process from the start. Complex situations are oversimplified. In the section on politics, the authors come very close to justifying their own biases while warning readers against doing the very same thing. In short, this book raises important issues but provides almost no guidance about how to deal with them. A problem without a solution is not what I was looking for.
Just telling stories about people who refuse to change their views when presented with conflicting evidence is not enough to show me how to recognize the same trait in myself. How can I identify my own biases? How do I know if my premises are reasonable? Am I seeing a pattern that isn't there? Should I assume my opinion is wrong if it goes against the majority view? How do I evaluate whether an expert I have relied on is mistaken or biased or lying? How do I decide whether to change my view or stick to my guns?
Hindsight is 20/20, especially when it comes to other people's mistakes. However, no real distinction is made between 1) rational decisions that end up being wrong, 2) unavoidable decisions made with incomplete information, or 3) wildly absurd beliefs that taint the process from the start. Complex situations are oversimplified. In the section on politics, the authors come very close to justifying their own biases while warning readers against doing the very same thing. In short, this book raises important issues but provides almost no guidance about how to deal with them. A problem without a solution is not what I was looking for.
kirsten0929's review against another edition
4.0
[2007] Almost gave this three stars because I felt like it didn't add a lot that was new to the discussion; I've read most of these ideas before - cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, etc.. But then I remembered that when this book first came out more than ten years ago, it may have been one of the first putting these, now commonly known, concepts out into the layperson's arena. And no matter what, I could read all day about human behavior and why we do the things we do. It's really made me think about what beliefs I should reconsider. What unproductive thoughts, feelings, or actions do I hold onto because they are "just who I am"? On what issues am I perhaps trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance? How much self-justification do I do to avoid admitting I've made a mistake? So hard to see these things in ourselves but this book has motivated me to try.
angelafangmeier's review against another edition
challenging
informative
fast-paced
4.0
A little dated now as far as examples given in the text, but interesting to speculate about more recent events within this framework.
deedoo's review against another edition
When they decided to say that anyone who remembers being sexually assaulted is being manipulated, I had to say goodbye.
heidi_thompson's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
In a hyper-polarized world, it’s important to understand how people end up with their (sometimes extreme) opinions, how people won’t unbiasedly evaluate evidence that opposes their view, and also how to recognize when you’re doing this exact thing and how to stop it. And if you are thinking, “I don’t do that” then that’s proof you actually do. We ALL do it.
This was SUCH an insightful book. It made be aware of the lens I view the world through and how I use self-justification to sustain the said lens. I was able to reflect on both my past belief and experiences with family, friends, and myself and see how I reached the conclusions I did and what I do to either sustain or break free from them. It also has since helped me evaluate my biases and instincts to see if what I think and do is ACTUALLY beneficial or if I just want it to be.
I’m also able to understand the actions of others more. It can be frustrating when someone says something that hurts you but, by understanding self-justification a bit, I have some insight on why people (including myself!) say/do hurtful things and also have difficultly accepting they’re hurtful at all.
This was SUCH an insightful book. It made be aware of the lens I view the world through and how I use self-justification to sustain the said lens. I was able to reflect on both my past belief and experiences with family, friends, and myself and see how I reached the conclusions I did and what I do to either sustain or break free from them. It also has since helped me evaluate my biases and instincts to see if what I think and do is ACTUALLY beneficial or if I just want it to be.
I’m also able to understand the actions of others more. It can be frustrating when someone says something that hurts you but, by understanding self-justification a bit, I have some insight on why people (including myself!) say/do hurtful things and also have difficultly accepting they’re hurtful at all.
afeednazir's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Reading this was great experience for me. I had come to understand that what self-justification leads to the things anyone can dream of. Gaind great knowledge.
bhnmt61's review
4.0
Usually I review a book shortly after finishing it. This book was all over the place for me, so I decided to wait a few days before writing a review. The short version: everyone should read this book, at least the first few chapters. We all think that we behave in ways that make sense, because we are so good at rationalizing. But we hide from ourselves the ways we excuse and re-write our own behavior, at the same time that we vilify those we disagree with.
If I am rude to a store clerk, it's because I was having a bad day; but if I see someone else being rude, it's because they are by nature privileged and arrogant. It's not new material-- there has been all kinds of news about "cognitive dissonance" over the past few years-- but the information is laid out clearly and inescapably. There are moments when it is a deeply uncomfortable read.
But there are also moments when their arguments veer into absurdity. The authors have a reverence for science and scientific thinking that totally ignores that scientists can be just as human as the rest of us. They cling to their favorite theories in the face of new evidence, they have rivalries and jealousies and disagreements just like the rest of us.
I worked for an educational research firm once upon a time, and although I was thankful that the PI was ethical and did her best to accurately portray results, when you're dealing with raw data you realize just how much personal bias goes into interpretation. It can be relatively simple to construct the data set in such a way that it shows what you want it to. I do believe that over time the scientific method works as it is supposed to, but at any particular point in time, you're dealing with human beings with just as much resistance to cognitive dissonance as anyone else.
And also, the authors tend to plunge into a story at the moment that proves their point, without fully reporting the context. In their chapter on the large number of high profile cases of "repressed memories" back in the 90s, they jump right into the story at the point that a number of innocent people were accused of flagrant abuse that -- in retrospect-- was obviously not true. But they fail to mention that the therapists were trying to right a wrong that had gone on for generations, when the prevailing wisdom was that children should never be believed and should never criticize their elders, and that parents had the God-given right to raise their children however they see fit. Were those therapists wrong? Sometimes, maybe even often, yes. But in the context of their efforts to fundamentally change the way children were treated and perceived, most of them weren't quite the villains that they appear to be in this telling.
But with those caveats, this book is fascinating. An understanding of cognitive dissonance is one of the few things I can think of that is clearly and immediately relevant to resolving our polarized current moment. Highly recommended.
If I am rude to a store clerk, it's because I was having a bad day; but if I see someone else being rude, it's because they are by nature privileged and arrogant. It's not new material-- there has been all kinds of news about "cognitive dissonance" over the past few years-- but the information is laid out clearly and inescapably. There are moments when it is a deeply uncomfortable read.
But there are also moments when their arguments veer into absurdity. The authors have a reverence for science and scientific thinking that totally ignores that scientists can be just as human as the rest of us. They cling to their favorite theories in the face of new evidence, they have rivalries and jealousies and disagreements just like the rest of us.
I worked for an educational research firm once upon a time, and although I was thankful that the PI was ethical and did her best to accurately portray results, when you're dealing with raw data you realize just how much personal bias goes into interpretation. It can be relatively simple to construct the data set in such a way that it shows what you want it to. I do believe that over time the scientific method works as it is supposed to, but at any particular point in time, you're dealing with human beings with just as much resistance to cognitive dissonance as anyone else.
And also, the authors tend to plunge into a story at the moment that proves their point, without fully reporting the context. In their chapter on the large number of high profile cases of "repressed memories" back in the 90s, they jump right into the story at the point that a number of innocent people were accused of flagrant abuse that -- in retrospect-- was obviously not true. But they fail to mention that the therapists were trying to right a wrong that had gone on for generations, when the prevailing wisdom was that children should never be believed and should never criticize their elders, and that parents had the God-given right to raise their children however they see fit. Were those therapists wrong? Sometimes, maybe even often, yes. But in the context of their efforts to fundamentally change the way children were treated and perceived, most of them weren't quite the villains that they appear to be in this telling.
But with those caveats, this book is fascinating. An understanding of cognitive dissonance is one of the few things I can think of that is clearly and immediately relevant to resolving our polarized current moment. Highly recommended.