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.