Scan barcode
carol26388's review against another edition
1.0
03/28/14 Update.
I don't know where this review went, but I'm putting it back.
11/09/13 Update.
This is why Goodreads needs to separate itself from Amazon, and why Amazon sucks: http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0547247990
An average of four stars, the "most helpful negative review" is three stars, and the main page and 'negative review' doesn't mentions Lehrer's little plagiarism problem or the fact that the publisher recalled the book--they actually offered refunds. This is why I don't bother with Amazon reviews, and this is why GR will go the way of the dodo.
http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/product-reviews/0547247990/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1
7/14/13 Update.
What to do, what to do, what to do. The book is being pulled by the publisher and refunds offered. Clearly, something's wrong. I loved the ideas, even if they weren't Lehrer's, but now I'm afraid he deserves a permanent ban from my to be read pile. I find myself questioning how much was fabricated because he wanted it to be true rather than because there was support for it being true.
Self-plagiarism isn't a problem to me as much as the blatant made-up quotes (see link on Bob Dylan), quotes suspiciously congruent to other authors (see Malcolm Gladwell connection), using Wikipedia as a source and furiously lying through his teeth when discovered.
Thanks to Carly's review for awareness of the issue.
**********************************************
Very fascinating book. Lots of insight into the human mind written in very accessible language. Does not commit the cardinal sin of listing many case studies and then drawing conclusions; instead Lehrer helps make neurobiology and scientific studies accessible by explaining the study and then giving a case study in action. I plan on purchasing this book at some point so that I can think more about the concepts covered and their implications in my own life. He covers basically, how we make decisions, using an emotional brain, a logical brain (aka prefrontal cortex) as well as other areas of the brain. Ultimately by providing more insight into the decision making process, he is hoping to empower us to make better decisions for ourselves.
The first part on emotional brain helped me understand even more why clicker training is so powerful, another area of interest for me. He later makes the interesting point that it is the rational brain we should consult for small, less global decisions (his "which jam" examples) because it is well equipped to parse out the small number of variables needed to decide. This is opposed to the emotional brain, which is actually better equipped to make large global decisions (new couch? which car?) that have multiple areas of data of varying importance. He shows us a little about our desire to find patterns, and how this leads us into decision making traps in finances and gambling. Aversion to loss and our desire to be certain are also fascinating concepts in this book. I also liked that he gave a short chapter at the end summing up the different chapters, and how this information can be integrated into the reader's life.
Occasionally some of the examples are too detailed or too long to make his point as well as they could. The section on gambling, for instance, contained an explanation of a kind of poker. Not being a gambler, I had a hard time following the technical terms he used throughout the pages of the example. I suspect, however, that many examples of sports figures and gambling are meant to attract male readers.
I don't know where this review went, but I'm putting it back.
11/09/13 Update.
This is why Goodreads needs to separate itself from Amazon, and why Amazon sucks: http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0547247990
An average of four stars, the "most helpful negative review" is three stars, and the main page and 'negative review' doesn't mentions Lehrer's little plagiarism problem or the fact that the publisher recalled the book--they actually offered refunds. This is why I don't bother with Amazon reviews, and this is why GR will go the way of the dodo.
http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/product-reviews/0547247990/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1
7/14/13 Update.
What to do, what to do, what to do. The book is being pulled by the publisher and refunds offered. Clearly, something's wrong. I loved the ideas, even if they weren't Lehrer's, but now I'm afraid he deserves a permanent ban from my to be read pile. I find myself questioning how much was fabricated because he wanted it to be true rather than because there was support for it being true.
Self-plagiarism isn't a problem to me as much as the blatant made-up quotes (see link on Bob Dylan), quotes suspiciously congruent to other authors (see Malcolm Gladwell connection), using Wikipedia as a source and furiously lying through his teeth when discovered.
Thanks to Carly's review for awareness of the issue.
**********************************************
Very fascinating book. Lots of insight into the human mind written in very accessible language. Does not commit the cardinal sin of listing many case studies and then drawing conclusions; instead Lehrer helps make neurobiology and scientific studies accessible by explaining the study and then giving a case study in action. I plan on purchasing this book at some point so that I can think more about the concepts covered and their implications in my own life. He covers basically, how we make decisions, using an emotional brain, a logical brain (aka prefrontal cortex) as well as other areas of the brain. Ultimately by providing more insight into the decision making process, he is hoping to empower us to make better decisions for ourselves.
The first part on emotional brain helped me understand even more why clicker training is so powerful, another area of interest for me. He later makes the interesting point that it is the rational brain we should consult for small, less global decisions (his "which jam" examples) because it is well equipped to parse out the small number of variables needed to decide. This is opposed to the emotional brain, which is actually better equipped to make large global decisions (new couch? which car?) that have multiple areas of data of varying importance. He shows us a little about our desire to find patterns, and how this leads us into decision making traps in finances and gambling. Aversion to loss and our desire to be certain are also fascinating concepts in this book. I also liked that he gave a short chapter at the end summing up the different chapters, and how this information can be integrated into the reader's life.
Occasionally some of the examples are too detailed or too long to make his point as well as they could. The section on gambling, for instance, contained an explanation of a kind of poker. Not being a gambler, I had a hard time following the technical terms he used throughout the pages of the example. I suspect, however, that many examples of sports figures and gambling are meant to attract male readers.
rgombert's review against another edition
5.0
A very good book.
I've experienced some of the flash of intuition that they talk about in the book.
Realizing the issue with out being able to articulate it or the reason why.
This should be added to your reading list.
I've experienced some of the flash of intuition that they talk about in the book.
Realizing the issue with out being able to articulate it or the reason why.
This should be added to your reading list.
spygrl1's review against another edition
4.0
How do we make decisions, and how can we work with our brains to make better ones? Lehrer investigates these questions with anecdotes involving quarterbacks, soldiers, pilots, shoppers, gamblers, and chimps and with an overview of neuroscience. It's clear that we are not designed to be strictly "rational" actors -- our emotions are valuable signals from our unconscious, which is doing more processing more quickly than our poor prefrontal cortexes could manage (remember, we can only hold around 8 things in working memory). But being guided solely by impulse and emotion isn't the answer, either. We need to use both types of decision-making, ideally choosing the right mental model for each decision.
Lehrer sums up his advice:
> simple problems demand reason: stop and think about the little things so you can avoid being deceived by trivialities (the most expensive wine doesn't necessarily taste better). But for big decisions (buying a car, buying a house, etc.), once you've gathered the data, you should let your unconscious mind do the processing, and then make a decision guided by emotional cues.
> novel situations also demand reason: Lehrer details the decision-making process of the flight crew of a passenger plane that has lost all hydraulic control -- a totally unprecedented situation. "Instinct" (which can really be thought of as the distilled lessons of past experience and practice) couldn't guide them, so they had to consciously draw on their body of knowledge to craft a unique solution.
> uncertainty is inherent and important: certainty can block you from accepting information that contradicts your conclusion (see, pundits and partisans). Consider competing hypotheses, acknowledge the limits of what you know and what can be known.
"Knowledge has diminishing returns, right up until it has negative returns."
Practical takeaway: Most back pain will get better with rest and time. MRIs aren't usually diagnostic -- they'll show "disc abnormalities" that aren't likely to be the cause of the pain (the same "abnormalities" will be found in people who are NOT experiencing pain). MRIs just lead to more medical procedures and greater expense, not to better outcomes.
Lehrer sums up his advice:
> simple problems demand reason: stop and think about the little things so you can avoid being deceived by trivialities (the most expensive wine doesn't necessarily taste better). But for big decisions (buying a car, buying a house, etc.), once you've gathered the data, you should let your unconscious mind do the processing, and then make a decision guided by emotional cues.
> novel situations also demand reason: Lehrer details the decision-making process of the flight crew of a passenger plane that has lost all hydraulic control -- a totally unprecedented situation. "Instinct" (which can really be thought of as the distilled lessons of past experience and practice) couldn't guide them, so they had to consciously draw on their body of knowledge to craft a unique solution.
> uncertainty is inherent and important: certainty can block you from accepting information that contradicts your conclusion (see, pundits and partisans). Consider competing hypotheses, acknowledge the limits of what you know and what can be known.
"Knowledge has diminishing returns, right up until it has negative returns."
Practical takeaway: Most back pain will get better with rest and time. MRIs aren't usually diagnostic -- they'll show "disc abnormalities" that aren't likely to be the cause of the pain (the same "abnormalities" will be found in people who are NOT experiencing pain). MRIs just lead to more medical procedures and greater expense, not to better outcomes.
agnesinmn's review against another edition
2.0
There is a lot of story telling in this book - and some of the stories are stretched beyond their width the make the point. But the insights do stay with you about the complexities of decision making, about how rational thinking does not work when overwhelmed by too many variables. Then you need to let the information stew in your emotional brain to make the right decision.
Surprising studies show that we make better decisions when relying on our instincts then on rational arguments. Even more interesting how once we made a good decision how our rational mind is struggling to explain it and making up non-sensical arguments just so that we can convince ourselves that "it all makes sense".
Surprising studies show that we make better decisions when relying on our instincts then on rational arguments. Even more interesting how once we made a good decision how our rational mind is struggling to explain it and making up non-sensical arguments just so that we can convince ourselves that "it all makes sense".
laura_sorensen's review against another edition
3.0
I felt that much of the material he discusses can be found in other prior books (The Prisoner's Dilemma, et al) but it's presented entertainingly and so I read it again.
samley's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting counterpoint/addendum to the concepts discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink".
dvonya's review against another edition
3.0
If you aren't familiar with Jonah Leher's blog, where much of the content appears, this book is a totally engrossing read for the first 90%, after which it decides to close on a note somewhere between generally hopeful and obligedly self-help-ish.
anesh's review against another edition
3.0
The first half is quite full of interesting facts and well told stories but after that it kind of becomes less relevant, repetitive and boring.
tachyondecay's review against another edition
5.0
N.B. September 2013: So apparently this book is a pile of plagiarism (hat tip to Ceridwen for the info). I’m not exactly going to re-read the book so I can rewrite my review in that light. But just be aware of this fact as you read the review below.
In my recent review of The Grand Design I went on about my love of science, particularly of physics. I’ll be honest: although biology is really, really cool, I also find it kind of gross. It’s full of squishy stuff, and it was my least favourite of the Holy Trinity of high school science classes (physics, biology, chemistry) for that reason. When I talk biology, I tend to gravitate toward the more abstract areas: genetics, evolutionary biology, and of course, neuroscience—once you get down to the microscopic or molecular levels, the squick factor is considerably reduced. Plus, the brain is just fascinating. It is the undiscovered country of biology: how does consciousness work? What makes us us? The brain is an amazing organ, simultaneously incredibly flexible and resistant yet also so fragile. Even as Jonah Lehrer explores the decision-making process from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, How We Decide also reaffirms my admiration for and awe of the brain.
I learned a great deal from this book. Some of it was about football, because Lehrer opens the first chapter with an analysis of Tom Brady’s performance in the 2002 Super Bowl. Football confuses me at the best of times, but fortunately Lehrer includes plenty of other case studies: airplane disasters, debt counselling, basketball performance, etc. How We Decide is definitely a work of popular science, and it seems to be trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible. However, I approached it as someone interested in learning about neuroscience, and in this respect the book did not let me down.
The focus of How We Decide, especially in the early chapters, is on the distinction between rational decision-making and emotional decision-making. Lehrer challenges the myth that humans are “rational animals”, that our rationality sets us apart and allows us to tame unreliable emotion. His counterexample is the stunning account of people who have experienced damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). This little area of the prefrontal cortex (itself important to the process of decision-making) has a huge impact on how we decide: it is “responsible for integrating visceral emotions into the decision-making process”, and lacking it means one essentially decides based on rational criteria alone. If the myth of our rationality were true, this would result in the ultimate decision maker, completely unswayed by appeals to emotion. Instead, people with damaged or removed OFCs are indecisive: without emotional cues, they are left to analyze even the smallest decision with relentless attention to the pros and the cons. Emotion might sometimes cloud our judgement, but it can also play a vital role in impelling us.
Later, Lehrer looks at the converse, where emotion misleads one’s decision-making process. He uses high-stakes situations, such as playing Deal or No Deal, to illustrate that emotion can prevent us from choosing the better settlement. When we’re angry or feel that our pride is on the line, we can be rash, leading us to reject otherwise fair offers. Credit cards and other abstractions of money make it easier to spend money, because our emotional brain is fooled into thinking we aren’t spending all that much money at all. (Lehrer attributes the subprime mortgage bubble to this kind of thinking, and points out that this is how credit card companies sucker us in to high lifetime interest rates by using low introductory offers. If you can only take away a single piece of advice from How We Decide, try this: “read only the fine print.”)
In fact, what begins to emerge from these chapters on rationality versus emotion is a theory of automatic versus deliberative decision-making. For situations that are familiar to us, it’s best to keep autopilot on and let our unconscious do the thinking. Our brain is used to the situation, and thinking through the steps is more likely to screw us up than help (this is where Lehrer’s sports examples make a lot of sense). However, as will come to no surprise to most of us, our automatic brains are very bad at dealing with unexpected information. In particular, most people’s automatic brains suck at math. This is where rationality and a more thoughtful decision-making process becomes essential: we have to analyze the new information and figure out how to incorporate it into our model before we can proceed. If we do not, we might end up rejecting a deal that is much more lucrative than what any of the remaining briefcases might offer.
All this might sound rather obvious so far (if so, congratulations on your smartitude), and you might be thinking, but what about the science behind these conclusions? Well, it’s there, but it’s so well integrated into the book that if I start trying to tease it out and present it for our mutual amusement, I’ll probably just end up making it sound dry and boring. Suffice it to say, the second chapter is called “The Predictions of Dopamine”, and Lehrer goes into great detail through the book about the roles various sections of the brain play in decision-making, as well as how we know this—mostly fMRIs, sometimes monkey torture. And of course, it’s worth keeping in mind that none of this is as simple as Lehrer makes it out to be, and that there are probably alternative explanations—e.g., game theory, evolutionary psychology, etc. Lehrer occasionally makes reference to these, but for the most part he sticks with a very functional exploration of our brain. And that’s fine; if I want to read different perspectives, I can always seek out books on those particular topics.
In the spirit of this book’s subject matter, I’ll acknowledge a bias in my decision to like this book. How We Decide lends support to a lot of positions I personally endorse. For example, Lehrer points out that, “people with a genetic mutation that reduces the number of dopamine receptors in the ACC [anterior cingulate cortex] … are significantly more likely to become addicted to drugs and alcohol”. This belies the contention that addiction is a choice rather than a disease and that addicts simply lack sufficient “willpower” to improve their lives. I’m not saying that we should just drug everyone based on his or her neurological profile—but certainly understanding biological factors that influence our tendencies can help us combat negative tendencies, such as addiction. (Lehrer and I also share a mild disdain for economics and attempts to play the stock market like it’s a predictable phenomenon.)
If there is a theme to How We Decide, it’s that we often suck at making decisions. Not only do we have numerous biases left over from evolutionary adaptation and social inculcation, but the complex interplay between conscious and unconscious decision-making means sometimes we relegate decisions to a part of our brain that isn’t particularly suited to them. Lehrer’s theme, however, is that not all is hopeless: by being aware of these biases, by thinking about how we think, we can mitigate them and improve our ability to make decisions. It turns out that how we decide is influenced a great deal by thinking about how we decide.
And so that’s why I loved this book. It is an excellent scientific look at decision-making through both anecdotal and empirical evidence. (The former is, of course, worthless in a court of science but invaluable in the court of opinion.) Moreover, How We Decide is useful, offering salient advice about how to improve one’s ability to make decisions. I don’t doubt that many people will dislike this book, or at least Lehrer’s style or his derision for economics, but I do highly recommend you give it a try.
In my recent review of The Grand Design I went on about my love of science, particularly of physics. I’ll be honest: although biology is really, really cool, I also find it kind of gross. It’s full of squishy stuff, and it was my least favourite of the Holy Trinity of high school science classes (physics, biology, chemistry) for that reason. When I talk biology, I tend to gravitate toward the more abstract areas: genetics, evolutionary biology, and of course, neuroscience—once you get down to the microscopic or molecular levels, the squick factor is considerably reduced. Plus, the brain is just fascinating. It is the undiscovered country of biology: how does consciousness work? What makes us us? The brain is an amazing organ, simultaneously incredibly flexible and resistant yet also so fragile. Even as Jonah Lehrer explores the decision-making process from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, How We Decide also reaffirms my admiration for and awe of the brain.
I learned a great deal from this book. Some of it was about football, because Lehrer opens the first chapter with an analysis of Tom Brady’s performance in the 2002 Super Bowl. Football confuses me at the best of times, but fortunately Lehrer includes plenty of other case studies: airplane disasters, debt counselling, basketball performance, etc. How We Decide is definitely a work of popular science, and it seems to be trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible. However, I approached it as someone interested in learning about neuroscience, and in this respect the book did not let me down.
The focus of How We Decide, especially in the early chapters, is on the distinction between rational decision-making and emotional decision-making. Lehrer challenges the myth that humans are “rational animals”, that our rationality sets us apart and allows us to tame unreliable emotion. His counterexample is the stunning account of people who have experienced damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). This little area of the prefrontal cortex (itself important to the process of decision-making) has a huge impact on how we decide: it is “responsible for integrating visceral emotions into the decision-making process”, and lacking it means one essentially decides based on rational criteria alone. If the myth of our rationality were true, this would result in the ultimate decision maker, completely unswayed by appeals to emotion. Instead, people with damaged or removed OFCs are indecisive: without emotional cues, they are left to analyze even the smallest decision with relentless attention to the pros and the cons. Emotion might sometimes cloud our judgement, but it can also play a vital role in impelling us.
Later, Lehrer looks at the converse, where emotion misleads one’s decision-making process. He uses high-stakes situations, such as playing Deal or No Deal, to illustrate that emotion can prevent us from choosing the better settlement. When we’re angry or feel that our pride is on the line, we can be rash, leading us to reject otherwise fair offers. Credit cards and other abstractions of money make it easier to spend money, because our emotional brain is fooled into thinking we aren’t spending all that much money at all. (Lehrer attributes the subprime mortgage bubble to this kind of thinking, and points out that this is how credit card companies sucker us in to high lifetime interest rates by using low introductory offers. If you can only take away a single piece of advice from How We Decide, try this: “read only the fine print.”)
In fact, what begins to emerge from these chapters on rationality versus emotion is a theory of automatic versus deliberative decision-making. For situations that are familiar to us, it’s best to keep autopilot on and let our unconscious do the thinking. Our brain is used to the situation, and thinking through the steps is more likely to screw us up than help (this is where Lehrer’s sports examples make a lot of sense). However, as will come to no surprise to most of us, our automatic brains are very bad at dealing with unexpected information. In particular, most people’s automatic brains suck at math. This is where rationality and a more thoughtful decision-making process becomes essential: we have to analyze the new information and figure out how to incorporate it into our model before we can proceed. If we do not, we might end up rejecting a deal that is much more lucrative than what any of the remaining briefcases might offer.
All this might sound rather obvious so far (if so, congratulations on your smartitude), and you might be thinking, but what about the science behind these conclusions? Well, it’s there, but it’s so well integrated into the book that if I start trying to tease it out and present it for our mutual amusement, I’ll probably just end up making it sound dry and boring. Suffice it to say, the second chapter is called “The Predictions of Dopamine”, and Lehrer goes into great detail through the book about the roles various sections of the brain play in decision-making, as well as how we know this—mostly fMRIs, sometimes monkey torture. And of course, it’s worth keeping in mind that none of this is as simple as Lehrer makes it out to be, and that there are probably alternative explanations—e.g., game theory, evolutionary psychology, etc. Lehrer occasionally makes reference to these, but for the most part he sticks with a very functional exploration of our brain. And that’s fine; if I want to read different perspectives, I can always seek out books on those particular topics.
In the spirit of this book’s subject matter, I’ll acknowledge a bias in my decision to like this book. How We Decide lends support to a lot of positions I personally endorse. For example, Lehrer points out that, “people with a genetic mutation that reduces the number of dopamine receptors in the ACC [anterior cingulate cortex] … are significantly more likely to become addicted to drugs and alcohol”. This belies the contention that addiction is a choice rather than a disease and that addicts simply lack sufficient “willpower” to improve their lives. I’m not saying that we should just drug everyone based on his or her neurological profile—but certainly understanding biological factors that influence our tendencies can help us combat negative tendencies, such as addiction. (Lehrer and I also share a mild disdain for economics and attempts to play the stock market like it’s a predictable phenomenon.)
If there is a theme to How We Decide, it’s that we often suck at making decisions. Not only do we have numerous biases left over from evolutionary adaptation and social inculcation, but the complex interplay between conscious and unconscious decision-making means sometimes we relegate decisions to a part of our brain that isn’t particularly suited to them. Lehrer’s theme, however, is that not all is hopeless: by being aware of these biases, by thinking about how we think, we can mitigate them and improve our ability to make decisions. It turns out that how we decide is influenced a great deal by thinking about how we decide.
And so that’s why I loved this book. It is an excellent scientific look at decision-making through both anecdotal and empirical evidence. (The former is, of course, worthless in a court of science but invaluable in the court of opinion.) Moreover, How We Decide is useful, offering salient advice about how to improve one’s ability to make decisions. I don’t doubt that many people will dislike this book, or at least Lehrer’s style or his derision for economics, but I do highly recommend you give it a try.
somechelsea's review against another edition
4.0
A really interesting look at just what goes on in our brains when we try to decide what type of strawberry jam we want.
Very much in the style of [a:Malcolm Gladwell|1439|Malcolm Gladwell|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224601838p2/1439.jpg]'s work (especially [b:Blink|40102|Blink|Malcolm Gladwell|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255630010s/40102.jpg|1180927], which covered some of the same territory first), it's about the science of every day life, full of the theory-proving anecdotes Gladwell is so fond of. Turns out, having more information doesn't always help you make a better decision, sometimes your subconscious knows things far before your conscious, and football players aren't as dumb as we all thought. (No offense guys.) :)
Very much in the style of [a:Malcolm Gladwell|1439|Malcolm Gladwell|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1224601838p2/1439.jpg]'s work (especially [b:Blink|40102|Blink|Malcolm Gladwell|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255630010s/40102.jpg|1180927], which covered some of the same territory first), it's about the science of every day life, full of the theory-proving anecdotes Gladwell is so fond of. Turns out, having more information doesn't always help you make a better decision, sometimes your subconscious knows things far before your conscious, and football players aren't as dumb as we all thought. (No offense guys.) :)