Scan barcode
defenders_iris's review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
1.5
[EDIT: Knocking down to 1.5 for the author casually leaking government secrets to known conspiracy theorists, followed up by "I'm so glad I don't have to make decisions on which truths to report to the public :)" immediately on the next page.]
I summed this book up to my husband as "A self-help pop-psych surface level examination of a phenomenon by a Twitter academic" and frankly I think that's pretty accurate.
His overarching analysis is shallow, which I think comes from a result of distilling various academic concepts to make them more palatable for the audience while stripping them of their nuance. This leads to frequent contradictions, such as one page advising to not engage with mis-believers, while another encourages engagement - and at one point even doubles down and encourages the reader to not ostracize in any way. He also downplays the potential for violence, or the mental toll it takes on the reader to engage with this sort of situation, while frequently bemoaning the negative side effects his own experiences left on him.
This is also my sensibilities talking, but as a religious person, a left-leaning person, and someone who spent way too much time on the internet as a Gen Z teenager, he misses the mark on a lot of things. In the former, there tends to be a scientific atheist undercurrent to the book, and his examples of Democrat conspiracy theories are... uh... did you really want to go with "Donald Trump is a Russian Asset" as your example du jour? In the latter, he recognizes that the Internet has deeply increased the sheer amount of misinformation... with no examples of how to actually identify it.
Some of his advice is good. The psychology sections that focus on how our brains work to piece together things that don't make sense were very enlightening. The chapter on how stress impedes our cognitive abilities is worth the book itself, to be honest, and something I'm going to incorporate in my framework for recognizing my own susceptibility to falsehood. As it is, though, I could have gotten more out of it if the rest was just the Garfield "You are not immune to propaganda" meme.
I summed this book up to my husband as "A self-help pop-psych surface level examination of a phenomenon by a Twitter academic" and frankly I think that's pretty accurate.
His overarching analysis is shallow, which I think comes from a result of distilling various academic concepts to make them more palatable for the audience while stripping them of their nuance. This leads to frequent contradictions, such as one page advising to not engage with mis-believers, while another encourages engagement - and at one point even doubles down and encourages the reader to not ostracize in any way. He also downplays the potential for violence, or the mental toll it takes on the reader to engage with this sort of situation, while frequently bemoaning the negative side effects his own experiences left on him.
This is also my sensibilities talking, but as a religious person, a left-leaning person, and someone who spent way too much time on the internet as a Gen Z teenager, he misses the mark on a lot of things. In the former, there tends to be a scientific atheist undercurrent to the book, and his examples of Democrat conspiracy theories are... uh... did you really want to go with "Donald Trump is a Russian Asset" as your example du jour? In the latter, he recognizes that the Internet has deeply increased the sheer amount of misinformation... with no examples of how to actually identify it.
Some of his advice is good. The psychology sections that focus on how our brains work to piece together things that don't make sense were very enlightening. The chapter on how stress impedes our cognitive abilities is worth the book itself, to be honest, and something I'm going to incorporate in my framework for recognizing my own susceptibility to falsehood. As it is, though, I could have gotten more out of it if the rest was just the Garfield "You are not immune to propaganda" meme.
emilym99's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.5
Not for me. The content was interesting in theory but overall was not me cup of tea. I listened to the audio book but if I was physically reading it, it would have been a dnf.
asangtani's review against another edition
5.0
I love social psychology in general, but this book is particularly timely with all the misbelief surrounding COVID-19.
tofupup's review against another edition
5.0
While I have some concerns about Ariely's research record, the suggestions for helping people stay out of the funnel leading to irrational beliefs are ideas I will put to use right away. I will probably go back and re-read some chapters, too.
youvegotwings's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting. A few things I disagreed with but that’s usually a healthy thing and I feel that those things had to do with cultural differences
I like how it’s not just a story of the people who believe weird things but more about why people may be driven to believe weird things
I like how it’s not just a story of the people who believe weird things but more about why people may be driven to believe weird things
spookysoto's review
2.0
Rating: 2.5 Meh
Format: Audiobook
Non-fiction November 2023
This started strong but ended up being repetitive, but I still found it interesting.
For a book about biases the author is too biased, that's the irony and the worst part of it.
This were the most interesting parts for me:
Format: Audiobook
Non-fiction November 2023
This started strong but ended up being repetitive, but I still found it interesting.
For a book about biases the author is too biased, that's the irony and the worst part of it.
This were the most interesting parts for me:
“How can you prove that your sister is not a prostitute when you don’t even have a sister?”
Hanlon’s razor. The original Hanlon’s razor states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Occam’s razor. The basic idea of Occam’s razor is that the simplest explanation with the fewest moving parts is the one we should favor, until it is proven inadequate. Just to be clear, Occam’s razor does not say that the simplest explanation is always the right one, only that when we don’t have any data to help us pick one explanation over another, we should pick the simplest one.
The principle of the pain of paying, which posits that it hurts to part with cash but it hurts less when we don’t see or pay attention, helps us understand why we overspend when we use credit cards; why we feel worse at the end of a meal when we pay with cash compared with a credit card; why we sometimes prefer all-inclusive vacations even if they are more expensive; why we often go over budget when we renovate our homes; and much more.
Proportionality bias is the idea that when we are faced with a large event, we implicitly assume that such an event must have been caused by proportionally large causes. The reality of life is that often “shit happens” without any rhyme or reason. Randomness and luck (including bad luck) are important forces in the universe, as is human stupidity, but this is an unnatural way for us to think. We look for reasons, for causes, and when something is larger, we look for larger causes. Interestingly, the proportionality bias does not seem to apply to positive events. When amazing inventions are developed, such as penicillin, Post-it Notes, X-rays, Teflon, Viagra, and many others, we’re very comfortable attributing them to chance. In other words, when it comes to major good things, compared with major bad things, we are much likelier to believe that “shit happens.”
The third psychological reason favoring complexity is the desire for unique knowledge.
Together, all of these forces pull the misbelievers away from Occam’s razor and closer to Macco’s razor (the complete opposite of Occam’s razor), which states that “The most complex solution that involves the most devious intentions and the most hidden elements is almost always the truth.”
Hitchens’ razor, named after Christopher Hitchens, the late literary critic, journalist, contrarian, and staunch atheist: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
tofupup's review against another edition
5.0
While I have some concerns about Ariely's research record, the suggestions for helping people stay out of the funnel leading to irrational beliefs are ideas I will put to use right away. I will probably go back and re-read some chapters, too.