Scan barcode
A review by lpm100
Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior by Leonard Mlodinow
3.0
Book Review
3/5 stars
-Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior.
Leonard Mlodinow
"The human brain is a poor scientist, but an outstanding attorney."
******
Of the book: 221 pages of prose over 10 chapters plus a prologue.
338 total citations. About 34 per chapter or 1.5 per chapter. Almost all to journal articles.
Average chapter is exactly 20 pages, and the book does seem like it can be read out of order.
*******
A lot of these pop psychology books quote the same experiments and make the same observations, just in different orders and with different emphasis. So, if you had facts A/b/C(!) in the first book, then the second one might have c/B(!)/a, and bingo!
You've got a new book.
This book has a lot of resonances to things that were written MANY years ago that I myself have read:
1. Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow"
2. Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink"
3. Jonah Lehrer's "How We decide."
4. Chabris and Simons "The Invisible Gorilla" .
This particular book is clever, witty at times and entertaining. But, really, it doesn't add that much value for people who are regular readers of books that talk about human perception.
Or, for that matter, for people who are regular observers of human beings in action.
It is fairly well known that human beings have System 1 (fast and associative) and System 2 (slow and rational) reasoning, and that a lot of misunderstandings come from using the wrong system in the wrong time/ place.
I guess my first question is: whom is this for?
--If you are of a certain age (let's say over 30), then you KNOW that form is often preferred over substance. And if you don't know it by that age, then you never will.
--If you are in certain lines of work (let's imagine businessmen / magicians /clergy/ charlatan/ used car salesman), then you know the topics discussed in this book because it is your stock in trade.
And then my second question becomes: if you have some theoretical underpinning for all of these things, does it mean that reality is any different?
--We all know (and I have had the experience when I was in school working as a cashier) that if you are in a mixed race area for retail, then 99% of your shoplifters will be black.
If you are one of the few service providers in a city like, say, Detroit are you supposed to allow yourself to be robbed blind just because your preconceived notions might come from System 1 instead of System 2?
On the one hand, I know that I would suffer from being on the wrong side of a stereotype.
But, if I try to look at it in a disinterested way..... Can I really deny other people the benefit of their past experiences?
Chapter synopsis:
1. The unconscious / subliminal brain has had a bad rap in psychology for a long time, but people are just starting to give it its proper due.
2. System 1 and System 2 are two totally different processes that can / do operate independently of one another. Several of the "patient's-brain-is-damaged-in-this-way-and-this-is-what-we-learn" experiments.
3. Witness memory is faulty. It's not that you remember exactly what happened, but what do you remember *becomes* what happened.
6. Human beings are not calculators and so a lot of times the chimpanzee part of their brain uses shortcuts to make judgment about people based on what their eyes / ears perceive: of course men with deep voices are sexy and competent! And women with high pitched voices are harping harridans. It also comes as a surprise to *many* people that being attractive has nothing to do with intelligence.
7. Rehashing of the implicit association test (IAT), and therefore the concept of implicit bias. (No, Mohandas Gandhi and Che Guevara really did not like black people.)
Categorizing things is absolutely necessary just for the function of day-to-day life, but somehow for this author extending it to groups of people (and therefore going against several hundred thousand years of evolution) makes it some moral question?
8. In groups and out groups spontaneously come into existence, but they can be overcome by having a common goal.
9. Not only are people often clueless about the emotional states of others, they can be clueless about their own emotional states. Emotional states can be artificially induced. (At least, under experimental conditions.)
10. Exposition of "motivated reasoning." Also, the Dunning-Krueger effect.
(Dunning-Krueger is a special subset of motivated reasoning--but in practice becomes a slur for anyone else whose political opinion you disagree with. In this case, the author becomes a first class example of Dunning-Kruger reasoning with his proselyte's opinions about the Religion of Environmentalism.).
Brilliant Quote:
(p. 200) "Scientists gather evidence, look for regularities, form theories explaining their observations, and test them. Attorneys begin with conclusion they want to convince others of and then seek evidence that supports it, while attempting to discredit evidence that does not. As it turns out, the brain is a decent scientist but an absolutely OUTSTANDING lawyer."
Verdict: Not recommended if you have read any two of the other four books that this one resembles. Recommended at the price of $3 if you have not.
3/5 stars
-Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior.
Leonard Mlodinow
"The human brain is a poor scientist, but an outstanding attorney."
******
Of the book: 221 pages of prose over 10 chapters plus a prologue.
338 total citations. About 34 per chapter or 1.5 per chapter. Almost all to journal articles.
Average chapter is exactly 20 pages, and the book does seem like it can be read out of order.
*******
A lot of these pop psychology books quote the same experiments and make the same observations, just in different orders and with different emphasis. So, if you had facts A/b/C(!) in the first book, then the second one might have c/B(!)/a, and bingo!
You've got a new book.
This book has a lot of resonances to things that were written MANY years ago that I myself have read:
1. Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow"
2. Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink"
3. Jonah Lehrer's "How We decide."
4. Chabris and Simons "The Invisible Gorilla" .
This particular book is clever, witty at times and entertaining. But, really, it doesn't add that much value for people who are regular readers of books that talk about human perception.
Or, for that matter, for people who are regular observers of human beings in action.
It is fairly well known that human beings have System 1 (fast and associative) and System 2 (slow and rational) reasoning, and that a lot of misunderstandings come from using the wrong system in the wrong time/ place.
I guess my first question is: whom is this for?
--If you are of a certain age (let's say over 30), then you KNOW that form is often preferred over substance. And if you don't know it by that age, then you never will.
--If you are in certain lines of work (let's imagine businessmen / magicians /clergy/ charlatan/ used car salesman), then you know the topics discussed in this book because it is your stock in trade.
And then my second question becomes: if you have some theoretical underpinning for all of these things, does it mean that reality is any different?
--We all know (and I have had the experience when I was in school working as a cashier) that if you are in a mixed race area for retail, then 99% of your shoplifters will be black.
If you are one of the few service providers in a city like, say, Detroit are you supposed to allow yourself to be robbed blind just because your preconceived notions might come from System 1 instead of System 2?
On the one hand, I know that I would suffer from being on the wrong side of a stereotype.
But, if I try to look at it in a disinterested way..... Can I really deny other people the benefit of their past experiences?
Chapter synopsis:
1. The unconscious / subliminal brain has had a bad rap in psychology for a long time, but people are just starting to give it its proper due.
2. System 1 and System 2 are two totally different processes that can / do operate independently of one another. Several of the "patient's-brain-is-damaged-in-this-way-and-this-is-what-we-learn" experiments.
3. Witness memory is faulty. It's not that you remember exactly what happened, but what do you remember *becomes* what happened.
6. Human beings are not calculators and so a lot of times the chimpanzee part of their brain uses shortcuts to make judgment about people based on what their eyes / ears perceive: of course men with deep voices are sexy and competent! And women with high pitched voices are harping harridans. It also comes as a surprise to *many* people that being attractive has nothing to do with intelligence.
7. Rehashing of the implicit association test (IAT), and therefore the concept of implicit bias. (No, Mohandas Gandhi and Che Guevara really did not like black people.)
Categorizing things is absolutely necessary just for the function of day-to-day life, but somehow for this author extending it to groups of people (and therefore going against several hundred thousand years of evolution) makes it some moral question?
8. In groups and out groups spontaneously come into existence, but they can be overcome by having a common goal.
9. Not only are people often clueless about the emotional states of others, they can be clueless about their own emotional states. Emotional states can be artificially induced. (At least, under experimental conditions.)
10. Exposition of "motivated reasoning." Also, the Dunning-Krueger effect.
(Dunning-Krueger is a special subset of motivated reasoning--but in practice becomes a slur for anyone else whose political opinion you disagree with. In this case, the author becomes a first class example of Dunning-Kruger reasoning with his proselyte's opinions about the Religion of Environmentalism.).
Brilliant Quote:
(p. 200) "Scientists gather evidence, look for regularities, form theories explaining their observations, and test them. Attorneys begin with conclusion they want to convince others of and then seek evidence that supports it, while attempting to discredit evidence that does not. As it turns out, the brain is a decent scientist but an absolutely OUTSTANDING lawyer."
Verdict: Not recommended if you have read any two of the other four books that this one resembles. Recommended at the price of $3 if you have not.