What do you think?
Rate this book
Out of Character: Surprising Truths About the Liar, Cheat, Sinner (and Saint) Lurking in All of Us
Have you ever wondered why a trumpeter of family values would suddenly turn around and cheat on his wife? Why jealousy would send an otherwise level-headed person into a violent rage? What could drive a person to blow a family fortune at the blackjack tables?
Or have you ever pondered what might make Mr. Right leave his beloved at the altar, why hypocrisy seems to be rampant, or even why, every once in awhile, even you are secretly tempted, to lie, cheat, or steal (or, conversely, help someone you never even met)?
This book answers these questions and more, and in doing so, turns the prevailing wisdom about who we are upside down. Our character, argue psychologists DeSteno and Valdesolo, isn’t a stable set of traits, but rather a shifting state that is subject to the constant push and pull of hidden mechanisms in our mind. And it's the battle between these dueling psychological forces that determine how we act at any given point in time.
Drawing on the surprising results of the clever experiments concocted in their own laboratory, DeSteno and Valdesolo shed new scientific light on so many of the puzzling behaviors that regularly grace the headlines. For example, you’ll learn:
• Why Tiger Woods just couldn’t resist the allure of his mistresses even though he had a picture-perfect family at home. And why no one, including those who knew him best, ever saw it coming.
• Why even the shrewdest of investors can be tempted to gamble their fortunes away (and why risky financial behavior is driven by the same mechanisms that compel us to root for the underdog in sports).
• Why Eliot Spitzer, who made a career of crusading against prostitution, turned out to be one of the most famous johns of all time.
• Why Mel Gibson, a noted philanthropist and devout Catholic, has been repeatedly caught spewing racist rants, even though close friends say he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.
• And why any of us is capable of doing the same, whether we believe it or not!
A surprising look at the hidden forces driving the saint and sinner lurking in us all, Out of Character reveals why human behavior is so much more unpredictable than we ever realized.
From the Hardcover edition.
Or have you ever pondered what might make Mr. Right leave his beloved at the altar, why hypocrisy seems to be rampant, or even why, every once in awhile, even you are secretly tempted, to lie, cheat, or steal (or, conversely, help someone you never even met)?
This book answers these questions and more, and in doing so, turns the prevailing wisdom about who we are upside down. Our character, argue psychologists DeSteno and Valdesolo, isn’t a stable set of traits, but rather a shifting state that is subject to the constant push and pull of hidden mechanisms in our mind. And it's the battle between these dueling psychological forces that determine how we act at any given point in time.
Drawing on the surprising results of the clever experiments concocted in their own laboratory, DeSteno and Valdesolo shed new scientific light on so many of the puzzling behaviors that regularly grace the headlines. For example, you’ll learn:
• Why Tiger Woods just couldn’t resist the allure of his mistresses even though he had a picture-perfect family at home. And why no one, including those who knew him best, ever saw it coming.
• Why even the shrewdest of investors can be tempted to gamble their fortunes away (and why risky financial behavior is driven by the same mechanisms that compel us to root for the underdog in sports).
• Why Eliot Spitzer, who made a career of crusading against prostitution, turned out to be one of the most famous johns of all time.
• Why Mel Gibson, a noted philanthropist and devout Catholic, has been repeatedly caught spewing racist rants, even though close friends say he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.
• And why any of us is capable of doing the same, whether we believe it or not!
A surprising look at the hidden forces driving the saint and sinner lurking in us all, Out of Character reveals why human behavior is so much more unpredictable than we ever realized.
From the Hardcover edition.
274 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
46 people are currently reading
2686 people want to read
About the author
David DeSteno
4 books39 followersDavid DeSteno is a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, where he directs the Social Emotions Group. At the broadest level, his work examines the mechanisms of the mind that shape moral behavior. David is a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and the American Psychological Association, for which he served as editor-in-chief of the journal Emotion. His work has been repeatedly funded by the National Science Foundation and has been regularly featured in the media, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CBS Sunday Morning, and NPR's Radiolab and On Point.
He is the author of How God Works, Emotional Success, The Truth About Trust, and co-author of Out of Character. He frequently writes about behavioral science for outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, Harvard Business Review, and Mother Jones.
David received his Ph.D. in psychology from Yale University.
He is the author of How God Works, Emotional Success, The Truth About Trust, and co-author of Out of Character. He frequently writes about behavioral science for outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, Harvard Business Review, and Mother Jones.
David received his Ph.D. in psychology from Yale University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
August 24, 2016
Overall, this was a frustrating book. It gave a lot of interesting information, but it failed to answer the specific question it raises in the title phrase: How you explain why someone acts in a way that seems "out of character." They give lots of possible reasons, but they don't seem to recognize the fact that most people do, actually, behave fairly consistently over time, and it's when that changes that people are surprised.
The authors disagree with the old idea that character develops and then is essentially unchanging; the idea that one grows up and becomes a good man, or not, and then basically stays that way. They give a bunch of very good reasons why people change their behavior in specific situations, and how scarily easy it can be to manipulate people's responses by changing circumstances (often very minor ones). Indeed, the best part of the book is really all the descriptions of the experiments designs, how researchers find ways to study real-world situations in a replicable lab environment. That was fascinating.
Okay, I enjoyed the examples, and let's say I buy their argument: Every day a person faces dozens of situations that reveal or demonstrate their character, and they might act differently depending on things as trivial as an aroma I smell or in reaction to something a total stranger did ten minutes earlier. It sounds as though most people are pretty unpredictable, because you can never tell which way they're going to go at any given moment.
But that's not true, and here's where I have a problem: Despite all these variables, most people do behave fairly consistently, even predictably, over time. Honest people generally don't lie, even when it would help them to do so. Faithful spouses remain faithful, even when tempted. Thieves steal when they see opportunity.
Let's say I've paid taxes for years, in all sorts of situations--when I was young and broke, older and doing better, older and with more financial constraints...and yet, I've never cheated. My character (at least in this regard) has, so far, been consistent, let's say for decades.
It would therefore be "out of character" if this year I suddenly decided that Leona Helmsley was right, only the little people pay taxes and I'm now for some reason exempt. So, why now? Why would someone who had displayed a consistent characteristic--honesty--suddenly change? All those fluctuating, changing circumstances and temptations have always been there, so that's not an answer. Why did I suddenly succumb, when I was able to resist for so long? Did I just get tired?
My question, which remains unanswered after finishing this book, is why someone, who has behaved consistently for a long period of time, suddenly changes, and does something we say is "out of character." (Hypocrites who are suddenly unmasked don't count; their behavior didn't change, it was just that their secrets came out.)
I would award bonus points for explaining why that same person either returns to the old behavior ever after (after one inexplicable year of tax evasion, I then pay my taxes properly forevermore) or doesn't (I hire an accountant in the Cayman Islands, and become a permanent tax scofflaw). This book fails to address this, too.
Grr. Maybe they'll have a follow-up.
The authors disagree with the old idea that character develops and then is essentially unchanging; the idea that one grows up and becomes a good man, or not, and then basically stays that way. They give a bunch of very good reasons why people change their behavior in specific situations, and how scarily easy it can be to manipulate people's responses by changing circumstances (often very minor ones). Indeed, the best part of the book is really all the descriptions of the experiments designs, how researchers find ways to study real-world situations in a replicable lab environment. That was fascinating.
Okay, I enjoyed the examples, and let's say I buy their argument: Every day a person faces dozens of situations that reveal or demonstrate their character, and they might act differently depending on things as trivial as an aroma I smell or in reaction to something a total stranger did ten minutes earlier. It sounds as though most people are pretty unpredictable, because you can never tell which way they're going to go at any given moment.
But that's not true, and here's where I have a problem: Despite all these variables, most people do behave fairly consistently, even predictably, over time. Honest people generally don't lie, even when it would help them to do so. Faithful spouses remain faithful, even when tempted. Thieves steal when they see opportunity.
Let's say I've paid taxes for years, in all sorts of situations--when I was young and broke, older and doing better, older and with more financial constraints...and yet, I've never cheated. My character (at least in this regard) has, so far, been consistent, let's say for decades.
It would therefore be "out of character" if this year I suddenly decided that Leona Helmsley was right, only the little people pay taxes and I'm now for some reason exempt. So, why now? Why would someone who had displayed a consistent characteristic--honesty--suddenly change? All those fluctuating, changing circumstances and temptations have always been there, so that's not an answer. Why did I suddenly succumb, when I was able to resist for so long? Did I just get tired?
My question, which remains unanswered after finishing this book, is why someone, who has behaved consistently for a long period of time, suddenly changes, and does something we say is "out of character." (Hypocrites who are suddenly unmasked don't count; their behavior didn't change, it was just that their secrets came out.)
I would award bonus points for explaining why that same person either returns to the old behavior ever after (after one inexplicable year of tax evasion, I then pay my taxes properly forevermore) or doesn't (I hire an accountant in the Cayman Islands, and become a permanent tax scofflaw). This book fails to address this, too.
Grr. Maybe they'll have a follow-up.
April 4, 2012
Disappointment is the product of an incongruity between expectations and cold hard reality. You would think that authors, especially if they were in the business of analyzing human behavior would be more attuned to that fact or perhaps it is an ironic example of what the book was supposed to be about. Whatever the case, as you have no doubt already pieced together, I ultimately did not care for this book.
This book purports to be about surprising behavior where we as individuals can deviate not only from the image that others expect of us, but even the ways in which we act in ways that surprise ourselves. In some ways it does touch on these subjects, but not in a satisfying way largely because they both muddy the subject, as well as ignore some obvious short comings in their premise.
And about that premise... Primarily they take issue with the idea that 'character' is something that is static. They suggest that people's behavior is overly influenced by their environment, dirty rags, even what they smell, and that it is often impossible to predict how we ourselves will act when confronted with certain pressures. This is all good in their lab setting with the small stakes experiments they conduct to test their theory, and in fact I think that they are successful in pointing out where deep cognitive processes can lead us in surprising ways.
If we came to each decision point as a blank slate we'd be done. Out in the wild though, you do see people behave consistently, some for good, others for ill. Some people struggle with addiction, others are consistently dependable. Twin studies have shown us that a number of these tendencies are genetically (or epigenetically) set from very early on in our lives. So could any one us have become Mel Gibson in similar circumstance? IMO no. Perhaps this is the first foray into what will become a more nuanced picture of character wherein we each have our own continuum. Where I perhaps might have the potential to cave to certain vices given the right circumstance, your weakness may be quite different. But isn't that in fact what we already believe about character?
The authors make no mention to the various genetic tendencies toward certain behavior patterns, but their real oversight is not mentioning the evolutionary basis by which we have learned to judge the character of others. Most of the book goes on at length as to how evolutionary pressures have developed our brains with patterns of deep intuitive thought and how that guides our choices at a level where we may have little or no awareness. By that same token we have learned to judge the 'character' of others through that long evolutionary process, and as their work testifies so well, those deep thought processes are often on to something. Yet they make no mention of this paradox in their reasoning.
All of those things are short comings, of what could later become a much more refined picture. If the book finished with that, I call it interesting, but incomplete. However they don't stop there. Where they really fall down is in dealing with hypocrites. Someone who makes a one off mistake that is counter to their beliefs is acting 'Out of Character', however someone who is living a double life -Eliot Spitzer, Tiger Woods etc. is someone who has had their true character revealed. Certainly we can all be guilty of hypocrisy, but cases of long standing deception (even if it accompanied by self-deception) points to a certain weakness in thought or personality once it is revealed. Attempting to explain away such behavior as 'out of character' is at best blind and at worst disingenuous. Bad work guys, back to the drawing board.
Also noticeably not mentioned are known personality (character) types like psychopaths, narcissists, etc. These people also act in predictable ways, mostly bad. Can they act out of character? Ted Bundy worked for many years on a suicide prevention hotline. Which behavior was the anomaly, the helping or the murders? Get the chlorine, we need to clear the waters.
Can we redefine character as more fluid? Perhaps, but having these deep processes is not the same as being controlled by them. Many of us can and do chose to change our behavior on a conscience level. And their are some behaviors that many of us will never exhibit no matter what the outside pressure.
Teasing out these distinctions is important. Better books for those curious about our deeper nature are:
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts
The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home
Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
and The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom.
Final words - Send this one back to the oven. It needs to cook more.
This book purports to be about surprising behavior where we as individuals can deviate not only from the image that others expect of us, but even the ways in which we act in ways that surprise ourselves. In some ways it does touch on these subjects, but not in a satisfying way largely because they both muddy the subject, as well as ignore some obvious short comings in their premise.
And about that premise... Primarily they take issue with the idea that 'character' is something that is static. They suggest that people's behavior is overly influenced by their environment, dirty rags, even what they smell, and that it is often impossible to predict how we ourselves will act when confronted with certain pressures. This is all good in their lab setting with the small stakes experiments they conduct to test their theory, and in fact I think that they are successful in pointing out where deep cognitive processes can lead us in surprising ways.
If we came to each decision point as a blank slate we'd be done. Out in the wild though, you do see people behave consistently, some for good, others for ill. Some people struggle with addiction, others are consistently dependable. Twin studies have shown us that a number of these tendencies are genetically (or epigenetically) set from very early on in our lives. So could any one us have become Mel Gibson in similar circumstance? IMO no. Perhaps this is the first foray into what will become a more nuanced picture of character wherein we each have our own continuum. Where I perhaps might have the potential to cave to certain vices given the right circumstance, your weakness may be quite different. But isn't that in fact what we already believe about character?
The authors make no mention to the various genetic tendencies toward certain behavior patterns, but their real oversight is not mentioning the evolutionary basis by which we have learned to judge the character of others. Most of the book goes on at length as to how evolutionary pressures have developed our brains with patterns of deep intuitive thought and how that guides our choices at a level where we may have little or no awareness. By that same token we have learned to judge the 'character' of others through that long evolutionary process, and as their work testifies so well, those deep thought processes are often on to something. Yet they make no mention of this paradox in their reasoning.
All of those things are short comings, of what could later become a much more refined picture. If the book finished with that, I call it interesting, but incomplete. However they don't stop there. Where they really fall down is in dealing with hypocrites. Someone who makes a one off mistake that is counter to their beliefs is acting 'Out of Character', however someone who is living a double life -Eliot Spitzer, Tiger Woods etc. is someone who has had their true character revealed. Certainly we can all be guilty of hypocrisy, but cases of long standing deception (even if it accompanied by self-deception) points to a certain weakness in thought or personality once it is revealed. Attempting to explain away such behavior as 'out of character' is at best blind and at worst disingenuous. Bad work guys, back to the drawing board.
Also noticeably not mentioned are known personality (character) types like psychopaths, narcissists, etc. These people also act in predictable ways, mostly bad. Can they act out of character? Ted Bundy worked for many years on a suicide prevention hotline. Which behavior was the anomaly, the helping or the murders? Get the chlorine, we need to clear the waters.
Can we redefine character as more fluid? Perhaps, but having these deep processes is not the same as being controlled by them. Many of us can and do chose to change our behavior on a conscience level. And their are some behaviors that many of us will never exhibit no matter what the outside pressure.
Teasing out these distinctions is important. Better books for those curious about our deeper nature are:
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts
The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home
Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
and The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom.
Final words - Send this one back to the oven. It needs to cook more.
July 31, 2011
Psychologists get to play so many fun tricks on their "subjects"! This was a quick and informative read that has reminded me to take the time to examine the surrounding circumstances and to not be so quick to judge others.
August 10, 2011
Dueling insects in your mind: Grasshopper vs. Ant
Who should you listen to when it comes to moral decisions and attitudes that constitute your "character?" That little angel hovering over your shoulder or the miniature devil whispering in your ear? According to Desteno and Valdesolo, these aren't event the correct metaphors to use as they describe traits as erroneously having some type of good or bad essence. Rather, the authors argue that a more apt metaphor is the grasshopper and ant. The grasshopper is the creature representing selfish short-term goals--he's the guy urging you to cheat on that exam or respond to the flirtatious advances even though you are married. The ant is the prudent counterpart and is concerned with our long-term goals. He's urging you to be honest or you'll ruin long-term relationships with your professors or spouse.
That the grasshopper and ant are the more accurate metaphor doesn't mean that it matches up with our scientifically naïve intuitions and perceptions about moral decisions and their aggregate summation for an individual--otherwise known as "character."
Indeed, as the devil and angel metaphor is deeply flawed, it shows that people's understanding of "character" is likely flawed as well. It isn't some essence attained by piety or sheer strength of will or reason but rather can be more accurately described as a drop of viscous fluid oozing along a continuum that may tilt toward acting in-line with short-term goals one moment or long-term the next according to the highly variable contexts and situations we find ourselves in.
To drive this point home, the authors give many illustrative anecdotes as well as the experimental studies that provide the empirical support. Part of their job in convincing us that they are right about character (I was convinced by the end of the book) is to free us of our misconceptions. As anyone familiar with the cognition behind people's beliefs will tell you, this is often quite a chore or even nearly impossible with topics like politics or religion.
The reason being: facts literally do not matter if the beliefs in question are causal in nature. To use Steve Sloman's excellent example from his book Causal Models: How People Think About the World and Its Alternatives:
"This is obvious in politics where people commonly stick to their causal beliefs regardless of the facts. Politicians, successful ones anyway, have long known not to bother trying to dissuade firm believers with facts. Firm believers are rarely interested in facts; they are interested in perpetuating their causal beliefs, beliefs that may at one time been based on facts but are no longer tied to them. Failures of the free market are as easily explained by conservatives (as due to `irrational exuberance' say) as failures of the welfare system are by liberals (perhaps as a `bureaucracy out of control'). Both explanations may be right. What's noteworthy (and a little scary) is how easy it is to generate good explanations in support of one's causal beliefs regardless of the facts." [p. 106]
Such, it would seem, is the case with our beliefs about character. In the book you will find many of the popular cases recounted from the upstanding astronaut who went on a nutty interstate drive in a diaper to the high profile politician anti-prostitution crusader turned John. But for the purposes of this review suffice it to say: we've all heard it said that when a person we perceive as otherwise trustworthy and upstanding does something downright damnable that this action was "out of character." It would seem that in our causal picture of individuals, we can accommodate any number of contradicting facts and still persevere in using the flawed model of "character."
Desteno and Valdesolo want to replace this model with one that is more coherent and scientifically informed. Drawing from their own extensive research as well as that of others, they dismantle the traditional concept of character and instead show us that the tangled knot of neurons sitting inside our skull is chock full of biases and a roiling sea of unconscious processes operating underneath the radar of rationality. This heritage of cognitive evolution profoundly affects our moral decision-making and hence "character." Seeming trivialities such as being elated after watching a comedy sketch can deeply affect moral decision-making and perceptions as studies recounted here show. Facts such as this are impossible to account for using the traditional model of "character."
Persons of "good character" can do selfish and cruel things under the right circumstances. Likewise, persons of "bad character" can perform acts of the highest altruism under the right circumstances.
All of this isn't to say that there is no such thing as "character" as the authors reiterate in the conclusion. It is rather that the traditional "folk-level" conception of it is highly flawed. "Character," rightly understood, is more akin to a drop of viscous fluid on a tilting continuum. It is true some drops may tend to stay toward one end of the spectrum on average. But we are all capable of flowing to one side or the other if the circumstances tilt us toward them.
Who should you listen to when it comes to moral decisions and attitudes that constitute your "character?" That little angel hovering over your shoulder or the miniature devil whispering in your ear? According to Desteno and Valdesolo, these aren't event the correct metaphors to use as they describe traits as erroneously having some type of good or bad essence. Rather, the authors argue that a more apt metaphor is the grasshopper and ant. The grasshopper is the creature representing selfish short-term goals--he's the guy urging you to cheat on that exam or respond to the flirtatious advances even though you are married. The ant is the prudent counterpart and is concerned with our long-term goals. He's urging you to be honest or you'll ruin long-term relationships with your professors or spouse.
That the grasshopper and ant are the more accurate metaphor doesn't mean that it matches up with our scientifically naïve intuitions and perceptions about moral decisions and their aggregate summation for an individual--otherwise known as "character."
Indeed, as the devil and angel metaphor is deeply flawed, it shows that people's understanding of "character" is likely flawed as well. It isn't some essence attained by piety or sheer strength of will or reason but rather can be more accurately described as a drop of viscous fluid oozing along a continuum that may tilt toward acting in-line with short-term goals one moment or long-term the next according to the highly variable contexts and situations we find ourselves in.
To drive this point home, the authors give many illustrative anecdotes as well as the experimental studies that provide the empirical support. Part of their job in convincing us that they are right about character (I was convinced by the end of the book) is to free us of our misconceptions. As anyone familiar with the cognition behind people's beliefs will tell you, this is often quite a chore or even nearly impossible with topics like politics or religion.
The reason being: facts literally do not matter if the beliefs in question are causal in nature. To use Steve Sloman's excellent example from his book Causal Models: How People Think About the World and Its Alternatives:
"This is obvious in politics where people commonly stick to their causal beliefs regardless of the facts. Politicians, successful ones anyway, have long known not to bother trying to dissuade firm believers with facts. Firm believers are rarely interested in facts; they are interested in perpetuating their causal beliefs, beliefs that may at one time been based on facts but are no longer tied to them. Failures of the free market are as easily explained by conservatives (as due to `irrational exuberance' say) as failures of the welfare system are by liberals (perhaps as a `bureaucracy out of control'). Both explanations may be right. What's noteworthy (and a little scary) is how easy it is to generate good explanations in support of one's causal beliefs regardless of the facts." [p. 106]
Such, it would seem, is the case with our beliefs about character. In the book you will find many of the popular cases recounted from the upstanding astronaut who went on a nutty interstate drive in a diaper to the high profile politician anti-prostitution crusader turned John. But for the purposes of this review suffice it to say: we've all heard it said that when a person we perceive as otherwise trustworthy and upstanding does something downright damnable that this action was "out of character." It would seem that in our causal picture of individuals, we can accommodate any number of contradicting facts and still persevere in using the flawed model of "character."
Desteno and Valdesolo want to replace this model with one that is more coherent and scientifically informed. Drawing from their own extensive research as well as that of others, they dismantle the traditional concept of character and instead show us that the tangled knot of neurons sitting inside our skull is chock full of biases and a roiling sea of unconscious processes operating underneath the radar of rationality. This heritage of cognitive evolution profoundly affects our moral decision-making and hence "character." Seeming trivialities such as being elated after watching a comedy sketch can deeply affect moral decision-making and perceptions as studies recounted here show. Facts such as this are impossible to account for using the traditional model of "character."
Persons of "good character" can do selfish and cruel things under the right circumstances. Likewise, persons of "bad character" can perform acts of the highest altruism under the right circumstances.
All of this isn't to say that there is no such thing as "character" as the authors reiterate in the conclusion. It is rather that the traditional "folk-level" conception of it is highly flawed. "Character," rightly understood, is more akin to a drop of viscous fluid on a tilting continuum. It is true some drops may tend to stay toward one end of the spectrum on average. But we are all capable of flowing to one side or the other if the circumstances tilt us toward them.
July 27, 2012
**Taming the Tiger within us all**
We’re all too familiar with the fairytale-turned-horror-show of Tiger Woods. For years, fans admired Tiger—not only for being the greatest golfer of his generation, but also for (seeming to) be such a virtuous father and dedicated husband. But, this public image was instantly shattered when his multiple indiscretions were discovered. We all wondered, who is the *real* Tiger? Were his morally questionable actions evidence of a deep-seated character flaw, or could there be another explanation behind his sudden fall from grace?
Although it’s easy to judge him—and other public figures like Eliot Spitzer and Mel Gibson who have had similar fates—the reality is that the aspects of “sinner and saint” lurk within all of us. In _Out of Character_, social psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo help clear up this character confusion:
“Hypocrisy and morality, love and lust, cruelty and compassion, honesty and deceit, modesty and hubris, bigotry and tolerance—in short, vice and virtue—can coexist in each of us, and the behavior or decision that emerges in any given moment or situation isn’t necessarily the one we intend. Yet the decisions we make and the actions we take aren’t haphazard; they’re the product of dueling forces in our minds.” (p. 9)
The authors explain these dueling psychological forces with the metaphor of a mental systems battle between the ant and the grasshopper: While the ant is more interested in long-term survival goals, the grasshopper is focused on enjoying the pleasures of the here-and-now. From an evolutionary perspective, an optimal balance of both of these long-term vs. short-term dueling systems is necessary for adaptive social functioning:
“Planning for the long term won’t get you too far if you can’t see the threat that’s standing in front of you, and living only for the moment often won’t do much for you past that moment.” (p. 127).
It is when one of these systems overpowers the other that we see the extremes of character. But, as the authors repeatedly demonstrate “ultimately, which voice wins often has less to do with our ‘character’ and more to do with the specific situation at hand.” (p. 73).
The crux of this book rests on showing that character is not a deep-seated fixed trait, but instead a variable state subject to contextual and emotional factors. Using fascinating and entertaining social experiments performed in their own research labs, the authors convey how:
“Character, like color, varies along a continuum—a continuum not of wavelengths but of our psychological needs flanked by processes embodied in the metaphors of the ant and the grasshopper...Where people end up at any one moment often depends on the context…Only once we accept that *all* our minds function along this same continuum and that we can *all* exhibit a range of ‘character types’ can we begin to navigate our social world more effectively. Seeing that there is a thin line between the cowards and the heroes, the bigoted and the tolerant, the promiscuous and the chaste, the saints and the sinners, can help us better understand and cope with those all too frequent occasions when we, or those important to us, act ‘out of character.’” (pp. 233-234)
So, it seems as if the answer to the question of “Sinner or saint?” is “Both!” We all have these forces lurking in us—they are what make us human, after all. And, fortunately, our human qualities also provide us the awareness of these dueling forces, and the ability to choose how we respond. _Out of Character_ is a great resource for developing this awareness and cultivating the tools for choosing wisely. Perhaps Tiger should get his hands on a copy...
We’re all too familiar with the fairytale-turned-horror-show of Tiger Woods. For years, fans admired Tiger—not only for being the greatest golfer of his generation, but also for (seeming to) be such a virtuous father and dedicated husband. But, this public image was instantly shattered when his multiple indiscretions were discovered. We all wondered, who is the *real* Tiger? Were his morally questionable actions evidence of a deep-seated character flaw, or could there be another explanation behind his sudden fall from grace?
Although it’s easy to judge him—and other public figures like Eliot Spitzer and Mel Gibson who have had similar fates—the reality is that the aspects of “sinner and saint” lurk within all of us. In _Out of Character_, social psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo help clear up this character confusion:
“Hypocrisy and morality, love and lust, cruelty and compassion, honesty and deceit, modesty and hubris, bigotry and tolerance—in short, vice and virtue—can coexist in each of us, and the behavior or decision that emerges in any given moment or situation isn’t necessarily the one we intend. Yet the decisions we make and the actions we take aren’t haphazard; they’re the product of dueling forces in our minds.” (p. 9)
The authors explain these dueling psychological forces with the metaphor of a mental systems battle between the ant and the grasshopper: While the ant is more interested in long-term survival goals, the grasshopper is focused on enjoying the pleasures of the here-and-now. From an evolutionary perspective, an optimal balance of both of these long-term vs. short-term dueling systems is necessary for adaptive social functioning:
“Planning for the long term won’t get you too far if you can’t see the threat that’s standing in front of you, and living only for the moment often won’t do much for you past that moment.” (p. 127).
It is when one of these systems overpowers the other that we see the extremes of character. But, as the authors repeatedly demonstrate “ultimately, which voice wins often has less to do with our ‘character’ and more to do with the specific situation at hand.” (p. 73).
The crux of this book rests on showing that character is not a deep-seated fixed trait, but instead a variable state subject to contextual and emotional factors. Using fascinating and entertaining social experiments performed in their own research labs, the authors convey how:
“Character, like color, varies along a continuum—a continuum not of wavelengths but of our psychological needs flanked by processes embodied in the metaphors of the ant and the grasshopper...Where people end up at any one moment often depends on the context…Only once we accept that *all* our minds function along this same continuum and that we can *all* exhibit a range of ‘character types’ can we begin to navigate our social world more effectively. Seeing that there is a thin line between the cowards and the heroes, the bigoted and the tolerant, the promiscuous and the chaste, the saints and the sinners, can help us better understand and cope with those all too frequent occasions when we, or those important to us, act ‘out of character.’” (pp. 233-234)
So, it seems as if the answer to the question of “Sinner or saint?” is “Both!” We all have these forces lurking in us—they are what make us human, after all. And, fortunately, our human qualities also provide us the awareness of these dueling forces, and the ability to choose how we respond. _Out of Character_ is a great resource for developing this awareness and cultivating the tools for choosing wisely. Perhaps Tiger should get his hands on a copy...
July 20, 2011
Out of Character: Suprising Truths about the Liar, Cheat, Sinner (and Saint) Lurking in All of Us by David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo is a fascinating examination of what creates character, how we define character, and what it means to act “out of character”. DeStano and Valdesolo give examples from recent (and not so recent) news stories where public figures seem to act in ways that don’t make sense given what we know of their character - or public persona anyway. They intersperse experiments done as part of college classes to demonstrate how environment and circumstances affect people’s behavior. The authors use the famous parable of the grasshopper and the ant to illustrate how human beings minds are either in a “pleasure right now” or a “prepare for later” mode when making decisions about life. They explain how this works better than the often seen “devil” and “angel” on the shoulders story. By using the grasshopper and ant versus the angel and devil, they offer evidence to demonstrate that the decisions are less about morality and more about survival in a given moment. While the average person may find the results of some of the experiments hard to accept, the authors present the material in a convincing manner. Out of Character presents a compelling case for the theory that all people have the capacity for good and evil inside them, and that each person chooses what aspect to embrace based on the set of circumstances presented. Whether this leads the reader to lean toward compassion or cynicism will likely depend on the reader’s frame of mind. Out of Character can be dry at times especially for readers who don’t enjoy reading about scientific experimentation. Overall, the writers keep the reader engaged and interested in their research which appears to be ongoing. A very interesting book for anyone who is fascinated by what makes people choose the actions they choose in life.
February 23, 2014
This book makes the point of trying to explain why otherwise good, honest people act out of character, at least the character that people perceive them to be. Essentially, the truth is that as we are all human, we are in danger of acting 'out of character', for we are all capable of doing things that we know are wrong. With examples of tests done with people in laboratories, the authors show that the difference between doing good and doing evil is sometimes determined by circumstance, sometimes by mood, sometimes by our own personal way of rationalizing.
What I got out of this book is a reinforcement of what I already knew: The next time someone you know or a public figure does something out of character, or counter to what their persona is, or something just plain wrong, remember that the same things that led that person to do them reside in you as well.
The book is well-written and recommended for anyone interested in human nature and human behavior.
What I got out of this book is a reinforcement of what I already knew: The next time someone you know or a public figure does something out of character, or counter to what their persona is, or something just plain wrong, remember that the same things that led that person to do them reside in you as well.
The book is well-written and recommended for anyone interested in human nature and human behavior.
September 10, 2011
Thoughtful but easy read. Very clear writing style.
December 5, 2013
Easy to read and understand. Deals with a lot if interesting topics. I enjoyed a lot
August 11, 2011
Its easy for popular books on psychological science to get lost in the mix, especially when there are no well-known journalists as co-authors. Scientists are often horrendous as marketing and publicity and thus, their work is often at the mercy of a serendipitous, high profile book review. Here's hoping that this book gets a platform...
The research studies described in this book are playful, creative, and informative. How can we test whether, when, and why moral hypocrisy occurs? What situations pull gratitude out of us? What situations pull lying and cheating out of us? I am not going to detail the studies here, whats important is that you know that there is a great deal of originality in this book. Studies that have never before been described in a popular science book are the rule rather than the exception.
Most valuable to the reader is the authors' framework for why each one of us is saint and sinner. Essentially, we are constantly confronted with an internal battle between short-term rewards and long-term success (what the authors refer to as the grasshopper vs. the ant, respectively). Surprisingly, this metaphor works throughout the book and they return to it just the right amount of times.
Let me challenge the primary criticisms.
1. over-reliance on a few weird studies with college students. This is a valid criticism but I promise that this does not detract from the storyline or the body of knowledge that this book is based on. There are plenty of less interesting studies where researchers followed people for several months and years and are able to predict their moral attitudes and behaviors. I'm glad the authors focused their energy on the most interesting studies. I'm glad that the authors decided against a serial description of one study after another. It happens to be that the most important studies of morality cannot be gleaned from answers to questionnaires, they come from watching people act in unexpected ways. For instance, you can't ask members of congress whether they cheat on their wives. Intelligent people know how to present themselves in a favorable light when you interview them or ask them to complete a questionnaire. Instead, you need to be a bit deceptive and cunning to get at the truth. You have to see what happens when they are placed in situations that pull for two competing rewards- an extremely attractive, sexually willing person flirts with them and yet, their entire professional life is focused on "family values." The two researchers who wrote this book specialize in these kinds of non-obtrusive research. It becomes clear that they are the right people to write this book.
2. the structure of the chapters are repetitive. This might be my primary criticism of the book. I did get bored of the real-world examples that opened each chapter. The stories about Mark Sanford, Tom Cruise, and Tiger Woods are far too well-known. A much better strategy would have been to find original, captivating stories. Just as important, each chapter transitions from an initial tabloid story to the details of a research study or two to a few take-home points. I blame the editors, not the authors/scientists. This book would have been easier to read if there were some deviations from this outline. I found myself taking days off between readings because the storyline felt too familiar from one chapter to the next.
Please do not let these small criticisms taint your impression of whether this book is worthy of purchasing and reading. If you are interested in morality, get this book. If you enjoy psychology, get this book. If you are interested in personality, virtues, and vices, get this book. The authors challenge preconceived notions about the nature of virtuous people. The timing couldn't be better as we live in a culture where we judge people as wicked, delinquent, wrongdoers based on a single failure of self-discipline. Yet, this only goes one direction as we rarely judge people as ethical, angelic characters based on a single act of restraint.
If you're like me, you will head right over to their websites to read the original research after each chapter. I'll be looking forward to their future work.
The research studies described in this book are playful, creative, and informative. How can we test whether, when, and why moral hypocrisy occurs? What situations pull gratitude out of us? What situations pull lying and cheating out of us? I am not going to detail the studies here, whats important is that you know that there is a great deal of originality in this book. Studies that have never before been described in a popular science book are the rule rather than the exception.
Most valuable to the reader is the authors' framework for why each one of us is saint and sinner. Essentially, we are constantly confronted with an internal battle between short-term rewards and long-term success (what the authors refer to as the grasshopper vs. the ant, respectively). Surprisingly, this metaphor works throughout the book and they return to it just the right amount of times.
Let me challenge the primary criticisms.
1. over-reliance on a few weird studies with college students. This is a valid criticism but I promise that this does not detract from the storyline or the body of knowledge that this book is based on. There are plenty of less interesting studies where researchers followed people for several months and years and are able to predict their moral attitudes and behaviors. I'm glad the authors focused their energy on the most interesting studies. I'm glad that the authors decided against a serial description of one study after another. It happens to be that the most important studies of morality cannot be gleaned from answers to questionnaires, they come from watching people act in unexpected ways. For instance, you can't ask members of congress whether they cheat on their wives. Intelligent people know how to present themselves in a favorable light when you interview them or ask them to complete a questionnaire. Instead, you need to be a bit deceptive and cunning to get at the truth. You have to see what happens when they are placed in situations that pull for two competing rewards- an extremely attractive, sexually willing person flirts with them and yet, their entire professional life is focused on "family values." The two researchers who wrote this book specialize in these kinds of non-obtrusive research. It becomes clear that they are the right people to write this book.
2. the structure of the chapters are repetitive. This might be my primary criticism of the book. I did get bored of the real-world examples that opened each chapter. The stories about Mark Sanford, Tom Cruise, and Tiger Woods are far too well-known. A much better strategy would have been to find original, captivating stories. Just as important, each chapter transitions from an initial tabloid story to the details of a research study or two to a few take-home points. I blame the editors, not the authors/scientists. This book would have been easier to read if there were some deviations from this outline. I found myself taking days off between readings because the storyline felt too familiar from one chapter to the next.
Please do not let these small criticisms taint your impression of whether this book is worthy of purchasing and reading. If you are interested in morality, get this book. If you enjoy psychology, get this book. If you are interested in personality, virtues, and vices, get this book. The authors challenge preconceived notions about the nature of virtuous people. The timing couldn't be better as we live in a culture where we judge people as wicked, delinquent, wrongdoers based on a single failure of self-discipline. Yet, this only goes one direction as we rarely judge people as ethical, angelic characters based on a single act of restraint.
If you're like me, you will head right over to their websites to read the original research after each chapter. I'll be looking forward to their future work.
January 25, 2016
The classic view of character and moral judgment is that we've got an angel and a devil sitting on each shoulder, whispering conflicting advice. Using willpower, we shut down the devil and choose good, and eventually, "once that virtuous voice won out, it would become etched in your psyche and your character would be set forever." (p. 10) Thus, as Plutarch said: "Character is a habit long continued." But DeSteno and Valdesolo describe this as "fundamentally incorrect."
As for angels and devils:
Their preferred metaphor is the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant toils its whole life to prepare for the winter while the grasshopper enjoys the present day and will die when the cold weather comes. The fable provides the ant as the moral example, but the authors find it more complex:
Their view is that "the mind values flexibility" and, if our character were so stable that we consistently chose only one voice, it "couldn't possibly steer us through the complex world of human social relations." (p. 11) When we, who are generally understood to be good people, commit acts that seem "out of character," it's not necessarily "because we've just had a mental hiccup or we let our guard down"; it is more likely that we have managed to rationalize the act as being good and useful when it unfortunately has turned out not to be so. (As one example they provide: An extramarital affair gets rationalized as the pursuit of a "soulmate," but it may nonetheless be harmful and regrettable, especially if the affair is exposed to others who are not mollified by this rationalization.) Character is "not a static attribute like blue eyes or broad shoulders; it's a state that is always shifting, trying to find the right balance between competing psychological mechanisms." (p. 12)
The support comes from examples from psychology experiments. It is persuasive. What we will do with the revised information about moral decision-making, including how we should update our language about "character," would be another book.
As for angels and devils:
"First, the dueling voices aren't good and bad. It's much more nuanced... Second, it's never certain which voice to trust...not only is it unclear which voice has your best interests in mind, it's also unclear if you can even trust yourself, or your gut for that matter, to decide which one to heed... Third, the fight being waged within usually isn't a fair one...[it] can be easily manipulated by external forces, even without our realizing it." (pp. 12-13)
Their preferred metaphor is the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant toils its whole life to prepare for the winter while the grasshopper enjoys the present day and will die when the cold weather comes. The fable provides the ant as the moral example, but the authors find it more complex:
"Both the systems of the ant and grasshopper are looking out for our best interests; they just do so in different time frames....Sure, it's important to look out for our long-term survival by working to be valued by our peers and acting in ways that foster social connections, but it's also important to know when great benefits can come from acting in ways that give us advantages in the here and now." (p. 15)
Their view is that "the mind values flexibility" and, if our character were so stable that we consistently chose only one voice, it "couldn't possibly steer us through the complex world of human social relations." (p. 11) When we, who are generally understood to be good people, commit acts that seem "out of character," it's not necessarily "because we've just had a mental hiccup or we let our guard down"; it is more likely that we have managed to rationalize the act as being good and useful when it unfortunately has turned out not to be so. (As one example they provide: An extramarital affair gets rationalized as the pursuit of a "soulmate," but it may nonetheless be harmful and regrettable, especially if the affair is exposed to others who are not mollified by this rationalization.) Character is "not a static attribute like blue eyes or broad shoulders; it's a state that is always shifting, trying to find the right balance between competing psychological mechanisms." (p. 12)
The support comes from examples from psychology experiments. It is persuasive. What we will do with the revised information about moral decision-making, including how we should update our language about "character," would be another book.
December 29, 2013
My feeling is that much of the behavior that is discussed here as apparently unconscious and mysterious cannot have gone unnoticed by thinking people in the past. And in fact, it hasn't. To take one example: we are told in the chapter about compassion and cruelty that soldiers are taught the seemingly purposeless routine of marching and drilling in order to create a sense of unity, purpose and identity. Then, when the time comes, they will not only act cohesively but also aggressively against the "other," (their enemies). Well ... It is interesting that normal people can be socialized to kill others and that part of the socialization involves seemingly innocuous procedures such as drill, but this is something that the Greeks would have known.
What is actually more interesting is the characters of those outside the norm, serial killers and psychopaths, for instance, who don't need the socialization to act in consistently cruel and appealing ways. What are their ant and grasshopper activators and what, if they are (I'm pretty certain they are) outside the norm, motivates them?
Actually, the examples of particular traits used to introduce the chapters were consistently extreme. The individuals were always noteworthy precisely because their behavior was a long away from the norm. For example, the lady who exemplified jealousy took it a lot further than most of us would by driving for hours for hundreds of miles whilst wearing a diaper so as to not have to stop before confronting her rival with a knife. I mean, yes we all experience jealousy, but not all of us tip over into criminality because of it. The students who participated in the mild and controlled studies designed to stimulate similar feelings apparently didn't.
That leads me to a reservation which is really about the deterministic nature of the scientific approach here. Time and again, subjects are shown to be the dupes of clever thought experiments played out in the social science lab. Always, though, there are some who do not behave in ways predicted by the hypotheses. That is a good and hopeful thing.
Finally, noticed the cultural slant that always provided a rationale for the book's overall observations. For instance, we are told that pride is a good thing because without it no one would be motivated to improve things. Well, it is fairly obvious that from an American point-of-view doing something is far more important than contemplating or letting someone else do something. That's why those bossy types who emerged after they had been told that their ability at manipulating objects was high were admired both by themselves, the experimenters and the other participants for taking over the final task rather than sent off into the corner to contemplate learning some good manners as they might have been in a less individualistic society.
What is actually more interesting is the characters of those outside the norm, serial killers and psychopaths, for instance, who don't need the socialization to act in consistently cruel and appealing ways. What are their ant and grasshopper activators and what, if they are (I'm pretty certain they are) outside the norm, motivates them?
Actually, the examples of particular traits used to introduce the chapters were consistently extreme. The individuals were always noteworthy precisely because their behavior was a long away from the norm. For example, the lady who exemplified jealousy took it a lot further than most of us would by driving for hours for hundreds of miles whilst wearing a diaper so as to not have to stop before confronting her rival with a knife. I mean, yes we all experience jealousy, but not all of us tip over into criminality because of it. The students who participated in the mild and controlled studies designed to stimulate similar feelings apparently didn't.
That leads me to a reservation which is really about the deterministic nature of the scientific approach here. Time and again, subjects are shown to be the dupes of clever thought experiments played out in the social science lab. Always, though, there are some who do not behave in ways predicted by the hypotheses. That is a good and hopeful thing.
Finally, noticed the cultural slant that always provided a rationale for the book's overall observations. For instance, we are told that pride is a good thing because without it no one would be motivated to improve things. Well, it is fairly obvious that from an American point-of-view doing something is far more important than contemplating or letting someone else do something. That's why those bossy types who emerged after they had been told that their ability at manipulating objects was high were admired both by themselves, the experimenters and the other participants for taking over the final task rather than sent off into the corner to contemplate learning some good manners as they might have been in a less individualistic society.
September 1, 2011
A psychological study of why good people sometimes do bad things. These two rather witty professors run through a series of tests to gauge the reaction of primed students and use that information to determine why people do what they do. It’s interesting to see how people can be persuaded to act by being primed. Students act selfishly, generously, or out of character just by being primed with some information or situation.
In some cases, students have to watch a boring documentary while the other watches a Saturday Night Live Skit. Afterward, they are given a hypothetical scenario as a test. A runway train car is going to crush five workers on the tracks, but there is a man standing beside you big enough to stop it if you push him in the way. The person watching the documentary wouldn’t do it, but the person who watched the Saturday Night Live skit did. Why? The authors intend to answer these questions.
The authors contend that in many situations we have to quickly decide between short term and long term goals using the analogy of the Grasshopper and the Ant. It many studies, long term thinking leads to better results, but the authors make the case that it isn’t always so. Sometimes and impulse is telling you to act and that action will reward you. It all depends on the situation.
This is an important book to read to understand why people act the way they do, especially when they act unusually. It’s important to realize the trick of priming not just in the experiment, but how you can be manipulated in this way. However, the book doesn’t break any new ground. Much of the information (particularly the last chapter on race) has been covered by other authors, particularly Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink. It’s an interesting perspective, read it for that and for the funny stories, but it isn’t any more revealing than any other books available on the topic.
"After all, you can't deny that the short-term rewards of all these activities are very seductive; the incentives to rationalize away any moral qualms about behavior are there. What's more, as our studies and others show, when an incentive to commit an immoral act is salient, our rational minds are very good at coming up with reasons to justify it." p. 40
"When our scales of morality are as wobbly as we now know them to be, it can be incredibly easy for other people to deliberately trip them." p. 49
When we perceive others to be so dissimilar from us, the parts of our brain that are responsible for treating others with humanity can turn off, allowing us, for better or worse, to numb ourselves to their plight." p. 147
In some cases, students have to watch a boring documentary while the other watches a Saturday Night Live Skit. Afterward, they are given a hypothetical scenario as a test. A runway train car is going to crush five workers on the tracks, but there is a man standing beside you big enough to stop it if you push him in the way. The person watching the documentary wouldn’t do it, but the person who watched the Saturday Night Live skit did. Why? The authors intend to answer these questions.
The authors contend that in many situations we have to quickly decide between short term and long term goals using the analogy of the Grasshopper and the Ant. It many studies, long term thinking leads to better results, but the authors make the case that it isn’t always so. Sometimes and impulse is telling you to act and that action will reward you. It all depends on the situation.
This is an important book to read to understand why people act the way they do, especially when they act unusually. It’s important to realize the trick of priming not just in the experiment, but how you can be manipulated in this way. However, the book doesn’t break any new ground. Much of the information (particularly the last chapter on race) has been covered by other authors, particularly Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink. It’s an interesting perspective, read it for that and for the funny stories, but it isn’t any more revealing than any other books available on the topic.
"After all, you can't deny that the short-term rewards of all these activities are very seductive; the incentives to rationalize away any moral qualms about behavior are there. What's more, as our studies and others show, when an incentive to commit an immoral act is salient, our rational minds are very good at coming up with reasons to justify it." p. 40
"When our scales of morality are as wobbly as we now know them to be, it can be incredibly easy for other people to deliberately trip them." p. 49
When we perceive others to be so dissimilar from us, the parts of our brain that are responsible for treating others with humanity can turn off, allowing us, for better or worse, to numb ourselves to their plight." p. 147
November 28, 2017
It was a book that somehow made me cold sweat and nodding at same time.
DeSeno used Grasshopper vs. Ant to represented the impulsive vs. stable calm personalities inside of each individual.
What made Eliot Spitzer, Tiger Woods who used to have positive image to actually do such opposite behaviors and ruined their future? Why men cheated their wives while they know they would lose everything if caught?? DeSteno explained that it was like a high profit gambling, when the rewarding could be so attractive so close to get, we tend to ignore the potential risk, extramarital affair is just like gamble, they bet on not getting caught and sex is the such big drive force that they are addicted to taste it without sober mind. Endless desire, empty mind trying to find an escape, but it's just a vicious cycle. Men!! you are so close to monkeys! Those who said he cheated only once is just lair, this is an addiction, you don't get caught, you don't get divorced by your wife, you will keep walking on the wire!
On true love and jealousy are also fun part, Pride could made a person become arrogant (ex. Tom Cruise in the book). Does empathy exist? it exists only when we consider that victim is our kind, we seldom show empathy to the marginal people like homeless or drug addicts.
On gratitude: we will spend more time to pay back to those who once helped us before when asked help even though we don't really want to.
Bias exists within us and it could be shaped and taught. The experiment was intentionally exercised on students on eye colors, the lighter the less smarter (told by teachers) and the discrimination does generated among school. That means, racism, sexism or any forms of bias can be taught through education.
Solid experiment data in this book and it made our human nature looks to fragile and changing! We are after an animal with not that solid rationality!
DeSeno used Grasshopper vs. Ant to represented the impulsive vs. stable calm personalities inside of each individual.
What made Eliot Spitzer, Tiger Woods who used to have positive image to actually do such opposite behaviors and ruined their future? Why men cheated their wives while they know they would lose everything if caught?? DeSteno explained that it was like a high profit gambling, when the rewarding could be so attractive so close to get, we tend to ignore the potential risk, extramarital affair is just like gamble, they bet on not getting caught and sex is the such big drive force that they are addicted to taste it without sober mind. Endless desire, empty mind trying to find an escape, but it's just a vicious cycle. Men!! you are so close to monkeys! Those who said he cheated only once is just lair, this is an addiction, you don't get caught, you don't get divorced by your wife, you will keep walking on the wire!
On true love and jealousy are also fun part, Pride could made a person become arrogant (ex. Tom Cruise in the book). Does empathy exist? it exists only when we consider that victim is our kind, we seldom show empathy to the marginal people like homeless or drug addicts.
On gratitude: we will spend more time to pay back to those who once helped us before when asked help even though we don't really want to.
Bias exists within us and it could be shaped and taught. The experiment was intentionally exercised on students on eye colors, the lighter the less smarter (told by teachers) and the discrimination does generated among school. That means, racism, sexism or any forms of bias can be taught through education.
Solid experiment data in this book and it made our human nature looks to fragile and changing! We are after an animal with not that solid rationality!
November 22, 2015
The author David DeSteno has written a book that tells the reader about the mind and how it can process things in different situations. The reader can learn about things that they haven’t even thought of. The book talks a lot about negatives thoughts or actions people might have/take.
Desteno starts off the book with something that everybody knows: the angel and devil on your shoulders. He uses this to tell you about a person’s conscious and how they slowly influence themselves to make a certain decision. Some of the first things mentioned in this book are hypocrisy, pride, and risk. Hypocrisy is mentioned he talks about all the different perspectives of it and some habits that people actually do afterwards to make themselves feel better, like washing their hands. This book explains one’s mind in a way that you may not have thought of before. DeSteno even uses real life examples to explain things such as Tiger Woods and why he might have decided to cheat on his wife and leave his ‘picture perfect’ family.
Anyone who enjoys learning about psychology and is interested in figuring out the human mind will be interested in this book. It is a longer read than other books because the author included things like real-life examples, information, and even some experiment he conducted himself with test subjects. I enjoyed how DeSteno included his own experiments and real-life examples so things were easier to understand. However, I did not enjoy it as much as I wished because I personally am not very fond of informational writing/books. Overall, this book contains interesting information that will keep the reader interested and tell them about things they might not have even thought of.
Desteno starts off the book with something that everybody knows: the angel and devil on your shoulders. He uses this to tell you about a person’s conscious and how they slowly influence themselves to make a certain decision. Some of the first things mentioned in this book are hypocrisy, pride, and risk. Hypocrisy is mentioned he talks about all the different perspectives of it and some habits that people actually do afterwards to make themselves feel better, like washing their hands. This book explains one’s mind in a way that you may not have thought of before. DeSteno even uses real life examples to explain things such as Tiger Woods and why he might have decided to cheat on his wife and leave his ‘picture perfect’ family.
Anyone who enjoys learning about psychology and is interested in figuring out the human mind will be interested in this book. It is a longer read than other books because the author included things like real-life examples, information, and even some experiment he conducted himself with test subjects. I enjoyed how DeSteno included his own experiments and real-life examples so things were easier to understand. However, I did not enjoy it as much as I wished because I personally am not very fond of informational writing/books. Overall, this book contains interesting information that will keep the reader interested and tell them about things they might not have even thought of.
August 24, 2016
A great pop psychology read for the interested layperson.
Here are a few choice lines that spoke to me:
"[The] best way is to envision character as a fluctuating state, not a permanent trait. It’s not a static attribute like blue eyes or broad shoulders; it’s a state that is always shifting, trying to find the right balance between competing psychological mechanisms."
"Hypocrisy isn’t so much a matter of violating your own moral beliefs as it is of shifting your moral beliefs to suit your needs and desires at any given point in time."
"The pangs of guilt are immediately there at the intuitive level; it’s just that our minds are very good at squashing them with reasoned excuses when it serves our short-term interests, especially when it’s unlikely that we’ll be caught."
"Countless studies have demonstrated that we not only consistently show more compassion to those we deem 'like us,' but that the mind makes judgments of similarity quite rapidly and spontaneously."
"We overwhelmingly found that feeling sad or angry, simply from reading about an event such as a natural disaster or an anti-American protest in Iraq, was all it took to color their judgments about the odds of completely unrelated events occurring."
Here are a few choice lines that spoke to me:
"[The] best way is to envision character as a fluctuating state, not a permanent trait. It’s not a static attribute like blue eyes or broad shoulders; it’s a state that is always shifting, trying to find the right balance between competing psychological mechanisms."
"Hypocrisy isn’t so much a matter of violating your own moral beliefs as it is of shifting your moral beliefs to suit your needs and desires at any given point in time."
"The pangs of guilt are immediately there at the intuitive level; it’s just that our minds are very good at squashing them with reasoned excuses when it serves our short-term interests, especially when it’s unlikely that we’ll be caught."
"Countless studies have demonstrated that we not only consistently show more compassion to those we deem 'like us,' but that the mind makes judgments of similarity quite rapidly and spontaneously."
"We overwhelmingly found that feeling sad or angry, simply from reading about an event such as a natural disaster or an anti-American protest in Iraq, was all it took to color their judgments about the odds of completely unrelated events occurring."
February 5, 2016
This book presents a different way to look at the decisions we all make which others then look at and use to make assumptions about our character. Most of us are familiar with the angel/devil scenario where these imagined opposing forces represent a good decision/bad decision, each tempting us to tip the scales in favor of good or bad. The authors of this book suggest that a better way to view our choices, is not the angel/devil scenario (good vs. bad) but rather wether we are acting in ways that help achieve our long/short term goals. They reference the Ant and the Grasshopper from Aesop's fables to represent why we choose what we do rather than the angel and devil on our shoulders. The main theory here is that character is much more fluid than most people would like to believe and there are many factors in our environment that constantly influence us. The experiments reported on in this book are clever and thought provoking and really seem to get to the heart of the matter. I enjoyed this as not only does the theory ring true but this is written in a manner that is easy to follow based on the results of their experiments.
October 4, 2016
Заглавието казва всичко - всеки от нас е способен да е истински гад, но си мисли, че гадове са останалите. Книгата би била интересна на хора, които не са цинични и които смятат, че познават себе си (или някой друг) отлично. Тази фаза за съжаление отдавна съм я подминала и затова книгата не ми даде никакво ново знание.
Не ми допадна това, че авторът прибягваше до примери от американските таблоиди при обяснение на психологическите феномени. Някакъв тип бил прекрасен и загрижен за народа политик (и такова животно имало нейде...), ноооо кръшкал на жена си. Тайгър Уудс бил прекрасен спортист с прекрасно семейство, ноооо не можел да си го държи в гащите... Нима това е възможно?! Нима е възможно един човек да е добър в работата си, но да не се отнася коректно къ�� околните? Шок и уДжас!
Слагам 2 звезди, защото ДиСтено се опитва да придаде научност с описание на реални психологически експерименти. Но ми се струва, че някак танцува около темата и не навлиза в дълбочина. Щеше ми се да науча повече за това, какво вади един човек от коловоза на характера му и го кара да прояви напълно неочаквани за околните и за самия него черти.
Не ми допадна това, че авторът прибягваше до примери от американските таблоиди при обяснение на психологическите феномени. Някакъв тип бил прекрасен и загрижен за народа политик (и такова животно имало нейде...), ноооо кръшкал на жена си. Тайгър Уудс бил прекрасен спортист с прекрасно семейство, ноооо не можел да си го държи в гащите... Нима това е възможно?! Нима е възможно един човек да е добър в работата си, но да не се отнася коректно къ�� околните? Шок и уДжас!
Слагам 2 звезди, защото ДиСтено се опитва да придаде научност с описание на реални психологически експерименти. Но ми се струва, че някак танцува около темата и не навлиза в дълбочина. Щеше ми се да науча повече за това, какво вади един човек от коловоза на характера му и го кара да прояви напълно неочаквани за околните и за самия него черти.
March 29, 2018
After I read this book I understand why the way the mind can produce actions in situations you might not ever thought you’ll encounter. I often wonder “what would make you go and do that”, in all aspects of life. To read on how the mind is provoked no matter if it’s good or bad. Famous, wealthy, successful, middle-class, less fortune, and even the smartest people face temptation. This book gave different scenarios with different backgrounds of people in everyday reality. The world is so judge mental on people’s life’s and it has this standard on what they feel is right and wrong in life. Its discussed how were raised with rules and expectations that our parents instill in us at an early age. All that is carried with us through life and expected of us to do what was taught to be the right way to live. In the book the main character is sculled of his reputation, because of the standard of making a mistake in the righteous world of committed adultery. Now, in my opinion is that yes, I agree that he was wrong, but I also believe people do make mistakes and sometimes we cant fight off temptation no matter who you are and no one in life is picture perfect.
October 9, 2014
I read this in a day (and I rarely do that, reading a whole book in day). I was completely fascinated. The authors' thesis is that character is not a fixed state, but rather a fluid and changing one, influenced by emotions, history, etc. I couldn't put it down. Most interesting to me were the experiments--it's hard to assess character in a lab (a point which the authors admit), but in the specific instances in the book, the fabricated situations produced revealing results. They invoked jealousy, pride, compassion, cruelty--it was really very interesting. The authors write in an engaging style--it's relate-able and an easy read. This is a highly readable book documenting the authors' studies in layman's language. They feature the ant and the grasshopper who represent, respectively, "your logical side" versus "your impulsive side," that battle it out to see how much "character" a person might exhibit in dozens of manufactured ethical dilemmas. It's a helluva read and I recommend it highly. You won't be able to put it down.
June 22, 2016
The authors had an unconventional method and structure to their book. It almost put me off completing the book, but I'm glad I finished reading the book. In several parts of the book I had reservations on the experiments the authors conducted or presented; they mostly relate to observations on their design.
The authors wanted to drive the idea that observation and attention to the factors influencing character are a critical step in understanding what is character and how it plays out - at the risk of putting off readers.
The end of the book stipulates the authors positions and opinions effectively. What the authors present are guideline frameworks to help understand this fluid concept of character.
The authors wanted to drive the idea that observation and attention to the factors influencing character are a critical step in understanding what is character and how it plays out - at the risk of putting off readers.
The end of the book stipulates the authors positions and opinions effectively. What the authors present are guideline frameworks to help understand this fluid concept of character.
May 22, 2011
Think you're not like Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer, or Mel Gibson, think again. The author provides an interesting look into character and the competing psychological mechanisms that influence our behavior. Through a series of controlled experiments he demonstrates how subtle manipulations of contexts or situations really can produce unexpected and wild behavior in all of us. A quick, insightful, and thought provoking read. You'll learn a little something about yourself, but you might want to stay away from some of the "application" or solutions offered up by the author (particularly in the soulmate or playmate chapter).
January 31, 2012
A fascinating book about the nature of human character. Written by two physiologists, it takes a scientific look at the age old question of whether our character is a stable set of traits. Through clever experiments concocted in the lab, the surprising results showed that our character is flexible, and what determines it are are sets of psychological mechanisms competing to drive our behavior. It is about finding a perfect balance between the two competing sides. In the book, the scientists used the metaphor of a grasshopper to represent the side of us that considers for short term wants and gratifications; and the ant to represent deferred gratification in consideration long term rewards.
November 23, 2013
How I feel about this book has nothing to do with the book and everything to do with me reading too many of these types of books.
If you haven't read any books on how we make decisions, how we fool ourselves, how our brains work, why people cheat and lie, etc, then you may like this book and learn a lot. Especially if you like to read books written by the scientists who did a lot of the studies themselves and can describe the methodology they used.
If, however, your husband knows when you derisively say "Oh my God" and throw your book down that you have just read the 1 millionth book this year that described the Marshmallow test, than this book is not for you.
If you haven't read any books on how we make decisions, how we fool ourselves, how our brains work, why people cheat and lie, etc, then you may like this book and learn a lot. Especially if you like to read books written by the scientists who did a lot of the studies themselves and can describe the methodology they used.
If, however, your husband knows when you derisively say "Oh my God" and throw your book down that you have just read the 1 millionth book this year that described the Marshmallow test, than this book is not for you.
August 18, 2015
This book was another hash-mash of studies, none of which were novel to a Psychology student like me. There were no surprising truths in it and neither did it answer the question it raised at the beginning. Neither did it justify its position on the grey side of people rather than all black or white.
The book is well arranged, yet manages to be really boring. And that is simply because it offers nothing new. It sets examples, which are very routine, for e.g. the Bill Gates-Monica scandal, and then does nothing to explain to us as to why it actually did happen. It just strays into experiments, expecting us to connect all the loose threads.
Very frustrating.
The book is well arranged, yet manages to be really boring. And that is simply because it offers nothing new. It sets examples, which are very routine, for e.g. the Bill Gates-Monica scandal, and then does nothing to explain to us as to why it actually did happen. It just strays into experiments, expecting us to connect all the loose threads.
Very frustrating.
December 4, 2015
The main message of the book is that our character is not fixed. Contrary to popular believe, it is highly flexible and prone to changes due to shifting contexts. Meaning, no one is simply a saint or sinner. Every individual is a combination of complex moral forces. In order to influence our character we have to start thinking about it as a set of psychological mechanisms competing to control our behavior. Then, when we notice the context, we can start controlling that competition in our favor. We need to understand that trusting our intuition all the time may not be the best idea. Instead, we should focus on the subtle changes such as anger that can be misleading us.
December 29, 2012
While a wonderful introduction to the psychological aspects of human character and how it is formed through context, I had hoped it would have a bit more meat in exploring specific strategies for combating biases and developing solid character traits that can stand the temptestuous emotional brain. Rather character was flatly defined as a flexible concept that can find any human on either side of it at any point in time. The end of the book mentions a RULER method that has worked for elementary school children - I wish they had talked about that sort of character training in more depth.
January 5, 2014
This book is an excellent introduction to human instinct (or biases) shaped by evolution. Author’s presentation of continuing battle between ant (long-term interest) and grasshopper (short-term gain) is quite clever. He goes on to specific cases such as, lust vs love, pride vs hubris, and compassion vs cruelty. Each chapter starts with a real world example, followed by a few studies on the subject. Having read a few books on behavioral psychology, I am aware of many of the material described in the book. There still are a few new things to be learned.
October 3, 2013
View character as continuum on a scale instead of categorical. Authors mentioned many factors that may affect our character at different time. They attempted to persuade us that we can still have control over our character, however, the only effective method is to realize and understand the factors that might influence us. Providing a techniques that can applied in every situation is nearly impossible.
August 28, 2014
This book is a worthwhile read for the amazing research studies it presents, however, the commentary wasn't particularly helpful. The authors assume that behaviour is determined completely by selfish motives increasing survival - depending on your spiritual beliefs, you may disagree. Again, though, fascinating research and I would recommend the book. As always, read critically and consider the moral implications the authors make.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews