What do you think?
Rate this book
When Good Thinking Goes Bad: How Your Brain Can Have a Mind of Its Own [Paperback] [2007] (Author) Todd C. Riniolo
In this insightful analysis of the mental pitfalls that trip up even elite critical thinkers, psychologist Todd C. Riniolo makes a compelling case that under certain circumstances everyone is vulnerable to accepting erroneous beliefs.Riniolo begins by reviewing the hallmarks of critical thinking related to the evaluation of claims, such as the use of the double-blind procedure and the law of parsimony. He then provides an evolutionary framework and empirical supporting evidence from cognitive psychology to explain why being inconsistent in the use of critical thinking is part of our evolutionary heritage. Each of us possesses cognitive biases that make us prone to maintaining our current beliefs (both true and false). He concludes by focusing on a wide range of claims—environmental, political, economic, multicultural—to illustrate how in certain contexts we all are tempted to abandon critical thinking.Thoroughly researched yet written in a lively, witty style, this unique approach to critical thinking will interest students, teachers, and anyone who wishes to become a better thinker.
Paperback
First published January 3, 2007
1 person is currently reading
29 people want to read
About the author
Unknown Author
4m books462 followersBooks with known authors are imported from Amazon to this profile. Please do not merge this profile into Unknown.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 28, 2010
Unlike,Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking this book is not as friendly. Riniolo's style is a bit more stand-offish, even cocky, which was a turn-off for me. I read to page 50 and decided to skip ahead. Some of the topics were covered in other books I had read, so that was part of my reasoning as well. The content, however, is excellent, covering many of the bases required for understanding in a broad way what is required for critical thinking. Riniolo understands statistics well because he is a researcher himself (in psychology), and his discussions of claim examinations using statistics are good, but he doesn't explain terms enough for us non-stats people. I am aware that a good grasp of statistics is essential to the toolbag of an active critical thinker and skeptic, so it is on my list of things to re-learn. (I was a math major who hated stats!)
I did read in depth the chapter that examined global warming claims using the same techniques as one would for examining paranormal claims (Chapter 10). This is the only book I found in my local library that was recent enough to even mention global warming. I was excited. I thought this was an excellent techique for testing your ability as a critical thinker with such an immediate and divisive issue.
I was a little concerned that he focused on the claim of global warming instead of the claim of climate change, which is now the more correct theory of what is happening to our planet, according to climate scientist. The book was copyright 2008, so perhaps that was not as common an understanding as it is now. So, Riniolo's focus on global warming claims rendered arguments that focused on temperature data and warming trends.
Also, I became disappointed when Riniolo took upon himself to decide if global warming claims were true based on statistics alone. He is careful to repeat many times that he is not an expert on climate change, but this does not stop him from using the following reasoning, which I found somewhat flawed:
(page 150) "... the majority of scientists who investigate climate and climate change do believe global warming is occuring ... and that human activity is contributing."
[page 151:] quote from Hook, "The fact is that experts are sometimes wrong.... where our welfare is at stake we must do our own thinking."
[page 151:] "... the history of science continually reminds us that the prevailing opinion of today is often the laughingstock of tomorrow."
[page 151:] "Does that mean we should simply defer to the experts...?"
His answer is a resounding "no." He refers to Sagan, Randi, the Skeptics Society, and Shermer to support this conclusion. OK. I can believe that it is important to learn as much as you can from direct, primary sources, but climate change data is so subtle and complex, how can a layman understand the data when climate scientists have trouble coming to the same conclusions?
Riniolo uses the argument that because climate scientist don't agree, he (and you and I) should go in, look at the data and make our own conclusions. And he does, doing an impressive job of analyzing statistically the temperature data available on the internet. He makes his argument, and quite well, that the data does not back up the claim of global warming. I am aware that climate change is more at issue now (which supports his point about the changing of science, but also argues against a layman making his own conclusions about science).
He also argues (without looking directly at the data this time and quoting secondary sources) that the data is inaccurate. Does he have all the tools he needs to make a cogent argument? Probably not because he is not a scientist. But we can't know for sure. He comes off sounding like he thinks he knows more about global warming than climate scientists do. He is basically implying that because experts are human and make mistakes, he, a non-expert, is better equipped to make a conclusion about a scientific claim than they are. I gotta think there is something flawed in this logic.
I agree, if a claim effects us personally in a dramatic way we should do our own thinking, but we shouldn't substitute it for the thinking of experts. Now, Riniolo claims that he isn't doing that, but the tone of this chapter belies that claim.
I have to admit that this was a Good book for getting my critical cogs rolling!
I did read in depth the chapter that examined global warming claims using the same techniques as one would for examining paranormal claims (Chapter 10). This is the only book I found in my local library that was recent enough to even mention global warming. I was excited. I thought this was an excellent techique for testing your ability as a critical thinker with such an immediate and divisive issue.
I was a little concerned that he focused on the claim of global warming instead of the claim of climate change, which is now the more correct theory of what is happening to our planet, according to climate scientist. The book was copyright 2008, so perhaps that was not as common an understanding as it is now. So, Riniolo's focus on global warming claims rendered arguments that focused on temperature data and warming trends.
Also, I became disappointed when Riniolo took upon himself to decide if global warming claims were true based on statistics alone. He is careful to repeat many times that he is not an expert on climate change, but this does not stop him from using the following reasoning, which I found somewhat flawed:
(page 150) "... the majority of scientists who investigate climate and climate change do believe global warming is occuring ... and that human activity is contributing."
[page 151:] quote from Hook, "The fact is that experts are sometimes wrong.... where our welfare is at stake we must do our own thinking."
[page 151:] "... the history of science continually reminds us that the prevailing opinion of today is often the laughingstock of tomorrow."
[page 151:] "Does that mean we should simply defer to the experts...?"
His answer is a resounding "no." He refers to Sagan, Randi, the Skeptics Society, and Shermer to support this conclusion. OK. I can believe that it is important to learn as much as you can from direct, primary sources, but climate change data is so subtle and complex, how can a layman understand the data when climate scientists have trouble coming to the same conclusions?
Riniolo uses the argument that because climate scientist don't agree, he (and you and I) should go in, look at the data and make our own conclusions. And he does, doing an impressive job of analyzing statistically the temperature data available on the internet. He makes his argument, and quite well, that the data does not back up the claim of global warming. I am aware that climate change is more at issue now (which supports his point about the changing of science, but also argues against a layman making his own conclusions about science).
He also argues (without looking directly at the data this time and quoting secondary sources) that the data is inaccurate. Does he have all the tools he needs to make a cogent argument? Probably not because he is not a scientist. But we can't know for sure. He comes off sounding like he thinks he knows more about global warming than climate scientists do. He is basically implying that because experts are human and make mistakes, he, a non-expert, is better equipped to make a conclusion about a scientific claim than they are. I gotta think there is something flawed in this logic.
I agree, if a claim effects us personally in a dramatic way we should do our own thinking, but we shouldn't substitute it for the thinking of experts. Now, Riniolo claims that he isn't doing that, but the tone of this chapter belies that claim.
I have to admit that this was a Good book for getting my critical cogs rolling!
Displaying 1 of 1 review