May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics and Studies Exploit Our Biases - And What We Can Do About It

by Alex Edmans

A ground-breaking book that reveals why our human biases affect the way we receive and interpret information, with practical suggestions for how to think more critically

Our lives are minefields of misinformation. Stories, statistics and studies lie to us on a daily basis. Not only this but, as Professor Alex Edmans reveals, our brains lie to us too. He argues that we need to acknowledge and understand the role that our own human biases play in interpreting and digesting the information that we consume. It's only when we do, that we can actively resist being manipulated, and make informed decisions that improve our lives.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Audiobook, Economics, Business, Politics

336 pages, Hardcover

First published April 25, 2024

Reviews

[Ashley · Rating 5 out of 5]

As much as I absolutely loved this book, I have to admit the difference between reading it and not is the definition of "ignorance is bliss". It's almost like the book backfired, because now I don't even know if IT is one that I can trust.

The gist -for me at least- was that you should rethink everything you think you know, vet your sources, then vet the vetting, then stay openminded enough to keep on truckin' - all without losing your mind. Sounds like the dream. Unfortunately, that's the absolute farthest thing from attainable for me/my life. So as for the "what you can do about it" part of the title... Yeah, I'll get right on it! Just as soon as I have hours upon hours of time and mental bandwidth to spend going down rabbit holes for every story, stat, or study I come across. Can you tell I'm really bothered by learning how ignorant we all are while simultaneously accepting that getting to the bottom of everything is just not feasible??? *deep breath*

Assuming Alex Edmans is correct in his findings though, I really enjoyed the insights and context he brought to ideas commonly discussed/experienced in society and the media.

I feel like this review sounds so negative for a book I gave 4/5 stars, but that may have been Alex Edman's point? I don't think you could convince me that the unease felt since finishing this book wasn't part of the author's intent. It's one of those books that hides in the back of your mind and continuously pesters the voice in your head, (hopefully) eventually changing the way you perceive things altogether.

Back on 10/31/24 to change my rating to 5/5 & say - I think about this book AT LEAST once a week.

{Thank you to NetGalley and publisher for Audiobook ARC!}

[CatReader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alex Edmans is a PhD economist and professor of finance at London Business School. His book May Contain Lies is a provocative challenge to the status quo of believing experts by default. In various scenarios spanning scientific publications, consumer research, and popular non-fiction, he pokes holes in expert opinions - some of these arguments are stronger than others. For instance, he takes issue with popular business books distilling the keys to business success from various case studies, when I think most intelligent readers will know that case studies are inherently individual and generally not broadly applicable. He also randomly takes aim at Dave Allen's Getting Things Done productivity system, claiming that Allen should hardly constitute an expert in this space due to his background doing odd jobs -- when, again, discerning readers should know there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all time management/personal productivity system or one supreme time management guru with the perfect pedigree, and that you should derive what's of potential value for you from books like this and ignore the rest. Being a physician-scientist, I also disagree with Edmans' outlook that scientific research in the hard and clinical sciences deserve the same level of scrutiny as other, softer research fields, and should strive for equanimity in its approach - for anyone who disagrees, I'd recommend Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (see my review).

Overall, though, I think Edmans makes good points about approaching what's presented as general truth with a healthy degree of skepticism, seeking out alternate viewpoints for most topics, and closely considering the overt and covert motivations for why people and groups promote certain ideas.

Further reading: skepticism
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions by Richard Harris
Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup by John Carreyrou
How Charts Lie: Getting Smarter about Visual Information by Alberto Cairo
Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me: Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and and Elliot Aronson

My statistics:
Book 174 for 2024
Book 1777 cumulatively

[Brian Clegg · Rating 4 out of 5]

If we are to believe the media we are bombarded with misinformation and disinformation - there's certainly a lot of it out there and Alex Edmans sets out to give a guide to the many ways that information can be badly or misleadingly presented, and how we can defend ourselves from it.

At the heart of his argument are two biases. I'm so glad he limits it to two - I get totally lost trying to keep on top of all the biases that psychologists introduce, so sticking to confirmation bias plus black and white thinking as the key errors to look out for, both in how we receive information ourselves and how others present it, is very helpful.

At the heart of the book is a ladder of levels of something like quality of information. These are statement, fact, data, evidence and proof. Edmans goes into plenty of detail on each rung - how we get, for example, from statement to fact, or data to evidence. Most of all, he demonstrates brilliantly how both those undertaking studies and those interpreting them and making use of them fail to make the leap from one rung to the next. Some of the examples are horrific - where, for instance, politicians make use of a totally opposite finding to the one in a paper, or where there is no finding at all in the study itself, yet the authors claim there is one. It's a catalogue of errors, both conscious (fraudulent) and unconscious (often dues to the biases mentioned above).

Although Edmans avoids getting over-technical I found the way he presented the content wasn't always easily approached - for instance, the way he breaks down the shades of grey that are the alternative to black and white thinking into moderate, granular and marbled is hard to get your head around. Similarly, when he is talking in details about various kinds of error he introduces, for example, the concept of an 'instrument' which 'causes the input to change, but for random reasons that having nothing to do with the output' - this isn't well introduced and needs better handling.

Edmans does a really good job in identifying all the problems in that ladder from statement to proof. I think he's less effective on giving ordinary people tools to deal with them. He accepts we can't all go into detail on the what a study really says, but his 'checklist for smart thinking' requires answers to about 17 questions, though admittedly he does then condense this into around four shortcuts. For me, a focus on source, evidence and quality is about the most we can expect most to manage. Edmans also covers studies and books/articles as key sources of information/misinformation but misses university press releases, which often employ hyperbole. Similarly, he could have made more of the replication crisis.

Despite these relatively minor negatives, this is a fascinating book that really does make it clear not only how difficult it is to be sure what a study shows, but also how difficult it is for those undertaking studies to get it all right. Recommended.

[laurel [the suspected bibliophile] · Rating 4 out of 5]

In some ways, fantastic. In others, I was like "wait a second, these anecdotes you're using to prove your point have been proven to be wrong."

But I do always appreciate a book that devotes itself to bashing Malcolm Gladwell.

[Lois · Rating 4 out of 5]

This audiobook was made available for me to listen to and review by Alex Edmans, RB Media, and NetGalley.

This is narrated by Alex Edmands. He has a posh intelligent sounding British accent. His voice is rich with texture and helps to keep the reader interested in and focused on the narrative.

This is an important and timely subject. It feels like our society is beset on all sides with misinformation. Confirmation bias causes so many problems and misunderstandings. The author gives multiple examples of how this impacts real life, from medical to prison to business. We can see the impact of this on our real lives and society at large. 

After thoroughly explaining what confirmation bias is and the deleterious impact this has on ourselves as individuals as well as our society, we then get a solution. The author walks the reader through how to get around confirmation bias, and the appendix even includes a 'checklist for smarter thinking'. The author successfully is able to prove his point and offer strategies to not be lost to confirmation bias. This book is a useful tool in the fight against disinformation. 

I don't think this will lessen confirmation bias in our society, though. I disagree with the author that confirmation bias is a human trait. I think it's a trait of Western Society and will be with us until we are prepared to look at ourselves and history realistically instead of to support a patriotic fictional narrative.

Thank you to Alex Edmans, RB Media, and NetGalley for the opportunity to listen to and review this audiobook. All opinions and viewpoints expressed in this review are my own. 

[Ridon Vokshi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Critical Thinking in the Age of Misinformation

I must state clearly that this is one of the best books I have ever read! Having just completed my Executive MBA, I wish this book had been published earlier; it would have made me even more critical in my assignments. This book is a must-read for everyone, and it is explained so well that anyone, regardless of their field, can understand it.

The book delves into the issue of misinformation. Its central message is that merely checking facts is insufficient. Even facts that are 100% accurate can be misleading.

The book begins by highlighting the biases that make us susceptible to misinformation. According to the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Global Risks Report 2024, misinformation and disinformation have emerged as the top risk over the next two years. This underlines the importance of understanding how easily we can be misled.

The second part introduces the Ladder of Misinference, categorizing misinformation into four missteps. This framework helps readers identify and understand the different ways misinformation can distort reality.

Finally, the last section discusses how individuals, organizations, and societies can think more intelligently and critically. The book also includes a "Checklist for Thinking Smarter," which provides questions we can ask ourselves to accurately evaluate statements, facts, data, and evidence.

What I liked a lot is that the book includes a conclusion/summary after each chapter, making it easier to consolidate the key points and insights discussed. To sum up, the book not only exposes the dangers of misinformation but also equips readers with practical strategies to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape.

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this was an interesting read that did a great job breaking down the ways in which the way information is presented, and our own innate biases, contribute to the spread of misinformation. I found the aspects of challenging our biases when encountering information to be the most helpful part of the book -- the elements of how information can be manipulated was interesting, but there just wasn't really much practical advice as to how to actually deal with that. The whole "don't take everything at face value" is great, but unless you professionally study statistics and have the bandwidth to investigate every single claim/study in everything you read, there was just no realistic advice given on how to weed out fact from fiction. I wish there'd been more helpful information about how to fight against this other than just "be aware", but I did find it an illuminating read.

[Maarten Smit · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and very thorough book on how to interpret scientific studies and to deal with the increasing amount of misinformation. After a short introduction the author introduces the ladder of misinference: statement - fact - data - evidence - proof.

1. We accept a statement as a fact, even if it’s not accurate - the information behind it may be unreliable and may even be misquoted in the first place.
2. We accept a fact as data, even if it’s not representative but a hand-picked example - an exception that doesn’t prove the rule.
3. We accept data as evidence, even if it’s not conclusive and many other interpretations exist.
4. We accept evidence as proof, even if it’s not universal and doesn’t apply in other settings.

The text is very accessible and full of quite shocking examples where people and even respected institutions make the basic errors as laid out above.

A strongly recommend read to improve your critical thinking ability.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Misinformation is a big pet peeve of mine that like an itch right in the middle of your back—you know the type, a bit too high, a bit too center, under your neck, but not close enough—has grown and grown over the last decade or so. Can we squarely blame it on social media and its uncanny ability to amplify the voices of those who best not need that type of exposure? Or is the blame on newspapers in a race to recreate the muckraking era of a century past where dwindling revenues and ad-blockers have made it a survival of the fittest even Darwin never saw coming? Sensationalism, evocative unneeded language, misdirection, jumbling of facts and anecdotes, our window to the world is full of dust, decaying insects, and no backscratcher in sight. What can be done to clean this all up so we can see clearly once again? One author, a finance professor and a whole lot more, wrote a svelte book to help us take away the dross from the silver.

“I’ve been held to grueling standards in my own work. Journals correctly refuse to publish my papers until I completely nail the results, address alternative explanations for my findings, and tone down any claims not supported by the data.” (my transcription from the audiobook’s introduction, any errors are my own)

While even big news outlets with ever tighter deadlines may not be able to meet these standards, what the author notes I also believe should still remain “the” lodestar someone has in mind when producing nonfictional media. Hence, the ever-present TikTok-type of clips people flood their social media pages with now more than ever: be it left-leaning or right-, they’re almost always out of context “feel goodisms” (my phrasing, probably a better one out there) to make the poster feel smug for four seconds and perhaps the same for those in the same echo chamber who may see the posting. That our book starts with cards out should serve as a good sign of how it unfolds. In fact, given the first chapter is all about Confirmation Bias, the above example holds extra weight. Dig in, as the author did, and sometimes the actual findings may surprise you.

Outrage content is all the rage now more than ever and some of what is covered in May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics and Studies Exploit Our Biases - And What We Can Do About It really helps you parse it, to look at it again from a different direction. Did that fight break out really for that reason? What happened before? And after? "Alternate hypothesis” is the phrase our author uses and it’s especially useful because if what we see may immediately indicate the intent of the perfectly cut content (outrage!), but it’s also possible for the facts at hand to point to something else, then a valid alternate hypothesis comes into play. Write that down.

The more I read, the more I found myself agreeing with Alex Edmans. We need to be careful, but there does eventually come a limit to just how much time one can sink into discovery:

“Just because there’s a footnote at the end of a sentence doesn’t mean the sentence is true.”

Guilty as charged—me, him, and probably many out there. This is a tough one when it comes to detecting lies and what he did in the past could be overkill for many, but we can still try to emulate it to the best of our ability: follow the trail, read the original sources listed in the footnotes if the claim in the actual piece still sounds pretty wild and see if there’s a match. But even this at times may not be enough: a paper on X making Y statement, but the data in the paper actually points to the opposite of Y. It has happened and the best we can do is not to accept the fantastical at face value without a good deal of independently verifiable proof.

Throughout this book I kept on waiting for it...waiting and waiting and--! Finally, near the end it was music to my ears when the Alex Edmans circled around and then gracefully descended to talk about the peer review process. This obviously is something that can’t be applied for every news article, but it can for books and I’m going to let a quote from the book speak for itself:

“In Hamlet, a telltale sign of deception was when a character ‘doth protest too much.’ If you need to shout about the conclusiveness of your proof or the novelty of your results, maybe they’re not strong enough to speak for themselves.”

In other words, if someone sends you an article to read and the newspaper does not look familiar, stay on the lookout for emotionally loaded language and accusations that don’t include clear linkages to sources. This goes quadruple for tweets by the ever-growing army of “independent journalists” pushing their Substacks.

May Contain Lies closes out with a useful appendix that sums up the tools needed to basically cut through the BS. Surprisingly, the last part of it—shortcuts--seems to forget one other quickie method that I’ve used in the past and with that, I will conclude this review: look up the Wikipedia pages of authors/journalists for questionable material. Do they have a profile? If not, that can be a warning in itself. But if they do, is it ‘ratioed’? By ‘ratioed’, I am referring to the way this word is used for controversial/negative tweets. In this sense, if the author’s Wikipedia page’s Personal Views/Controversies section seems longer than anything else, you’ve dynamite on your hands and should proceed with caution.

[Cheryl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not just another book on critical thinking, like all the others that I've read. This one might actually get me to stop & think, and research, more often. I mean, I am skeptical, but, yeah, of course I have blind spots.* Even the author does.**

And, yes, a lot of the insights here can be summed up by bits of wisdom that is in our lore, that we should know. For example, "Confirmation bias" is basically just "wishing doesn't make it so.

Also, if we see notice of breakthroughs, we need to bear in mind that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And the chapters on data mining show tricks akin to "lying by omission." Etc.

I'll be quoting and paraphrasing quite a bit, below. But there's no way I can tell you all that you need to learn from this book. Even his "in a nutshell" bits that end each chapter don't substitute for reading the book.

Btw, he's not a fan of Gladwell. Esp. *Outliers.* Or *Built to Last.* Or Amy Cuddy and her power pose. He's all about the rigor of the scientific method.

The only universal claim that is safe to make is that everyone needs to exercise critical thinking before making any decisions based on claims about research.

*(For example, the section on the merits of breastfeeding is relevant to me.... But even if none of the touted values are proven, the facts remain that it's virtually free, helps mom use extra calories, and is usually super-convenient.)

**(He taught the "10,000 hours to become an expert" many times before digging and finding out that it's not a number that means anything scientifically, that it's a myth.)

[Agnė · Rating 3 out of 5]

May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics and Studies Exploit Our Biases - And What We Can Do About It is an engaging primer on data analysis that encourages us to be more skeptical of all the "facts" in the media that exploit our biases in order to carry out hidden agendas.

May Contain Lies is very insightful and easy to understand. It's an entertaining crash course in data analysis that I wish I had when I was getting my bachelor's in biology. I also really like the fact that each chapter has a summary, making it easier to absorb and reenforce all the key information, especially when listening to the audiobook.

Alex Edmans is a professor of finance, and most of his stories feature studies in economics and politics. Since I have no interest in boardroom diversity, stock trading, or policy making, I didn't really care about half of the stories Edmans used as examples in his book. To be fair, the author did a good job illustrating his points, I just wasn't that invested in the predominant topics.

Towards the end of the book, when the author discussed possible solutions, I got bored and had a hard time focusing. I'm not sure what exactly was the problem. It might have been the fact that a lot of the solutions didn't seem actionable, unless you are a policy maker with the power to introduce changes into the system. Or maybe it's the fact that I don't really WANT to become even more skeptical, because the idea of always questioning and double-checking all the "facts" seems too overwhelming.

By the way, I listened to an audiobook version of May Contain Lies and didn't question Edmans' credibility, but some of my friends had their hands on the hard copy of the book and noted the curious lack of citations regarding some concepts that Edmans discussed but most likely didn't invent himself (e.g., different types of thinking). Also, apparently some graphs in the book were missing labels. I didn’t care enough to get to the bottom of this (see, I told you I don't wanna have to double-check EVERYTHING), but I’m not gonna lie, it sounds a little bit dubious.

[Alice Streatfeild · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book which serves as a reminder of critical thinking and gives watch outs for biases. Very readable and I’m imagining I’ll re-read it.

[Micha Goebig · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good overview of assumptions - facts - data - evidence -proof.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the kind of primer that is becoming more common, a book that seeks to unpack why an age of information is also most decisively an age of misinformation. There is a grab bag of approaches here: a bit of discussion of confirmation bias and how political polarisation affects judgements of accuracy; some teaching of basic Bayesian techniques, how to identify evidence from a social science lens, and plenty of tales of how people, corporations, and governments have relied upon bad information.
It is a useful book to share with anyone prone to reading science articles, or who is simply trying to work out how to engage with information sources. It is an easy, relatively quick read, full of easily digestible concepts and many handy tips.
My frustrations were not so much with what it did do as what it didn't do. Edmans has little broader contextual analysis, and as a result, it kinda sorta seems like misinformation just happens because people are flawed in their judgements. In most, not all, cases of his big examples, however, there were clear motivations for distorting evidence, often the need to protect profitmaking enterprises. We don't just have climate sceptics because people apply bias to their decision-making, but because there were hundreds of millions of dollars spent discrediting the science by industries that didn't want the costs of the scale of change we needed. Pharma companies don't bury bad reports because they don't understand they are bad; they do it to protect their reputations and their bottom lines. Edmans is an economist who regularly measures "performance" by profit and share price - he certainly raises that there should be other outcomes and objectives that drive decisions, but it does seem to loom large in his worldview.
Edmans advocates for techniques to reduce polarisation around key issues like climate change, migration and Brexit, but it left me wondering if reducing polarisation is the aim or developing the capacity to make better decisions as a society is. In other sections, he talks about how to use management techniques to get around a human desire to conform. Conformity and polarization are both aspects of humanity which can affect judgement (and can come together in conformity to my side and innate opposition to yours). But it seems to me that there needs to be some distinction between understanding how this affects public opinion trends and how flawed science reporting leads to bad outcomes - I don't think they are the same thing, and it can be unhelpful to collapse them.
Similarly, it can come across as Bayesian reasoning and peer review will simply solve all our problems. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan, but these are not the only approaches we need. Advocating for people to check all the references, including looking up studies in published research, seems to misunderstand both the accessibility of scholarly publications to the general public and the available time and resources. Edmans does not critique more systemic issues in modern academia like decreasing basic research, the barriers to multidisciplinary work, or the incentivisation of overstating results (in fact, a couple of the things he advocates, trusting prestigious universities more, ensuring a strong publication record of those you trust, could be interpreted in the opposite way. One of his main takedowns is of Matthew Walkers book on sleep, which I had read. On checking my own review, I realised that I had noted that the claims were so poorly referenced and explained that the only reason I believed them was that Walker headed the sleep research unit at UC Berkeley - apparently, I should have trusted that a whole lot less). He al
In the end, this is a useful primer on why we should be less trusting and some steps on how to identify what to trust. It does exactly what it says it will, and I hope it moves us towards a more thoughtful society.

[Courtney ✌ · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was great! I was already familiar with some of the concepts and ideas behind the subject of biases, but this really took all that random information and brought it together quite nicely.

The author does a fantastic job with his examples and explanations throughout. The title itself tells you exactly what to expect from the book, and the author presents a clear roadmap for each section and chapter. The information was easy to digest, and I think the book overall provides a great starting point for more thoroughly examining the data, facts, evidence, etc., that we encounter.

On a side note, I listened to the audio version of this, and the author does a great job narrating. Sometimes with non-fiction, the narrator can make a big difference in terms of understanding the material, and I thought this one was well done. If you are like me and that matters, I wanted to mention it.

I want to give a big thank you to NetGalley and Alex Edmans for an arc of May Contain Lies... in exchange for an honest review!

[Lizzy Hanks · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like how Edmans distinguishes between data vs evidence and recommends various tests we can use to check our biases. He also introduces statistical inference and regression in a very accessible way. BUT he gives a lot of weight to who an author is (e.g., how prestigious their university is) and peer review/journal impact factor, which I don't necessarily agree with. In any case, I'm going to use this book as recommended reading for the intro to statistics course I'm teaching this semester!

[Samantha · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an interesting read about how to recognize reputable information. A lot of it I knew from studying in a PhD program, but it was presented well and in a way that is accessible to anyone.

The author does a good job of emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and common sense. I enjoyed it.

[Regina C · Rating 1 out of 5]

To start I want to say I probably should have thought about this before I started reading this book, but I actually have a lot of experience with statistics, so a good amount of the stuff presented here felt obvious to me, but I imagine if you don’t have that background you’ll get a lot more out of it than I did. I did learn some things I didn’t know before, like specific terminology for ways in which things can be something other than black and white.

The primary issue I have with this book is I get the impression that the author thinks that because he understands the prevalence and a lot of pitfalls of bias, he thinks he is immune to it. It is my belief that you can and should do your best to minimize bias’ impact on your analysis, but that it is not possible to rid yourself of it completely. We are shaped by our experiences and that will inevitably impact our perception of the world around us, what questions we ask and what we take for granted.

There were multiple times reading this book where I got the impression that the author was rightly critical of assumptions others will make, but then replace them with a different set of assumptions he doesn’t back up or analyze but just takes to be fact. I say this because this book is not an impersonal look at the misinformation which doesn’t advocate for a perspective: rather, it seems to advocate for a specific position of moderated centrism. Climate change is important, but we should still invest in oil companies. Diversity is valuable but should not be pursued without encouraging an environment which welcomes diversity of thought. We can and should address poverty without reducing the pay of executives.

I don’t have a problem with all of the stances taken in the book, but it seems to me that the goal is to get you to question your beliefs enough to get you there without thinking about what assumptions still need to be examined. It’s the type of analysis of the world which very much favors maintaining the status quo.

[Tommy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really cool book about how we could all practice the interpretation of information in a more sophisticated and interrogative way.

[David Maywald · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has a very persuasive sales pitch, which is a cure for misinformation: “In this eye-opening book, Alex Edmans, an economist and professor at London Business School, teaches us how to separate fact from fiction. Using colourful examples – from a wellness guru’s tragic but fabricated backstory, to the blunders that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and the diet that ensnared millions yet hastened its founder’s death – Edmans highlights the biases that cause us to mistake statements for facts, facts for data, data for evidence, and evidence for proof.”

It easily lives up to the hype. There’s an overarching framework that Edmans uses throughout the book called the Ladder of Misinference (comprising Statement, Fact, Data, Evidence, and Proof). This provides structure and a logical flow to the writing. There are many fascinating stories and research findings throughout the book, such as:

“Knowledge doesn’t make you more aware of the need to consider both sides; instead, you engage even more in biased search… knowledge helps you conjure up more reasons to praise opinions you share, and poke more holes in those you resent.”

He cites from Leo Tolstoy: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already.”

Professor Edmans writes that the “narrative fallacy” deludes us into seeing cause-effect relationships when none exists. For example, we accept story-like reasons for success even if alternative explanations are a better fit for the facts... Marketers, influencers, journalists, authors, and politicians can make up whatever story best exploits the twin biases (of confirmation bias plus black-and-white thinking).

Creating organisations that think smarter requires overcoming groupthink, and this “involves recruiting colleagues with cognitive, not just demographic diversity and taking active steps to harness their collective wisdom.”

There is an intriguing analysis of the benefits of breastfeeding and other parental choices in chapter six, which includes references to the book Cribsheet (A Data-driven Guide to Better, More Relaxed Parenting, from Birth to Preschool) by health economist Emily Oster… This is certainly worth a read for parents of younger children.

Check out this interview between Alex Edmans and Oliver Cummings (of Nurole): “Lies in the boardroom: the stories, studies and statistics that mislead boards”
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aedman...

And this Scared Cows event with Edmans entitled “Do Diverse Companies Really Perform Better?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqSjh...

Highly recommended. Grab yourself a copy as soon as you can.

[Aiko Friant · Rating 3 out of 5]

In een wereld waar een overvloed van informatie beschikbaar is moeten we opletten voor:

1. Fake news
2. Dat we niet enkel informatie zoeken die onze overtuigingen bevestigen

Om dit tegen te gaan biedt de schrijver ons een analyse van de struikelblokken die we kunnen tegenkomen, en een aantal methodes om deze problemen te omzeilen. Echter sluit hij zijn boek af met een dankwoord, niet ongebruikelijk, waarin hij deze openbaring lijkt te hebben:

“Writing a book about misinformation is dangerous, as you might fall foul of the mistakes that you describe”

En gelijk heeft hij.


Enerzijds praat hij over zaken die grotendeels achterhaald lijken te zijn — veel sporten om te vermageren bijvoorbeeld — terwijl actuele studies steeds meer in andere richtingen beginnen te kijken.
(Merk op dat ik niet in absoluten schrijf, dat heb ik alvast wel opgestoken van dit boek)

Anderzijds probeert hij studies en vaststellingen te ontkrachten op basis van bronnen op veredelde blogs, geschreven door mensen met een duidelijke politieke oriëntatie die geen enkele vorm van wetenschappelijke verantwoording afleggen over wat ze schrijven.
Geen sterk argument om te maken wanneer je stappenplan uitgaat van het aftoetsen van de impactfactor van wetenschappelijke journals, peer reviews en de track record van de publishers.

All in all is het een boeiend boek dat dingen in vraag durft stellen, en benadrukt om altijd met een kritische geest naar (wetenschappelijke) informatie te kijken, en deze te factchecken.
Mooi in theorie, maar praktisch ook onhaalbaar in de realiteit. Begin dan ook maar je factscheckings te verifiëren en zo blijf je bezig.
Het feit dat hij zelf slachtoffer wordt van de risico’s waarvoor hij de lezer waarschuwt is zowel de sterkte als de zwakte van dit boek.


De core takeaway is dat alles voor interpretatie vatbaar is, en dat de realiteit altijd ergens in het midden ligt tussen de verschillende opvattingen van verschillende personen. Jammer genoeg is de mens geen rationeel wezen, en zijn onze wetenschappelijke studies dat dus eigenlijk ook niet.

Mid reads.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone invested in critical and analytical thinking, Alex Edmans's "May Contain Lies" was a refreshing and insightful read. In an era rife with misinformation, this book is timely and crucial.

Edmans begins the book with the cognitive flaws that all of us struggle with (and that allow misinformation to thrive) i.e. confirmation bias and binary thinking. His "Ladder of Misinference" framework maps how we can discern statements from fact, data, evidence and proof. Through stories including one involving Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours rule and another on breastfeeding (a gentle reminder that correlation and not causation are not the same), he illustrates how we can avoid missteps on the ladder and misinterpret the world around us.

What sets this book apart is Edman's ability to synthesize ideas with pragmatic insights. His engaging prose blends rigour and storytelling, making complex ideas accessible and memorable.

"May Contain Lies" is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the world better (rather than simplistically) and to make better decisions with that clearer perspective.

[Samuel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye opening, I stumbled uppon this book by coincidence but it changed my perspective on how to accept information. On one hand it comfirmed my opinion that it is really complicated to navigate between all of ot informations out there in today’s days and the other hand this booked explains in very simplified, easy to digest ways on how to use more critical thinking.

If you are interested in this topic then I would recommend this book 10/10, although if you were looking for some conpiracy book full of superlatives then you might be dissapointed.

[Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

6.5/10. Cute. A mixture of basic leadership and intermediate data analytics. Appreciated seeing some of the ideas I've seen in my courses explained in this book.

[Diana Iovanel · Rating 4 out of 5]

i recommend it to everyone

[Joelle McNulty · Rating 5 out of 5]

"May Contain Lies" is a great resource for figuring out if studies, claims, statistics etc are correct. It's an important guide for combating misinformation and figuring out whether studies are actually accurate. It's full of examples of studies you've perhaps heard of, for example the 10,000 hours rule in Malcom Gladwell's book that you've probably heard of. I won't spoil what the author discovered out about the study... but you'd better go pick this book up for yourself. 😜 Five stars. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[shelly Andrews · Rating 5 out of 5]

awesome 👏🏽

Great book! Helpful in understanding that data is not always accurate and assuming that data = proof is an unfortunate mistake many of us make.

[Racer_rajesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, this is must read for the people in decision making levels in the organizations. wonderful examples given, so many myths busted. I would recommend to all professionals.

[Kevin Parkinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic book - part decision-making science, part research methods; all told with great narratives.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for those living in our complex multifaceted world.