Book is arrogant, out-of-touch, and has too many poorly-researched bits.
Don’t get too pulled into this book’s many uncited anecdotes. Evaluate each claim carefully-- not all of them are backed by studies and those which are seem to have a small sample size of only a few Ivy League students on campus (i.e., very wealthy young people). Also, ask yourself if you would like to be talked to, not even listened to, and categorized the way that people in this book are.
*On page 102, cornrows and mohawks are presented as opportunity costs and edgy, but nothing is said about long-standing white racism artificially keeping traditional and natural ethnic hairstyles of people of color on the fringe. Cornrows are of the African diaspora and mohawks from the Mohawk Native American tribe. Minorities in majorly white spaces will have fewer numbers to take advantage of the mere exposure effect as it is, let alone rules made by white people for white people, in schools and corporations, which have been for hundreds of years suppressing traditional hairstyles. White people viewing ethnic hairstyles as edgy has terrible implications as laid out in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink. Is it any wonder why so many people of color feel excluded and pass off academia as a white thing? For a better perspective on African hair, see the work of Dr. Gloria Ford Gilmer, who shows the mathematics of African hairstyles, which is not edgy at all, but, rather, represents a combination of math, fractals, tessellations, and art, i.e., civilization. Please also support CROWN Acts (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) to make this type of discrimination illegal.
*On page 76, because cars in a Walmart parking lots have fewer different makes and models of cars than higher-end malls, the author's conclusion is that working-class people prefer more similarity. Did anyone ask the car owners? There was no indication of this in the book, only this unresearched post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion. More money means more options, but the author tries to dismiss that. Working class people would love to have other makes and models, too, but simply can’t afford them, let alone the expertise of mechanics for foreign models! The author tries to counter this argument by saying that less-expensive cars offer fewer paint colors, but, again, there was no indication of asking car owners if they preferred other colors and, even so, fewer options keep cars more affordable. Firefighters being more likely to feel happy for someone who bought cars similar to theirs also does not have any bearing on if the firefighters would prefer more expensive cars if they could afford them, but they are already used to their working class friends having limited choices too. Perhaps it is that firefighters are more generous and sharing (and willing to save others' lives!) while the privileged Ivy League students may be more selfish/narcissist/egotistical and do not want to see others have nice things too. How convenient for those who are privileged not to ask and to assume others don’t wish for more choices and better things! By this book’s “logic,” people who live in food desserts simply prefer unhealthy foods which are the only ones they can afford or have access to. How nice it is must be to dismiss those who are less fortunate by saying they are content with their lot!
*Page 64 alleges people claim to like earlier music of popular bands as a way of finding a new source of distinction. This claim is unbacked by research in the book. Has the author ever asked people why they like earlier albums of bands? Rap and Hip Hop bands were made to stop sampling. Country music bands drop steel guitar twangs. Christian bands start making more secular songs (and vice versa). Metal bands start incorporating jazz and orchestral symphonies. Singers and key instrument players move on. Musicians get bored and have the right to go in different directions and fans have the right to prefer any or all of these changes. Don’t ask why and you will miss insights into music history and getting to know someone more.
*Page 69 alleges teens rebel by going vegan. This claim is unbacked by research in the book. Has the author ever asked people their reasons for going vegan? Health, environment, and treatment of fellow animals are common reasons. Also, there could be inspiration from pop stars and athletes, as a form of the mimicry discussed earlier, but missed with this one. None of these reasons have anything to do with rebelling. Rather, it could be a positive result of the parents teaching good values, such as empathy, and even an attempt to reconnect with ethnic roots (For people of color, see Dr. A. Breeze Harper’s works). Moreover, a parent dismissing a child’s virtues and/or heartfelt efforts at doing something mindful can be experienced as dismissive and hurtful.
*Page 69 alleges teens rebel by dating bad boys or girls. This claim is unbacked by research in the book. What qualifies as bad (having the wrong color of BMW?)? Is the dating a trend or a one-off thing? Other psychologists, such as Nathaniel Branden in his book The Six Pillars of Self Esteem, say dating, for example married people, is a self-esteem issue which may or may not have anything to do with the parents and probably needs to be worked through with a therapist. It is narcissistic of a parent to think everything is about rebelling against them and a parent passing this issue off as simple rebellion could miss the root cause of the behavior in getting the child help, if this is a real trend.
*Page 69 alleges teens rebel by generally looking bored or revolted whenever their parents pick them up from school. This claim is unbacked by research in the book. More questions need to be asked of this situation before dismissing the hypothetical teens. Respect goes both ways. Is it still age-appropriate for the parent to be picking the teen up? Is the car in good condition (no loud muffler/rust holes) and not covered with embarrassing bumper stickers? Is the parent bombarding the child with talk of the birds and the bees or other unpleasant topics? Is the parent talking at the teen and not to the teen, i.e., not even listening (again)? Some of the answers to these questions might be painful to face up to, but dismissing the teen as merely rebelling is not going to help the parent-child relationship. Instead of dismissing teens, see the book How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
*Page 139's experiment definitely needs to be re-done for older age groups and in various climates. Perhaps senior citizens with less to prove would check off the boxes they preferred. Perhaps more experienced drivers in a climate with a lot of snow would prefer to pick gray, as that color shows less road salt and requires fewer trips to the car wash. Why only survey college students about cars when they have fewer years of driving experience?!
*Chapter 5: Don’t even get me started about comparing cockroaches running away from lights in a maze to people who take longer to complete difficult tasks with an audience. I doubt the roaches shared the same reasons as humans. Rather, Occam’s Razor would suggest something more primal, such as the roaches ran slower with an audience in a more complicated maze because the presence of their fellows suggested less danger--hardly the case for humans in an Ivy League university lab. I doubt the roaches were self-conscious about it.
Skip this one and read Robert Cialdini or Daniel Kahneman instead. That is where the real research is! This book only rides on the coattails of those. Also, check out You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why It Matters by Kate Murphy.