My father-in-law gave me this book at some point in the nineties. I remember wondering why this book, as he otherwise didn't give me books. His daughter later revealed to me that he thought I lied when telling a story about seeing a white-tipped reef shark while snorkeling in Maledives. This was at the time we started dating and maybe it was one (of many?) reasons he thought I was struggling with keeping reality and fiction apart and I was in dire need of this book. I never asked him, nor did I get around to finishing the book (I started a number of times).
Now, many years later, I will reread only the sections that I have previously highlighted and base my review on that, as I don't remember much of the book anymore (beside the main concept of the book which I am sure other people have written more eloquently about elsewhere). What follows are page numbers, my past comment and my new comment on that specific section:
Page 21-23, (large parts of the text is highlighted)
Daniel uses a framed painting as a metaphor for our perception. The painting is what the experience and the frame is how we perceive it (we notice what we experience, but rarely how we perceive the experience). As the wrong frame will detract from the picture, a jarred perception will deform the experience and negatively influence one's own actions. A person who is over-sensitive is more likely to suppress and build blind spots. Finally, he writes about the positive and negative effects of filtering information. I like this metaphor, however I entirely forgot it after reading the book.
Page 107, (explanation of the origin of "self" is highlighted)
An explanation of how identity is formed through interactions between the child and parents, family and peers.
Page 108, (a sentence is highlighted)
The sentence (in German) says the a clear sign of egocentricity is the incapacity to include new information into existing thought patterns.
Page 109, (multiple sentences highlighted)
The deceits and prejudice are so common because they help to protect the individual: they protect the integrity of the organised knowledge of the self. Also, it helps prioritise the value of the self as without the organising structure all information would be stored randomly, with it information becomes assimilated and can readily accessed. The self-regard is often deeply flawed: common-looking people think they are beautiful, highly competent people think they are inadequate, incompetent people think they are superior, etc.
Page 110, (multiple parts highlighted*)
Information that is a danger to the self (doesn't tell the story that you tell about yourself) is equally dangerous the the self-regard. This is sufficient to create fear. When self-destroying thoughts become chronic it is a sign of depression. I am surprised that I wrote that person's name next to this text as I don't remember that person as being that negative.
Page 112, *
The asterisk next to the line "people with low self-esteem carry the psychological burden of hard, disapproving parents" is totally obvious to me still (unlike above).
Page 169, (bookmark)
There is a comment of how a child, who has learned to expect rejection from the parents, will react distrustful to comments from peers. The distrustful reaction will elicit a negative response in the peers and thus have created a reinforced vicious circle. I can totally see my wife being caught in this pattern.
Page 190, (bookmark)
A story about how a family deals with the father's death, where one of the boys is being told again and again that he is planning to jeopardise something and the family as a whole realise it and prevent it. The unpreventable father's death gets corrected in the family many times since as the prevent many smaller horrors from happening - a distorted family reality gets created. The problem is, that the boy who gets blamed for the behaviour (for which he is largely not responsible) will be affected for life and potentially will make this apart of his self.
Page 244, "I am the person on page 244 - makes unhappy"
Goleman explains that tactfulness is a foundation of the social alliance that ensures that we share a common "frame". A person (such as I!) who is not tactful represents an attack to social norms. A person with a different "frame" of perception is not rewarded, but often suffers from seeing things (such as peoples real emotions) that others don't.
Page 246, collective self-deceit is social deceit -> taboo
Probably why I thought this page was noteworthy is because of the story of how incompetent peers of one own's profession are protected. Taboos are a very common form of social deception - demarkations of fear-inducing zones of silence. I hate taboos (as it seems like a narrow-framing of reality to me) and although our societies have during my lifetime become increasingly liberal, we have created new taboos that are totally unnecessary (such as a racism ban in Switzerland in the 90es that effectively bans for example a public discussion with a holocaust-denier, etc.)
Page 266, (bookmark)
The self-deceit of downplaying large risks has in the human evolution aided bravery and boldness. The act of perception and also an act of selection. Our survival as a species has likely been promoted from this ability to filter. The negative effects come when our filters are keeping out events that have caused pain and no longer allow information that might be relevant, even if the information is painful.
As I am about to part-take in one of the large established social self-deceit called "entrepreneurism" I have enjoyed reading through parts of this book for the review. Considering that the book is from the 80es and so much has happened in the space of self-discovery, it still seems very relevant today (although some insights must be outdated). For the content I would give the book 4 stars, however the German translation makes many sentences needlessly complicated. If there is a never German translation around, I'd recommend you try that one.
* I wrote a friend's name next to text