What do you think?
Meele algoritmid
From one of our leading social psychologists, an illuminating exploration of how the brain allows us to perceive and understand what other people are thinking-and the crucial limitations of this ability.
Humans are born mind readers. Our extraordinary ability to interpret the emotions, thoughts, and intentions of others is the basis of every personal and professional relationship we have-but this social intelligence is far from perfect. Now, in this fascinating study, Nicholas Epley introduces us to the latest research into the strengths and foibles of our social minds. He describes some of the common mistakes our minds make: how the socially active brain can go into overdrive and perceive "mind" in inanimate objects; how egocentrism can cause us to attribute our own beliefs to others, or leads us to believe that we are the center of attention; or that our embarrassing blunders are noticed by others who, in fact, are paying no attention to us at all. But he also suggests ways in which we can get past these errors, improve our social intelligence, and find the wisdom to better relate to our spouses, children, and colleagues-which, in turn, can lead us to a deeper understand of others, and of ourselves.
Humans are born mind readers. Our extraordinary ability to interpret the emotions, thoughts, and intentions of others is the basis of every personal and professional relationship we have-but this social intelligence is far from perfect. Now, in this fascinating study, Nicholas Epley introduces us to the latest research into the strengths and foibles of our social minds. He describes some of the common mistakes our minds make: how the socially active brain can go into overdrive and perceive "mind" in inanimate objects; how egocentrism can cause us to attribute our own beliefs to others, or leads us to believe that we are the center of attention; or that our embarrassing blunders are noticed by others who, in fact, are paying no attention to us at all. But he also suggests ways in which we can get past these errors, improve our social intelligence, and find the wisdom to better relate to our spouses, children, and colleagues-which, in turn, can lead us to a deeper understand of others, and of ourselves.
259 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 273 reviews
November 15, 2015
3.5 stars
This is one of those psychology books for a general audience that does much more to inform readers about the failings of the human mind than to teach us how to be better. In other words, it’s more intellectual than practical. That said, it’s accessible and I think most readers would benefit from at least some of its information.
People are pretty good at reading each other’s minds, all things considered, but also overestimate our own abilities. For that matter, we don’t always know our own minds: one study had people giving their reasoning for choices they hadn’t actually made, apparently believing that they had.
Mindwise discusses three common mistakes people make in inferring others’ state of mind. First, there’s assuming other people think the same as we do, when they actually are working with different information, or simply see things differently. Realizing that self-centered thinking is a mistake when drawing inferences about others’ minds can be liberating – one study had participants wear embarrassing T-shirts, which went unnoticed by most others. Second, there’s using stereotypes. This isn’t necessarily a bad word – given that none of us can ask every person in the world what they think about every subject, we have to make some assumptions based on the firsthand experiences we do have and the information we’ve gathered secondhand – but stereotypes often lead us wrong.
Third, there’s assuming others’ actions reflect their minds. While we recognize the effects of circumstances, chance, and other people’s actions on our own, when it comes to other people we tend to assume their decisions are made freely and reflect their character. An interesting example given in the book is that of the Black Friday shoppers who failed to help while a man died of a heart attack in the store. People hearing the story afterwards assumed the other shoppers were greedy and callous. Actually, first, it’s surprisingly hard to notice something is awry while focusing on something else (think of the gorilla on the basketball court), and second, people in crowds do a bad job of recognizing emergencies – they look to see how others are responding, and if nobody else seems to think it’s an emergency, usually won’t intervene unless their own training or experience has taught them otherwise. Epley also gives the example of the people who didn’t evacuate New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina: many politicians talked as if they simply chose not to, while in actuality, many of those who didn’t evacuate lacked cars, money for hotel stays, or out-of-town connections who could have taken them in. Without the resources to do otherwise, you don’t really have a choice, and a publicity campaign about the importance of evacuating wouldn’t have done nearly as much good as, say, providing buses.
As far as how to understand one another better, Epley doesn’t offer many answers. Studying body language is of minimal use to people who already have reasonable social skills (though it can be helpful to, say, those with autism); we actually gather far more from people’s voices than their bodies. Attempting to envision another’s perspective can also be unhelpful, entrenching us in our own positions and increasing our overconfidence without improving our accuracy. Epley’s best advice is to practice humility when attempting to read other’s minds, and to listen to what they say. (Your loved ones will appreciate you more if you buy them gifts from a wish list or pay attention to their hints than if you come up with your own ideas – yes, studies confirm this.) Of course, this is of minimal help if you’re looking for advice for situations where people won’t just tell you what they think – for instance, you want to know what others really think of you, or learn to distinguish truth from lies. But my takeaway is that there’s no easy answer to any of that: you just have to pay attention, and work to create conditions where people feel comfortable telling the truth.
All that is pretty interesting, though not mindblowing, a helpful reminder even if much of it sounds obvious. And it’s a short book, under 200 pages if you don’t count the notes, though it could have been shorter. There’s an out-of-place chapter about anthropomorphism, which seems to be included as a mirror for the chapter about the ways we dehumanize other people. But the ways people attribute human characteristics to animals, machines, the weather, etc., has nothing to do with the subject of this book (how people understand each other, or fail to). And it showcases an apparent disdain for animals and pet owners on Epley’s part; he talks about people being “tricked” into having relationships with their pets.
At any rate, this is pleasant reading, with an accessible and engaging style, and with the possible exception of the anthropomorphism chapter, I enjoyed the author’s voice; he comes across as good-hearted and thoughtful. If you know much about psychology, you’re unlikely to encounter much new information here, but overall it was worth my time.
This is one of those psychology books for a general audience that does much more to inform readers about the failings of the human mind than to teach us how to be better. In other words, it’s more intellectual than practical. That said, it’s accessible and I think most readers would benefit from at least some of its information.
People are pretty good at reading each other’s minds, all things considered, but also overestimate our own abilities. For that matter, we don’t always know our own minds: one study had people giving their reasoning for choices they hadn’t actually made, apparently believing that they had.
Mindwise discusses three common mistakes people make in inferring others’ state of mind. First, there’s assuming other people think the same as we do, when they actually are working with different information, or simply see things differently. Realizing that self-centered thinking is a mistake when drawing inferences about others’ minds can be liberating – one study had participants wear embarrassing T-shirts, which went unnoticed by most others. Second, there’s using stereotypes. This isn’t necessarily a bad word – given that none of us can ask every person in the world what they think about every subject, we have to make some assumptions based on the firsthand experiences we do have and the information we’ve gathered secondhand – but stereotypes often lead us wrong.
Third, there’s assuming others’ actions reflect their minds. While we recognize the effects of circumstances, chance, and other people’s actions on our own, when it comes to other people we tend to assume their decisions are made freely and reflect their character. An interesting example given in the book is that of the Black Friday shoppers who failed to help while a man died of a heart attack in the store. People hearing the story afterwards assumed the other shoppers were greedy and callous. Actually, first, it’s surprisingly hard to notice something is awry while focusing on something else (think of the gorilla on the basketball court), and second, people in crowds do a bad job of recognizing emergencies – they look to see how others are responding, and if nobody else seems to think it’s an emergency, usually won’t intervene unless their own training or experience has taught them otherwise. Epley also gives the example of the people who didn’t evacuate New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina: many politicians talked as if they simply chose not to, while in actuality, many of those who didn’t evacuate lacked cars, money for hotel stays, or out-of-town connections who could have taken them in. Without the resources to do otherwise, you don’t really have a choice, and a publicity campaign about the importance of evacuating wouldn’t have done nearly as much good as, say, providing buses.
As far as how to understand one another better, Epley doesn’t offer many answers. Studying body language is of minimal use to people who already have reasonable social skills (though it can be helpful to, say, those with autism); we actually gather far more from people’s voices than their bodies. Attempting to envision another’s perspective can also be unhelpful, entrenching us in our own positions and increasing our overconfidence without improving our accuracy. Epley’s best advice is to practice humility when attempting to read other’s minds, and to listen to what they say. (Your loved ones will appreciate you more if you buy them gifts from a wish list or pay attention to their hints than if you come up with your own ideas – yes, studies confirm this.) Of course, this is of minimal help if you’re looking for advice for situations where people won’t just tell you what they think – for instance, you want to know what others really think of you, or learn to distinguish truth from lies. But my takeaway is that there’s no easy answer to any of that: you just have to pay attention, and work to create conditions where people feel comfortable telling the truth.
All that is pretty interesting, though not mindblowing, a helpful reminder even if much of it sounds obvious. And it’s a short book, under 200 pages if you don’t count the notes, though it could have been shorter. There’s an out-of-place chapter about anthropomorphism, which seems to be included as a mirror for the chapter about the ways we dehumanize other people. But the ways people attribute human characteristics to animals, machines, the weather, etc., has nothing to do with the subject of this book (how people understand each other, or fail to). And it showcases an apparent disdain for animals and pet owners on Epley’s part; he talks about people being “tricked” into having relationships with their pets.
At any rate, this is pleasant reading, with an accessible and engaging style, and with the possible exception of the anthropomorphism chapter, I enjoyed the author’s voice; he comes across as good-hearted and thoughtful. If you know much about psychology, you’re unlikely to encounter much new information here, but overall it was worth my time.
March 7, 2014
This is an easy, light read, written in everyday language that works well for the casual reader. Epley offers data from various studies to show us how often we make assumptions about others, and how often those assumptions are wrong. He also gives us insight into how and why we - often unconsciously - make those assumptions.
While much of this content isn't brand new research, it's presented well. I particularly liked the chapter on stereotypes. At one time or another, all of us are guilty of casting people into stereotypical groups. This chapter explores why we do it and how easily that tendency can lead us astray.
I was disappointed in the chapter on anthropomorphism (attributing human traits to inanimate objects). Throughout much of this content, Epley lumps animals in with inanimate objects such as computers and cars. Whether intentional or not, the information was presented as if humans are the only beings capable of mindfulness. Granted, dogs don't wallow in guilt when they pee on the carpet and cows don't sit around pondering their existence, but they certainly do have minds. They have a different method of thinking, but they do indeed have thoughts. Epley's failure to acknowledge animals as conscious beings is a major stumbling point for me.
Epley weaves in a few personal anecdotes when explaining certain phenomena. This gives the book a friendlier feel, which is particularly good for those readers who don't want the 'text book' experience.
The Notes section provides more detail on the studies and observations made throughout the book. I wish some of this had been included within the main text, because it adds to content that can otherwise be a little too light for readers like me who want to explore this topic in depth.
Overall, this book offers a look at how our minds work, and gives us one important conclusion: If you want to know what someone is thinking, ask.
While much of this content isn't brand new research, it's presented well. I particularly liked the chapter on stereotypes. At one time or another, all of us are guilty of casting people into stereotypical groups. This chapter explores why we do it and how easily that tendency can lead us astray.
I was disappointed in the chapter on anthropomorphism (attributing human traits to inanimate objects). Throughout much of this content, Epley lumps animals in with inanimate objects such as computers and cars. Whether intentional or not, the information was presented as if humans are the only beings capable of mindfulness. Granted, dogs don't wallow in guilt when they pee on the carpet and cows don't sit around pondering their existence, but they certainly do have minds. They have a different method of thinking, but they do indeed have thoughts. Epley's failure to acknowledge animals as conscious beings is a major stumbling point for me.
Epley weaves in a few personal anecdotes when explaining certain phenomena. This gives the book a friendlier feel, which is particularly good for those readers who don't want the 'text book' experience.
The Notes section provides more detail on the studies and observations made throughout the book. I wish some of this had been included within the main text, because it adds to content that can otherwise be a little too light for readers like me who want to explore this topic in depth.
Overall, this book offers a look at how our minds work, and gives us one important conclusion: If you want to know what someone is thinking, ask.
December 18, 2013
One of my pet hates is people who try and tell me what I’m thinking when I say something – or tell me my reasons for making a particular remark or performing a particular action. My invariable response is ‘Don’t try and tell me what is going on in my head – you don’t know unless I tell you.’ Human beings are prone to thinking that everyone shares their beliefs and thoughts and as a result we misjudge people, especially those close to us on a daily basis. As a result we end up quarrelling for no real reason.
This book provides many examples – academic, anecdotal and historical – of human beings misunderstanding each other with frequently disastrous consequences. We never seem to learn from our mistakes and continue to think we are excellent at mindreading and understanding precisely how others think and believe. What we continually fail to realise is that not everyone is like us.
The book looks at stereotypes and how damaging they can be in our relationships with others. It also looks as anthropomorphism and the human habit of endowing other species and inanimate objects with human emotions and characteristics.
While the book quotes many academic studies it is written in a way which will appeal to the general reader as well. There are notes on each chapter and an index. If you want to understand how you misinterpret other people then read this book.
This book provides many examples – academic, anecdotal and historical – of human beings misunderstanding each other with frequently disastrous consequences. We never seem to learn from our mistakes and continue to think we are excellent at mindreading and understanding precisely how others think and believe. What we continually fail to realise is that not everyone is like us.
The book looks at stereotypes and how damaging they can be in our relationships with others. It also looks as anthropomorphism and the human habit of endowing other species and inanimate objects with human emotions and characteristics.
While the book quotes many academic studies it is written in a way which will appeal to the general reader as well. There are notes on each chapter and an index. If you want to understand how you misinterpret other people then read this book.
September 27, 2014
This book was not what I was hoping for and I kept waiting to have some revelation about interpersonal interaction... I never did.
I am not the intended audience for this book and neither are any of my social worker friends (so feel free to skip it, you already know everything in this book anyway). And neither are you if you've ever thought or studied about how people relate to one another.
Basically: people do OK figuring out general things about what others are thinking and their motivations, but never great. And Shocker! we think we are WAY better at this than we actually are. Oh, I'm sorry, should I not be snarky about that? "ahem" People think that they are better at knowing what other people think than they actually are. Basically, we all overestimate our abilities when it comes to understanding other people.
I suppose this book is great and super helpful if you don't have a social work degree and didn't spend years studying how to identify and address stereotypes and to help others do the same. Basically the best advice Nicholas Epley (and all of the PhD's he cites) can give you is : ask people about their experience and what they are thinking and then LISTEN to them. Otherwise, feel free to Imagine what other people are going through and what outside circumstances effect their lives but don't expect to be right. Keep an open mind and be curious, ask, and listen to answers!!!
Or you can go get an MSW like I did and be totally bored with pretty much every book on human behavior that you read. Perhaps its time for me to stop reading about this crap and go get a PhD in behavioral economics so I can learn new things ;)
Oh, total sidenote: This author earns MAJOR points for calling out The Female Brain as the SPECTACULAR piece of total brain frying, stereotype reinforcing garbage that it is.
I am not the intended audience for this book and neither are any of my social worker friends (so feel free to skip it, you already know everything in this book anyway). And neither are you if you've ever thought or studied about how people relate to one another.
Basically: people do OK figuring out general things about what others are thinking and their motivations, but never great. And Shocker! we think we are WAY better at this than we actually are. Oh, I'm sorry, should I not be snarky about that? "ahem" People think that they are better at knowing what other people think than they actually are. Basically, we all overestimate our abilities when it comes to understanding other people.
I suppose this book is great and super helpful if you don't have a social work degree and didn't spend years studying how to identify and address stereotypes and to help others do the same. Basically the best advice Nicholas Epley (and all of the PhD's he cites) can give you is : ask people about their experience and what they are thinking and then LISTEN to them. Otherwise, feel free to Imagine what other people are going through and what outside circumstances effect their lives but don't expect to be right. Keep an open mind and be curious, ask, and listen to answers!!!
Or you can go get an MSW like I did and be totally bored with pretty much every book on human behavior that you read. Perhaps its time for me to stop reading about this crap and go get a PhD in behavioral economics so I can learn new things ;)
Oh, total sidenote: This author earns MAJOR points for calling out The Female Brain as the SPECTACULAR piece of total brain frying, stereotype reinforcing garbage that it is.
July 7, 2015
I thought this book sounded really interesting from the title, but I found it quite dull and rather repetitive. The explanations that Epley gives of "why we misunderstand others" seemed pretty obvious and not especially useful for actually becoming *better* at understanding others.
January 14, 2015
An interesting book, but I'm not sure I understand people any better after reading this. I do, however, understand why I don't understand them a lot better. Especially interesting were the parts where Epley explained how trying to understand other people often ends up in understanding them a lot worse than without trying to understand them. Sounds weird, doesn't it? Well, apparantely science proves this. And boy, does that explain a lot about modern day politics and why we just cannot seem to get along with each other.
The main lesson I learned: The more we try to understand each other (without actually talking to each other), the worse we end up. The most sad thought ever. I think I'll just go be a hermit now somewhere and pretend I don't need anyone ever, mmkay? (I'm quite sure reading this book should've had the opposite effect, but human relationships depress me a tad too easily anyway.)
The main lesson I learned: The more we try to understand each other (without actually talking to each other), the worse we end up. The most sad thought ever. I think I'll just go be a hermit now somewhere and pretend I don't need anyone ever, mmkay? (I'm quite sure reading this book should've had the opposite effect, but human relationships depress me a tad too easily anyway.)
July 29, 2015
Sixth sense = theory of mind = mind reading (or assuming, more accurately)
The problem with our sixth sense is that the confidence we have in this sense far outstrips our actual ability, and the confidence we have in our judgement rarely gives us a good sense of how accurate we actually are.
The human brain is good at being aware of what (the finished product), but not how (the process of arriving there).
Failing to engage the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) leads to dehumanisation.
It is easier to see intrinsic motivation in yourself rather than others, which causes one to assume other people are extrinsically motivated.
Talk to your cabdrivers. They'll always have good stories to tell.
Nobody waves, but almost everyone waves back.
To recognise another mind (even in inanimate objects), motion at the speed of us is critical.
We tend to anthropomorphise when there is some explaining to do (machinery failing, unexpected behaviour of things "having a mind of its own, natural disasters or "acts of God")
The problem with the rule of thumb that other minds are likely to be similar to our own is that likely is not certainly. Egocentrism (what would I do) is a good place to start, but a horrible place to end.
The problem with a lens is that you look through it rather than at it, and so your perspective doesn't seem unique until someone else informs you otherwise.
Curse of knowledge: Assuming what's crystal clear in your mind is as clear in others.
In general, stereotypes are more accurate when you've had direct experience with a group (e.g. one you belong to), know a lot about the group (e.g. because they are the majority) and are asked about clearly visible facts (outward behaviour VS attitudes and beliefs)
The article on sex differences in human mate preferences found that there are a lot more similarities in mate preferences (kind, understanding, intelligent) than differences (earning power for females and physical appearance for males)
Men think about all their urges (not just sex) more than women did.
Recognising a difference doesn't mean you understand the cause.
*As-if principle (see rip it up)
Even if careful thought suggests otherwise, the first instinct is still to assume that actions are produced by corresponding intentions. See scripted to serious romances between film stars.
Don't try to guess another's perspective by 'putting yourself in their shoes'. Go and actually get it by asking.
Many people will tell you the truth (or at least something closer to the truth) if you ask a direct question in a context where they feel at liberty to give an honest answer and you are open to hearing it. But it cannot prevent more subtle forms of deception, like bad news from being sugarcoated, or unpleasant conversations being avoided.
The main reason people lie is to avoid punishment, so put them in a context that diminishes punishment.
The other problem with getting perspective is sometimes others don't really know themselves honestly.
Knowing the shortcomings of your own social sense should push you to be more open in sharing what's in your mind with others, but also more open to listening to others.
Recognise others as they are, not as you imagine them to be.
The problem with our sixth sense is that the confidence we have in this sense far outstrips our actual ability, and the confidence we have in our judgement rarely gives us a good sense of how accurate we actually are.
The human brain is good at being aware of what (the finished product), but not how (the process of arriving there).
Failing to engage the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) leads to dehumanisation.
It is easier to see intrinsic motivation in yourself rather than others, which causes one to assume other people are extrinsically motivated.
Talk to your cabdrivers. They'll always have good stories to tell.
Nobody waves, but almost everyone waves back.
To recognise another mind (even in inanimate objects), motion at the speed of us is critical.
We tend to anthropomorphise when there is some explaining to do (machinery failing, unexpected behaviour of things "having a mind of its own, natural disasters or "acts of God")
The problem with the rule of thumb that other minds are likely to be similar to our own is that likely is not certainly. Egocentrism (what would I do) is a good place to start, but a horrible place to end.
The problem with a lens is that you look through it rather than at it, and so your perspective doesn't seem unique until someone else informs you otherwise.
Curse of knowledge: Assuming what's crystal clear in your mind is as clear in others.
In general, stereotypes are more accurate when you've had direct experience with a group (e.g. one you belong to), know a lot about the group (e.g. because they are the majority) and are asked about clearly visible facts (outward behaviour VS attitudes and beliefs)
The article on sex differences in human mate preferences found that there are a lot more similarities in mate preferences (kind, understanding, intelligent) than differences (earning power for females and physical appearance for males)
Men think about all their urges (not just sex) more than women did.
Recognising a difference doesn't mean you understand the cause.
*As-if principle (see rip it up)
Even if careful thought suggests otherwise, the first instinct is still to assume that actions are produced by corresponding intentions. See scripted to serious romances between film stars.
Don't try to guess another's perspective by 'putting yourself in their shoes'. Go and actually get it by asking.
Many people will tell you the truth (or at least something closer to the truth) if you ask a direct question in a context where they feel at liberty to give an honest answer and you are open to hearing it. But it cannot prevent more subtle forms of deception, like bad news from being sugarcoated, or unpleasant conversations being avoided.
The main reason people lie is to avoid punishment, so put them in a context that diminishes punishment.
The other problem with getting perspective is sometimes others don't really know themselves honestly.
Knowing the shortcomings of your own social sense should push you to be more open in sharing what's in your mind with others, but also more open to listening to others.
Recognise others as they are, not as you imagine them to be.
June 11, 2017
I felt like this was kind of shallow with a lack of review of studies. I would have liked every assertion to be backed by a reference to a study explaining methodology, for example. The title implies that by reading this book you can better understand the minds of others but actually it just goes through a lot of fallacies that we have ourselves.
On the chapter on stereotypes, he says that men performed as well as women on tests of emotion-reading if they were paid to do it. But that really has no bearing on real-life because men don't get paid to act more sensitive. Also, he says that in polls effect sizes are small if you stereotype what someone may believe but I don't think that's true. for example like 93% of blacks supported Obama in 2012. that's hardly a small effect size, it really depends on the guess and your actual judgment...
The last chapter says that we should ask people what they want because that's more effective than guessing, inferencing, putting yourself in another's shoes, etc. He actually says that trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes is ineffective and we shouldn't do this. This book is about trying to understand the minds of others but this advice makes you understand people worse. There have been a thousand times in my life where someone could have acted less callous had they taken 2 seconds to attempt to understand what someone else was going through. The whole point of deontology is that there is a universal law that is applicable to everyone in a moral system and assuming that you can't know at all what anyone would want strikes me as really underselling people's general intelligence.
Also, asking what someone might want is good advice, but the whole point is that people lie, cheat, steal, and are generally unpleasant and crazy and in some situations you really need to figure out what they're thinking without asking them. In cases like this his advice is "make the environment safe for people to voice their concerns honestly," and gives an example of a worker at BP not reporting safety issues because the executives didn't give them an environment to do so. This advice also strikes me as pointless because none of us are executives at BP and it's often the people who are not in power who need to accurately discern the minds of those who are in power. It's easier for people who are in a position of power to not care what anyone thinks. So yeah, this book was pretty useless in regards to the title, and recycles a lot of famous psych studies that you can get in other books.
I think the lesson I have learned here is never read these pop psychology books & just flip directly to the references section and read the actual studies, and if you want to actually understand the mind of others, read psychological fiction or read biographies of people who were actually good at it instead of someone schilling a bunch of psychology studies and who thinks that you can't understand anyone unless you ask them directly.
On the chapter on stereotypes, he says that men performed as well as women on tests of emotion-reading if they were paid to do it. But that really has no bearing on real-life because men don't get paid to act more sensitive. Also, he says that in polls effect sizes are small if you stereotype what someone may believe but I don't think that's true. for example like 93% of blacks supported Obama in 2012. that's hardly a small effect size, it really depends on the guess and your actual judgment...
The last chapter says that we should ask people what they want because that's more effective than guessing, inferencing, putting yourself in another's shoes, etc. He actually says that trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes is ineffective and we shouldn't do this. This book is about trying to understand the minds of others but this advice makes you understand people worse. There have been a thousand times in my life where someone could have acted less callous had they taken 2 seconds to attempt to understand what someone else was going through. The whole point of deontology is that there is a universal law that is applicable to everyone in a moral system and assuming that you can't know at all what anyone would want strikes me as really underselling people's general intelligence.
Also, asking what someone might want is good advice, but the whole point is that people lie, cheat, steal, and are generally unpleasant and crazy and in some situations you really need to figure out what they're thinking without asking them. In cases like this his advice is "make the environment safe for people to voice their concerns honestly," and gives an example of a worker at BP not reporting safety issues because the executives didn't give them an environment to do so. This advice also strikes me as pointless because none of us are executives at BP and it's often the people who are not in power who need to accurately discern the minds of those who are in power. It's easier for people who are in a position of power to not care what anyone thinks. So yeah, this book was pretty useless in regards to the title, and recycles a lot of famous psych studies that you can get in other books.
I think the lesson I have learned here is never read these pop psychology books & just flip directly to the references section and read the actual studies, and if you want to actually understand the mind of others, read psychological fiction or read biographies of people who were actually good at it instead of someone schilling a bunch of psychology studies and who thinks that you can't understand anyone unless you ask them directly.
July 19, 2020
To understand another person's thoughts, we can try to take their perspective. But one gets distracted by selfishness and stereotypes - this happens easily and often unconsciously. The best way to understand your fellow human beings is to just ask and talk to them (Blinkist, 2020).
May 18, 2015
Summarized interesting studies. Focused on the "thinking" a lot more the "feelings" side of things but compelling all the same. Remember we are good at understanding each other but not as great as we think. Remember to ask, express, reflect, and listen. (There, now you don't have to read it!)
October 22, 2018
2.5 stars. Some interesting info but overall pretty meh.
March 29, 2014
First off, I have to say how much I appreciate Epley's writing style. This book is PACKED with information, but it was effortless to read because he is such a clear and focused writer. In every chapter, he outlines what he's going to say, then he says it, and then he summarizes what he said and explains how it relates to his next point. Another writer may have let his reader feel bogged down and overwhelmed by so much information, but Epley is really a wonderful guide.
And, most importantly, this book was fascinating! I learned so much about how the mind works, how we try to guess what people think and feel, how forming these guesses is such an important skill, but not one that we are necessarily very good at executing accurately all the time--and we are not nearly as accurate as we think we are. There were a lot of tidbits of information that I found intriguing, but here are some that really stood out to me:
*** Botox makes you less empathetic.
*** Racists may not be as racist as they think they are, especially when face-to-face with the person they supposedly hate.
*** It's a lot harder to shoot someone, even an "enemy," if you can see that person's face.
*** We are wired to see differences and form stereotypes, but we tend to exaggerate the degree of our differences.
*** We may know our spouses or good friends reasonably well, but we think we know them much better than we actually do.
Ultimately, my take-away from this book is that our minds are impressive, powerful data-computing machines capable of inferring a lot from just a little. Unfortunately, though, our minds don't always have or use the most accurate information to make assumptions about what others are thinking, and so we are wrong about the intentions, feelings, and thoughts of other people more times than we think. As Epley describes it, our confidence far outstrips our ability. His solution? Recognize your limitations when it comes to guessing what others are thinking. Be more open to sharing what's on your mind, and, most importantly, LISTEN when other people tell you what they are thinking, feeling, or wanting.
Overall, this was a great book--very well-written and incredibly engaging.
And, most importantly, this book was fascinating! I learned so much about how the mind works, how we try to guess what people think and feel, how forming these guesses is such an important skill, but not one that we are necessarily very good at executing accurately all the time--and we are not nearly as accurate as we think we are. There were a lot of tidbits of information that I found intriguing, but here are some that really stood out to me:
*** Botox makes you less empathetic.
*** Racists may not be as racist as they think they are, especially when face-to-face with the person they supposedly hate.
*** It's a lot harder to shoot someone, even an "enemy," if you can see that person's face.
*** We are wired to see differences and form stereotypes, but we tend to exaggerate the degree of our differences.
*** We may know our spouses or good friends reasonably well, but we think we know them much better than we actually do.
Ultimately, my take-away from this book is that our minds are impressive, powerful data-computing machines capable of inferring a lot from just a little. Unfortunately, though, our minds don't always have or use the most accurate information to make assumptions about what others are thinking, and so we are wrong about the intentions, feelings, and thoughts of other people more times than we think. As Epley describes it, our confidence far outstrips our ability. His solution? Recognize your limitations when it comes to guessing what others are thinking. Be more open to sharing what's on your mind, and, most importantly, LISTEN when other people tell you what they are thinking, feeling, or wanting.
Overall, this was a great book--very well-written and incredibly engaging.
Did Not Finish
June 25, 2025They were therefore certain that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said, time and again, that he had no weapons of mass destruction. But again, like the majority of American people at the time, they were wrong. 8 Americans went to war, mistakenly believing that Hussein was lying when he was actually telling the truth. It’s easy to see how understanding other people can be a daunting task if you are unable to tell when they are misleading you and when they are not.
Stopped after this paragraph. The Bush administration knew Saddam was telling the truth they just didn't care. They lied to start an illegal war and not only did you believe them but you still believed them 10 years later. Now you want me to read your book about understanding people's hidden motives? I don't think so. I've never seen an author torch their own credibility within the first 10 pages of a book.
September 23, 2018
This book would have been revolutionary to me if I read it in 2014; in 2018, it's interesting, but most of the information has been said elsewhere.
Short summary: we badly overestimate how well we understand our own mind, and those of others. This is an important lesson, so whether you read the info in this book or another, it's worth reading somewhere.
I want to commend Nicholas Epley for writing the perfect social science book. Concise writing, clear language, no hyperbolized examples, and most importantly, and as short as it should be.
Short summary: we badly overestimate how well we understand our own mind, and those of others. This is an important lesson, so whether you read the info in this book or another, it's worth reading somewhere.
I want to commend Nicholas Epley for writing the perfect social science book. Concise writing, clear language, no hyperbolized examples, and most importantly, and as short as it should be.
January 13, 2018
This is a practical book that offers insight into how minds, specifically one's own mind, works. The author argues that we too often believe that we can read the minds of others, especially those close to us. In reality, these assumptions can lead to incorrect or dangerous outcomes. Through relatable anecdotes, Epley shows that the most important thing we can do when trying to imagine how or why others think, feel, and act is to have humility.
September 8, 2020
Saw some bad reviews of this book, but I picked it up anyways and wasn’t disappointed. This book is very enlightening about how we suck at reading others and what we can do about it
November 27, 2018
A Rhetorical Analysis of Mindwise: Why We Misunderstand
What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want
For as long as time can tell the brain has been an enigma to man, and only up until relatively recent history have scientists been able to make the first steps towards fully understanding our own brain. Because of this universal fascination with how our minds work, and with a title such as Mindwise: Why We Misunderstand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want, I was genuinely inclined to pick up this book and read it, which says a lot because it takes a great deal for me to become interested in a book. What I ended up finding was not necessarily a step by step guide to reading minds, which I was hoping for, but instead found something different. I found a wealth of knowledge that reaches not just an individual's brain, but also how individuals interact and use their brains. What's more is that I noticed some things that can be improved by the author, Nicholas Epley, who is a professor of Behavioral Sciences at the University of Chicago, like how he presents his ideas and findings on psychology. However, I also found moments of genuine enjoyment from the book because of specific strategies the author uses to get his readers involved.
As for myself, before reading this book, I had no real legitimate knowledge on how the brain functions, or moreso how our minds work. I only had a general understanding of how our brains work, with things like knowing that the brain is divided into specific parts, and each part contributes differently. This was the only knowledge I had that was to be my guiding lantern through the dark confusing journey I would embark upon, which was to be guided by the author. Overall I knew that progress had already been made in understanding the brain, and that much more research can and is still being conducted to find out more, and I was curious to see what I could learn from this book.
To summarize this book into one concise sentence so that someone who has no idea about Mindwise, one would say that this book is essentially a some two hundred page crash course in psychology. A lot, and I mean a lot, can be learned by reading this book, for better or worse, but more on that later. The author has a somewhat unique way of making each chapter stand on their own while also connecting to the overall themes of the book. The structure of each chapter stands out as a point of interest. Many chapters follow a similar format of introducing the subjects of each chapter, whether that be how the human brain dehumanizes other people’s perspectives and ideas, or how the human brain anthropomorphizes things that do not think into a being that does, etc. . These chapters begin with a short recount of a real-life event so that the reader can understand where the author is coming from, and so the reader can better grasp the knowledge he or she is about to gain. Admittedly, the topics in this book are difficult to understand if the reader has no background knowledge on the human brain, which, also admittedly, many people do not. Had these short accounts been omitted from the text completely, each chapter would definitely be much more boring. For instance, had chapter seven not started with the story of “Walter Vance” having a “heart attack at the worst possible time” (Epley 141), the entire chapter would have been much more difficult to understand, and because of this, the chapter itself would have been much more uninteresting, because the reader would have nothing to connect the information they were learning to, even if it was the scenario of a man dying in the isle of a Target on Black Friday. If one is writing about such a topic as the human brain, with all its complexities included, the biggest challenges is crafting the book in such a way where it is understandable and enjoyable to those who read it, and it is something that the author struggles with.
As previously mentioned, the biggest challenges for a book of this caliber is making the content interesting. The contents of this book are objectively interesting and enjoyable, it is just hidden behind the barrier of not understanding what the author is talking about sometimes. Bringing up the structure of each chapter mentioned earlier, what follows the short story at the beginning chapter is usually a big dump of information with some visuals sprinkled in to keep the reader’s attention. I found myself frequently unable to keep up with what the author was trying to say, or my attention was lost, and the two paragraphs I had just read were not remembered, which forced me to reread, which made everything worse. This problem might stem from how the author usually delivers his data and explanations.
For the most part, the author delivers his data through experiments conducted by college level psychological experiments, in which the author takes this data, makes a graph, and then explains the experiment, the data, and the subsequent graph. Being a college level professor in this field, the author makes use of his own students to conduct and analyze these experiments, as seen when he captions one of his graphs with, “I asked my MBA students whether they considered…” (Epley 102). This use of ethos further establishes the credibility of what the author is presenting. This style allows for more information to be delivered, at the cost of the “fun factor” of the book. The entertainment factor ends up suffering the most, because of the routine that the book falls in. Furthermore, when the author is in one of these information “dumps”, his diction can become very scientific, informative, and bland. Take this sentence for an example, “If the only thing necessary for understanding the minds of others was attending to the same things, then others would be open books” (Epley 99). The author’s diction becomes very straightforward, and at times can become monotonous, as it is missing that “pizazz” that truly great books are known for, and at some times these explanations can transform into what feels like a college lecture. But, there is still hope.
So far I have made this book sound like it is nothing short of a plain rice cake. A bland dump of information that is only enjoyable to psychology experts. I apologize for depicting the book this way, I only did that to highlight what needs to improve. I admit, there are areas that are enjoyable, and at the heart of these areas lies a common theme: Reader Involvement. There are moments in the book where the book stops feeling like a college level lecture and more like a one on one conversation with a psychology expert, which is way more entertaining than the previous. At one point in the book, the author prints the following sentence in apart from the rest of the book: “Finished Files Are The Result Of Years Of Scientific Study Combined With The Experience Of Years” (Epley 103), and then proceeds to ask the reader to count how many times the letter F shows up in this sentence. By adding in this little, almost insignificant, game with the reader, the author is able to connect to the reader, and pique their interest. Personally, I would have loved to see this little addition more often in the book, because moments like these captivated my attention and made me invested into the book. The book, and ultimately any book, becomes more enjoyable when the reader is involved with what the book is saying, and it makes the ideas presented within the book to be much more tangible and meaningful to the reader, and it helps extend the ideas beyond just words on a page. As a reader, when I saw myself miss some F’s in the above sentence when asked to count them, it acted as a realization that what the author was presenting actually mattered to me. This, in turn, stops someone from reading information from the book, and then disregarding it after they have finished the book, and makes what you read in this book last in your memory. When remembering what this book taught me, my brain can easily remember the time the author showed me that I can not count letters in a sentence. (There are six F’s by the way)
Overall, I feel that the author did a tremendous job given what task he had in front of him. I can only imagine the difficulty of explaining one of the most advanced topics on the planet in a concise book under two hundred pages, especially to an audience of the typical consumer, who has no knowledge on the human brain to begin with. The author was able to convey a great deal about how our minds work in a way that, although could be rough to read at times, was never confusing because of how it was presented, rather than what is being presented. What I mean by this is that whenever I was confused about what the author was saying, it was not because he could not explain things properly, it is just because the concepts themselves were difficult to understand, which ultimately is out of his control. I recommend this book to anybody who has a general interest in psychology, and who wants to receive a general baseline understanding of the topic, as this book is very informative on the topics it covers.
What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want
For as long as time can tell the brain has been an enigma to man, and only up until relatively recent history have scientists been able to make the first steps towards fully understanding our own brain. Because of this universal fascination with how our minds work, and with a title such as Mindwise: Why We Misunderstand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want, I was genuinely inclined to pick up this book and read it, which says a lot because it takes a great deal for me to become interested in a book. What I ended up finding was not necessarily a step by step guide to reading minds, which I was hoping for, but instead found something different. I found a wealth of knowledge that reaches not just an individual's brain, but also how individuals interact and use their brains. What's more is that I noticed some things that can be improved by the author, Nicholas Epley, who is a professor of Behavioral Sciences at the University of Chicago, like how he presents his ideas and findings on psychology. However, I also found moments of genuine enjoyment from the book because of specific strategies the author uses to get his readers involved.
As for myself, before reading this book, I had no real legitimate knowledge on how the brain functions, or moreso how our minds work. I only had a general understanding of how our brains work, with things like knowing that the brain is divided into specific parts, and each part contributes differently. This was the only knowledge I had that was to be my guiding lantern through the dark confusing journey I would embark upon, which was to be guided by the author. Overall I knew that progress had already been made in understanding the brain, and that much more research can and is still being conducted to find out more, and I was curious to see what I could learn from this book.
To summarize this book into one concise sentence so that someone who has no idea about Mindwise, one would say that this book is essentially a some two hundred page crash course in psychology. A lot, and I mean a lot, can be learned by reading this book, for better or worse, but more on that later. The author has a somewhat unique way of making each chapter stand on their own while also connecting to the overall themes of the book. The structure of each chapter stands out as a point of interest. Many chapters follow a similar format of introducing the subjects of each chapter, whether that be how the human brain dehumanizes other people’s perspectives and ideas, or how the human brain anthropomorphizes things that do not think into a being that does, etc. . These chapters begin with a short recount of a real-life event so that the reader can understand where the author is coming from, and so the reader can better grasp the knowledge he or she is about to gain. Admittedly, the topics in this book are difficult to understand if the reader has no background knowledge on the human brain, which, also admittedly, many people do not. Had these short accounts been omitted from the text completely, each chapter would definitely be much more boring. For instance, had chapter seven not started with the story of “Walter Vance” having a “heart attack at the worst possible time” (Epley 141), the entire chapter would have been much more difficult to understand, and because of this, the chapter itself would have been much more uninteresting, because the reader would have nothing to connect the information they were learning to, even if it was the scenario of a man dying in the isle of a Target on Black Friday. If one is writing about such a topic as the human brain, with all its complexities included, the biggest challenges is crafting the book in such a way where it is understandable and enjoyable to those who read it, and it is something that the author struggles with.
As previously mentioned, the biggest challenges for a book of this caliber is making the content interesting. The contents of this book are objectively interesting and enjoyable, it is just hidden behind the barrier of not understanding what the author is talking about sometimes. Bringing up the structure of each chapter mentioned earlier, what follows the short story at the beginning chapter is usually a big dump of information with some visuals sprinkled in to keep the reader’s attention. I found myself frequently unable to keep up with what the author was trying to say, or my attention was lost, and the two paragraphs I had just read were not remembered, which forced me to reread, which made everything worse. This problem might stem from how the author usually delivers his data and explanations.
For the most part, the author delivers his data through experiments conducted by college level psychological experiments, in which the author takes this data, makes a graph, and then explains the experiment, the data, and the subsequent graph. Being a college level professor in this field, the author makes use of his own students to conduct and analyze these experiments, as seen when he captions one of his graphs with, “I asked my MBA students whether they considered…” (Epley 102). This use of ethos further establishes the credibility of what the author is presenting. This style allows for more information to be delivered, at the cost of the “fun factor” of the book. The entertainment factor ends up suffering the most, because of the routine that the book falls in. Furthermore, when the author is in one of these information “dumps”, his diction can become very scientific, informative, and bland. Take this sentence for an example, “If the only thing necessary for understanding the minds of others was attending to the same things, then others would be open books” (Epley 99). The author’s diction becomes very straightforward, and at times can become monotonous, as it is missing that “pizazz” that truly great books are known for, and at some times these explanations can transform into what feels like a college lecture. But, there is still hope.
So far I have made this book sound like it is nothing short of a plain rice cake. A bland dump of information that is only enjoyable to psychology experts. I apologize for depicting the book this way, I only did that to highlight what needs to improve. I admit, there are areas that are enjoyable, and at the heart of these areas lies a common theme: Reader Involvement. There are moments in the book where the book stops feeling like a college level lecture and more like a one on one conversation with a psychology expert, which is way more entertaining than the previous. At one point in the book, the author prints the following sentence in apart from the rest of the book: “Finished Files Are The Result Of Years Of Scientific Study Combined With The Experience Of Years” (Epley 103), and then proceeds to ask the reader to count how many times the letter F shows up in this sentence. By adding in this little, almost insignificant, game with the reader, the author is able to connect to the reader, and pique their interest. Personally, I would have loved to see this little addition more often in the book, because moments like these captivated my attention and made me invested into the book. The book, and ultimately any book, becomes more enjoyable when the reader is involved with what the book is saying, and it makes the ideas presented within the book to be much more tangible and meaningful to the reader, and it helps extend the ideas beyond just words on a page. As a reader, when I saw myself miss some F’s in the above sentence when asked to count them, it acted as a realization that what the author was presenting actually mattered to me. This, in turn, stops someone from reading information from the book, and then disregarding it after they have finished the book, and makes what you read in this book last in your memory. When remembering what this book taught me, my brain can easily remember the time the author showed me that I can not count letters in a sentence. (There are six F’s by the way)
Overall, I feel that the author did a tremendous job given what task he had in front of him. I can only imagine the difficulty of explaining one of the most advanced topics on the planet in a concise book under two hundred pages, especially to an audience of the typical consumer, who has no knowledge on the human brain to begin with. The author was able to convey a great deal about how our minds work in a way that, although could be rough to read at times, was never confusing because of how it was presented, rather than what is being presented. What I mean by this is that whenever I was confused about what the author was saying, it was not because he could not explain things properly, it is just because the concepts themselves were difficult to understand, which ultimately is out of his control. I recommend this book to anybody who has a general interest in psychology, and who wants to receive a general baseline understanding of the topic, as this book is very informative on the topics it covers.
September 24, 2026
A competent, readable survey of the psychology of "reading" other minds — mind perception, dehumanization, overconfidence in our assumptions about what others think and feel — but it plays like a 201-level undergrad course compiled into book form. Greatest-hits research, popular studies you've likely encountered before, stitched together with narrative glue rather than a distinct original argument. If you've spent any real time in organizational behavior or social psych, there's not much new territory here.
A recurring pattern across the book: study after study on perspective-taking shows people just imagining what someone else is thinking, and getting it wrong — not randomly, but in ways that trace back to their own biases and insecurities. Epley leans on the old Carlin bit about how everyone driving slower than you is an idiot and everyone driving faster is a maniac — a good shorthand for how our own reference point quietly becomes the norm we judge everyone else against. His actual prescription is sharper than the usual "walk a mile in their shoes" platitude: he argues for trying to get someone's perspective by asking and listening, rather than taking it by imagining your way into their head — which is really just projection with extra steps. It's a solid reframe, but by the back half of the book the same basic move (person imagines, person is wrong, bias is the culprit) repeats often enough to feel like a broken record.
One fact genuinely stopped me: Epley notes infants routinely underwent surgery without anesthesia until the early 1990s, because doctors didn't believe infants could feel pain — I had to look it up to confirm it. It also tracked with my own experience: I had a titanium screw removed from my ulna in 1990, and the doctor gave me only local anesthesia to open the skin before taking a ratcheting wrench to the hex bolt in my arm, confidently informing me "there are no nerve endings in the bone." It hurt like hell, and he looked genuinely shaken that I reacted. But that story is really two failures stacked on top of each other, and only one of them is what Epley's book is actually about. His book is about the moment-to-moment failure to model someone else's mind — the imagining-instead-of-asking problem. What happened to me is the deeper version: that doctor, likely in his 50s, had been trained on a certified fact ("no nerve endings in bone") the same way an earlier generation of doctors had been trained that infants don't feel pain. He wasn't guessing badly about my mind in the moment — he was executing a belief the field had already gotten wrong for him, before he ever picked up the wrench. That's a colder failure than anything perspective-taking exercises can fix, and the book doesn't really go there.
The one place the book clearly earns its keep: a sharp critique of the iceberg model that's calcified into gospel in leadership and PM training. Epley's objection is that the metaphor reinforces the myth that we only use 10% of our brains — implying the unconscious "90%" is dormant, untapped potential. He argues that's backwards: the unconscious runs most of what you do in a given moment, while consciousness handles the smaller job of making sense of your behavior after the fact so you can explain it to yourself and others. Genuinely useful for anyone who's sat through a training deck treating the submerged part of the iceberg as a vast reservoir waiting to be mined.
Solid intro-level primer if you're new to the subject. If you've already got the background, or you've read his later book on talking to strangers, "A Little More Social," you'll feel like you're watching him warm up for a better book he hadn't written yet.
NOTE: It's a short read -- ends at around 70% on Kindle with the remainder being very extensive end notes.
ORIGINAL URL: https://www.livegreenwearblack.com/20...
A recurring pattern across the book: study after study on perspective-taking shows people just imagining what someone else is thinking, and getting it wrong — not randomly, but in ways that trace back to their own biases and insecurities. Epley leans on the old Carlin bit about how everyone driving slower than you is an idiot and everyone driving faster is a maniac — a good shorthand for how our own reference point quietly becomes the norm we judge everyone else against. His actual prescription is sharper than the usual "walk a mile in their shoes" platitude: he argues for trying to get someone's perspective by asking and listening, rather than taking it by imagining your way into their head — which is really just projection with extra steps. It's a solid reframe, but by the back half of the book the same basic move (person imagines, person is wrong, bias is the culprit) repeats often enough to feel like a broken record.
One fact genuinely stopped me: Epley notes infants routinely underwent surgery without anesthesia until the early 1990s, because doctors didn't believe infants could feel pain — I had to look it up to confirm it. It also tracked with my own experience: I had a titanium screw removed from my ulna in 1990, and the doctor gave me only local anesthesia to open the skin before taking a ratcheting wrench to the hex bolt in my arm, confidently informing me "there are no nerve endings in the bone." It hurt like hell, and he looked genuinely shaken that I reacted. But that story is really two failures stacked on top of each other, and only one of them is what Epley's book is actually about. His book is about the moment-to-moment failure to model someone else's mind — the imagining-instead-of-asking problem. What happened to me is the deeper version: that doctor, likely in his 50s, had been trained on a certified fact ("no nerve endings in bone") the same way an earlier generation of doctors had been trained that infants don't feel pain. He wasn't guessing badly about my mind in the moment — he was executing a belief the field had already gotten wrong for him, before he ever picked up the wrench. That's a colder failure than anything perspective-taking exercises can fix, and the book doesn't really go there.
The one place the book clearly earns its keep: a sharp critique of the iceberg model that's calcified into gospel in leadership and PM training. Epley's objection is that the metaphor reinforces the myth that we only use 10% of our brains — implying the unconscious "90%" is dormant, untapped potential. He argues that's backwards: the unconscious runs most of what you do in a given moment, while consciousness handles the smaller job of making sense of your behavior after the fact so you can explain it to yourself and others. Genuinely useful for anyone who's sat through a training deck treating the submerged part of the iceberg as a vast reservoir waiting to be mined.
Solid intro-level primer if you're new to the subject. If you've already got the background, or you've read his later book on talking to strangers, "A Little More Social," you'll feel like you're watching him warm up for a better book he hadn't written yet.
NOTE: It's a short read -- ends at around 70% on Kindle with the remainder being very extensive end notes.
ORIGINAL URL: https://www.livegreenwearblack.com/20...
March 9, 2025
It’s a decent book. I think I would have liked it more had I not taken a course on logic and reasoning, as there were many subjects that I had previously learned. I do appreciate the everyday language he used throughout the book; sometimes philosophy tends to use very complicated words and sentences to make its knowledge inaccessible to the larger public, but the author doesn’t make this error. I also appreciate the studies he provides to support his claims.
I probably would give this a 4/5 had I not already studied the material he was writing on.
I probably would give this a 4/5 had I not already studied the material he was writing on.
March 18, 2023
I love psychology books and this one's a prime example of it. It approaches human communication and biases from various angles: giver/receiver and positive/negative. I found it very comprehensive and practical. One of my all-time favorites along with "Out of your mind" which is a very different psychology book, but delivered a similar wow-effect.
April 17, 2023
This book came highly recommended from a person that I trust greatly and as I read it, I kept waiting for it to get good and interesting and offer some amazing breakthroughs... which never happened.
Here's what you need to know: Humans think they're good at mind-reading. They're actually bad. This can lead to disastrous consequences. The only way to understand what another person is thinking is to ask them. The end.
It was a pretty easy read if not a particularly enlightening one.
Here's what you need to know: Humans think they're good at mind-reading. They're actually bad. This can lead to disastrous consequences. The only way to understand what another person is thinking is to ask them. The end.
It was a pretty easy read if not a particularly enlightening one.
March 25, 2025
A little lacking in practical actions to improve understanding others. I enjoyed the first couple chapters that were a bit more about philosophy of mind and neuroscience, especially learning about some experiments and schools of thought I hadn't learned about before. Not a must-read, but worth a skim if you enjoy this type of book.
February 20, 2020
Okay overall. Our guessing is pretty bad, asking is better than guessing, Ekman's science is thin, 'male brains' and 'female brains' are mostly nonsense. Citing Stephen Jay Gould was jarring, apparently some people still respect Gould.
September 10, 2021
Pretty entertaining, easy to read, accessible to non-scientific audiences
December 28, 2021
my third eye was awakened
January 17, 2023
does a very good job of contextualizing scientific studies and making them understandable along with the topic of the chapter. also provides intriguing information about why assuming we are able to do a good job at reading another person is dangerous and uses interesting real-life examples to convey that message.
good read and thoughtful, the application aspect is simple but if applied correctly is very effective.
good read and thoughtful, the application aspect is simple but if applied correctly is very effective.
June 9, 2022
Bom dia literární rodino,
tudle knížku jsem si přečetl, abych se naučil číst myšlenky, bohužel, nestalo se. Je to tedy naprosto všechno lež a lhát by se nemělo, proto hodnotím pouze 5/10.
tudle knížku jsem si přečetl, abych se naučil číst myšlenky, bohužel, nestalo se. Je to tedy naprosto všechno lež a lhát by se nemělo, proto hodnotím pouze 5/10.
September 23, 2026
There are definitely some interesting tidbits in this book, but ultimately it felt a little too corporate/organizational psych leaning for my taste
April 11, 2021
Very accessible read of the psychology behind understanding minds: in ourselves, in others, in inanimate or conceptual objects.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 273 reviews