A multidisciplinary exploration of our human inclination to herd and why our instinct to copy others can be dangerous in today’s interlinked world
Rioting teenagers, tumbling stock markets, and the spread of religious terrorism appear to have little in common, but all are driven by the same basic instincts: the tendency to herd, follow, and imitate others. In today’s interconnected world, group choices all too often seem maladaptive. With unprecedented speed, information flashes across the globe and drives rapid shifts in group opinion. Adverse results can include speculative economic bubbles, irrational denigration of scientists and other experts, seismic political reversals, and more.
Drawing on insights from across the social, behavioral, and natural sciences, Michelle Baddeley explores contexts in which behavior is driven by the herd. She analyzes the rational vs. nonrational and cognitive vs. emotional forces involved, and she investigates why herding only sometimes works out well. With new perspectives on followers, leaders, and the pros and cons of herd behavior, Baddeley shines vivid light on human behavior in the context of our ever-more-connected world.
I think what Michelle Baddeley is trying to do with this book (or more likely the publisher with its positioning) is to recreate the success of Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, and it may have been possible with this topic - but this is certainly not the book to do it. Various recommendations describe this as a 'tremendous read' and tell us that Baddeley has 'terrific writing skills' - but I have to be a contrarian: I found Copycats and Contrarians almost unreadable.
The concept is simple - that there are two significant behaviours: going along with the herd and standing out and being different. Each has advantages in different circumstances, though it can be difficult to know if following the herd, for example, is a good or bad thing in a particular circumstance. And, Baddeley suggests (contrary to David Sumpter in Outnumbered), our social media bubbles turn us too much to herd behaviour and keep out the contrarians who could change things for the better.
All this sounds very interesting, and I think it could have been. However, there are three significant problems with the book. The first is that it sometimes feels more like a business book, with their typical approach of having a few points made over and over again, than it does a science book. Secondly it's very weak on narrative. When Baddeley does built in some kind of story - for example, describing a specific experiment - things pick up. But all too often what we get is just a collection of facts, theories and opinions. And, finally, what science there is tends not to be given enough of a detailed treatment. There is relatively little content with a proper scientific basis (even Freud gets a look in without real criticism) and where studies are mentioned there is nothing about, for example, whether the sample size is big enough to draw any significant conclusions.
I came away from the book with very little insight beyond the second paragraph above. It just didn't work for me.
It must be said that this book has an interesting idea behind it, even if that idea is cloaked in bogus evolutionary thinking. Even with this, though, there is something quite entertaining at the core of this book, and that is a tension between wanting to praise contrarians while also recognizing that society does not want there to be too many of them. As is the case fairly often when one deals with this sort of phenomenon, I find myself quite interested in the way that there are qualities that society claims to support (like creativity) in the abstract that it does not in fact support as much as one might hope. I'm not always sure why this is the case, but in the case of contrarians, it is easy to see why people would support contrarians in the abstract because they fancy themselves so but not appreciate people who go against the herd in practice when they are being questioned and opposed. This is a fairly obvious example of the tendency for people not to have self-knowledge about where they stand and who they truly are, and this book does a good job at bringing this point out.
In a bit more than 250 pages of material the author looks at how the dynamic between copy cats and contrarians plays out in various aspects of human life and also points out that both are related to a common herd instinct where copycats go along with the herd while contrarians trust their own inner insight more than the wisdom of crowds and stand out on their own. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. The author begins with an introduction and then discusses clever copying (1) as well as the positive and negative sides of mob psychology (2). The author talks about the relationship between herd instinct and the brain (3) as well as coming to a comparison about animal herds (4) and their operation. After that the author discusses mavericks (5) in some detail and also looks at the comparison between contrarian entrepreneurs and copycat speculators (6) who have a valuable purpose even if they depend on the originality of others. Finally, the book closes with a discussion of herding experts (7) and the phenomenon of following the leader (8) before ending with a contrast of contrarians and copycats as well as endnotes, suggestions for further reading, acknowledgments, illustration credits, and an index.
The author puts herself in a strange position by being copycat authors of a book while simultaneously praising more original contrarians. She offers received wisdom that claims evolutionary insights and looks to compare business behavior with the animal world as well as psychology. None of this is particularly original that has not been done equally well by dozens of writers. This is not a bad book, and at times it is entertaining, but it certainly is a redundant book that offers little that is contrary to the contemporary conventional wisdom. The author seems somewhat unaware of where she stands, or at least unwilling to use themselves as object lessons of copycats whose efforts may help promote the ideas of more original thinkers, because it is so much more exciting to paint oneself as a contrarian going against the current even when that is clearly not the case. It would appear unlikely, given the amount of study that the author has undertaken in reading about the subject, that she could be unaware of being a copycat, but it is quite possible that she underestimates the way that she too follows as part of a herd of evolutionary-perspective writers who ponder questions of creativity without having very much new or striking to say.
Overall, an excellent look into the economic, social, and psychological reasons why people decide to follow the herd and why some don't (though it could be argued that contrarians are really just choosing to follow a different herd). The chapter on mavericks was very interesting, as were the sections on economics (which I didn't expect when I initially began reading it; I had been expecting it to be strictly a psychological book). One of the things I like about this book is the repetition of concepts, because the material is a bit dense; so it's helpful to have reminders of what Bayesian reasoning is, for example, when it's brought up in later chapters, and where in the book to find the concepts, should you wish to refresh yourself deeper.
The author clearly holds an evolutionary worldview, so that's an unfortunate, unscientific, and historically inaccurate perspective brought into the evaluation of copycats and contrarians, particularly in chapters 4 and 5. The author views mankind starting out as primitive beings who evolved herding strategies as they struggled to survive harsh conditions versus a more intelligent creation who was speaking in full sentences, farming, and developing complex societies from the beginning of time, as taught in the historical book of Genesis. The author theorizes that mankind has not had sufficient chance to adapt to "modern institutions like markets and government, and modern artefacts such as money and computers" (p.125). While computers are certainly a more modern invention, mankind has had monetary and governmental systems for much longer than the author apparently believes. These concepts are laid out in the history of the ancient Israelites, including pre-Israel as a nation, in the Pentateuch.
Another criticism of the book is the section on fake news in Chapter 8, as the author cites the left-leaning PolitiFact rating most of Trump's campaign statements as "mostly false" and Hilary Clinton's as "true" and "mostly true." Ultimately, for one to really determine if someone is stating something true or false, we cannot fully rely upon fact-checkers that have just as much bias as the next person; so it's difficult to fully accept that section at face value. I highly suspect bias against Trump in the PolitiFact study. There's also mention of democracy, which is a common misconception about the American political system. The USA is a republic with democratic principles, but we are not a democracy, as "The Federalist Papers" describe the difference in great detail. When delving into the psychology of people making decisions within the context of our political system, a proper view about it is warranted.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Old, young, revolutionary, conservatory, christian, muslim, rich, poor, it does not matter. Baddeley has found out the rules. And Baddeley can tell why "we", an uniform mass, follow others. I smell well paid taxpayer sponsored academia.
Chapter 2. Mob psychology. It starts with:
> How and why would a group of close on 900 people collectively decide to collaborate in a mass murder-suicide pact?
She knows all the details. So how. And why. For that the reader, like Baddeley student take the valuable trivia class of a nobody. What is relevant? The cult was founded in 1955. Were the dead from the ones that joined in 1955? Mostly not, but who cares? Certainly not Baddeley. Another relevant detail. They moved to California. Why? Who carest. Certainly not Baddeley. And so on.
In the end there is no answer. Just paper pusher weaseling. The technique is fairly uncreative: inject more pointless questions.
> Why did so many otherwise conventional and law-abiding individuals allow themselves to be manipulated by one man?
I don't know. Maybe they manipulated him into taking the final decision. Maybe it was somebody else pulling the strings. That does not stop Baddeley to continue with the fairy tale of what happened when.
But the questions were how and why. And they are left unanswered. Yet buried among all those words there is the key to the whole text:
> Actual human experience is much messier, and abstract economic models are not well designed to describe all the real world’s social and psychological complexities.
So "we", the faceless mass from the first paragraph, need a new priest to tell us what god and our spirits want to tell us. I'll let you guess who is that most competent person to fill in such a prophetic job.
Herding involves (1) imitation (2) is a group phenomenon, and (3) may be driven by unconscious motivations, but s not random.
I skimmed large parts of this book, because it contained well known examples (to me at least). We are social creatures and peer pressure/what others do, is important in shaping our behavior. From biology, it is also known there is safety in numbers (herds protect against predators). So this book is fairly shallow and does not add many novel ideas.
One of the quotes at the beginning summarizes the dilemma very well: “Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.” ― John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8019...
p264 (when describing work by Michael Weisberg): We need to devise incentives for contrarianism.
I found that the subject was developed in a bizarre way, probably the right approach to take, but which disturbed me. Eventually, after trying a number of theories and ways at looking at the issue, the author ends up basing her book on Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow: Simplified Version. Frankly I found the last part the most interesting one, whereas from a formal point of view it looks the less developed one, one of this sections where you address all the missing issues that you couldn't include in the structuring theory that you described before. In any case, why some people are copycats and others contrarians and why the ones need the others remains a fascinating subject.
The boons of copycat behaviour is the survival benefit, but the contrarians are the ones who bring breakthrough and progress. Copycat behaviour, even though safe and individually driven, doesn’t always bring about good outcomes when in huge numbers (think folly of the crowd).
This book described a lot of precursors that govern social behaviour, mostly unhealthy ones. And it’s good that the author is trying to raise some awareness on everything that can go wrong when people copy each other with incomplete information or not using the information they actually have to help them govern their own decision making independent of others’ influence.
Literary nonfiction is among my favorites when done well, and Baddeley definitely does. Highly accessible, she summarizes research studies seamlessly as she presents the ways and the whys human beings follow and when they don't. This is a great blend of sociology, psychology, and biology with an academic bent.
I have to admit some of the language in this book went a bit over my head. A number of ideas were interesting but had already been made by other scientists. Still an interesting compilation with a conclusion that gave me thought given the issues that occurred in 2020.