Even though I'm a computer programmer, I have to say when I saw the title I was a bit put off. Algorithms are what I use for telling a computer what to do, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable with using them to tell myself what to do. Real life is less tidy and binary than the data in a computer.
But, perhaps out of train-wreck curiousity, I picked it up and took a look. The first thing I noticed is that Alison Gopnik gave it a dust jacket endorsement. Ok, you have my full attention now.
Once I started reading, I understood a bit better what the authors were getting at. A lot of what ought to be called philosophy, is nowadays most often carefully looked at by computer scientists. Questions like:
1) how do you balance finding new, vs. getting satisfaction from what you already know is good enough? Should I eat at my favourite restaurant, or give a new one a try? Should I move to a new city or stay where I know where the best bookstore/coffeeshop/bar/restaurants are? Should I try out a new career or employer, or stay with the job I've got?
2) how do you balance keeping things orderly, and keeping them handy?
3) how do I balance the risk of missing out on some important news, vs. the problem of spending my life endlessly checking email and texts?
4) how do I balance the risk of not thinking deeply enough about something, vs. the risk of overthinking something that is actually simple?
We have spent over half a century looking at these questions in detail, in order to make computer programs work more efficiently when they sort, analyse, or store and retrieve data. Our lives are rarely so tidy and binary as a computer's data, but all of these questions are highly relevant to questions we face in our own messy, analogue lives.
This isn't, I think, a reason to decide that you should spend 37% of your expected adult lives dating, and then propose to the next person you date who is better than anyone you've dated so far (as one information theory algorithm might suggest). But, there are a lot of situations in life where we have to choose between deciding how picky to be vs. it's time to make our pick. For example, the amount of time to look for a house, or a parking spot, or a new job, are places where I think it's ok to use a bit of algorithmic logic instead of just going with your gut impulse (which is a lot easier for people to sway with savvy salesmanship).
For me, though, more likely than that I will actually use the quicksort algorithm for my socks (see chapter 3) is that I will think more clearly about the issues involved when I do have a large sorting project to do. Just reading about the tradeoffs involved, helps to think more clearly about them. In sorting, what are the chances you are ever going to need to search through the stuff you're sorting anyway? If there's a good chance you won't, just do a rough bucket sort and call it done. In searching, are you needing the best chance of getting the absolute best, or the best chance of getting something above average? If you pass on an opportunity and then go back, what is the chance that opportunity will still be there (in the crowded parking lot, not much; in job search, depends on the labour market).
The fun thing about this kind of book, is that it is not about any particular topic per se, it is about all topics and none. It is a book for thinking about thinking, and thinking about better ways to think. It is fun in the same way that solving puzzles or playing games is fun; it's not that the puzzle or game is important in itself, it's that it's fun to feel your brain working effectively on a hard task (which is why the puzzle or game can't be too easy, or it won't be fun). Reading this book is an opportunity to think well about a lot of topics from your everyday life, and who knows, it may make you think slightly better about them after you're done. I probably won't really live by these algorithms, but it is more fun to live with them (i.e. having them available when I feel like it), and this book is a pain-free and enjoyable way to get introduced.