What do you think?
Rate this book
Irrational Ape
人間を他の動物と分けるものは、「思考力」だ。何が正しく、何が嘘かを見抜き、判断を下す。──はずなのだが、実際は人間は情報を読み間違い、だまされ、偏見や無知によって、誤った判断を下しがちだ。なぜこのようなことが起こるのか？物理学者でガン研究者、科学ジャーナリストとして、あらゆる種類の間違った判断を見てきた著者が、旧ソ連から中国、アメリカ、オーストラリア、イギリス、アフリカなど全世界の実例を挙げながら、まどわされずに思考するために何に気をつければいいのかを説く。読むうちに、頭がクリアになり、世界がくっきり見えてくる。
400 pages, Paperback
First published September 5, 2019
297 people are currently reading
3463 people want to read
About the author
David Robert Grimes
4 books38 followersDavid Robert Grimes (born 1985) is an Irish science writer with professional training in physics and cancer biology, who contributes to several media outlets on questions of science and society. He has a diverse range of research interests and is a vocal advocate for increased public understanding of science. He was the 2014 recipient of the Sense about Science/Nature Maddox Prize for "Standing up for Science in the face of Adversity". He is a fellow with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 145 reviews
Read
January 2, 2020An excellent overview of the various mental flaws and rhetorical shenanigans we use to deceive ourselves and others. Clearly written and highly readable, with a strong moral stance and some great examples. I am taking away various thoughts:
a) do not share or respond to malicious lies or nonsense. Denial of oxygen is about the only thing that works.
b) Some PR firms, companies eg tobacco, and a lot of people are flat out evil
c) double check the things that chime with you because they fit your world view: you're probably being scammed as much as any flat earther gobbling up conspiracy theories
d) I need to inform myself more on how to interpret statistics and what to look for
e) god I hate people
a) do not share or respond to malicious lies or nonsense. Denial of oxygen is about the only thing that works.
b) Some PR firms, companies eg tobacco, and a lot of people are flat out evil
c) double check the things that chime with you because they fit your world view: you're probably being scammed as much as any flat earther gobbling up conspiracy theories
d) I need to inform myself more on how to interpret statistics and what to look for
e) god I hate people
April 16, 2021
4.5 stars. An very interesting and readable non fiction of various topics that discuss the importance of of critical thinking as it core. This is a book I would want to reread at different times and would be perfect if I had a physical copy of it and could flick through different sections. David Robert Grimes as some real thought provoking things to say and I would definitely read something else by him.
September 19, 2019
It isn’t easy to weave a serious topic like scientific logic and process into an entertaining and engaging book, but that’s what Grimes manages to achieve here. He explains a wide range of important contemporary issues, such as flawed arguments, bias, human self-justification, reversion to the mean, and many many more. He uses little-known anecdotes about historical figures (from Darwin to Houdini and many more) to make his points. This is a book that you’ll enjoy reading, and it will help you understand why so many people are tempted by climate change denial, ineffective alternative medicines, non-evidence based conspiracy theories, and untruthful populist politicians. This is a book of our time, an important part of the battle by science against the rise of mythologies and untruths that are working against the progress of humanity.
August 8, 2021
Unfortunatelly despite many bright ideas revealed
in this book, there is a strong lefty inclination and many passages like pro-BLM that leave a reader with this sour aftertaste of being brain-washed by socialists propaganda.
To my mind the author made a huge mistake by bringing politics and recent controversial happenings in US in the book.
Another reprimand is the terribly difficult language. I have a feeling that the author use all these fancy words unnaturally. I want to ask: if the purpose of the book is enlightenning of wide auditories, why use then this quasi-Bertrand Russel's language with many rarely used americanisms?
in this book, there is a strong lefty inclination and many passages like pro-BLM that leave a reader with this sour aftertaste of being brain-washed by socialists propaganda.
To my mind the author made a huge mistake by bringing politics and recent controversial happenings in US in the book.
Another reprimand is the terribly difficult language. I have a feeling that the author use all these fancy words unnaturally. I want to ask: if the purpose of the book is enlightenning of wide auditories, why use then this quasi-Bertrand Russel's language with many rarely used americanisms?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 6, 2021
While I agree with all the arguments he puts, Grimes suffers from verbal incontinence. This just goes on and on. The high level of repetition simply becomes tedious.
April 13, 2021
Essential reading about our irrational minds for post-truth society. This book covers conspiracy, disinformation and propaganda using various real-life stories from 9/11 truth seekers to climate change denialists and various methods of information filtering from unbalanced newspaper coverage to polarised social networks.
I especially enjoyed Section II that contains a pretty comprehensive summary of logical and rhetorical fallacies: fallacy of the single cause, false dilemmas, post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), etc.
Due to the fact that the author is a medical (mostly, cancer) researcher, he refers to the example of disturbing anti-vaccine movement quite often in the various sections of his book. It is curious to see how quickly people forgot about epidemics of polio and measles and deprive their kids of the ability to get pretty basic vaccinations by promoting "natural" parenting. And, for the first time in human history, we are able to eradicate the entire family of cancers (cervical cancers) through HPV vaccination of women.
I can definitely recommend this book to anyone, including anti-vaccine activists and climate change denialists. Although I am pretty sure that they will continue following their "faith" and they will not open their personal boundaries to change their views. But we are not our views and we are not our thoughts. They simply come and go and they can be changed on the basis of evidence and experience.
What else can I say?..
Love science and carry on.
Develop critical thinking and carry on.
Be sceptical and carry on.
Remember critical thinking and healthy scientific scepticism are crucial for survival of homo sapiens. And instead of shortcut (blind faith and conspiracy) try to take a long, winding and fascinating road of logical reasoning and curious exploration.
I especially enjoyed Section II that contains a pretty comprehensive summary of logical and rhetorical fallacies: fallacy of the single cause, false dilemmas, post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), etc.
Due to the fact that the author is a medical (mostly, cancer) researcher, he refers to the example of disturbing anti-vaccine movement quite often in the various sections of his book. It is curious to see how quickly people forgot about epidemics of polio and measles and deprive their kids of the ability to get pretty basic vaccinations by promoting "natural" parenting. And, for the first time in human history, we are able to eradicate the entire family of cancers (cervical cancers) through HPV vaccination of women.
I can definitely recommend this book to anyone, including anti-vaccine activists and climate change denialists. Although I am pretty sure that they will continue following their "faith" and they will not open their personal boundaries to change their views. But we are not our views and we are not our thoughts. They simply come and go and they can be changed on the basis of evidence and experience.
What else can I say?..
Love science and carry on.
Develop critical thinking and carry on.
Be sceptical and carry on.
Remember critical thinking and healthy scientific scepticism are crucial for survival of homo sapiens. And instead of shortcut (blind faith and conspiracy) try to take a long, winding and fascinating road of logical reasoning and curious exploration.
December 25, 2020
It promotes critical thinking without passing judgement. It superbly articulates the plethora of different areas that lead to or conseve conspiracy theories, from the lack of balance in the media to the susceptibility of our memories. Every chapter offers insightful ways to keep yourself grounded and shows the devastating effects the lack of critical thinking can really have. I think it’s an essential read, particularly in the light of 2020.
February 5, 2021
مخاطر الاستدلال
إن امتلاك عقل قوي لا يكفي. نحتاج أيضًا إلى تدريبه بشكل كافٍ للتعامل مع المواقف الأكثر تعقيدًا . لنطرح تشبيه فضفاض : أجهزة الكمبيوتر ، حتى مع وجود أجهزة وفقًا لأعلى المواصفات ، لا يمكن للآلة أن تعمل بدون البرامج المطلوبة.
إن بنية دماغنا وتعقيده لا يعلى عليهما ، لكن التفكير يتجاوز الحدس ويحتاج إلى التعلم. الاستدلال المعيب هو بوابة لاستنتاجات خاطئة تمامًا. "قمامة تدخل ، قمامة تخرج" هذا شعار لعلماء الكمبيوتر وليست شكوى جديدة. (تشارلز باباج) ، الذي يُنسب إليه الفضل باعتباره والد الحوسبة ، أعرب عن أسفه في منتصف القرن التاسع عشر ، حين قال: "إذا وضعت في الآلة أرقامًا خاطئة ، فهل ستظهر الإجابات الصحيحة؟ . . لا أستطيع أن أفهم بشكل صحيح نوع الخلط في الأفكار الذي يمكن أن يثير مثل هذا السؤال"
البشر ، بالطبع ، ليسوا أجهزة كمبيوتر ، لكنهم يشبهونهم إلى حد كبير. بينما نحن قادرون على التفكير العميق بشكل لا يصدق ، فإننا نعتمد أيضًا على التقنيات الغريزية لاتخاذ قرارات سريعة. على سبيل المثال ، قد نقيس ما إذا كان شيء ما يمثل تهديدًا بناءً على تشابهه مع التهديدات المعروفة.
تُعرف هذه القواعد الأساسية باسم الاستدلال وهي مجسدة فينا. هذه الاختصارات ليست دائمًا هي الأمثل ، أو حتى صحيحة ، ولكنها بانتظام "جيدة بما يكفي" لمعظم المواقف ولا تستهلك قدرًا كبيرًا من الإدراك المكلف نسبيًا. والأهم من ذلك ، أنها تحدث بشكل غريزي لدرجة أننا نادرًا ما ندرك حتى عمليات التفكير التي تقودنا إلى استنتاجات معينة.
لقد خدمنا هذا الدافع جيدًا ، حيث أبقانا على قيد الحياة عبر آلاف السنين من عصور ما قبل التاريخ ، حيث كانت القرارات السريعة غالبًا مسألة حياة أو موت.
لكن المشكلة تكمن في أن معظم القرارات المهمة التي نواجهها اليوم تتطلب تفكيرًا أكثر دقة. بالرغم من أن الاستدلال مفيد ، إلا أنه غالبًا ما يكون غير مناسب بطبيعته للتحديات والأسئلة التي نواجهها. سواء كان السؤال يتعلق بالجغرافيا السياسية أو الرعاية الصحية ، لا يمكننا الاعتماد على الغريزة اللاواعية لتوجيه أحكامنا ، والنهج المتهور في هذه المواقف هو الطريق الأكيد إلى كارثة.
معظم المشكلات التي نواجهها اليوم ليست أبيض مقابل أسود بشكل نظيف مع حلول مباشرة. بدلاً من ذلك ، فهي موجودة على طيف من درجات متفاوتة من الرمادي ، مع مقايضات لا مفر منها. بالنسبة إلى المشكلات الأكثر إلحاحًا التي نواجهها ، نادرًا ما يكون هناك حل أمثل واضح وتتطلب قراراتنا التفكير والمراجعة في ضوء المعلومات الجديدة.
لحسن الحظ ، لدينا أكثر من رد الفعل والشعور الغريزي تحت تصرفنا - يمكننا التفكير بشكل تحليلي وحشد المعلومات والمنطق والخيال للوصول إلى استنتاجات.
على نطاق صغير ، نقوم بهذا طوال الوقت - نتخذ القرارات ، نختار المسارات ، نخطط للمستقبل. لكن في حين أننا قد نفخر بمنطقنا وعقلانيتنا ، فإننا لسنا محصنين ضد الخطأ. لطالما ابتليتنا بأخطاء في تفكيرنا ، ويمكن أن يكون من الصعب فك التشابك في عيوب منطقنا.
لمضاعفة هذا ، هناك أدلة كثيرة على أن وهم المنطق كثيرًا ما يكفي لإسقاطنا في سوء الفهم - حتى لو تم تقويض الحجة بشكل قاتل بسبب بعض الانزلاق الهيكلي. وتتعدد تكاليف ذلك في كل مجال بشري من السياسة إلى الطب ويمكن أن تكلفنا غالياً ، مما يؤدي إلى الاضطهاد والمعاناة والأضرار التي تلحق بنا والعالم الذي نعيش فيه.
هذه ليست مجرد اهتمامات أكاديمية ؛ في حين أن عقولنا الرائعة قد وجهتنا نحو ما نحن عليه اليوم ، فإننا لا نزال نعاني من تقلبات التفكير السيئ. تحديد أين نفشل أمر حيوي لتصحيح ذلك. التحديات التي نواجهها اليوم ليست تافهة - فنحن نصارع باستمرار مع أسئلة معقدة ، ونقيم باستمرار مخاطر وفوائد كل شيء من العلاج الطبي إلى سياسة الحكومة. كمجموعة ، نحن نواجه أيضًا أسئلة وجودية ضخمة ، من شبح تغير المناخ الذي يلوح في الأفق إلى الأوبئة والصراع العالمي. قدرتنا على التفكير هي الفرصة الوحيدة التي لدينا لإيجاد حلول بناءة عملية لهذه الجوانب العريضة ، وإذا أردنا معالجة هذه المشاكل وأكثر من ذلك ، لا يمكننا تحمل الانغماس في التفكير نصف الجاهز ...
المصدر: كتاب The Irrational Ape
ترجمة ماهر رزوق
إن امتلاك عقل قوي لا يكفي. نحتاج أيضًا إلى تدريبه بشكل كافٍ للتعامل مع المواقف الأكثر تعقيدًا . لنطرح تشبيه فضفاض : أجهزة الكمبيوتر ، حتى مع وجود أجهزة وفقًا لأعلى المواصفات ، لا يمكن للآلة أن تعمل بدون البرامج المطلوبة.
إن بنية دماغنا وتعقيده لا يعلى عليهما ، لكن التفكير يتجاوز الحدس ويحتاج إلى التعلم. الاستدلال المعيب هو بوابة لاستنتاجات خاطئة تمامًا. "قمامة تدخل ، قمامة تخرج" هذا شعار لعلماء الكمبيوتر وليست شكوى جديدة. (تشارلز باباج) ، الذي يُنسب إليه الفضل باعتباره والد الحوسبة ، أعرب عن أسفه في منتصف القرن التاسع عشر ، حين قال: "إذا وضعت في الآلة أرقامًا خاطئة ، فهل ستظهر الإجابات الصحيحة؟ . . لا أستطيع أن أفهم بشكل صحيح نوع الخلط في الأفكار الذي يمكن أن يثير مثل هذا السؤال"
البشر ، بالطبع ، ليسوا أجهزة كمبيوتر ، لكنهم يشبهونهم إلى حد كبير. بينما نحن قادرون على التفكير العميق بشكل لا يصدق ، فإننا نعتمد أيضًا على التقنيات الغريزية لاتخاذ قرارات سريعة. على سبيل المثال ، قد نقيس ما إذا كان شيء ما يمثل تهديدًا بناءً على تشابهه مع التهديدات المعروفة.
تُعرف هذه القواعد الأساسية باسم الاستدلال وهي مجسدة فينا. هذه الاختصارات ليست دائمًا هي الأمثل ، أو حتى صحيحة ، ولكنها بانتظام "جيدة بما يكفي" لمعظم المواقف ولا تستهلك قدرًا كبيرًا من الإدراك المكلف نسبيًا. والأهم من ذلك ، أنها تحدث بشكل غريزي لدرجة أننا نادرًا ما ندرك حتى عمليات التفكير التي تقودنا إلى استنتاجات معينة.
لقد خدمنا هذا الدافع جيدًا ، حيث أبقانا على قيد الحياة عبر آلاف السنين من عصور ما قبل التاريخ ، حيث كانت القرارات السريعة غالبًا مسألة حياة أو موت.
لكن المشكلة تكمن في أن معظم القرارات المهمة التي نواجهها اليوم تتطلب تفكيرًا أكثر دقة. بالرغم من أن الاستدلال مفيد ، إلا أنه غالبًا ما يكون غير مناسب بطبيعته للتحديات والأسئلة التي نواجهها. سواء كان السؤال يتعلق بالجغرافيا السياسية أو الرعاية الصحية ، لا يمكننا الاعتماد على الغريزة اللاواعية لتوجيه أحكامنا ، والنهج المتهور في هذه المواقف هو الطريق الأكيد إلى كارثة.
معظم المشكلات التي نواجهها اليوم ليست أبيض مقابل أسود بشكل نظيف مع حلول مباشرة. بدلاً من ذلك ، فهي موجودة على طيف من درجات متفاوتة من الرمادي ، مع مقايضات لا مفر منها. بالنسبة إلى المشكلات الأكثر إلحاحًا التي نواجهها ، نادرًا ما يكون هناك حل أمثل واضح وتتطلب قراراتنا التفكير والمراجعة في ضوء المعلومات الجديدة.
لحسن الحظ ، لدينا أكثر من رد الفعل والشعور الغريزي تحت تصرفنا - يمكننا التفكير بشكل تحليلي وحشد المعلومات والمنطق والخيال للوصول إلى استنتاجات.
على نطاق صغير ، نقوم بهذا طوال الوقت - نتخذ القرارات ، نختار المسارات ، نخطط للمستقبل. لكن في حين أننا قد نفخر بمنطقنا وعقلانيتنا ، فإننا لسنا محصنين ضد الخطأ. لطالما ابتليتنا بأخطاء في تفكيرنا ، ويمكن أن يكون من الصعب فك التشابك في عيوب منطقنا.
لمضاعفة هذا ، هناك أدلة كثيرة على أن وهم المنطق كثيرًا ما يكفي لإسقاطنا في سوء الفهم - حتى لو تم تقويض الحجة بشكل قاتل بسبب بعض الانزلاق الهيكلي. وتتعدد تكاليف ذلك في كل مجال بشري من السياسة إلى الطب ويمكن أن تكلفنا غالياً ، مما يؤدي إلى الاضطهاد والمعاناة والأضرار التي تلحق بنا والعالم الذي نعيش فيه.
هذه ليست مجرد اهتمامات أكاديمية ؛ في حين أن عقولنا الرائعة قد وجهتنا نحو ما نحن عليه اليوم ، فإننا لا نزال نعاني من تقلبات التفكير السيئ. تحديد أين نفشل أمر حيوي لتصحيح ذلك. التحديات التي نواجهها اليوم ليست تافهة - فنحن نصارع باستمرار مع أسئلة معقدة ، ونقيم باستمرار مخاطر وفوائد كل شيء من العلاج الطبي إلى سياسة الحكومة. كمجموعة ، نحن نواجه أيضًا أسئلة وجودية ضخمة ، من شبح تغير المناخ الذي يلوح في الأفق إلى الأوبئة والصراع العالمي. قدرتنا على التفكير هي الفرصة الوحيدة التي لدينا لإيجاد حلول بناءة عملية لهذه الجوانب العريضة ، وإذا أردنا معالجة هذه المشاكل وأكثر من ذلك ، لا يمكننا تحمل الانغماس في التفكير نصف الجاهز ...
المصدر: كتاب The Irrational Ape
ترجمة ماهر رزوق
September 7, 2021
Feel like I've just read about the best parts of 10 books in 1! A tour de force of the extent to which lack of logical reasoning rears its ugly head in day to day life, ranging from topics such as the social media / vapid and fake news cycle (for more on this I would recommend The Death of Expertise and The News: A User's Manual), manipulation / misinterpretation of statistics in science and the media (see Everybody Lies, The Signal and the Noise), consequences of heuristics and reptilian brain emotions-based reactions (see Behave, Thinking Fast and Slow and Black Box Thinking), behavioural / pop psychology in general a la Malcolm Gladwell's works, and so much more, all woven together with memorable party-ready anecdotes. The author writes without bias or ego and seems to genuinely enjoy the quest for knowledge.
January 20, 2024
My abysmal run so far in 2024 of DNF continues. In the 3.5 hours I listened to of this 14 plus hour book, the guy commited pretty much every one of the sins he warns us (correctly I might add) against. Cherry picking, check. Argument from authority, check (yes David, the WHO is such a pillar of amazingness and truth). Post hoc ergo propter hoc, lol, he really got into this one. Availability bias, yup. It goes on and on.
I don't have to agree with an author, or share his politics (which he very clearly wears on his sleeve), but he has to, or at least should, demonstrate the validity of his own arguments, and he fails miserably in doing this. By the three something hour mark, the book turned into a polemic.
I am so sick of authors using their books as political platforms. Instead of this book, read the ones he refers to instead. They stick to the topic, not their politican leanings.
I don't have to agree with an author, or share his politics (which he very clearly wears on his sleeve), but he has to, or at least should, demonstrate the validity of his own arguments, and he fails miserably in doing this. By the three something hour mark, the book turned into a polemic.
I am so sick of authors using their books as political platforms. Instead of this book, read the ones he refers to instead. They stick to the topic, not their politican leanings.
April 20, 2021
Very scientific so not the easiest read in terms of intermittent confusion. but if you can bare with that or have a basic understanding of how experiments work then you’ll love it.
February 24, 2021
Grimes is a science journalist and communicator. He undertakes here to battle the epidemic of misinformation--both the malicious and the unintentional--that is sweeping the world, by educating the reader on the fundamentals of reason and rational thought.
There's nothing new or groundbreaking here, but Follow evidence, think critically is an important message that can't be repeated too often. Grimes covers:
--Basic structure of logical arguments: structure, premises, conclusions.
--Some predominant logical errors and fallacies: strawmen, tautologies, causal fallacies and cognitive dissonance. The Dunning-Kruger effect.
--Historical anecdotes that illustrate elements of critical thinking and how they intersect with policymaking. Some recent (c. 2016 Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos), some older (19th century London cholera outbreak).
While worthwhile, this isn't the best presentation of the material. It's massively repetitive, finding dozens of ways to say "we're capable of reasoned thinking but we don't do it and that's harmful". The book could have been a hundred pages shorter without losing substance. And it sometimes takes a jokey tone that I found undermined the gravity of the message. As in the footnote reading "When in doubt about the water, drink beer!"
-----------------------------
Some concepts that are explored:
Skepticism vs Denialism
Skepticism demands that claims are treated as unproven until they're confirmed (or falsified).
Denialism--think climate change or vaccines--is a stubborn refusal to accept what evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt.
Identity-protective cognition
As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.
False equivalency in journalism
Reporting on Trump and Clinton as if their dishonesty were comparable in an effort to appear even-handed.
Social media
Enables us to curate our own sources and, wittingly or not, construct our own reality.
Science
Science is not a belief. It's a system that tests beliefs for factuality.
Cargo cult science
Uses the trappings and terminology of scientific publication to push unscientific conclusions, to market useless or harmful products and conspiracy theories. Witness marijuana as panacea, or creationism.
Science can be demarcated from pseudoscience by the following:
--Quality of evidence: As opposed to anecdotes and earnest testimony.
--Authority: Drawn from evidence, not personality.
--Logic: Non-sequiturs and reductivity are suspect.
--Testable claims: Should be falsifiable.
--Totality of evidence: No cherrypicking.
--Occam's Razor: Unnecessary complexity is a warning sign.
--Burden of proof: Rests on the claimant, not the skeptics.
----------------------------------
And some quotes that stood out:
There's nothing new or groundbreaking here, but Follow evidence, think critically is an important message that can't be repeated too often. Grimes covers:
--Basic structure of logical arguments: structure, premises, conclusions.
--Some predominant logical errors and fallacies: strawmen, tautologies, causal fallacies and cognitive dissonance. The Dunning-Kruger effect.
--Historical anecdotes that illustrate elements of critical thinking and how they intersect with policymaking. Some recent (c. 2016 Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos), some older (19th century London cholera outbreak).
While worthwhile, this isn't the best presentation of the material. It's massively repetitive, finding dozens of ways to say "we're capable of reasoned thinking but we don't do it and that's harmful". The book could have been a hundred pages shorter without losing substance. And it sometimes takes a jokey tone that I found undermined the gravity of the message. As in the footnote reading "When in doubt about the water, drink beer!"
-----------------------------
Some concepts that are explored:
Skepticism vs Denialism
Skepticism demands that claims are treated as unproven until they're confirmed (or falsified).
Denialism--think climate change or vaccines--is a stubborn refusal to accept what evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt.
Identity-protective cognition
As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.
False equivalency in journalism
Reporting on Trump and Clinton as if their dishonesty were comparable in an effort to appear even-handed.
Social media
Enables us to curate our own sources and, wittingly or not, construct our own reality.
Science
Science is not a belief. It's a system that tests beliefs for factuality.
Cargo cult science
Uses the trappings and terminology of scientific publication to push unscientific conclusions, to market useless or harmful products and conspiracy theories. Witness marijuana as panacea, or creationism.
Science can be demarcated from pseudoscience by the following:
--Quality of evidence: As opposed to anecdotes and earnest testimony.
--Authority: Drawn from evidence, not personality.
--Logic: Non-sequiturs and reductivity are suspect.
--Testable claims: Should be falsifiable.
--Totality of evidence: No cherrypicking.
--Occam's Razor: Unnecessary complexity is a warning sign.
--Burden of proof: Rests on the claimant, not the skeptics.
----------------------------------
And some quotes that stood out:
"Humanity's real problem is that we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology."
"In order to add 'vaccines cause autism' to your web of belief, you must weaken confidence in [scientific authorities], and increase the force of other higher order beliefs so they can supply adequate alternative justification. To those who follow the debate over vaccines, these higher order justificatory beliefs are all too familiar: natural is better than unnatural; scientists are in the pockets of Big Pharma; mainstream media can't be trusted; you are the best judge of what's good for your body."
"Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering's alleged statement ('When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun') to the frequent use of such expressions as 'degenerate intellectuals', 'eggheads', 'effete snobs', 'universities are a nest of reds'."
--Umberto Eco on the anti-intellectualism and irrationalism common to fascistic ideologies.
"Scientific journals are much less likely to deem negative results worth publishing, which places researchers under immense pressure to find links between phenomena at the risk of these links being spurious....It is far more useful to know that a drug doesn't work, for example, than to be presented with incorrect assertions that it does."
"As economist Ronald Coase once observed: 'If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.'"
August 22, 2020
LESEN!
Ich habe von Kahnemann bis Oreskes viel über irrationales menschliches Verhalten und ihre Mechanismen dahinter gelesen. Und dieses Buch vereint viele wichtige Punkte, mit denen wir uns als Menschen auseinander setzen müssen.
Gerade jetzt wo im Namen der fiktiven Wahrheit, falsche Daten und gefährliches Halbwissen und Bewegungen in Kraft gesetzt werden, ist der einzige Weg sich davor zu schützen, zu lesen!
Und das eben nicht mit Hilfe von dubiosen Internetseiten oder Trollen, sondern mit Hilfe von reputablen Wissenschaftlern!
Dieses Buch richtet sich an unser denkendes Gehirn. Dazu kann ich auch nur wieder das Zitat von Richard Feynman, was auch der Autor verwendet hat nehmen:
„Science is a way of not trying to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool.“
Ich habe von Kahnemann bis Oreskes viel über irrationales menschliches Verhalten und ihre Mechanismen dahinter gelesen. Und dieses Buch vereint viele wichtige Punkte, mit denen wir uns als Menschen auseinander setzen müssen.
Gerade jetzt wo im Namen der fiktiven Wahrheit, falsche Daten und gefährliches Halbwissen und Bewegungen in Kraft gesetzt werden, ist der einzige Weg sich davor zu schützen, zu lesen!
Und das eben nicht mit Hilfe von dubiosen Internetseiten oder Trollen, sondern mit Hilfe von reputablen Wissenschaftlern!
Dieses Buch richtet sich an unser denkendes Gehirn. Dazu kann ich auch nur wieder das Zitat von Richard Feynman, was auch der Autor verwendet hat nehmen:
„Science is a way of not trying to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool.“
August 21, 2021
I really wanted to give this book one star but the guy makes a bit of sense so hence the two star rating.
Firstly, I’m not claiming to understand everything discussed in the book. The author didn’t really make it much easier for the common people to process which tells me that most people that fully understand everything discussed will be of similar beliefs and position as the author.
While I agree with the authors overarching lesson of not believing something just because of your preconceived beliefs, experiences because someone else says so, he continually tells us to follow the science, believe in the research, look at the facts. I find this quite hypocritical given that science, research and facts can also be wrong. Science evolves and we’re always learning. Just because there is no scientific evidence NOW, doesn’t mean there won’t be in the future. Just because science has proven something previously, doesn’t mean there won’t be new scientific discoveries in the future that make previous scientific evidence null and void.
I really didn’t enjoy this book and found myself frustrated the majority of the way through, however I persevered as I didn’t want to write it off in case it had some amazing insight at the end. It didn’t!
Firstly, I’m not claiming to understand everything discussed in the book. The author didn’t really make it much easier for the common people to process which tells me that most people that fully understand everything discussed will be of similar beliefs and position as the author.
While I agree with the authors overarching lesson of not believing something just because of your preconceived beliefs, experiences because someone else says so, he continually tells us to follow the science, believe in the research, look at the facts. I find this quite hypocritical given that science, research and facts can also be wrong. Science evolves and we’re always learning. Just because there is no scientific evidence NOW, doesn’t mean there won’t be in the future. Just because science has proven something previously, doesn’t mean there won’t be new scientific discoveries in the future that make previous scientific evidence null and void.
I really didn’t enjoy this book and found myself frustrated the majority of the way through, however I persevered as I didn’t want to write it off in case it had some amazing insight at the end. It didn’t!
June 27, 2021
An incredibly insightful book for the times we live in. Highly recommend to anyone interested in the way we as a society process data and how this feeds in to everything from the anti vaccine movement to climate change denialists. Grimes is a brilliant writer who presents complex data and concepts in an easy to understand way for non scientists such as myself. If he wrote a book about paint drying, I would read it!
November 2, 2022
This book made me doubt my views and values. I really enjoyed reading it, and it was easy too cz in 99% of cases i agreed with the author's views. However i am not sure if someone with different views will find the book enjoyable as the author is very firm in his believes without any doubts and some people may feel that their views are being threatened.
February 9, 2021
Allowed his own bias to show through in his writing, which I suppose can’t be helped. Seemed to fall into the very traps he was highlighting at times.
February 26, 2022
看完前兩章的第一個想法是：好像以前看過這本書？前半部分介紹幾種常見的思考錯誤，後半部類型化舉例各種歷史及時事。輕鬆閱讀無壓力，都很有意思，但覺得自己似乎還沒有這種足以明辨是非的素養。
全書看得最有感的是「虛假的平衡報導」（不等重的事情就不要對等討論，會變成合理加權沒有價值的觀點）。
全書看得最有感的是「虛假的平衡報導」（不等重的事情就不要對等討論，會變成合理加權沒有價值的觀點）。
February 7, 2024
Was a pretty interesting read.
October 22, 2024
There’s so much dangerous misinformation online, especially in the health & wellness space. Everyone should learn the basics of critical thinking so they don’t keep falling for it. Great book by David Robert Grimes.
July 21, 2024
Very good book about how we think we are rational, but actually emotions will cloud our judgements. This book is very relevant with all the misinformation spreading around.
November 26, 2021
I don't know why Dr Grimes bothered. Nobody who needs to read this is ever going to read this. What can an academic teach them that an internet forum can't?
Pointless.
Pointless.
February 7, 2022
Rating: 4.5*
The book in a sentence:
The Irrational Ape skilfully interweaves anecdotes, contemporary examples and scientific studies to bring to life a diverse range of examples of 'uncritical thinking', proffering insights into both their causes and effects.
Review:
On the one hand, this book provides a fascinating discussion on why so many people are drawn to ineffective alternative medicines, climate change denial and contentious conspiracy theories. The book is bursting with anecdotes which add colour to the scientific discussion and provide little pearls of wisdom to collect. Further, the author disaggregates the diverse iterations of 'uncritical thinking'. This enables him to clearly deconstruct their underlying causes, outline the social and personal ramifications of their proliferation, and provide a humbling reminder that whilst we may be less susceptible to certain kinds of cognitive biases, we may be more vulnerable to the influence of others.
On the other hand, this disaggregation means that there is some duplication of information, given that many of the underlying causes and subsequent effects of these lapses of judgment overlap. In addition, the author could have been more tactful, by providing a greater balance of examples on the political spectrum. For example, the author focuses on the campaigns of misinformation commissioned by Russian state officials throughout history, and provides evidence that both the Brexit referendum and 2016 US Election were influenced by disruptive trolling influences. Yet, you can only find evidence that 'Western' forces, such as the US, employed similar tactics to destabilise countries such as Libya and Iran in a footnote. As such, whilst I do not believe it to be the author's intention, the book could be perceived as a political polemic.
Nonetheless, the author does make the point that irrationality, and the use of rhetorical tricks to advance an ideological agenda, is endemic to our species. As such, I interpreted the imbalance as not falling into the very trap of cherry-picking examples that he cautioned against, but as a demonstration of the need to not skew the balance (see chapter 15) by artificially picking an equal number of examples when, in reality, there is an imbalance in the reliance on, and susceptibility to, such behaviour.
The book in a sentence:
The Irrational Ape skilfully interweaves anecdotes, contemporary examples and scientific studies to bring to life a diverse range of examples of 'uncritical thinking', proffering insights into both their causes and effects.
Review:
On the one hand, this book provides a fascinating discussion on why so many people are drawn to ineffective alternative medicines, climate change denial and contentious conspiracy theories. The book is bursting with anecdotes which add colour to the scientific discussion and provide little pearls of wisdom to collect. Further, the author disaggregates the diverse iterations of 'uncritical thinking'. This enables him to clearly deconstruct their underlying causes, outline the social and personal ramifications of their proliferation, and provide a humbling reminder that whilst we may be less susceptible to certain kinds of cognitive biases, we may be more vulnerable to the influence of others.
On the other hand, this disaggregation means that there is some duplication of information, given that many of the underlying causes and subsequent effects of these lapses of judgment overlap. In addition, the author could have been more tactful, by providing a greater balance of examples on the political spectrum. For example, the author focuses on the campaigns of misinformation commissioned by Russian state officials throughout history, and provides evidence that both the Brexit referendum and 2016 US Election were influenced by disruptive trolling influences. Yet, you can only find evidence that 'Western' forces, such as the US, employed similar tactics to destabilise countries such as Libya and Iran in a footnote. As such, whilst I do not believe it to be the author's intention, the book could be perceived as a political polemic.
Nonetheless, the author does make the point that irrationality, and the use of rhetorical tricks to advance an ideological agenda, is endemic to our species. As such, I interpreted the imbalance as not falling into the very trap of cherry-picking examples that he cautioned against, but as a demonstration of the need to not skew the balance (see chapter 15) by artificially picking an equal number of examples when, in reality, there is an imbalance in the reliance on, and susceptibility to, such behaviour.
September 7, 2019
First of all this book was preaching to my own choir and drummer.
I have followed Dave's work for a long time and have nearly always agreed with him
This book is vital in this day and age.
From the MMR vaccine debacle to climate change and the needless campaign against the HPV vaccine: critical thinking is just advantageous but vital.
This book explores the pitfalls of misinformation, the dangers of fake news. Critiques the media of adherring to false balances and lack of recoginising the harm such a stance has had on our politics (Trump and Brexit) science (climate change) and healthcare (vaccines).
Each point is beautifully explained and more importantly referenced and this data is there for anyone seeking to learn more think more and make a difference.
While geared from a scientists POV I do not hesitate for a moment to think that every single one of us will will learn something and develop our critical minds.
I have followed Dave's work for a long time and have nearly always agreed with him
This book is vital in this day and age.
From the MMR vaccine debacle to climate change and the needless campaign against the HPV vaccine: critical thinking is just advantageous but vital.
This book explores the pitfalls of misinformation, the dangers of fake news. Critiques the media of adherring to false balances and lack of recoginising the harm such a stance has had on our politics (Trump and Brexit) science (climate change) and healthcare (vaccines).
Each point is beautifully explained and more importantly referenced and this data is there for anyone seeking to learn more think more and make a difference.
While geared from a scientists POV I do not hesitate for a moment to think that every single one of us will will learn something and develop our critical minds.
June 18, 2020
READ THIS BOOK; READ THIS BOOK; READ THIS BOOK!
This is science writing at it's very best. The author writes clearly, wittily and with authority making each chapter a joy to read. If one surveys the present state of the world, it is easy to fall into despair. Just as the world faces its greatest crisis, too many nations are led by buffoons & demagogues. Too many electorates seem determined to elect leaders manifestly working against their interests.
Social Media is full of groups espousing ludicrous conspiracy theories, which get amplified, as they are picked up by a media desperate to be 'relevant'. Time and time again we see equal time alloted to spokespeople for untruths, their erroneous positions elevated to 'controversy'.
This wonderful book seeks to provide us all with the tools needed not only to spot lies & distortions but to debunk them too, even if it means jettisoning beliefs we hold dear.
If only critical thinking were taught in schools instead of the dry learning of rote data, maybe we would not be in the mess we are now.
This is science writing at it's very best. The author writes clearly, wittily and with authority making each chapter a joy to read. If one surveys the present state of the world, it is easy to fall into despair. Just as the world faces its greatest crisis, too many nations are led by buffoons & demagogues. Too many electorates seem determined to elect leaders manifestly working against their interests.
Social Media is full of groups espousing ludicrous conspiracy theories, which get amplified, as they are picked up by a media desperate to be 'relevant'. Time and time again we see equal time alloted to spokespeople for untruths, their erroneous positions elevated to 'controversy'.
This wonderful book seeks to provide us all with the tools needed not only to spot lies & distortions but to debunk them too, even if it means jettisoning beliefs we hold dear.
If only critical thinking were taught in schools instead of the dry learning of rote data, maybe we would not be in the mess we are now.
July 12, 2025
Well, it’s a good title, apt in explaining the shortcomings in our often perplexing beliefs and behaviours. Rationality and logical thinking is certainly important and thereby some of the argumentation here is well considered. Where it falls apart is in the author’s political grandstanding, instead of reaching out across the divide with a hand of friendship, he remains adversarial and preaches to the converted from a smug echo chamber.
I wonder which fallacy could be applied to his comment on American IQ disparities being impacted by iodine deficiency in diets. America being one of the most vociferous countries as regards iodised salt supplementation. So thereby the sodium-rich nature of a junkfood rich diet associated with poverty would actually be beneficial in that specific regard.
I instead recommend Magnus Vinding’s excellent book In Defence of Nuance, it's balanced and concise whereas this is bloated and polarised
I wonder which fallacy could be applied to his comment on American IQ disparities being impacted by iodine deficiency in diets. America being one of the most vociferous countries as regards iodised salt supplementation. So thereby the sodium-rich nature of a junkfood rich diet associated with poverty would actually be beneficial in that specific regard.
I instead recommend Magnus Vinding’s excellent book In Defence of Nuance, it's balanced and concise whereas this is bloated and polarised
December 8, 2020
I have read plenty of books on the subject of critical thinking, usually very good, and this is one of the best. The author takes a comprehensive look at the subject, dividing the book into six sections that look at different aspects of how we can and should reason correctly about the world, starting with logic but then moving onto other subjects such as statistics and the scientific method. The sections are not labelled in that way though. To make his work readable, the first section is headed "Without Reason" and the statistics section, of course, is "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics".
The other way the author seeks to make this an enjoyable and readable work is to include many anecdotes illustrating his points. These are especially powerful when they are anecdotes based on his own experience. For instance, the section on anti vaccine activists and the HPV vaccine contains a very powerful and emotional story of Laura Brennan's fight against the anti-vaxers before she died last year - because she had not had the HPV vaccine.
There is a good caution at the end about how we should approach discussion too, and how "debates" so often entrench people in their positions rather than yield a change of mind that could occur through more reasonable and less polarised discussion. There is a message there for any reader.
Despite that, I think sometimes the author's biases popped up in the work. I wonder if, considering his excoriating description of Trump's duplicitous scrabble for power, whether this would put some readers off reading his summary (even though I think he was quite right about Trump).
Sometimes his anecdotes were perhaps too abbreviated. There were a few times when I thought more could be said than he did say (although no doubt he was aiming for brevity). This was particularly the case when he gives the number of Chernobyl caused deaths as 43. His point is quite right (the number of deaths is much lower than people think, and many more people die from pretty much every other means of generation), but he fails to mention the estimates that excess deaths caused by the disaster are expected to reach 4,000. Because these are cancer deaths, many of them have not happened yet, but as people get older, if they die of cancer it *may* be the result of Chernobyl, and although we cannot say for any one person if this was so, the expected number of excess deaths will probably be in the region of 4,000. Still much safer than coal based generation, and many other means of electrical generation - but not immaterial.
Elsewhere he gets some other things wrong, such as this passage:
"To take but one biblical example, we need only look at Timothy 3:16 which stats: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' This passage, stripped of its verbosity, could be readily rephrased without loss of generality as: the scripture is true because it is inspired by God because it is written in scripture.
He then criticises this because of the scriptural argument's evident circularity. Yet the problem with his argument can be found by a consideration of his earlier section. This is a straw man argument. Paul was not talking about this letter when he said the scripture was inspired by God. He was writing instruction to Timothy, but he was not saying this line was true because it was true. Rather he was making a statement about why he believed all the scripture as would be understood by his reader (Timothy) was profitable for those things. What Grimes asserts is simply poor exegesis. He has not understood the argument in context before he has leapt to the application, and there are plenty of books on doing Biblical exegesis that make that exact point.
Yet I should make a point I think is very important: if you can use the tools found in this book to pick holes with occasional arguments made in this self same book, then the book is doing exactly what it should be. A book such as this should equip us all to avoid straw man arguments, cults of personality and other such sloppy thinking. If you read this book and think it is great because the writer can do no wrong, and make no errors, then you have not understood the book yet.
This is a book about being critical of all arguments - particularly from people you largely agree with. Because, as he points out when talking about confirmation bias, we are all very good at being critical of the arguments of those we disagree with, but often accept poor reasoning from those we agree with.
So the author is not perfect. Nor should we expect that he would be. The book, however, is a very thorough look at the whole gamut of issues of critical thinking (well, except for exegesis!) and is as good a place to start as any other. Definitely recommended.
The other way the author seeks to make this an enjoyable and readable work is to include many anecdotes illustrating his points. These are especially powerful when they are anecdotes based on his own experience. For instance, the section on anti vaccine activists and the HPV vaccine contains a very powerful and emotional story of Laura Brennan's fight against the anti-vaxers before she died last year - because she had not had the HPV vaccine.
There is a good caution at the end about how we should approach discussion too, and how "debates" so often entrench people in their positions rather than yield a change of mind that could occur through more reasonable and less polarised discussion. There is a message there for any reader.
Despite that, I think sometimes the author's biases popped up in the work. I wonder if, considering his excoriating description of Trump's duplicitous scrabble for power, whether this would put some readers off reading his summary (even though I think he was quite right about Trump).
Sometimes his anecdotes were perhaps too abbreviated. There were a few times when I thought more could be said than he did say (although no doubt he was aiming for brevity). This was particularly the case when he gives the number of Chernobyl caused deaths as 43. His point is quite right (the number of deaths is much lower than people think, and many more people die from pretty much every other means of generation), but he fails to mention the estimates that excess deaths caused by the disaster are expected to reach 4,000. Because these are cancer deaths, many of them have not happened yet, but as people get older, if they die of cancer it *may* be the result of Chernobyl, and although we cannot say for any one person if this was so, the expected number of excess deaths will probably be in the region of 4,000. Still much safer than coal based generation, and many other means of electrical generation - but not immaterial.
Elsewhere he gets some other things wrong, such as this passage:
"To take but one biblical example, we need only look at Timothy 3:16 which stats: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' This passage, stripped of its verbosity, could be readily rephrased without loss of generality as: the scripture is true because it is inspired by God because it is written in scripture.
He then criticises this because of the scriptural argument's evident circularity. Yet the problem with his argument can be found by a consideration of his earlier section. This is a straw man argument. Paul was not talking about this letter when he said the scripture was inspired by God. He was writing instruction to Timothy, but he was not saying this line was true because it was true. Rather he was making a statement about why he believed all the scripture as would be understood by his reader (Timothy) was profitable for those things. What Grimes asserts is simply poor exegesis. He has not understood the argument in context before he has leapt to the application, and there are plenty of books on doing Biblical exegesis that make that exact point.
Yet I should make a point I think is very important: if you can use the tools found in this book to pick holes with occasional arguments made in this self same book, then the book is doing exactly what it should be. A book such as this should equip us all to avoid straw man arguments, cults of personality and other such sloppy thinking. If you read this book and think it is great because the writer can do no wrong, and make no errors, then you have not understood the book yet.
This is a book about being critical of all arguments - particularly from people you largely agree with. Because, as he points out when talking about confirmation bias, we are all very good at being critical of the arguments of those we disagree with, but often accept poor reasoning from those we agree with.
So the author is not perfect. Nor should we expect that he would be. The book, however, is a very thorough look at the whole gamut of issues of critical thinking (well, except for exegesis!) and is as good a place to start as any other. Definitely recommended.
August 10, 2021
Хорошая такая ярмарочная книга-лекция на тему того что наш мозг склонен к иррациональным игрищам разума, опасным упрощениям, суевериям, в целом мозг этот такой-то парень, опасный.
Ярмарочная - не в негативном смысле, а в том что она всё же более публицистическая нежели научпоп работа, несмотря на пристойный корпус собранного фактажа. То есть, более про яркие примеры и их эмоциональный разбор нежели про систематичность и бесстрастность.
Структура книги довольно простая - Граймс берёт какой-то нарочито заметный, крикливый и реально болезненный пример - лечение рака клизмами из свекольного сока (такого в книге нет, это я утрирую), избирательность и беспринципность СМИ, вакцинации и т.д. и начинает смачно разбирать как саму ситуацию, так и неразумных обезьян в ней замешанных - мол, почему себя так ведут, на что ловятся, почему так упрямятся.
Читать в целом интересно, а в общем местами так что и не оторваться, но было такое ощущение, что Граймс уж слишком явно делит героев книг как раз-таки на "мы" и "они" и себя он к обезьянам явно не причисляет. При этом в тексте встречаются утверждения по типу "рабство послужило той искрой, которая воспламенила огонь Гражданской войны", от которых экономические обоснования конфликтов выходят из чата, явная субъективщина про падение вертолёта в Чернобыле, очень беллетристическая подача подвига Станислава Петрова и т.д. Ещё местами он настолько по два раза не повторяет не повторяет одни и те же воззвания и выводы, что возникают мысли о том что книга вполне могла быть короче без потерь в полезном содержании.
Но это мелочи, на самом деле, на которые обращаешь внимание в первую очередь потому что сам автор завещал быть скептиками, а не душными циниками.
Да и в целом, лучше с умным потерять, чем с дураком найти.
Ярмарочная - не в негативном смысле, а в том что она всё же более публицистическая нежели научпоп работа, несмотря на пристойный корпус собранного фактажа. То есть, более про яркие примеры и их эмоциональный разбор нежели про систематичность и бесстрастность.
Структура книги довольно простая - Граймс берёт какой-то нарочито заметный, крикливый и реально болезненный пример - лечение рака клизмами из свекольного сока (такого в книге нет, это я утрирую), избирательность и беспринципность СМИ, вакцинации и т.д. и начинает смачно разбирать как саму ситуацию, так и неразумных обезьян в ней замешанных - мол, почему себя так ведут, на что ловятся, почему так упрямятся.
Читать в целом интересно, а в общем местами так что и не оторваться, но было такое ощущение, что Граймс уж слишком явно делит героев книг как раз-таки на "мы" и "они" и себя он к обезьянам явно не причисляет. При этом в тексте встречаются утверждения по типу "рабство послужило той искрой, которая воспламенила огонь Гражданской войны", от которых экономические обоснования конфликтов выходят из чата, явная субъективщина про падение вертолёта в Чернобыле, очень беллетристическая подача подвига Станислава Петрова и т.д. Ещё местами он настолько по два раза не повторяет не повторяет одни и те же воззвания и выводы, что возникают мысли о том что книга вполне могла быть короче без потерь в полезном содержании.
Но это мелочи, на самом деле, на которые обращаешь внимание в первую очередь потому что сам автор завещал быть скептиками, а не душными циниками.
Да и в целом, лучше с умным потерять, чем с дураком найти.
February 23, 2022
This book is my second probe into philosophy, reason and critical thinking. It was a difficult read as the language used was high-ended at times. However, this may simply be due to my lack of knowledge/jargon around philosophy and logic. Other than that, I seriously enjoyed many of the stories told in this book. Some revolved around tragic flaws in our collective psyche, others expounded our remarkable ability to overcome seemingly hopeless situations. If you have any interest in the issues we have as a species, including all sorts of problems (such as anti-vaxxers, disinformation, tribalism), this book airs out many of those questions or thoughts we've all had.
I like that the author doesn't take sides in many of the issues he discusses, even if we know which "side" is wrong. He explains eloquently why certain 'tribes' think the way they do and from what perspective they are coming from. I am glad I read this book. Many of the stories will stick with me when I come across their topics again in life.
Lastly, the epilogue was moving. You can sense the deep hurt the author went through regarding the story being told. I will keep an eye out for new books by this author. Great read!
I like that the author doesn't take sides in many of the issues he discusses, even if we know which "side" is wrong. He explains eloquently why certain 'tribes' think the way they do and from what perspective they are coming from. I am glad I read this book. Many of the stories will stick with me when I come across their topics again in life.
Lastly, the epilogue was moving. You can sense the deep hurt the author went through regarding the story being told. I will keep an eye out for new books by this author. Great read!
February 2, 2021
The author manages a very good effort in explaining how and why people fall victim to conspiracy theories. The books is an interesting mix between de-bunking several well-known ideas circulating and finding answers for why we let ourselves be fooled (he delves into psychology, sociology, and even the basics of logical argumentation). I would like to applaud the author's attempt at not being condescending towards those who do fall prey to conspiracies and his emphasis on the importance of dialogue rather than debate, as a more useful tool in convincing people to re-think their arguments.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 145 reviews