Right, finally time to review this book, after posting so many disparaging status updates along the way. Finishing it was touch and go there for a bit, but I've plowed on through it, and I'm treating it as a valuable experience anywway for two reasons. One is that it has a truly excellent reference list at the end, one for which I fully intend to make my way through as many of the titles as possible.
The other is that it's sometimes as valuable to see examples of bad thinking / interpretation in practice to help you recognise it in yourself, as it is to see the good stuff. And Dr Glass, double-PhD-in-communication-and-counselling-psych, gives ample examples of the former.
"I Know What You're Thinking" would probably be better titled as "I Know What Kind of Person You Are", since there's actually very little about knowing what someone is thinking or feeling, and it's far more about categorising people according to a personality label (e.g. "The Bully", "The Wimp", "The Giver", "The Victim"). In this, "Dr" Glass starts off making what all Social Psych 101 students learn in their first year as "The Fundamental Attribution Error" - the Western tendency, when interpreting the behaviour of others, to overvalue personality/dispositional reasons and undervalue situational ones. So, for example, your immediate explanation for someone cutting you off in traffic is that it's because they're a jerk and a bad driver - not because they have, for example, a five-year old child with a 39 degree fever in the back seat that they're trying to rush to a doctor's to be checked. This book is choc-full of such dispositional explanations for non-verbal communication: people talk too quietly because they're passive-aggressive and want the attention of being asked to repeat themselves, they stand too close because they're bullies who want to intimidate, they constantly rub their noses or touch their faces because they're habitual liars, they talk about themselves because they're narcissists. The idea that the person might come from a culture where speaking softer or standing closer than Dr Glass is used to doesn't appear to register - nor does it seem possible, in her estimation, that someone might simply be uncomfortable with a specific situation and engage in self-touching in that situation as a behavioural adaptor (or y'know, just have an itchy nose!), or talk about themselves a lot in the one situation in which you've met them because something incredibly exciting and lifechanging happened to them half an hour before hand... none of that seems like a possible alternate explanation in Dr Glass's worldview.
As a add-on to the Fundamental Attribution Error, Dr Glass also constantly displays what Paul Ekman describes as "The Othello Error". This error is named based around the scene where Othello confronts Desdemona about her suspected infidelity, correctly identifies her look of fear, but incorrectly attributes it to fear of having said infidelity discovered, when really, she's innocent and terrified of being found falsely guilty. In the majority of the few times Dr Glass does fall back on situational, rather than personality-based explanations for a given piece of observed non-verbal communication, she assumes that reason for that observation is obvious. For example, if you tell someone you've just been promoted and they give you a tight "fake" smile when they say "congratulations", it must obviously be because that person is jealous, doesn't like you, and doesn't want you to succeed. It couldn't, for example, be that that was the promotion *they* were expecting and had already been told was supposed to be *theirs*, and needed in order to advance their own career... or even, perhaps, that they knew something disturbing you didn't about the new boss you'd be working for, and they weren't sure whether to burst your bubble by telling you or not.
Added to these three errors is a sense of... I guess you'd call it tunnel vision and "one-right-way"-ness on both a cultural and an interpersonal level. Except for a brief recognition in the chapter on vocal cues that Americans from Southern states tend to talk more slowly than those from, say, New York, there is NO evidence of acknowledging that other cultures (especially non-Western ones) have totally different rules for what is and isn't appropriate in terms of vocal pitch, talking speed, volume, facial expression display, body language and touch conventions. Even within the American culture as a whole, there's no recognition that there are many, many flavours of culture; and that perhaps what Dr Glass thinks is socially appropriate in her celebrity-laden professional academic circles may be highly *inappropriate* in other strata of the American culture. She constantly describes the cues to look out for in terms of "too" something (e.g. walking too fast, talking too loudly, blinking too much) - a term which implies that there's one "right" universal speed, volume or blinking rate. There's no recognition of individual differences either - the implication is that a reader should judge everyone using their own standards, and then assume that anyone who doesn't conform to their own personal standard can rightfully be labelled a bully, a wimp, a seducer, etc.
There are other issues I had with the book as I worked my way through it as well... for example, starting off with a self-report quiz that's supposed to tell you how well you already read people, but instead just reflects how you feel about what you think your abilities are on a given day, which can often bear no resemblence whatsoever to your actual abilities on a practical level. Or the repeated universalising: the constant use of the terms "always" and "never" rather than talking about tendencies. Then there's the assumptions that people are tightly, permanently locked into a single personality profile, rather than being able to display a mixture of tendencies from the different archetypes, which might potentially change over time depending on what else is going on in a person's life, and how comfortable or uncomfortable they are in the specific situation in which you observe them. Or, finally, the combination of extreme polarity and sheer negativity that runs through the pages - in Dr Glass's book, people are either wonderfully caring, considerate, genuine, never putting themselves above others or saying an unkind word (yet somehow still honest, truthful and true to themselves!) 100% of the time, or they're toxic to you: bad, evil and nasty in a variety of ways. There is, apparently, no in between - no room for mere mortals who try to be any or all of these things when they can, but for whom life can sometimes get the better of their good intentions. Negativity-wise, of Dr Glass's 14 personality types, one is clearly "good" and what everyone should expect the people around them to be as of entitled right, three are sort of neutral and mildly toxic - not great, but acknowledged as annoying/amusing/frustrating etc, and the other 9 are clearly bad, evil and nasty as mentioned above.
So yeah... reading this book was valuable to me because it gave me a great chance to see all of these fundamental interpretation and thinking errors in action, which in turn will hopefully help me to be more on guard against the temptation to make them in my own observation and interpretation of non-verbal cues.
Would I recommend it as a resource for someone who wants to learn how to read and understand NVC? HELL NO! At least, not unless it was part of a critical thinking exercise for readers to critique after having learned about the above errors. I think it's fair to say I will NOT be reading more of Dr Glass's books (although I am looking forward to working my way through some of the titles in her Recommended Reading list). In the end, I'm giving this a 2/10, which should tell you everything you need to know about my thoughts!