What do you think?
Rate this book
The Man Who Lied to His Laptop: What Machines Teach Us About Human Relationships
Counterintuitive insights about building successful relationships- based on research into human-computer interaction.
Books like Predictably Irrational and Sway have revolutionized how we view human behavior. Now, Stanford professor Clifford Nass has discovered a set of rules for effective human relationships, drawn from an unlikely his study of our interactions with computers.
Based on his decades of research, Nass demonstrates that-although we might deny it-we treat computers and other devices like we empathize with them, argue with them, form bonds with them. We even lie to them to protect their feelings.
This fundamental revelation has led to groundbreaking research on how people should behave with one another. Nass's research shows Nass's discoveries provide nothing less than a new blueprint for successful human relationships.
Books like Predictably Irrational and Sway have revolutionized how we view human behavior. Now, Stanford professor Clifford Nass has discovered a set of rules for effective human relationships, drawn from an unlikely his study of our interactions with computers.
Based on his decades of research, Nass demonstrates that-although we might deny it-we treat computers and other devices like we empathize with them, argue with them, form bonds with them. We even lie to them to protect their feelings.
This fundamental revelation has led to groundbreaking research on how people should behave with one another. Nass's research shows Nass's discoveries provide nothing less than a new blueprint for successful human relationships.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2010
69 people are currently reading
1081 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
February 4, 2021
Note to self: must always be straightforward with my laptop!
Q:
Typical discussions about mindsets betray a fixed mindset. (с) Uh-huh. The first rule of the Growth Midset Club is: You do not talk about Mindsets at all.
I wouldn't be so sure that this really was flattery: Q:the computer was obviously and unambiguously flattering: (seemingly) making random comments. (c) Was it, really?
Q:
You will no longer use the “evaluation sandwich”—praise, then criticism, then praise again—after learning that it is neither helpful nor pleasant. (c) That much's true: toss the shit sandwitch.
Q:
You will discover why team-building exercises don’t build teams... (c) Hallelujah!
Q:
How have companies addressed the anxieties triggered by evaluation week? By asking everyone to do more evaluations. (c) Nicely done!
Q:
If I provide only praise, it sounds like hagiography (the study of saints), but each criticism I add seems to jump off the page. If I am too effusive, I sound like a cheerleader; if I am too flat, it reads like I’m hiding something. And the order problem is overwhelming: is it praise before criticism, criticism before praise, praise-criticism-praise (the evaluation sandwich), or some other arcane formula? (c)
Q:
... when a newspaper quotes person A criticizing person B, people develop negative feelings about person B, person A, and the newspaper! (c)
Q:
“You are not driving very well,” the car said. “Please be more careful.”
Was the driver delighted to hear this valuable information from a highly accurate and impartial source? No. Instead, the driver became somewhat annoyed. ...
“You are driving quite poorly now,” the car announced. “It is important that you drive better.”
Was the driver now appropriately chastened? No. His face contorted in anger as he started driving even faster, darting from lane to lane without signaling. ...
“You must pull over immediately!” the car said. “You are a threat to yourself and others!”
At this point the driver, literally blind with rage, smashed into another car in the simulation. He was so livid I couldn’t even understand what he was saying. (c) This situation would have been approved by Philip Dick!
Q:
Thus, the best strategy in the workplace is a “mutual-admiration society” with another colleague: person A praises person B, and person B praises person A. This will lead to both people seeming smarter and more likeable than if they praised themselves. (c) LOL!
Q:
I was reluctant to have a computer fall into a person’s arms or to strap one to a raft. (c)
Othe interesting points:
Q:
Ironically, I realized that just as studying interactions between people is the best way to discover how people interact with computers, people’s interactions with computers could be the best way to study how people interact with each other. (c)
Q:
In 1998, Microsoft asked me to provide evidence that it was possible to improve one of the worst software designs in computer history: Clippy, the animated paper clip in Microsoft Office. While I have often been asked by companies to make their interfaces easier to use, I had a real challenge on my hands with Clippy. The mere mention of his name to computer users brought on levels of hatred usually reserved for jilted lovers and mortal enemies. There were “I hate Clippy” Web sites, videos, and T-shirts in numerous languages. One of the first viral videos on the Internet—well before YouTube made posting videos common—depicted a person mangling a live version of Clippy, screaming, “I hate you, you lousy paper clip!” (c)
Q:
Around this same time, my second mystery appeared. A market-analysis firm asked me to explain why employees at some companies had started reporting dramatic increases in the approval ratings of all the software applications they were using.
I started my investigation by comparing the newly satisfied users with those who had experienced no change in satisfaction.
...
The only difference I found was that the companies that had started reporting higher approval ratings had changed their procedure for obtaining the evaluation. Formerly, all of the companies had people evaluate software on a separate “evaluation” computer. Later, some companies later changed that procedure and had their employees evaluate the software on the same computer they normally worked with. Those companies subsequently reported higher approval ratings. Why would people give software higher ratings on one computer as compared to another identical computer? (c)
Q:
BMW was forced to recall the product. What was the problem? It turns out that the system had a female voice, and male German drivers refused to take directions from a woman! The service desk received numerous calls from agitated German men that went something like this:
CUSTOMER: I can’t use my navigation system.
OPERATOR: I’m very sorry about that, sir. What seems to be the problem?
CUSTOMER: A woman should not be giving directions.
OPERATOR: Sir, it is not really a woman. It is only a recorded voice.
CUSTOMER: I don’t trust directions from a woman.
OPERATOR: Sir, if it makes you feel better, I am certain that the engineers that built the system and the cartographers who figured out the directions were all men.
CUSTOMER: It doesn’t matter. It simply doesn’t work. (c)
Q:
As established in the classic paper on “social facilitation” by Robert Zajonc and much subsequent research, the effect of other students depends on how confident the student is. When you feel confident, having other people present improves how well you learn and perform. However, when you feel insecure, having other people around makes you nervous and pressured so you don’t learn as well. As a result, we decided to have the teaching environment be a virtual classroom but with a variable number of students. When users were doing well on the practice tests, more students would appear at the desks, but when their practice test scores were low, there would be fewer students and more empty desks. (c)
Q:
The results of this study suggest the following social rule: don’t hesitate to praise, even if you’re not sure the praise is accurate. Receivers of the praise will feel great and you will seem thoughtful and intelligent for noticing their marvelous qualities—whether they exist or not. (c)
Q:
Fight-or-flight responses are governed by the emotional parts of the brain. These parts can demand action without consulting the higher-order, rational areas of the brain that know the “facts” of the situation. This is why criticism will often generate seemingly irrelevant statements, ad hominem attacks, scapegoating, frantic apologies, and little valuable information. It also explains why people being interrogated have the right to remain silent and why torture very frequently produces false information. (c)
Q:
... when you deliver criticism, go deep rather than broad. (c)
Q:
... your mindset (as reflected in your criticism) can lead people to stick to their existing strengths to avoid failure or to seek out challenges as a way of improving. When people receive criticism that reminds them of the importance of effort, they gain the benefits of a growth mindset. When you criticize their “inherent” attributes, it encourages a fixed mindset, which in turn makes it less likely that they will improve. Criticism that encourages one mindset or the other is so powerful that it can affect people’s future choices and attitudes toward challenges, regardless of their original mindset. (c)
Q:
Researchers primed one group of participants for a fixed mindset (telling them the task measured their underlying capabilities) and the other group for a growth mindset (telling them the task would help them develop their management skills through practice). (c)
Q:
... it seems that whenever social scientists hear that there is something, such as praise, that makes life uniformly better, they have to find a way to screw it up. (c)
Q:
Previously, I suggested that praise never hurts. This does not mean, however, that all types of praise are beneficial. Telling people that they are “destined to succeed” before they attempt a new activity can make any failures crushing. Thus, fixed-mindset praise, meant to make people feel better, can actually make people feel much worse about their work and more negative about the person who praised them if it turns out to be inaccurate. (c)
Q:
... an epidemic of fixed-mindset praise started in the early 1990s, when many parents and teachers became focused on increasing self-esteem by constantly telling children how smart and talented they were. This mindset ironically has a negative effect on self-confidence as children face challenges and failures. For example, when Dweck asked fixed-mindset children why their parents would talk with them if they had performed poorly on something at school, they would respond with comments like, “They think bad grades might mean I’m not smart.” In comparison, growth-minded students would respond, “They wanted to make sure I learned as much as I could from my schoolwork,” and “They wanted to teach me ways to study better in the future.” (c)
Q:
If you want people to like you and don’t care how smart you seem, criticize yourself and praise others. If you want to seem smart and don’t care about being liked, than criticize others and don’t be modest. However, adopt the latter conclusion with caution because if people do not like you, they will think you are competent but will not describe you positively to others or reward you for your competence. While your criticism will influence them, you will gain a reputation not for excellence but for unpleasantness. And, of course, don’t directly criticize the person you are interacting with when you can criticize a third party. (c)
Q:
In addition to the thoughts and actions of a similar personality being more understandable, they positively reinforce who you are. When someone thinks or behaves the same way that you do, it confirms that your approach to life is the right one. Conversely, an incompatible personality can feel like a challenge or a threat; it subtly implies that your approach to life is wrong. (c)
Q:
These results also explain a great mystery in social life: despite the strength of similarity-attraction, why do opposites seem to frequently attract? The answer is that opposites attract when, over time, they change to become more similar to each other. Everyone has seen “total opposites” get married and have a happy life together. However, that happiness comes only when the two people change to become more similar to each other, eventually finishing each other’s sentences just as married couples who started out similar do. (c)
Q:
I take it as a genuine compliment when they invite me to team-building events. While delighted by the kind sentiment behind the invitation, I find the actual events a misery. My poor memory, exacerbated by my chronic lack of sleep, makes me seem “unengaged” during the icebreaker. Notorious for my klutziness, I fall backward enough unintentionally that doing it on purpose seems tragic rather than trust building. With my atrocious construction skills, team members have told me that standing still and trying not to touch anything is the best way for me to help finish the bridge. And my weak stomach makes white-water rafting an iffy proposition. Worst of all, I worry that being a somewhat unwilling and less-than-delighted participant in team-building exercises will cement my position as an outsider. (c)
Q:
Q:
Typical discussions about mindsets betray a fixed mindset. (с) Uh-huh. The first rule of the Growth Midset Club is: You do not talk about Mindsets at all.
I wouldn't be so sure that this really was flattery: Q:the computer was obviously and unambiguously flattering: (seemingly) making random comments. (c) Was it, really?
Q:
You will no longer use the “evaluation sandwich”—praise, then criticism, then praise again—after learning that it is neither helpful nor pleasant. (c) That much's true: toss the shit sandwitch.
Q:
You will discover why team-building exercises don’t build teams... (c) Hallelujah!
Q:
How have companies addressed the anxieties triggered by evaluation week? By asking everyone to do more evaluations. (c) Nicely done!
Q:
If I provide only praise, it sounds like hagiography (the study of saints), but each criticism I add seems to jump off the page. If I am too effusive, I sound like a cheerleader; if I am too flat, it reads like I’m hiding something. And the order problem is overwhelming: is it praise before criticism, criticism before praise, praise-criticism-praise (the evaluation sandwich), or some other arcane formula? (c)
Q:
... when a newspaper quotes person A criticizing person B, people develop negative feelings about person B, person A, and the newspaper! (c)
Q:
“You are not driving very well,” the car said. “Please be more careful.”
Was the driver delighted to hear this valuable information from a highly accurate and impartial source? No. Instead, the driver became somewhat annoyed. ...
“You are driving quite poorly now,” the car announced. “It is important that you drive better.”
Was the driver now appropriately chastened? No. His face contorted in anger as he started driving even faster, darting from lane to lane without signaling. ...
“You must pull over immediately!” the car said. “You are a threat to yourself and others!”
At this point the driver, literally blind with rage, smashed into another car in the simulation. He was so livid I couldn’t even understand what he was saying. (c) This situation would have been approved by Philip Dick!
Q:
Thus, the best strategy in the workplace is a “mutual-admiration society” with another colleague: person A praises person B, and person B praises person A. This will lead to both people seeming smarter and more likeable than if they praised themselves. (c) LOL!
Q:
I was reluctant to have a computer fall into a person’s arms or to strap one to a raft. (c)
Othe interesting points:
Q:
Ironically, I realized that just as studying interactions between people is the best way to discover how people interact with computers, people’s interactions with computers could be the best way to study how people interact with each other. (c)
Q:
In 1998, Microsoft asked me to provide evidence that it was possible to improve one of the worst software designs in computer history: Clippy, the animated paper clip in Microsoft Office. While I have often been asked by companies to make their interfaces easier to use, I had a real challenge on my hands with Clippy. The mere mention of his name to computer users brought on levels of hatred usually reserved for jilted lovers and mortal enemies. There were “I hate Clippy” Web sites, videos, and T-shirts in numerous languages. One of the first viral videos on the Internet—well before YouTube made posting videos common—depicted a person mangling a live version of Clippy, screaming, “I hate you, you lousy paper clip!” (c)
Q:
Around this same time, my second mystery appeared. A market-analysis firm asked me to explain why employees at some companies had started reporting dramatic increases in the approval ratings of all the software applications they were using.
I started my investigation by comparing the newly satisfied users with those who had experienced no change in satisfaction.
...
The only difference I found was that the companies that had started reporting higher approval ratings had changed their procedure for obtaining the evaluation. Formerly, all of the companies had people evaluate software on a separate “evaluation” computer. Later, some companies later changed that procedure and had their employees evaluate the software on the same computer they normally worked with. Those companies subsequently reported higher approval ratings. Why would people give software higher ratings on one computer as compared to another identical computer? (c)
Q:
BMW was forced to recall the product. What was the problem? It turns out that the system had a female voice, and male German drivers refused to take directions from a woman! The service desk received numerous calls from agitated German men that went something like this:
CUSTOMER: I can’t use my navigation system.
OPERATOR: I’m very sorry about that, sir. What seems to be the problem?
CUSTOMER: A woman should not be giving directions.
OPERATOR: Sir, it is not really a woman. It is only a recorded voice.
CUSTOMER: I don’t trust directions from a woman.
OPERATOR: Sir, if it makes you feel better, I am certain that the engineers that built the system and the cartographers who figured out the directions were all men.
CUSTOMER: It doesn’t matter. It simply doesn’t work. (c)
Q:
As established in the classic paper on “social facilitation” by Robert Zajonc and much subsequent research, the effect of other students depends on how confident the student is. When you feel confident, having other people present improves how well you learn and perform. However, when you feel insecure, having other people around makes you nervous and pressured so you don’t learn as well. As a result, we decided to have the teaching environment be a virtual classroom but with a variable number of students. When users were doing well on the practice tests, more students would appear at the desks, but when their practice test scores were low, there would be fewer students and more empty desks. (c)
Q:
The results of this study suggest the following social rule: don’t hesitate to praise, even if you’re not sure the praise is accurate. Receivers of the praise will feel great and you will seem thoughtful and intelligent for noticing their marvelous qualities—whether they exist or not. (c)
Q:
Fight-or-flight responses are governed by the emotional parts of the brain. These parts can demand action without consulting the higher-order, rational areas of the brain that know the “facts” of the situation. This is why criticism will often generate seemingly irrelevant statements, ad hominem attacks, scapegoating, frantic apologies, and little valuable information. It also explains why people being interrogated have the right to remain silent and why torture very frequently produces false information. (c)
Q:
... when you deliver criticism, go deep rather than broad. (c)
Q:
... your mindset (as reflected in your criticism) can lead people to stick to their existing strengths to avoid failure or to seek out challenges as a way of improving. When people receive criticism that reminds them of the importance of effort, they gain the benefits of a growth mindset. When you criticize their “inherent” attributes, it encourages a fixed mindset, which in turn makes it less likely that they will improve. Criticism that encourages one mindset or the other is so powerful that it can affect people’s future choices and attitudes toward challenges, regardless of their original mindset. (c)
Q:
Researchers primed one group of participants for a fixed mindset (telling them the task measured their underlying capabilities) and the other group for a growth mindset (telling them the task would help them develop their management skills through practice). (c)
Q:
... it seems that whenever social scientists hear that there is something, such as praise, that makes life uniformly better, they have to find a way to screw it up. (c)
Q:
Previously, I suggested that praise never hurts. This does not mean, however, that all types of praise are beneficial. Telling people that they are “destined to succeed” before they attempt a new activity can make any failures crushing. Thus, fixed-mindset praise, meant to make people feel better, can actually make people feel much worse about their work and more negative about the person who praised them if it turns out to be inaccurate. (c)
Q:
... an epidemic of fixed-mindset praise started in the early 1990s, when many parents and teachers became focused on increasing self-esteem by constantly telling children how smart and talented they were. This mindset ironically has a negative effect on self-confidence as children face challenges and failures. For example, when Dweck asked fixed-mindset children why their parents would talk with them if they had performed poorly on something at school, they would respond with comments like, “They think bad grades might mean I’m not smart.” In comparison, growth-minded students would respond, “They wanted to make sure I learned as much as I could from my schoolwork,” and “They wanted to teach me ways to study better in the future.” (c)
Q:
If you want people to like you and don’t care how smart you seem, criticize yourself and praise others. If you want to seem smart and don’t care about being liked, than criticize others and don’t be modest. However, adopt the latter conclusion with caution because if people do not like you, they will think you are competent but will not describe you positively to others or reward you for your competence. While your criticism will influence them, you will gain a reputation not for excellence but for unpleasantness. And, of course, don’t directly criticize the person you are interacting with when you can criticize a third party. (c)
Q:
In addition to the thoughts and actions of a similar personality being more understandable, they positively reinforce who you are. When someone thinks or behaves the same way that you do, it confirms that your approach to life is the right one. Conversely, an incompatible personality can feel like a challenge or a threat; it subtly implies that your approach to life is wrong. (c)
Q:
These results also explain a great mystery in social life: despite the strength of similarity-attraction, why do opposites seem to frequently attract? The answer is that opposites attract when, over time, they change to become more similar to each other. Everyone has seen “total opposites” get married and have a happy life together. However, that happiness comes only when the two people change to become more similar to each other, eventually finishing each other’s sentences just as married couples who started out similar do. (c)
Q:
I take it as a genuine compliment when they invite me to team-building events. While delighted by the kind sentiment behind the invitation, I find the actual events a misery. My poor memory, exacerbated by my chronic lack of sleep, makes me seem “unengaged” during the icebreaker. Notorious for my klutziness, I fall backward enough unintentionally that doing it on purpose seems tragic rather than trust building. With my atrocious construction skills, team members have told me that standing still and trying not to touch anything is the best way for me to help finish the bridge. And my weak stomach makes white-water rafting an iffy proposition. Worst of all, I worry that being a somewhat unwilling and less-than-delighted participant in team-building exercises will cement my position as an outsider. (c)
Q:
April 6, 2020
Fittingly, I lied to my phone to access this audiobook. With the library closed for social distancing I'm limited to digital versions of the books I want, and that meant downloading several apps to access titles published in different formats. (We haven't standardized who provides our audiobooks yet?) For each of these, I was asked "Have you read the terms and conditions?" For each of these, I lied and checked "Yes."
This isn't what Nass is talking about, really. He's aiming more at the social science of human interaction, highlighted by the goofy ways we treat inanimate objects - most often our computers.
2.5 stars - Passingly entertaining, but more in the realm of business and management nonfiction than I was led to believe. There are engaging anecdotes accessible to tech users of all ability levels, but the author doesn't have the big personality I enjoy in my popular nonfiction. And I can't blame the narrator here - the reader (Sean Pratt!) keeps things lively, but Nass is no Sam Kean.
This isn't what Nass is talking about, really. He's aiming more at the social science of human interaction, highlighted by the goofy ways we treat inanimate objects - most often our computers.
2.5 stars - Passingly entertaining, but more in the realm of business and management nonfiction than I was led to believe. There are engaging anecdotes accessible to tech users of all ability levels, but the author doesn't have the big personality I enjoy in my popular nonfiction. And I can't blame the narrator here - the reader (Sean Pratt!) keeps things lively, but Nass is no Sam Kean.
October 26, 2010
I was hoping that the book would cover how machines can teach us about human relationships...like the title said. Instead it was just another book that vaguely covers personality types and a bunch of common sense situations that are IRL...where do the machines come in?
September 13, 2012
It’s been said so many times that it’s by now become a staid cliché: humans are social animals. We are adapted to social interaction, and to a large extend depend on our ability to interact and cooperate with others. Considering how important our social interactions are for our survival, it is surprising how little room it’s allocated in the regular school curriculum to learning more about what science has to teach us on this topic. Social Psychology, the branch of Psychology that deals with this subject, is in my opinion the most important of all social sciences, and perhaps the most practically relevant branch of science overall when it comes to usefulness for our daily lives. “The Man Who Lied to His Computer” is an excellent primer of that field, and overall a surprisingly useful and relevant popular science book.
The title of this book seems to evoke Oliver Sacks’ writings, and “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” in particular. Sacks, a well-known British neurologist and writer, has dedicated his life to exploring the hidden secrets of the way that our minds work by examining peculiar pathologies of the brain. Nass and Yen, on the other hand, have written a book based on the series of experiments performed at the Nass’ Stanford laboratory. These experiments tried to elucidate the way we interact with each other by looking at our interactions with computers. After spending many years on improving computer interfaces and the humanizing our interaction with computers, Nass had stumbled onto a brilliant idea of reversing the direction of his research, and started looking into improving the ways that we interact with each other based on the ways that we treat computers. It turns out that we really do anthropomorphize computers, and it is legitimate to extrapolate from the human-computer interactions to the interhuman ones.
The findings that this book focuses on are truly fascinating. I don’t want to reveal too much, but the one that I liked the most has to do with the optimal way of giving evaluations. As an educator I have always dreaded the most this part of my job, and unfortunately there is no silver bullet that will make this any easier. However, there are ways of presenting the information to your employees or students in a way that will really make your criticism feel and be more constructive.
The book is very well written. No one will ever match the beautifully flowing literary prose of Oliver Sacks, but Nass and Yen manage to write a very intriguing and informative little book. I was literally unable to put it down. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in these topics, as well as to anyone who wants to improve their interpersonal skills.
The title of this book seems to evoke Oliver Sacks’ writings, and “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” in particular. Sacks, a well-known British neurologist and writer, has dedicated his life to exploring the hidden secrets of the way that our minds work by examining peculiar pathologies of the brain. Nass and Yen, on the other hand, have written a book based on the series of experiments performed at the Nass’ Stanford laboratory. These experiments tried to elucidate the way we interact with each other by looking at our interactions with computers. After spending many years on improving computer interfaces and the humanizing our interaction with computers, Nass had stumbled onto a brilliant idea of reversing the direction of his research, and started looking into improving the ways that we interact with each other based on the ways that we treat computers. It turns out that we really do anthropomorphize computers, and it is legitimate to extrapolate from the human-computer interactions to the interhuman ones.
The findings that this book focuses on are truly fascinating. I don’t want to reveal too much, but the one that I liked the most has to do with the optimal way of giving evaluations. As an educator I have always dreaded the most this part of my job, and unfortunately there is no silver bullet that will make this any easier. However, there are ways of presenting the information to your employees or students in a way that will really make your criticism feel and be more constructive.
The book is very well written. No one will ever match the beautifully flowing literary prose of Oliver Sacks, but Nass and Yen manage to write a very intriguing and informative little book. I was literally unable to put it down. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in these topics, as well as to anyone who wants to improve their interpersonal skills.
October 27, 2010
I loved the experiment on page 187. "This computer has been configured to run at an extremely high speed. But 90 percent of computer users don't use applications that require these speeds. So this computer rarely gets used to it's full potential. What has been your biggest disappointment in life?"
Also, the valence and arousal graph on page 119 was pretty interesting.
Also, the valence and arousal graph on page 119 was pretty interesting.
September 10, 2016
**edited 01/18/14
If you've ever wanted to kill an automated service agent, raise your hand...
This book provides an entertaining peek at the intersection of technology, sociology, and psychology. It discusses various experiments which indicate how people anthropomorphize inanimate technology and how this tendency can be used to reduce confounding variables and better understand human behaviour. It wasn't quite what I had expected: given the title and blurb, I had thought that the book would focus more on the mathematics and technology than the sociology. Instead, I found that the book instead discussed how technology could be used to improve sociological experiments and how these experiments, in turn, could be used to improve interfaces for human and computer interaction.
...
Due to my disapproval of GR's new and highly subjective review deletion policy, I am no longer posting full reviews here.
The rest of this review can be found on Booklikes.
If you've ever wanted to kill an automated service agent, raise your hand...
This book provides an entertaining peek at the intersection of technology, sociology, and psychology. It discusses various experiments which indicate how people anthropomorphize inanimate technology and how this tendency can be used to reduce confounding variables and better understand human behaviour. It wasn't quite what I had expected: given the title and blurb, I had thought that the book would focus more on the mathematics and technology than the sociology. Instead, I found that the book instead discussed how technology could be used to improve sociological experiments and how these experiments, in turn, could be used to improve interfaces for human and computer interaction.
...
Due to my disapproval of GR's new and highly subjective review deletion policy, I am no longer posting full reviews here.
The rest of this review can be found on Booklikes.
December 31, 2015
Okay. This took way longer than it needed to, but that's also why it loses a star: it was a bit of a slog. Thirty-plus scientific studies can only be so boiled down - you're still going through the details of how the study worked in order to understand its significance.
That being said, this was an incredibly relevant book to my work and social lives. I can apply it on a meta level, and I can apply it as I negotiate with coworkers and managers, and I can apply it day to day as I deal with the other humans in my existence. The lessons here are simple, if difficult to remember (I'm going to need to go back for at least one notes pass), and worth learning about and applying.
That being said, this was an incredibly relevant book to my work and social lives. I can apply it on a meta level, and I can apply it as I negotiate with coworkers and managers, and I can apply it day to day as I deal with the other humans in my existence. The lessons here are simple, if difficult to remember (I'm going to need to go back for at least one notes pass), and worth learning about and applying.
November 16, 2017
It's an interesting conceit using computers to predict and prove human nature since we apparently treat computers similar to people. However, I wasn't a fan of the writing style. Reminded me of old high school essays with an introductory paragraph, three paragraphs of support, and one concluding paragraph to summarize.
While some of the experiments are interesting and creative ways to test human nature, I found I wanted to skim several of the experiments and just get to the results.
Can't say I walked away with too many learnings other than to not try to cheer people up or calm people down but instead to try to meet them at their level and only marginally better state.
While some of the experiments are interesting and creative ways to test human nature, I found I wanted to skim several of the experiments and just get to the results.
Can't say I walked away with too many learnings other than to not try to cheer people up or calm people down but instead to try to meet them at their level and only marginally better state.
July 5, 2016
Learning EQ from machines... who'd have thunk it? A few fantastic takeaways that may be obvious to folks who have read business and sales books (I sadly haven't) so was well worth it for me. Most helpful, perhaps, was how to relate most effectively to a sad friend and make sure gender dynamics are set up in a way that leaves everyone feeling set up for success. The found the fact that American vs. Japanese reciprocity completely different fascinating (individual vs. collectivist). A few sad truths about stereotypes revealed, so not all great news, but overall a quick and helpful read.
June 13, 2011
At the risk of sounding likable, but less competent, this book was great! The author's writing style is clear, easy-to-read, and engaging. The research studies and anecdotes he shares are interesting and often funny and the bullet points at the end of each chapter are tidy summations, highlighting the main points of each section in a way that makes them easy to remember and apply. Highly recommend!
Read
August 10, 2016Oh, yes, I read this book :)
November 11, 2019
In the CASA framework proposed by the author (Computers as Social Animals), Clifford Nass puts forth the idea that computers are treated by humans as a social entity as much as a machine. We subconsciously treat machines as humans, even though we full well know they are devoid of fundamental human traits such as emotion and consciousness. Nass hits upon this idea when he notices how people treat "Clippy" the famous Microsoft Office assistant, as a human, by getting put off by his persistent helplessness and projecting their disapproval of him upon his "personality".
He leverages this single idea to test a number of psychological questions about personality, team building, emotion, persuasion and praise & criticism, and draw meaningful conclusions about the same. These conclusions are individually both interesting and useful. I think of these as a bunch of results about human behaviour that one can understand without understanding how computers enter the picture at all. In this sense, it is similar to Kahneman's "Thinking, fast and slow", albeit with a markedly different pedigree as the questions answered are not as fundamental.
With the way the context is set up for the book, the reader expects more nuance to be explored between human behaviour with humans versus machines. I would have appreciated insights into why humans treat computers as they do other humans, for one. It would have also been nice to see an analysis of to what extent computers can be thought of as humans, instead of the blanket statement that they are social actors. That is my criticism of this work.
Nevertheless, I give this work a five star rating because of its content. The meta structure of the work could have been stronger.
This book has a weird name, and I would have appreciated some justification for the same in the book (maybe I missed it?).
He leverages this single idea to test a number of psychological questions about personality, team building, emotion, persuasion and praise & criticism, and draw meaningful conclusions about the same. These conclusions are individually both interesting and useful. I think of these as a bunch of results about human behaviour that one can understand without understanding how computers enter the picture at all. In this sense, it is similar to Kahneman's "Thinking, fast and slow", albeit with a markedly different pedigree as the questions answered are not as fundamental.
With the way the context is set up for the book, the reader expects more nuance to be explored between human behaviour with humans versus machines. I would have appreciated insights into why humans treat computers as they do other humans, for one. It would have also been nice to see an analysis of to what extent computers can be thought of as humans, instead of the blanket statement that they are social actors. That is my criticism of this work.
Nevertheless, I give this work a five star rating because of its content. The meta structure of the work could have been stronger.
This book has a weird name, and I would have appreciated some justification for the same in the book (maybe I missed it?).
December 15, 2018
This is a fascinating book which explores how people relate to technology by attributing human behavior to the technology. The authors share some experiments that were conducted that demonstrate that people often view their technology from an anthropomorphic lens. They then transfer their observations over to human behavior in general, showing how these lessons can be applied to your everyday interactions. Worth a read if you want to understand how to relate to people (and machines) better.
March 27, 2018
Very insightful reading for technologist and those with an interest in better understanding human behaviour in social settings. Some of the findings are not surprising but the fact that we can prove and consistently predict them is fascinating. My favourite insights are around team dynamics and personality factors. Worthwhile reading.
December 30, 2020
I enjoy the use of computers as confederates and the premise for the number of experiments. However the categorization of human emotions and personality traits were primitive and in a sense incomplete and limited by the self-selecting participants. For one, you cannot get a CEO or a world leader to participate in one of these experiments to get the subtle nuances in character and personality to make broad strokes about humans in general.
September 16, 2018
The title can't cover the content. It could be a social experiments report. The coherent between chapters and sections makes reader to be lost.
Personally I prefer to know the results before describe of experiment.
Personally I prefer to know the results before describe of experiment.
October 7, 2023
Some interesting insights from experiments at a psychology lab at Stanford
Writing is a bit dry at times & not all results are overly interesting (but some are).
However, I am definitely glad I read this book.
Writing is a bit dry at times & not all results are overly interesting (but some are).
However, I am definitely glad I read this book.
May 25, 2017
Good content but lack presentation
May 28, 2017
A keeper. Even though I've finished, it's become a reference book.
April 24, 2018
Didn't got what expected.
About 30 something experiments not something new or any breakthrough.
About 30 something experiments not something new or any breakthrough.
August 31, 2019
Possibly the best book I have read this year. It's excellent, with helpful insights.
March 13, 2020
It offers some interesting insights, but the format is very repetitive and the tone is formal and academic. It wasn't a pleasurable read.
June 11, 2020
Did not do any research before reading, just followed the title. In the end it did not meet my expectations what I wanted to find from this book.
February 21, 2021
Insightful, bite-sized psychology on social behaviors through interaction with computers. Read it as a leadership book, but I suggest it as leisurely reading as well.
January 19, 2017
what a load of crap.....uninteresting platitudes...stay away! don't waste your time.
October 4, 2015
Subtitle: What Machines Teach Us About Human Relationships.
Well, the first thing this book teaches us, is that we cannot, as a species, tell the difference between a computer and a human being. For example, when a computer we are working on is the same one we use to fill out a survey on how we like our computer, we give more favorable answers than if we fill out that same survey on a second computer. Apparently, humans are afraid to hurt the feelings of our computers by telling them to their "face" that we find them frustrating to use. Apparently we are also more or less morons about computers.
Clifford Nass used to make his living designing computer-human interfaces, in other words figuring out things like "why does everyone hate the Microsoft 'Clippy' icon so much?" I don't recall having much of an opinion about it, but apparently it stirred up some volcanic levels of outrage among a lot of users. When Nass was called in to help, he tried a simple change. When Clippy made a suggestion, asked "Was that helpful?", and the user clicked on "no", Clippy would then say "That gets me really angry! Let's tell Microsoft how bad their help system is." He would then pop up an email to be sent to "Manager, Microsoft Support". In testing, this caused user reaction to Clippy to greatly improve, but their attitude towards Microsoft also worsened. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft chose to bury Clippy rather than scapegoat themselves.
Nass then went on to discover that this was part of a general strategy: when figuring out how to solve a user interface problem, he would look into the copious amounts of social science research to find an answer. His fundamental insight is that almost all humans interact with computers using the "working with humans" part of our mind, not the "working with objects" part. This worked, until he began to find problems that had not been researched well yet, in some cases because they were difficult to set up an experiment on, or expensive to do.
Then, he had the fundamental idea that caused him to switch careers. Instead of using the results of experiments on humans using other humans, to make computers better able to interact with humans, he began to do the opposite: use the results of experiments on humans using computers, to make humans better able to interact with other humans. This book is a catalog of his experiments, their results, and what we can learn from them. A sampling:
1) yes, flattery works, even when the recipient knows it is flattery (even when it's from a computer)
2) if you praise, then criticize (e.g. in a review of someone who reports to you at work), the criticism will be remembered but not the praise. If you criticize, then praise (i.e. reverse the order), the criticism makes the recipient fully alert, and they will remember both it and the praise that follows it better.
3) for a variety of reasons too numerous to list here, typical team-building exercises in corporate environments are not just a waste of time, they may actually undermine team solidarity
4) when trying to cheer up someone depressed, don't be too cheerful; an attitude just a little sunnier than theirs, but not so positive as to seem unaffected by (hence unconcerned with) their mood will work best
There's lots more. Nass (or maybe it's his cowriter Corina Yen) is an engaging writer, with lots of amusing anecdotes to go with his many research results, and the book is quite an easy read. The basic tenet is one you either accept or you don't; do that many men really find a GPS device that gives directions in a female voice unacceptable because they don't like taking orders from women? Do color-coded teams really find a computer's advice on a survival scenario more trust-worthy if the computer is the same color as their team? But if you accept the basic premise, Nass finds a lot of opportunities to put it to use discovering things about us, and how we work together (or fail to), that are worth reading about.
Well, the first thing this book teaches us, is that we cannot, as a species, tell the difference between a computer and a human being. For example, when a computer we are working on is the same one we use to fill out a survey on how we like our computer, we give more favorable answers than if we fill out that same survey on a second computer. Apparently, humans are afraid to hurt the feelings of our computers by telling them to their "face" that we find them frustrating to use. Apparently we are also more or less morons about computers.
Clifford Nass used to make his living designing computer-human interfaces, in other words figuring out things like "why does everyone hate the Microsoft 'Clippy' icon so much?" I don't recall having much of an opinion about it, but apparently it stirred up some volcanic levels of outrage among a lot of users. When Nass was called in to help, he tried a simple change. When Clippy made a suggestion, asked "Was that helpful?", and the user clicked on "no", Clippy would then say "That gets me really angry! Let's tell Microsoft how bad their help system is." He would then pop up an email to be sent to "Manager, Microsoft Support". In testing, this caused user reaction to Clippy to greatly improve, but their attitude towards Microsoft also worsened. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft chose to bury Clippy rather than scapegoat themselves.
Nass then went on to discover that this was part of a general strategy: when figuring out how to solve a user interface problem, he would look into the copious amounts of social science research to find an answer. His fundamental insight is that almost all humans interact with computers using the "working with humans" part of our mind, not the "working with objects" part. This worked, until he began to find problems that had not been researched well yet, in some cases because they were difficult to set up an experiment on, or expensive to do.
Then, he had the fundamental idea that caused him to switch careers. Instead of using the results of experiments on humans using other humans, to make computers better able to interact with humans, he began to do the opposite: use the results of experiments on humans using computers, to make humans better able to interact with other humans. This book is a catalog of his experiments, their results, and what we can learn from them. A sampling:
1) yes, flattery works, even when the recipient knows it is flattery (even when it's from a computer)
2) if you praise, then criticize (e.g. in a review of someone who reports to you at work), the criticism will be remembered but not the praise. If you criticize, then praise (i.e. reverse the order), the criticism makes the recipient fully alert, and they will remember both it and the praise that follows it better.
3) for a variety of reasons too numerous to list here, typical team-building exercises in corporate environments are not just a waste of time, they may actually undermine team solidarity
4) when trying to cheer up someone depressed, don't be too cheerful; an attitude just a little sunnier than theirs, but not so positive as to seem unaffected by (hence unconcerned with) their mood will work best
There's lots more. Nass (or maybe it's his cowriter Corina Yen) is an engaging writer, with lots of amusing anecdotes to go with his many research results, and the book is quite an easy read. The basic tenet is one you either accept or you don't; do that many men really find a GPS device that gives directions in a female voice unacceptable because they don't like taking orders from women? Do color-coded teams really find a computer's advice on a survival scenario more trust-worthy if the computer is the same color as their team? But if you accept the basic premise, Nass finds a lot of opportunities to put it to use discovering things about us, and how we work together (or fail to), that are worth reading about.
July 10, 2013
Loy Machedo’s Book Review - The Man Who Lied to His Laptop: What We Can Learn About Ourselves from Our Machines by Clifford Nass and Corina Yen
The trend now a days for most books at least is no longer the grandiose claims to Explain How Quantum Physics will help you do the Impossible, or Why you should use the Power of the Universe to help you achieve Mystery and Magic or What happens when you get in touch with your Super Consciousness to reach your Destiny. Albeit such Silly Sounding words sandwiched between a Few Scientific Terms may bring about credibility and popularity to the authors (and yes, the moolah that follows it), the end-result is nothing short of a routine boredom of nothingness & ignorance.
The Man who Lied to His Laptop is among the new breed of books that complies Scientific Experiments based on a Hypothesis to give you specific results – positive or negative. And the findings do not limit themselves to proving the accuracy of the assumption, rather the black and white reports of a fact finding mission.
Clifford Nass’s book ‘The Man who Lied to His Laptop’ is an intelligent compilation of rather unusual experiments designed to find answers relating to human behavior.
For instance, see if you can answers to the following questions:
1) Does Flattery really work?
2) What happens if you criticize a person for something wrong he has done versus encourage the person, for the same failure, to do better instead?
3) In the case of German Drivers, Male Voice or Female Voice to guide your GPS system – Which one proves more effective and why?
4) Does wearing common T-shirts at the workplace boost Team Building & Bonding Feelings in Companies?
5) What about Team Building Exercises – Are they truly effective?
6) Is it better to arouse your emotions or numb them down while making judgments?
7) Do Work related Labels, like branding youself as an Expert or Specialist really work or backfire?
8) How can the law of Reciprocity help anyone?
9) Which is better – Trustworthiness or Expertise?
10) Inconsistency or Stereotypes – Which is worse?
So if these questions intrigue you, then this book is worth looking into.
However…wait. Before you do that, read the rest.
What did I love about this book?
1) As usual the book took the road of proving assumptions via scientific experiments, observations & research. The author also was unafraid of proving himself wrong in the process.
2) There are quite a number of thought-provoking questions related to Human Emotions, Personality Types, Using Praise or Criticism and the impact of Corporate Practices like Teams and Team Building Exercises.
3) The summary at the end of every chapter was a blessing.
What I didn’t like about this book?
1) At first it was exciting to read the experiments, but then it became so repetitive, long drawn and boring, I struggled to read through it. It was nothing short of torture. One of the worst collection of mundane details being regurgitated again and again and again.
2) The book could have been condensed to half its size and still not have lost its originality.
3) Too many unwanted details and too many characters to give credit to (this was my student whom I conducted this experiment with and who became a professor at this great university is peppered incessantly everywhere and on every page)
Moment of Truth
A book with great points to think about but with horrible, terrible and incorrigible long-drawn details to depress any enthusiasm you have for reading.
Overall Rating
4 out of 10.
Loved the findings. Hated the Detailed Reading.
Loy Machedo
loymachedo.com | loymachedo.tv
The trend now a days for most books at least is no longer the grandiose claims to Explain How Quantum Physics will help you do the Impossible, or Why you should use the Power of the Universe to help you achieve Mystery and Magic or What happens when you get in touch with your Super Consciousness to reach your Destiny. Albeit such Silly Sounding words sandwiched between a Few Scientific Terms may bring about credibility and popularity to the authors (and yes, the moolah that follows it), the end-result is nothing short of a routine boredom of nothingness & ignorance.
The Man who Lied to His Laptop is among the new breed of books that complies Scientific Experiments based on a Hypothesis to give you specific results – positive or negative. And the findings do not limit themselves to proving the accuracy of the assumption, rather the black and white reports of a fact finding mission.
Clifford Nass’s book ‘The Man who Lied to His Laptop’ is an intelligent compilation of rather unusual experiments designed to find answers relating to human behavior.
For instance, see if you can answers to the following questions:
1) Does Flattery really work?
2) What happens if you criticize a person for something wrong he has done versus encourage the person, for the same failure, to do better instead?
3) In the case of German Drivers, Male Voice or Female Voice to guide your GPS system – Which one proves more effective and why?
4) Does wearing common T-shirts at the workplace boost Team Building & Bonding Feelings in Companies?
5) What about Team Building Exercises – Are they truly effective?
6) Is it better to arouse your emotions or numb them down while making judgments?
7) Do Work related Labels, like branding youself as an Expert or Specialist really work or backfire?
8) How can the law of Reciprocity help anyone?
9) Which is better – Trustworthiness or Expertise?
10) Inconsistency or Stereotypes – Which is worse?
So if these questions intrigue you, then this book is worth looking into.
However…wait. Before you do that, read the rest.
What did I love about this book?
1) As usual the book took the road of proving assumptions via scientific experiments, observations & research. The author also was unafraid of proving himself wrong in the process.
2) There are quite a number of thought-provoking questions related to Human Emotions, Personality Types, Using Praise or Criticism and the impact of Corporate Practices like Teams and Team Building Exercises.
3) The summary at the end of every chapter was a blessing.
What I didn’t like about this book?
1) At first it was exciting to read the experiments, but then it became so repetitive, long drawn and boring, I struggled to read through it. It was nothing short of torture. One of the worst collection of mundane details being regurgitated again and again and again.
2) The book could have been condensed to half its size and still not have lost its originality.
3) Too many unwanted details and too many characters to give credit to (this was my student whom I conducted this experiment with and who became a professor at this great university is peppered incessantly everywhere and on every page)
Moment of Truth
A book with great points to think about but with horrible, terrible and incorrigible long-drawn details to depress any enthusiasm you have for reading.
Overall Rating
4 out of 10.
Loved the findings. Hated the Detailed Reading.
Loy Machedo
loymachedo.com | loymachedo.tv
December 11, 2010
The rules of social behavior are complex. How can you get someone to like you? What's the best way to provide criticism? How can you present your ideas persuasively? Clifford Nass has tackled all these questions using an odd lab partner: the computer. The idea was simple: human collaborators can be inconsistent, leading to inconsistent lab results. A computer, on the other hand, can replicate the exact same experiment as many times as you need it to, without complaining and without deviation.
But will people respond to a computer the same way they'd respond to a human being? The answer should be clear to anyone who's ever pleaded with their printer to not run out of ink on the final pages of a report, or to anyone who's ever screamed in frustration when their laptop crashed at a crucial moment. People treat computers like people, even while adamantly denying they do so. People like computers more that flatter them, that have a similar "personality" to their own, that are part of their team. They will reciprocate favors with a computer. They'll assign female stereotypes to a computer that uses a female voice, to the point that male German drivers wouldn't trust a GPS system that used a female voice because they won't take directions from women.
Through the book, Nass and Yen point out that many of the complex social issues we face in our daily lives can really be reduced to simple rules. Flattery will make people like you more but make you seem less intelligent. All emotions can be reduced to varying levels of "valence" (happy vs. sad) and "arousal" (calm vs. excited). Teams are built based on identification with a group and interdependence. Persuasion comes down to expertise and trustworthiness. One of the reviewers of the book, Chip Heath (one of my favorite authors, incidentally), said, "If Dale Carnegie had been a Google engineer, this is how he would have written How to Win Friends and Influence People." Nass' main thrust seems to be, "If a computer can master social interactions, so can you!"
All told, it's an interesting book. I think it relies a bit too much on Nass' own research and should probably have been expanded to show that, yes, these traits actually do work in the real human world and not just for computers. Still, it's a fun read and a few of the "rules" have probably slipped into my long-term memory for me to use when I'm not sure how to deal with some distressing social situation.
But will people respond to a computer the same way they'd respond to a human being? The answer should be clear to anyone who's ever pleaded with their printer to not run out of ink on the final pages of a report, or to anyone who's ever screamed in frustration when their laptop crashed at a crucial moment. People treat computers like people, even while adamantly denying they do so. People like computers more that flatter them, that have a similar "personality" to their own, that are part of their team. They will reciprocate favors with a computer. They'll assign female stereotypes to a computer that uses a female voice, to the point that male German drivers wouldn't trust a GPS system that used a female voice because they won't take directions from women.
Through the book, Nass and Yen point out that many of the complex social issues we face in our daily lives can really be reduced to simple rules. Flattery will make people like you more but make you seem less intelligent. All emotions can be reduced to varying levels of "valence" (happy vs. sad) and "arousal" (calm vs. excited). Teams are built based on identification with a group and interdependence. Persuasion comes down to expertise and trustworthiness. One of the reviewers of the book, Chip Heath (one of my favorite authors, incidentally), said, "If Dale Carnegie had been a Google engineer, this is how he would have written How to Win Friends and Influence People." Nass' main thrust seems to be, "If a computer can master social interactions, so can you!"
All told, it's an interesting book. I think it relies a bit too much on Nass' own research and should probably have been expanded to show that, yes, these traits actually do work in the real human world and not just for computers. Still, it's a fun read and a few of the "rules" have probably slipped into my long-term memory for me to use when I'm not sure how to deal with some distressing social situation.
August 13, 2019
Found in the Oxfam shop and bought on impulse because it seemed like a good idea for a book.
It's quite a fun read, full of nuggets of experimental data from the authors' work studying interpersonal psychology with the use of computers. A lot of their assumptions seem pretty questionable. For example, in some of the experiments, it is assumed that the use of a computer instead of a human interlocutor removes such biasing influences as the desire not to hurt the other person's feelings or the desire to reciprocate a favour. This seems reasonable on the face of it but it's easy to imagine that in the experimental situation, the person taking the test imagines - for example - that the computer they are working on is some experimental model. This is especially likely if the experiments are conducted in an obviously scientific setting. As a result, the experimental subjects might think that by responding to it in a certain way they are helping the scientist develop better software. The more "lifelike" the computer behaves, the more likely this is to happen, and so, in some ways, the computer becomes a proxy for the person conducting the research and its politenesses misattributed. The subject might even treat it as a Turing test and try to see how the computer responds to their human-like input. I think I'd be a bit wary of taking some of their results at face value for that reason. Still, there's plenty of food for thought and each chapter has a summary at the end telling you how to make use of the lessons in a business situation if you trust the conclusions in the first place!
It's quite a fun read, full of nuggets of experimental data from the authors' work studying interpersonal psychology with the use of computers. A lot of their assumptions seem pretty questionable. For example, in some of the experiments, it is assumed that the use of a computer instead of a human interlocutor removes such biasing influences as the desire not to hurt the other person's feelings or the desire to reciprocate a favour. This seems reasonable on the face of it but it's easy to imagine that in the experimental situation, the person taking the test imagines - for example - that the computer they are working on is some experimental model. This is especially likely if the experiments are conducted in an obviously scientific setting. As a result, the experimental subjects might think that by responding to it in a certain way they are helping the scientist develop better software. The more "lifelike" the computer behaves, the more likely this is to happen, and so, in some ways, the computer becomes a proxy for the person conducting the research and its politenesses misattributed. The subject might even treat it as a Turing test and try to see how the computer responds to their human-like input. I think I'd be a bit wary of taking some of their results at face value for that reason. Still, there's plenty of food for thought and each chapter has a summary at the end telling you how to make use of the lessons in a business situation if you trust the conclusions in the first place!
December 4, 2012
Easy to read and fairly interesting for someone who has never taken a psychology course.
The book is basically a collection of studies that use computers as consistent and reliable placeholders for human participants (whereas an actor might ask a question or wince differently in their delivery over 50 performances with different subjects). If you have studied psychology, I suspect many of the conclusions drawn and summaries of other's work may be a retread of some basic principles.
For better or worse, the outcome of the experiments are fairly predictable once the author(s) have framed what they were looking for and how they set it up. This can make some of the reading feel like it states the obvious, though the point of the studies is to affirm or get rid of those assumptions.
The implications of the studies, and how they are applicable to your daily interactions with other people, are fairly concise and clear—the strongpoint of the book.
While there are multiple sections about how to be more likable and credible (versus less trustworthy, or more competant, etc. etc.) the writing and storytelling does not always take it's own advice to heart—or tries it with too much calculation. Many of the personal stories about where the studies came from, or how credible and accomplished the lead writer/researcher is can come off like a calculated and simplified sales pitch…which is, let's be honest, what this book is.
The book is basically a collection of studies that use computers as consistent and reliable placeholders for human participants (whereas an actor might ask a question or wince differently in their delivery over 50 performances with different subjects). If you have studied psychology, I suspect many of the conclusions drawn and summaries of other's work may be a retread of some basic principles.
For better or worse, the outcome of the experiments are fairly predictable once the author(s) have framed what they were looking for and how they set it up. This can make some of the reading feel like it states the obvious, though the point of the studies is to affirm or get rid of those assumptions.
The implications of the studies, and how they are applicable to your daily interactions with other people, are fairly concise and clear—the strongpoint of the book.
While there are multiple sections about how to be more likable and credible (versus less trustworthy, or more competant, etc. etc.) the writing and storytelling does not always take it's own advice to heart—or tries it with too much calculation. Many of the personal stories about where the studies came from, or how credible and accomplished the lead writer/researcher is can come off like a calculated and simplified sales pitch…which is, let's be honest, what this book is.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews