Book Recomendations
Hi all,
Another poster started <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/his-dark-materials.php">their own review</a> for a set of novels that they'd liked. I'd like to suggest a book from a different genre - academia.
Here's an <a href="">amazon link</a>, reference and the publishers description:
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). <i>Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts</i> (1 ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
<blockquote>Why do people dodge responsibility when things fall apart? Why the parade of public figures unable to own up when they screw up? Why the endless marital quarrels over who is right? Why can we see hypocrisy in others but not in ourselves? Are we all liars? Or do we really believe the stories we tell?
Renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson take a compelling look into how the brain is wired for self-justification. When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right—a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong.
Backed by years of research and delivered in lively, energetic prose, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-deception—how it works, the harm it can cause, and how we can overcome it.</blockquote>
I haven't finished the book yet, but from the first 80 pages, I think many readers may enjoy this topic, as several have expressed interest in response to the way modern politics and news coverage are often practiced.
From what I've been checking in the book's references, this is indeed well researched, and introduces the reader research base that the authors use to explore everyday behavior.
The writing is entertaining and open - sort of like S J Gould, Oliver Sacks or Lynn Margullis. My only (and growing) criticism of the book is that it lacks a bibliography and relies on endnotes. This makes it difficult to track down studies by a cited author because you have to check for the author's name in each chapter's endnotes. I doubt most readers will have a problem with this, but it is annoying.
If there's interest in this sort of book, please let me know and I'd be happy to suggest others on the neurology, psychology and sociology of belief justification and conceptual change.
Another poster started <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/his-dark-materials.php">their own review</a> for a set of novels that they'd liked. I'd like to suggest a book from a different genre - academia.
Here's an <a href="">amazon link</a>, reference and the publishers description:
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). <i>Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts</i> (1 ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
<blockquote>Why do people dodge responsibility when things fall apart? Why the parade of public figures unable to own up when they screw up? Why the endless marital quarrels over who is right? Why can we see hypocrisy in others but not in ourselves? Are we all liars? Or do we really believe the stories we tell?
Renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson take a compelling look into how the brain is wired for self-justification. When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right—a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong.
Backed by years of research and delivered in lively, energetic prose, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-deception—how it works, the harm it can cause, and how we can overcome it.</blockquote>
I haven't finished the book yet, but from the first 80 pages, I think many readers may enjoy this topic, as several have expressed interest in response to the way modern politics and news coverage are often practiced.
From what I've been checking in the book's references, this is indeed well researched, and introduces the reader research base that the authors use to explore everyday behavior.
The writing is entertaining and open - sort of like S J Gould, Oliver Sacks or Lynn Margullis. My only (and growing) criticism of the book is that it lacks a bibliography and relies on endnotes. This makes it difficult to track down studies by a cited author because you have to check for the author's name in each chapter's endnotes. I doubt most readers will have a problem with this, but it is annoying.
If there's interest in this sort of book, please let me know and I'd be happy to suggest others on the neurology, psychology and sociology of belief justification and conceptual change.
Advertisement
Well that went well - apparently the editor doesn't like my html tags. :-)
Sorry for the botched post. The two links are:
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/his-dark-materials.php
and
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212864178&sr=8-1
June 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the format, you can't use any of your own code in the Reader Blog box, you must use the text editor buttons furnished. So pasting must be done from a format without code as well, for example, it won't take MS Word well. (A nonsensical software decision--someone decided to put the text editor in the blogging box, but leave it off the comment box--if anything, should have been vice versa, since people often write up blog posts beforehand while they comment on the spur of the moment.)
June 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blog posts have to be formatted differently from replies. You need to use those buttons at the top of the editing window when composing a blog post. For replies, you can embed HTML.
No, it doesn't make sense.
June 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neurology! Sacks style, but not him because I already know all this work. I know there are other old TPMCafe members lurking out there who have similar interest. Whether your post would last long enough for them to see it now that they visit more infrequently is another question.
P.S. Others interested in same, a suggestion to watch for the work of
Jill Boite Taylor. Fascinating stuff.
June 7, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So humans are actually genetically engineered (so to speak) not to admit mistakes? Kinda makes sense.
Now how do we teach people that admitting to one's own mistakes is a good thing?
June 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
art and codegen,
Thanks for the tips - I'll use the built-ins next time.
If you liked Sacks, you may want to check out
Ramachandran, V. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1998). Phantoms in the Brain. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company, Inc.
He spends a lot of time on phantom limb problems, but he has a really interesting chapter on denial of paralysis. You may be familiar with stroke/brain injury victims who insist that they aren't partially paralyzed but just 'don't feel like' moving their arm right now, or even insist that they are moving their arms when they aren't.
A lot of these patients spontaneously 'recover' in that they will switch to acknowledging their paralysis after a few weeks. He's found a way to induce (temporarily - about half an hour) patients to acknowledge their paralysis and talks about the neurology that controls the denial. Good stuff - his writing style is also very open and approachable.
Yah, though we're not unique - cats are a prime example. :-) I think we elaborate it a lot more than other species thanks to language and culture, but I'm also pretty sure that the neural paths that control this are common to mammals. I'd guess that neurologists will have a much better grasp of this over the next 20 to 40 years. Exciting time to do research in this area.
Good question. There's a whole literature on conceptual change that I could get into, but the upshot seems to be that forcing people to confront a contradiction doesn't work - they just dig themselves in deeper. You need to approach it sideways, and allow them the opportunity to see changing their minds as an advantage.
An example of what I mean by sideways. My father in law is a die-hard conservative. Only watches Fox News, listens to Limbaugh religiously for the entire program every day, including repeats. He's also a PC user, and is kind of 'religious' about Windows too. The last time I visited, he was talking about how 'Rush said X', as though that ended any discussion. I pointed out that Rush also says that Macs are a better platform than PCs, and asked him why he didn't follow Rush's lead there.
Not sideways enough to prompt any change - no surprise, but a good example of how to approach the problem.
Thanks for the comments, and sorry I wasn't able to respond yesterday when you wrote them.
June 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink