Rate this book

What Makes Your Brain Happy And Why You Should Do The Opposite (2011)

by David DiSalvo(Favorite Author)

3.7 of 5 Votes: 1

ISBN

1616144831 (ISBN13: 9781616144838)

languge

English

genre

Nonfiction

publisher

Prometheus Books

review 1: This book was OK. It focuses on backing up common human fallacies with research. There seem to be a lot of studies and articles on cognitive bias, lately. One of the anthems of pop sci appears to be “you can’t trust your own brain!” I wouldn’t say this was specifically a “self help” book (it even labels itself as “science help”), but I’m guessing that most readers picked it up for this reason. That’s one of the reasons why I read it. I was looking to understand exactly why I could get stuck in self-destructive thinking and fail to achieve goals I set. Was it my own brain somehow “selfish?”I suppose I got some answers from the book. The brain likes closure, preferring certainty over uncertainty. It tries to conserve energy, which is why it�... more�s averse to change. Having taken Psychology 101, I was already familar with some of the confirmation bias findings. Shortcuts the brain makes which can lead to error.There is a large recap section at the end, where the author concludes the findings. But it doesn’t provide any strategies or tips for fighting against these biases. Perhaps being aware of them enough to second-guess decision making is enough of a strategy. Was I expecting some kind of special step program to permanently train the brain to be more concerned about the long term? Perhaps that’s the reason why much of the dubious “self help” genre is considered too good to be true...
review 2: This is a long review, so I divided it into two parts: essential information at the beginning, and auxiliary information afterwards.Pros: -easy to read-interesting topics.-some chapters are ok. A few misrepresentations of data, but at least ample reference to studies and professional opinions.Cons:-like any good lie, it's a mix of truth and lies, with insufficient evidence. This makes it a very misleading book-He makes wild claims that do not correspond to actual consolidated knowledge, without the sufficient evidence (relevant research) that such diverging claims would require. -Hypocrisy: first chapter is all about confirmation bias, when in fact his entire book is based on whatever and only whatever confirms him bias, without any hint of research done to look into where others disagree, thus falling for the first human failing he mentions.-Anecdotal evidence: he uses anecdotes not just to better explain a phenomenon but as proof of its existence, which any half bakes scientist knows is anti-scientific. Also, he uses "thought exercises" in the same way. He has experiments all over, but often they are very basic, or not relevant.-Very little space given to explaining whatever research he cites as "proof". Example, he says that people are impulsive and tend to not think about future consequences when there's present gratification to be had. To this, there's a note in the appendix citing a research paper about impulsive eating. Now is that really something that you can generalize upon, even if intuitively it seems right that people are impulsive in many things? Anyway, he doesn't actually mention this aspect in his chapter.-there's more but I think the idea is clearIf you want to read good books on similar subjects, try authors Dan Ariely, Ian Leslie, Micheal Shermer or books like "Mistakes were Made (But Not By Me)". Also, if you want an example of a book promoting new ideas in a proper way without being too dry, read Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender."If you're a psychologist/neuroscientist/etc I suggest you don't read this. If you're a layman, I implore you not to read this.disclaimer: I am referring to the first 3 chapters. Of the others, either I didn't read, or do not know enough about the subject to judge whether he's saying the truth or not. In fact he does later mention a few experiments, but then draws conclusions of epic proportions. I didn't want to keep reading because knowing that the chapters of subjects I'm familiar with were wrong, I did not want to fill my head with wrong information of things I didn't know yet, nor automatically dismiss said information in case he's actually right.Other disclaimer: I take it as a personal insult when authors of any kind claim that the human mind doesn't work properly. Sure if you only point out the mistakes we make it may seem like that, but I'll have you know that we get by just fine most of the time (if you hadn't noticed). It's like saying "our visual perception is crap, it's not a faithful representation of reality, just look at all the optical illusions we fall for". And the rest of the time? Do we blunder into walls because we don't perceive distances and sizes properly? Do we mistake our white cat for our gray cat because the first is standing in the shade, the second in the light? personal disclaimer #2: I was heavily influenced by the poor work done in the first two chapters. Later chapter proved much better, but I really just couldn't trust him anymore.Further points for anyone not convinced:-He presents your brain like it's a separate entity from yourself. Cognitive Science 101: you ARE your brain. Either you believe in the soul and everything that intuitive dualism implies, or you believe in materialism, and that only matter exists (which is what science believes). -vagueness. "Lots of us" "Some people" "a good number" "more than half" "almost everyone". Often he doesn't use actual percentages (at least some chapters get it, others don't), despite referring to specific studies that were done (and therefore have said percentages available), and instead use those vague expressions, some interchangeably (like the last two). "Many people are internet dependent": is that many because it's more than you'd want, or is it a big percentage of internet users, like 70%? You can use "many" if you're trying to assure someone that they're not the only one, not when you're explaining a psychological phenomenon!-typical view point of "now things are worse than ever", like "now solitude is more common then ever." You really think it's more common now then when 80% of the world lived in the country? And even if it is, whose data are you basing this claim on? that well renowned psychologist of the 13th century?-data distortion. Between 102%, 96% and 88%, which two would you group together? Apparently 102 is "much more" than the other two for Mr. DiSalvo.The main problem is that his references are other psy-pop books rather than university level textbooks/articles, so it's like watering mineral water (in the end, there's almost nothing left). If you want the real information, read his "bibliography". All those books are very legible. less

Download links for: What Makes Your Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite

Advertising