Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error [Paperback]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Kathryn Schulz's style is very clear and involving, often humorous and never patronising; it was a page-turner. Her assertions are well supported, illustrated with examples, and the text is littered with footnotes and endnotes, providing interesting asides, citing research studies and referencing the classics for further reading.

What struck me was how 'being wrong' encompasses all human experience: religion, love, science, crime, comedy, navigation, mental illness, art... As sure as we can believe and experience anything, we can be wrong about it (apart from whether we exist at all--we can't be wrong about that).

Whilst the book takes as its theme that we are all fallible, it explores the 'optimistic' view of this trait, and the role it plays in those things which make us human. It would cheapen this book to class it as 'self-help', but if you've ever made a mistake and felt a bit bad about yourself, you'll find the arguments within of great benefit.

This book makes me want to have studied philosophy or psychology. On almost every page, I learned to look at something in another way. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

This is a provocative and thoughtful book about how being human is about being wrong - and what we can learn from that. It is written in an elegant and chatty style so that, although underpinned by research and a wide range of references, it is very readable. My only complaint is that it could have done with editing; it is too long and could have easily lost 50 pages without any damage to the essential arguments.

Schulz has had a great idea for a book here - discussing in a positive way how we are often wrong & why we have trouble admitting it to ourselves to the point of getting terribly wound up about being contradicted over the silliest things (the overheard argument over cake which can be read in Amazon's 'click to look inside' preview above is cringingly familiar). Of course, our opinions & beliefs can be wrong, not to mention our choice in partners, who often start off as The One & end up as anecdotes which end with 'what on earth did I ever see in them?'. But worryingly, even our memories can be wrong, incidents being slightly edited each time we recall them. Yet Schulz is terribly relaxed about all this, claiming that we shouldn't beat ourselves up over it & should just accept it as an inevitable consequence of having a human brain & - ironically - an integral part of determining what is 'right'.

But where Schulz herself goes wrong is in not corroborating her opinions. While I was hoping for facts thrown up by recent scientific studies which seems to be the format which many book like this use these days, she mainly presents us with her her opinions in isolation, which could therefore simply be... well, wrong. Ok by her own logic, that does not in itself invalidate them but without any proof, she could be wrong about the way we are being wrong. Or something. And the science of wrongness & how astonishingly bad our own perceptions, judgements & senses really are IS indeed out there, as hit upon in other 'philosophy' books from the seriously intellectual Undercover Philosopher to the more accessible & entertaining A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives.

Don't get wrong, this is an interesting & fun book but I couldn't help feeling that her musings were no more right, wrong or insightful than my own. But then it was her book which provoked my own musings in the first place. Also, it's not entirely about her opinions - she does outline conversations she's had with experts, including a neurologist. So SOME facts are included but for me, nowhere near enough. And Schulz does have a very engaging writing style. I'd still recommend this book but it'd be nice if she'd been able to find something more substantial to hang her hat on. I imagine a lot of people to whom this book will appeal may think that we can't hang our metaphorical hats on anything, at all, ever anyway but frankly, I think that's a step too far & reckon they are... I'll give you a clue, it begins with 'w'.

There's much to ruminate here & it refreshingly doesn't take itself (or its subject) too seriously. But then you shouldn't really take my word for it because perhaps I'm... Well, you know...