Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts [Paperback]

I'm currently halfway through this book, and have to say it's one of the most interesting books I've read for a long time. It is absolutely jampacked full of references to psychology studies and examples from history which are illustrative of human nature.

The core of the book centres around the idea of cognitive dissonance, where the brain has to reconcile two contrasting viewpoints. For example the self belief that " I am rational and intelligent" with the action " I am slowly killing myself by smoking". The dissonance could be resolved by concluding that actually I am neither rational nor especially intelligent, but of course no one wants to conclude that! So instead I look for levers to reduce the gap in the other direction. Smoking helps me to relax, and stress is a big killer, smoking helps me to keep my weight down and obesity is a big health problem. And so on......

that idea in itself is not especially remarkable, but what is remarkable is the wealth of studies that investigate the impact of cognitive dissonance upon our day-to-day lives. Like for example how students who are made to conduct a rigorous initiation event prior to assessing the quality and usefulness of a recorded debate are far more likely to rate the debate as interesting and informative rather than students who are not required to go through such an initiation. The cognitive dissonance here is between the gap "I'm a rational and intelligent person" and "I've put myself through all this hard work to listen to this debate". Rather than conclude that we have wasted our time, which calls into question our intelligence, we instead resolve the dissonance by subconsciously overrating the usefulness or importance of what we have just listened to.

If this sparks your interest, then this book is for you. It is a fascinating insight into human nature and will help you understand both other people and more importantly yourself a lot better.

For clear, engaging explanations of psychological research, this is one of the best books you can get. Cognitive biases are like optical illusions, distorting our decisions, memories and judgement. This book focuses in particular on self-directed biases: the distortions of memory and explanation that make sure that each of us is the hero, not the villain, or our own life story.

When corrupt police frame innocent people, how do they justify to themselves what they are doing? When a couple divorce, how can two former lovers come to hate each other with such passion? When political or military mistakes lead to thousands of deaths, how do the decision-makers live with themselves? The authors take academic research (on cognitive dissonance, stereotypes, obedience and more) and apply it to a wide spectrum of issues from the White House to Mel Gibson's racism.

It is eye-opening to read how malleable and unreliable memory is, and how easy it is to create feedback loops of increasing certainty from just a glimmer of evidence. An appalling example is the recovered memory craze of the 80s and 90s, which is discussed at length. The book isn't entirely downbeat, even though it explains how prosecutions, marriages or therapy sessions can go terribly wrong. It shows how easy it is for good people to hurt others, but that we can avoid these traps with humility and self-questioning. They call science "a form of arrogance control".

A theme running through the work of these two psychologists is how science can address real problems of human conflict. That warm, humane spirit pervades this book and I think anybody curious about the science or the solutions would benefit from reading it.

Mistakes Were Made (and not by me), has been written by two authors with backgrounds in social psychology and fuelled by a particular interest in cognitive dissonance, where the brain tries to reconcile two contrasting viewpoints-in an attempt to maintain a sense of overall personal integrity.

Exemplars of cognitive bias (do these ideas morph into propaganda?) are experienced as saying something but believing something else. You are given a gift by a friend which you really don't like (-he recognizes this hidden dislike under the out ward expression of, "oh, that's great-I've always wanted one of these...!" and both now are equally confused...) cognitive dissonance distorts our decisions, our beliefs, memories and judgments.

The authors focus on self-directed bias-the distortions of memory and explanation, making sure that each of us is fortunately always right in our opinions. Reading this material suggests that we should instinctively distrust those who try to convince us they're always right. There's something inherently puzzling and potentially dangerous about someone claiming absolute certainty, particularly when it comes to human nature. There's no place for the concept of absolute when describing human emotional life or behaviour, though it can be found happily residing in the physical sciences.

Experience tells us that if we listen carefully to those who profess certainty about their views of the world, there is certain baggage that travels with them. They intrinsically exhibit an excessively controlling personality distrusting their left hemisphere's powerful links to intuitive and social bonding skills. Conversely they may be impressed by the certainties promised by their right hemisphere dominance. They are drawn to logic, deductive and mathematical reasoning principals. They are probably deeply insecure under the surface-may I reconsider this please-they are most definitely deeply insecure under the surface.

The same logic applies to prejudice and bias. One man's certitude is another's propaganda. We ought to admit to both traits when they appear in our own reasoning. It's probably best just to laugh at yourself when exhibiting these characteristics, as they're irredeemably hardwired into our nervous system's matrix? It's human to show bias or preference to a degree. Certainly, they're frequently unhelpful and can be a block to deep insight, but they underpin necessary parts of our emotional and psychological development.

By definition you cannot see anything unless you exclude something else. That's the human part of the process of seeing and understanding that you see. You have to reject more than you take in, but perhaps by accepting this psychological fact, you let the sunshine in.

`The fact that an opinion has been widely held, is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Bertrand Russell, Mathematician & Philosopher (1872-1970)

Mistakes Were Made is an interesting read, with the authors examining the subject of intellectual reasoning and hypocrisy- when we delude ourselves by explaining why everyone else can be wrong in thought¬- but not ourselves. Every sort of person can be afflicted by this state-politicians, journalists, medical researchers-there's a comment that Danish investigators examined 159 clinical trials published in the British Medical Journal. This shows(P49) that if you compare studies that oblige the researchers to declare a conflict of interest, or otherwise, the published results indicate `significantly more positive results toward the experimental intervention' (ie the drug on trial compared to its competitor) This title should appeal to those who are interested in human psychology and people in general.

Thoroughly recommended reading, and for those that do enjoy this subject, then I can direct you to Kluge by Gary Marcus, which looks at the same subject but from a more anthropological viewpoint. The haphazard construction of our minds may show the inherent social value in deceit and the biochemistry of aggression. Consider why our brains don't epitomise a `perfectly evolved organ', which has been proposed by some. More of a work in progress.