Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's

Customer reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars
20
4.1 out of 5 stars
Format: Paperback|Change
Price:£16.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 21 February 2014
An American survey has revealed that the two most wanted superpowers are time travelling and mind reading.

This is an investigation into how mind reading can be achieved with lots of supporting evidence and references. There are also some challenges to more recently developed theories such as body language (listen instead!) and why you shouldn’t try to “put yourself in the other person’s shoes” (as suggested by Dale Carnegie).

The author maintains that your egocentrism gets in the way of your judgment. For example, you might be surprised for a moment that a blind man can perform tasks at night with no lights because you need the lights on. Tough guy actor Mark Wahlberg was supposedly due to fly on one of the 9/11 hijacked planes and has subsequently said in interviews that there would have been a very different outcome if he’d caught the flight. Sure. We’ve all thought ‘I would have done XYZ, not ABC’. You cannot truly understand a situation (e.g. being involved in mortal combat) unless you have been there yourself or talked to someone who has.

The book continues by suggesting that you can improve your decisions by improving your knowledge about what other people think. Political pollsters ask people how they would vote today, and not some point in the future. It is better to get a perspective than to take a perspective. Just because someone has liked cooking for a long time doesn’t necessarily mean that they want cookery things for their birthday.

The conclusion to the book is refreshingly simple and practical. If you want to know what people are thinking, Ask, don’t Guess.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 April 2014
Enjoyed this book. Very informative. Well written. Succinct and simple to comprehend. Worth reading and I would recommend it .
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 15 March 2017
This book is about understanding the human mind on a practical level.

Our actions are often inspired by our thoughts about what others think. If you know other people's thoughts then our action will be appropriate and correct. Epley tells us, that knowing how others think is the big problem. It is not enough to put ourselves in the position of the other. If we misunderstand their circumstances then this increases misunderstanding of that person's thinking. The major obstacle in this regard is what Epley calls the lens problem' - that we see others through the lens of our own eyes.

The conclusion of Mindwise is that we need to develop layers of introspection. And we need a heavy dose of reality and humility if we are to understand the mind of another. Knowing others' minds requires asking and listening, not just reading and guessing'.

Here are my Kindle highlights:

“The only true voyage of discovery, the only fountain of Eternal Youth, would be not to visit strange lands but to possess other eyes, to behold the universe through the eyes of another.” - MARCEL PROUST

Your brain’s greatest skill is its ability to think about the minds of others in order to understand them better.

More time together did not make the couple's any more accurate; it just gave them the illusion that they were more accurate.

Compared to the mental abilities of other species on this planet, our sixth sense is what truly makes our brains superpowered. The problem is that the confidence we have in this sense far outstrips our actual ability, and the confidence we have in our judgment rarely gives us a good sense of how accurate we actually are. The main goal of this book is to reduce your illusion of insight into the minds of others, both by trying to improve your understanding and by inducing a greater sense of humility about what you know - and what you do not know - about others.

Descartes was so certain about his introspective ability that he staked his own, as well as God’s, existence on it with his famous “I think, therefore I am”.

People who imagined seeing an instance of blatant sexism thought they would be outraged. When people actually saw this very same act, however, they felt virtually no rage at all. Do people not know their own minds?

You are consciously aware of your brain’s finished products - conscious attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and feelings - but are unaware of the processes your brain went through to construct those final products, and you are therefore unable to recognize its mistakes.

In each of us there is another whom we do not know.

People tended to select attractively enhanced images of themselves, thinking they were more attractive than they actually were. This is why most of the pictures taken of you seem to look so bad.

When you don’t know the actual facts about yourself, your consciousness pieces together a compelling story, much in the same way it does when you’re trying to read the minds of other people to make sense of why they act as they do.

Shoppers were first shown four pairs of stockings and asked to pick the best. In fact, the stockings were identical. The researchers found that the ordering mattered: shoppers preferred whichever stocking was on the far right (thereby evaluated last) four times more often than whichever stocking was on the far left (thereby evaluated first).

No psychologist asks people to explain the causes of their own thoughts or behavior anymore unless they’re interested in understanding storytelling.

If you see someone hunched over, you will assume that they are not feeling very proud. Find yourself hunching over in the same way, even if only because you’re filling out a survey on a table with very short legs, and you may report being less proud of yourself and your accomplishments, too.

An illusion that we know our own minds more deeply than we actually do has one disturbing consequence: it can make your mind appear superior to the minds of others.

Naïve realism: the intuitive sense that we see the world out there as it actually is, rather than as it appears from our own perspective.

If the illusions you hold about your own brain lead you to believe that you see the world as it actually is and you find that others see the world differently, then they must be the ones who are biased, distorted, uninformed, ignorant, unreasonable, or evil.

The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them.

Europeans since the time of the ancient Greeks viewed those living in relatively primitive cultures as lacking a mind in one of two ways: either lacking self-control and emotions, like an animal, or lacking reason and intellect, like a child.

It can be easy to forget that other people have minds with the same general capacities and experiences as your own.

Distance keeps your sixth sense disengaged.

Your ability to understand the minds of others can be triggered by your physical senses.

Sit up straight and you’ll feel more proud of your accomplishments.

Furrowing your brow, as if you are thinking harder, can lead you to actually think harder.

Botox dulls your social senses right along with your wrinkles.

Medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) is involved in making inferences about the minds of others. MPFC is engaged more when you’re thinking about yourself, your close friends and family, and others who have beliefs similar to your own. It is activated when you care enough about others to care what they are thinking, and not when you are indifferent to others.

A universal tendency to assume that others’ minds are less sophisticated and more superficial than one’s own.

Ubuntu: “a person is a person through other persons.” Your humanity comes from the way you treat others, the idea goes, not the way you behave in isolation.

You can recognize intrinsic motivations more easily in yourself than in others.

Treat workers with respect, encourage them to think independently, allow them to make decisions, and make them feel connected to an important effort.

I stopped staring blankly and instead looked one of the boys directly in the eyes, smiled, and waved. It was like I flipped a switch in him. I suddenly wasn’t just a foreigner; I was a human being. He flew into a wide-eyed smile and a big wave.

Engage the minds of others more routinely instead of treating nearby neighbors as mindless objects.

Attributing a mind to a nonhuman agent is the inverse process of failing to attribute a mind to another person.

Too fast or too slow and the robot in these experiments was recognized as a mindless machine, but at just the right speed, closer to human speed, the robot seemed more mindful. It started to look like it might be thinking or planning or feeling something.

The concept of a mind can explain the behavior of almost anything.

Religious beliefs are intuitively compelling because minds are intuitive explanations for the behavior of almost anything.

Urban children are more likely to anthropomorphize animals such as cows and pigs and deer than are rural children. Why? Because rural children are likely to have considerably more knowledge about these animals, knowledge acquired through direct experience.

A man on one side of a river shouts to a man standing on the other side, “Hey, how do I get to the other side of the river?” The other man responds, “You are on the other side of the river.”

People are insanely self-conscious. People act like they’re always being watched. Even their house is a performance.

All of the world may indeed be a stage, and it’s easy to feel that we’re at the center of it.

The social spotlight does not shine on us nearly as brightly as we think.

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.

Becoming aware of your own perspective liberates you from it.

“The media” are consistently accused of being biased but never found to favor those making the accusations.

People tend to exaggerate the extent to which others think, believe, and feel as they do.

Knowledge is a curse because once you have it, you can’t imagine what it’s like not to possess it.

Ever tried to get driving directions from a local?

Tappers estimated that listeners would identify the song correctly, on average, 50 percent of the time. In fact, listeners guessed correctly only 2.5 percent of the time.

The lens problem affects anyone who has unique knowledge of anything: the boss who understands a proposal inside out and is trying to convey the ideas to new clients, the inventor who knows precisely why her invention is so important speaking to impatient venture capitalists, or the coworker who is “just teasing” a new hire who knows nothing of the teaser’s friendly intentions. The expert’s problem is assuming that what’s so clear in his or her own mind is more obvious to others.

Consider how they would be judged by someone looking at their photograph.

Knowing how you are seen through the eyes of others requires looking at yourself though the same lens that others do.

Ambiguous mediums like email and texting and Twitter are such fertile ground for misunderstanding.

Those actually receiving the messages, however, could understand the speaker’s intention only when the speaker was on the phone. They could hear the sarcasm dripping from their voice regardless of whether they were actually using their voice or typing with their fingers. Those receiving the message, of course, could hear the sarcasm only through the speaker’s voice and heard nothing from the speaker’s fingers.

Believers might be even more egocentric when reasoning about God’s beliefs than when reasoning about other people’s beliefs.

If God is a moral compass, then the compass seems prone to pointing believers in whatever direction they are already facing.

Politicians talk about what “the people” want: the speaker’s own beliefs.

You can’t judge another person until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes. You hear it so often because the advice is so routinely ignored - by the rich who judge the poor as lazy and incompetent, the sober who judge the addicted to be weak and immoral, and the happy who can’t understand why the depressed don’t just “snap out of it.”

Learn that someone is a member of a different group than you, and you will drop egocentrism and pick up a stereotype to reason about that person’s mind instead.

Liberals favor a more equitable distribution than do conservatives, but by how much? The difference between Democratic and Republican presidential voters was only 3.5 percent. Expecting a 40 percent gap between poor and rich when the actual gap was only 3 percent.

How your brain thinks of groups of anything: Instead of remembering exact details, you extract the “gist” of the information. The “gist” of a group is not its individual members but, rather, its average.

Women tended to think men would be more sexist than they actually were, exaggerating the differences between men and women.

Where our stereotypes go wrong: getting too little information, defining groups by their differences, and being unable to observe the true causes of group differences directly.

Each of us views only a small slice of the world’s people, hears only haphazard bits of highly selected evidence from news outlets or other sources, and talks to only a narrow group of generally like-minded friends.

Stereotypes about majority groups also look to be more accurate than stereotypes about minority groups, simply because larger groups provide more observational evidence than smaller groups.

When you go on a trip, much of your experience involves doing the same thing for long stretches of time - flying, driving, sleeping, standing, waiting, walking - but the story you tell your friends afterward is all about the different things you experienced.

You define yourself by the attributes that make you different.

A man who claims to be searching for himself is looking for a sense of distinction.

Consider the common stereotype that women are more emotional than men: Men and women watching the same emotionally evocative scenes show the same emotional reactions, on average, of the same intensity. Where men and women differ is in the outward expressions of their emotions, with women being more expressive than men. But when people watch these men and women, they infer that women are feeling more emotion than men because they are showing more emotion than men.

There are real differences in what men and women want but even larger similarities.

Those who write about gender are more attentive to differences than to similarities.

The differences among men and women are far larger than the differences between men and women.

Consider politics: people on opposing sides of each issue consistently assume that the other side is more extreme than it actually is. Real partisanship increases partly because of imagined partisanship on the other side. Israel and Egypt were disputing ownership of the Sinai Peninsula in 1976. Instead of fighting a zero-sum battle, the two sides came together and figured out each other’s actual interests. Israel wanted security, and Egypt wanted sovereignty. The Israelis didn’t want the Sinai Peninsula; they just didn’t want to be attacked from it. The solution reached at Camp David was to give the land back to Egypt but to create a demilitarized band along the border. Israel got its safety, and Egypt got its land.

When groups are defined by their differences, people think they have less in common with people of other races or faiths or genders than they actually do.

Ignoring real group differences is every bit as mistaken as exaggerating them.

The elderly can behave differently than the young, blacks differently than whites, and women differently than men because of stereotypes about these groups rather than because of any inherent differences.

The questioner asked difficult questions and, therefore, looked bright. The contestant answered incorrectly and, therefore, looked dim. This is the correspondence bias, inferring a mind that corresponds with observed actions.

Common sense infers that the players are of unequal intellect rather than on an unequal playing field.

Those living in collectivist cultures and those generally more concerned with social norms and interpersonal harmony (such as in Southeast Asia) are, broadly speaking, more likely to recognize when people’s actions reflect the dictates of their roles and environments rather than their corresponding states of mind, compared to people in cultures that place an emphasis on individual freedom and choice.

Most people trust what others tell them even when they might be lying.

The difficulty of disbelieving behavior that we naturally take at face value.

Misunderstanding the power of context can lead us to design ineffective solutions to important problems. If our intuitions tell us that people do what they want, then one path to changing their behavior is obvious: you need to make people want the right things.

Hurricane Katrina: “We’ve got to figure out some way to convince people that whenever warnings go out, it’s for their own good.” The main problem in Brown’s mind was that people didn’t want to leave, and so the solution is to persuade people more effectively the next time. This solution may create a great warning system that leaves just as many people stranded the next time. Many who stayed wanted desperately to leave but couldn’t. They didn’t need convincing, they needed a bus. You can see the offspring of this error in many well-meaning interventions. The poor making unwise financial choices? Roll out a financial literacy program to make their minds smarter.

Much more effective for changing behavior is targeting the broader context rather than individual minds, making it easier for people to do the things they already want to do. To keep people from littering, add additional trash cans, and then to pick up existing trash that otherwise makes it look like everyone else is littering.

Paying students and teachers for improved performance was completely ineffective.

Assuming that a person’s mind corresponds directly to his or her actions misses the importance of context in shaping behavior.

As the number of bystanders increases, the likelihood that any one of them will help you actually decreases. The ideal number might be two: one to help you and the other to call an ambulance.

The tools at our intuitive disposal are simplifying heuristics that give imperfect insight into the minds of others. The mistakes they lead to create predictable errors that keep us from perfect understanding.

Provide simple shortcuts for understanding the minds of others, but they come at the cost of oversimplifying them.

After I mention that I’m working on a book about mind reading, my conversational partner assumes I’m writing about either body language (learning to read facial cues or physical gestures) or perspective taking (learning to imagine yourself in another person’s situation). Which approach does the scientific evidence support? Neither.

To predict how the storyteller was feeling at each moment, those who could only see the storyteller were significantly less accurate than those who could only hear the storyteller. Emotions were carried primarily on the speaker’s voice.

“Microexpressions,” very brief flashes of emotion lasting less than one-fifth of a second and shown either on the entire face or in just a small part of it: The scientific credibility of claims about micro expressions is currently weak, at best.

Most of us are better liars than we think we are.

Perspective taking consistently decreased accuracy. Over Thinking someone’s emotional expression or inner intentions when there is little else to go on might introduce more error than insight.

Perspective taking exaggerated the perceived differences between the groups, thereby increasing distrust and enhancing selfishness.

What’s the best way to get someone a gift? The science is clear. You don’t try to adopt another person’s perspective and guess better. Instead, you adopt a different approach. You have to actually get the other person’s perspective, and perhaps the only way to do that is to ask what they want, or listen carefully while they drop hints, and then give it to them. That turns out to be widely applicable wisdom.

Nearly everything you know is secondhand: things you know only because someone told you.

The best predictor of empathic accuracy appears to be verbal intelligence. Knowing others’ minds requires asking and listening, not just reading and guessing.

Getting your partner’s perspective by asking them directly works much better than taking your partner’s perspective by using your imagination.

Getting people to tell you their minds is the best overall solution for understanding them.

The main barrier to getting perspective is that others won’t tell you what you’d like to know. They lie, mislead, misdirect, avoid, or simply refuse to divulge the truth. The vast majority of these lies are told by a small number of chronic liars. Keep your cynicism in check. Many people will tell you the truth if you ask a direct question in a context where they feel at liberty to give an honest answer and you are open to hearing.

The main reason people lie is to avoid being punished.

Instead of pressuring suspects until they crack from intimidation, fear, and pain, the new and more effective interrogation approach is one that establishes rapport and reduces fears of punishment. People were more willing to admit to having done something immoral when confronted a few minutes after the event - when their fear had subsided a bit - then when questioned immediately after the incident.

It makes no more sense for a pollster to ask you why you’re voting for someone than it does for a doctor to ask you why you’re feeling sick. And so pollsters instead ask about what people think.

People know their feelings right now more accurately than they can project what they’ll be feeling months from now. Generally focus questions on the present rather than the future. Getting perspective fails if your direct questions turn speculative.

If you have to reiterate someone else’s point to their satisfaction, then you’ll find out if you’ve understood.

Understanding other people requires getting their perspective and then verifying that you’ve understood it correctly.

Technique for creating fast friends is to have two strangers disclose private thoughts or memories to each other.

The secret to understanding each other better seems to come not through an increased ability to read body language or improved perspective taking but, rather, through the hard relational work of putting people in a position where they can tell you their minds openly and honestly.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 24 June 2017
This is different from a lot of popular psychology books because it doesn't set out to entertain with clever and quirky experiments. This is a book with a moral heart, which is apparent in the opening section about the author's adoption of two African children. As other reviewers have written, there is no fail safe method for understanding anyone else. The truth is, as human beings, we can barely understand ourselves. Even trying to see a situation from someone's point of view doesn't always work because we are influenced by our stereotypes. The only way to know what another person is thinking or feeling is to ask them, and if that won't help you make a sale or get a date, that isn't the aim of the book, which is serious and thoughtful.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERon 21 March 2014
Our actions are often inspired by what we think others think. Knowing the thoughts of other people accurately naturally means that our action will be appropriate and correct. Epley tells us, however, that knowing how others think is the big problem. That is not new or something we do not already know. In this book, Epley goes deeper into this problem and by understanding it, he hopes that his readers will be better placed to act correctly. It is not enough to put ourselves in the position of the other, for if we misunderstand his circumstances that will only increase our misunderstanding of that person's thinking.

It also appears axiomatic that we need to first know our own minds. Much has been said about the virtues and merits of introspection, and the wisdom of the man with deep personal insight. But apart from the illusion that introspection makes us believe that we know how our mind works and what we know, it also has the disturbing consequence of making us feel superior to the minds of others.

Epley explains the importance of perception and how that works when we evaluate another human being. He provides examples of how our thinking gets warped when we dehumanize another. Our moral and ethical behaviour get distorted if we think of others as less than human, and that anything non-human has no claim to respect.

This book is about understanding the human mind, not from a neurological perspective or even a psychological perspective (although the psychology of mind is the underlying basis), but on a practical perspective deriving from observations we can readily make of our interaction with other minds. We are repeatedly cautioned not to create stereotypes, but Epley shows us that in many instances, stereotyping works. This is not an endorsement of prejudice but a valuable lesson in knowing how our minds assess and analyse data when we are not consciously doing it. The author explains in what circumstances stereotyping works and when they do not. For example, stereotyping works better the more information we have - `Brilliant statisticians can look stupid when they conduct analyses on incomplete data'.

The major theme in this book is that we need a heavy dose of reality and humility if we are to understand the mind of another. The major obstacle in this regard is what Epley calls the `lens problem' - that we see others through the lens of our own eyes. Whenever we are unable to answer a question, such as, whether a Nigerian might enjoy raw tuna, depends on whether we see it from the lens of the Nigerian or our own - or that of a Japanese or an Eskimo. Citing the e-mail and God as examples, Epley explains that short, incomplete e-mail compels the reader to interpret the things unsaid or inadequately explained. The reader does this by transposing his own mind into the mind of the writer in guessing the full meaning of the text, or in understanding the gaps in the text. Similarly, believers consult God in deep and serious matters such as moral conduct, gay marriage, and abortion. The problem, as Epley points out, God does not answer opinion polls and send express answers. Believers thus see God's position on such matters through the lens of the believers' own eyes.

Epley reports that experiments using neuroimaging on neural activity showed that when a person reasoned about his own beliefs his neural activity pattern differed from the instances when he reasoned about other people's beliefs. However, the researchers could not tell any difference in neural pattern when a person was reasoning about his own beliefs and when he was reasoning God's beliefs. The experiments were then tweaked so that the subjects' thinking was manipulated (by showing them one-sided arguments). The subjects' neural pattern changed in line with the manipulation, and more importantly, their reasoning as to God's beliefs also fell in line with their manipulated thinking.

Another trap in deception lies in the mistake of reading another person's action as a reflection of that person's thoughts. This form of misleading thought process has many variations ranging from film stars falling in love with their co-stars after playing through a love script in the film, and jury members whose decisions follow in line with the evidence that they had been told to disregard.

There are thus many layers of introspection that we should develop, and if we cross each layer with a strong dose of humility, that will help us to `recognise that there is more to the mind of another person than we may ever imagine.' We often buy presents for our spouse believing that we know what they want, only to realise that we were wrong. `Knowing others' minds requires asking and listening, not just reading and guessing'.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 8 March 2017
The general message to take from this book is thus; don't underestimate what others are thinking, don't assume and don't label. The only way you will ever know what is on another person's mind is if you put them in a position where they are comfortable enough to tell you truthfully. Although this is the basis of the book, Epley debates this point and it's contrasting views in an open and engaging way with a mixture of quoted studies, personal anecdotes and his own experimental research.

It infuriates me that some books in this popular science/psychology genre don't cite their research by way of references. This title, however, has thirty pages of credible references separated by chapter, each with authors notes. Epley really has done his homework on this subject which makes for an enjoyable and informative read.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
One of my pet hates is people who try and tell me what I’m thinking when I say something – or tell me my reasons for making a particular remark or performing a particular action. My invariable response is ‘Don’t try and tell me what is going on in my head – you don’t know unless I tell you.’ Human beings are prone to thinking that everyone shares their beliefs and thoughts and as a result we misjudge people, especially those close to us on a daily basis. As a result we end up quarrelling for no real reason.

This book provides many examples – academic, anecdotal and historical – of human beings misunderstanding each other with frequently disastrous consequences. We never seem to learn from our mistakes and continue to think we are excellent at mindreading and understanding precisely how others think and believe. What we continually fail to realise is that not everyone is like us.

The book looks at stereotypes and how damaging they can be in our relationships with others. It also looks as anthropomorphism and the human habit of endowing other species and inanimate objects with human emotions and characteristics.

While the book quotes many academic studies it is written in a way which will appeal to the general reader as well. There are notes on each chapter and an index. If you want to understand how you misinterpret other people then read this book.

I received a free copy of this book for review.
22 Comments| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 March 2014
Nicholas Epley is an outstanding professor in Chicago Booth's MBA Program, whose class I was very fortunate to attend. He now published a very insightful, interesting and easy-to-read book which explains how our mind works and which distortions prevent us from achieving an effective outcome. In the same way that his classes were inspiring and thought-provoking, the book is scientifically rigorous while fun to read.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 June 2015
Epley argues that we are overconfident in our understanding of ourselves and others. We don't know how other people are judging us - we don't know how attractive we are or how we are doing at a job interview. We also don't know how we will behave - people who said historically in the US that they would not serve non-whites generally did so, when put to the test by non-whites turning up for service in a historic experiment. Turning to the explanation of all this, Epley points out that we're not all that good at introspection or perception - we jump to conclusions about the world and we confabulate about ourselves. We can dehumanise other people at a distance from us - most notably it's easier to kill other people when you can't see the whites of their eyes (in war). And we can humanise the non-human - when we have a temperamental piece of machinery or car. We tend to see ourselves as at the centre of the world, and accept more than our fair share of credit or blame for joint enterprises. We worry too much about what other people think about us - they probably don't think about us much at all. When it comes to other people, body language merely 'whisper' and phone conversation we find a lot easier than email to pick up the nuances of communication. There is of course empathy (e.g. with our children when they hurt themselves) and also active reflection about what other feel (as with most doctoring) as well as blanking out the feelings of others.We use stereotypes to reason about other people when we don't know much about them. And we tend to ignore contextual factors when interpreting other people's actions - maybe the people who didn't flee Hurricane Katrina had large families and no transport, for example..

As to what we should do to improve matters, Epley doesn't go much for trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes - this leads to just thinking the worst about what they'd do so much better not to try. Nor is body language the key, in his view - micro expressions don't really seem to do the job, he says, drawing on experimental evidence. What he does recommend is asking other people where they are coming from and what they want - Kennedy and Khrushchev managed this during the Cuban Missile Crisis and if it works for them it works for anyone (better than anything else).

Actually at this point I remembered where we came in and the hoteliers who'd said they would not serve non-whites (when asked) but actually did so on autopilot when it came to it - which rather detracted from my confidence in the one 'take-away' message in the book.

Interesting then, but not much help in everyday living - except to make us aware of some of our shortcomings as everyday mind readers.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 May 2014
At first glance i kind of thought this book would only be about winning, or getting your way. Where ever i got that idea from, i was wrong. Maybe because it was adressed as "others" and not me. Sure, you can look at it that way too. But it is not like some how to be rich in 30days or how to find the perfect partner.

I have 75 books on my shelf all about self help, phycology, etc those lines.
And this will be on my top 5 of books which have thaught me and helped me the most.

I find it humble, funny, surprising, very insightful, and sometimes it stirs me up because how on earth have i overlooked something so obivious.
It does not go into outerspace trying to explain something, with symbols, mystic or over complicated graphs and drawings.
It is also about you, and not only others.
It does not try to point fingers at anyone.
Stays within subject.
everyone will be able to read it, it has Little or no jargon (i dont mind jargon. but it is somewhat a relief to be without it) if it does it will usually be explained.
I like that it gives as many answers as it asks, i hate it when all a book does is to say.. "think about it.. think about it.. what does it mean.." And not providing anything to acually think about, or start your thinking befor moving to the next page where your asked a multitude battery of questions again only to be somewhat more confused.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)