SubscribeWhat I’m Reading: Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)
I finished reading Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson this past weekend and all I can say is, “Wow”. This was an awesome book, quite the eye-opener. The premise, which nobody can deny, is that our biases affect how we look at new information. We see this all the time in the nutrition world, where those that have staked their livelihoods on a specific dietary regimen do all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain away new data that goes against their existing ideas. And it’s not just the “low fat” camp that does it.
Tavris and Aronson discuss all types of dissonance. For instance, one that I’ve pointed out to people many times is the area of politics. Once you associate yourself with a particular party, generally Democrat or Republican, you automatically and unconsciously, discount the views of the other party as “them” and give extra weight to those of “your” party as “us”. One particular study showed that Republicans/Democrats rated a welfare plan proposed by “the other party” when they thought it came from a member of their own party. Once someone aligns with a group, opinions of that group are automatically rated higher, regardless of their logic and regardless of the logic of opinions from opposing groups. We all know those people that would vote for Charles Manson so long as he was running for the right party.
Another example was that the interrogation techniques used by many police departments result in innocent people confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. Even when these convictions are later overturned on DNA evidence, the officers and prosecutors refuse to admit that they could have been wrong. They explain away the DNA evidence and assume the person is guilty of something.
The bottom line is that we all have areas of bias and blindness. It is inevitable as a higher thinking being. The key is to understand your biases (for example, I’m biased against low fat diets) and understand how they affect new information that comes your way. It affects politics, nutrition, marriage, friendships, family relationships, international relations, everything. I highly recommend this book.
If you enjoyed this post, share it on StumbleUpon or Health Ranker (or both!)
- Other Stuff You'll Enjoy:
- What I’m Reading: Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal
- What I’m Reading: Good Calories, Bad Calories
- What I’m Reading: The Blind Watchmaker
- But I’m Too Old To Exercise
- What I’m Reading: The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved
Print This Post
Filed in Living Well, Eating Well 8 Comments so far
Dave in Ohio on 22 Apr 2008 at 10:12 am #
I agree Scott. I read it a few weeks ago. Since then, I’ve watched a couple episodes of Court TV (now TRUE TV) that are perfect examples of what they wrote concerning the justice system.
In one case the first suspect’s DNA did not match blood found on the victim, but even after finding the victim’s blood on another suspect’s sweater, they refused to believe it, trying to cover their error by suggesting the first suspect might have thrown the sweater in a dumpster where the second then found it. Unbelievably, they prosecuted the first suspect. The defense had to show in court old pictures of the second syspect wearing the sweater in question prior to the crime in order to prove their client’s innocence. And even then, the prosecutor and DA would not admit their errors! CYA at its finest.
Highly recommended for those (that’s all of us) who rigidly believe what we read and see without critically examining the facts with regard to our own prejudices and prior beliefs.
Neal W. on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:19 am #
I just finished this book over the weekend, and I agree 100%, the book is very eye-opening. I found some nice gems about politics (you mentioned one). All pro-war people should read the section on conflict. It gives me some powerful arguments for my belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Terry on 23 Apr 2008 at 8:07 am #
Neal W. on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:19 am #
“All pro-war people should read the section on conflict. It gives me some powerful arguments for my belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy.”
Practicing a “non-interventionist foreign policy” is not always a good thing. While I concede that it is always difficult at best, it has served American and world interests quite well on occasion. Our intervention in the european war of 1939-1945 comes to mind as one such occasion. Without our intervention it can be successfully argued that Hitler & Mussolini’s brand of socialism/fascism/eugenics would have spread worldwide with beastly consequenses for untold millions.
Neal W. on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:25 am #
Terry,
One could argue that it was U.S. intervention in WWI that lead to WWII because it allowed the punitive Verailles Treaty to wreck the German economy - leading to Hitler’s brand of nationalism and for lack of a better term, “hard fellings.”
Besides, you just stated the effects of non-intevention would of had worldwide consequences in terms of socialism/facism and eugenics. Obviously, you mean to say that the axis powers would of won the war without our help and came to take over America afterwards. Of course a non-intervetionist still believes in defensive warfare. So, I could make the case for intervention without contradicting non-intetventionism since you just conceded that the spead of the axis powers was a physical threat to the U.S. Besides, the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, which made the conflict, on our part, defensive.
Terry on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:18 pm #
Neal,
My point was specific to the european war. Neither Germany nor Italy attacked us yet we went to war with both. A good intervention I say.
Had we waited until they invaded our shores, having just defeated Russia and England, they would have been a far more powerful opponent and we would have had lost two important allies making our victory doubtful.
Had we not intervened when we did we may all be speaking German today, all except of course the Jews, Catholics, Blacks and Gypsies who would not be speaking at all.
Neal Winkler on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:57 pm #
I don’t think the axis powers would of been more powerful than before the war, not unless the conquered populace for some reason became complacent and went along with them. How can you be more powerful after having fought a bloody, costly, and destructive war that killed large swaths of your population and left your buildings in ruins?
Two, this sounds like a similar fallacy from the cold war years that was used to justify the Vietnam war. “If we don’t stop so-and-so then there will a domino effect and the whole world will be taken over.”
Three, socialist economies are much less productive than free economies. If Hitler had taken over all of Europe it would of been a socialist economy. Socialist economies eventually fail because such a system is inherently chaotic and burdened by bureaucracy. It would fail the same as communism. In fact, it probably would of failed worse because it would of had a bigger territory to manage, and hopefully we wouldn’t of given aid to prop them up like we did the Soviets.
Four, non-interventionism isn’t pacifism, it’s “mind your own business,” and only fight wars when your own countries national security is at stake. If you think that the U.S. national security was at stake (which you obviously do since you said we would all be speaking German), and if it really was, then that negates the premise of non-intervention.
Non-intervention would then apply to WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Kosovo, and Iraq II. Not to mention all the little things like the Contra affair, overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953, supplying arms to Saddam, supplying arms to Al-Queda in Afganistan, ect. ect. ect.
Terry on 24 Apr 2008 at 11:28 am #
They (axis powers) would have aquired armaments and other resources (spoils of war) in their victories over England & Russia that would have strengthened them.
I totally agree on the folly of socialist economic systems over the long term. The evidence of it’s horror is overwhelming (but the utopians keep trying). However, in the short term, say one to five years which is the period of time I’m thinking here, a command & control economy would be the ticket for throwing off the additional productivity necessary to bolster the axis war machine.
The crucial questions on intervention boil down to: When is our “national security at stake”? and Will a low scale early intervention save us from a large scale late (and possibly unsuccessful) defense? The downside risk of being wrong about early intervention (treasury, blood & international relations) must be weighed against the huge potential risk of inaction (economic collapse, military defeat, massive civilian casualties and enslavement to name a few).
While I agree with your assessment of some of the military interventions you reference (given the advantage of 20-20 hindsight) others argue less for non-intervention. If I had been the decision maker at the time of say Iraq I or II, and had the security (economic as well as physical) of 300 million Americans as my primary mission, I think I would have been more inclined toward early action.
Scott Kustes on 28 Apr 2008 at 6:42 pm #
Neal and Terry, good discussion and thanks for keeping it friendly. Political discussions are ones that I definitely keep my eye on, but so long as the discussion is kept at a level such as this one, I’ll let them continue.
Cheers
Scott