Range: Generalization vs. Specialization

We live in an age where specialists appear to have more money and respect.  Parents encourage their children to pick a specialty that they can master and make more money.

Tiger Woods from the world of sport and Yo-Yo Ma from the world of music provide examples of the advantages of mastering a skill at an early age.

We are told to "think outside the box"  The reality is in an age of specialization we work in relatively small boxes and too often try to resolve concerns inside the box.  There are in fact lots of boxes, but we are unaware of most of them  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/06/thinking-in-new-boxes_24.html

James Flynn, from the University of Otago in New Zealand has studied the challenges of thinking.  "They < students> must be taught to think before what to think about."  

"Sunk costs" discourage people from changing course.  No one wants to admit they wasted their time and money.  Really it is never a total waste to learn what is not working.

Andy Ouderkirk, an inventor at 3M with a multitude of patents noted that over years communications have greatly improved.  "When information became more widely disseminated it became easier to be a broader than a specialist, to start combining things in new ways."  

Charles Darwin wrestled with different theories to explain the information he had gathered.  He had come from a religious background and started from that base.  However he had read Charles Lyell, a geologist that claimed the earth was much older than supposed and that changes were gradual.  This idea prompted him to explore other possibilities leading to the theory of evolution.

There are quite a few pages devoted to the Challenger case study.   On January 27, 1986, many experts gathered and discussed the information they had been given and gave the go ahead.  On January 28th, an O ring failed to seal adequatley  and an explosion killed all seven crew members.  The decision could have been avoided if the decision makers had asked for more data instead of settling for what was given.

There is a great deal of thinking from many different sources that prove that although we need specialists we also need generalists.  Also it is better to learn a variety of things to find a match and then specialize.

The Upright Thinkers

A personal quest is to better understand how we reached our present level of civilization and our unique role in the world.  Leonard Mlodinow has tackled this in an illuminating and humorous manner.  The main theme is that it took a long time, so long we cannot really comprehend it.  In reality it took many small steps to reach our state of being with each step breaking down into smaller steps.  Sir Isaac Newton has been quoted "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

A bit about the author, Leonard Mlodinow.  His father had been imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp in Poland and as a non scientist is used as a reference point a couple of times.  Leonard himself is a physicist, but has also been on the writing team for "Star Trek; the Next Generation" and "MacGyver."

 The title reflects the monumental change when our ancestors operated on four legs to taking a two legged approach to life.  The disadvantage was that we were not able to move as fast as our predators or our prey.  On the other hand, we had the use of hands and we were able to see further.  From there we evolved further.

We fancy ourselves as modern thinkers, but take for granted the countless efforts (often opposed by the majority) to develop our understanding of the world.  The author thinks the first step was turning stones into cutting tools. 

At early stages humans were generalists meaning each person did everything.  Advancement came with specialization.  Agriculture and domestication of animals developed.  In turn this inspired humans to better understand nature. Another innovation was developing irrigation which the author considers a true wonder requiring much labor using crude tools.  All this led to a surplus of food.  Another step would be to develop a bureaucracy to keep track and a militia to protect resources and then to a priest-king.  There was no separation of church and state.  

Rulers needed information.  Languages developed and writing provided another breakthrough allowing information to spread over distance and time.  Arithmetic needed to keep track of supplies and to measure a wide range of things.  The concept of laws developed.  I would say this signaled the recognition of collective rights.

The author draws our attention to the city of Miletus in today's Turkey.  About 600 B.C. they had a population of 100,000 with an agricultural base and a trading network.  They had colonized as far as Egypt where knowledge of geometry was learned.  Nature was being understood better with one example being eclipses were not the result of Gods.  Questions are being asked.

Aristotle had been a student of Plato and went on to become a tutor to Alexander (the Great).  He returned to Athens and wrote his famous works.   Greek science was advancing, but when Romans took over science declined while engineering advanced.  I had read that the Etruscans are the ones that  gave the Romans a head start with engineering projects, but thinking themselves more practical had less interest in science.

After the Roman Empire fell, the Arabs were fascinated with Greek science and even made their own contributions.  Eventually Europeans re translated many Greek texts to Latin.  Muslim fundamentalists gained control of education and the Arab contributions to science declined.  The printing press opened up communication for all sorts of ideas. which led to paper being more available. 

Galilei Galileo was the next scientific breakthrough noted by Leonard.  Scientific method requires a questioning mind.  He developed a telescope and was able to see craters on the moon and moons around Jupiter.  Perhaps more importantly he developed theories about motion that helped Isaac Newton develop more accurate theories.

Isaac Newton takes Galileo's work to another level with his three laws.  He also invented calculus.  Driven by curiosity and attention to detail.  Although not traveled very much he did correspond extensively.  

The physicist author switches attention to chemistry which focuses on matter.  At one time philosophers thought everything was made up from only four elements--earth, air, fire and water, not realizing that each of these elements are composed of more basic elements.  Dmitri Mendeleev broke down elements with known facts and recognizing that there were many unknown facts.  With persistence spread over many years  this Russian developed the periodic table.  He knew there were gaps in the table, but was able to predict the characteristics of elements and even weights not yet discovered.  The periodic table was first published in 1869.

Biology was another major science field.  Back in 1664 Robert Hooke had been able to identify small components for all living creatures and plants that he called "cells" as they reminded him of monastic cells.  Cells had the ability to copy themselves.  This led to conflicts with established religion.

It took a deeply religious man, Charles Darwin to advance our understanding.  It a series of fortuitous flukes he went on the famous Beagle voyage and gathered much material which he shared with naturalists who gave him feedback.  It was years in developing his theory of natural selection that led us to more modern concepts of evolution.  It was more years before he felt comfortable to release his work and ever since there has been opposition.

Knowledge has advanced through the efforts of thousands of curious people gradually given more resources and the information from predecessors.  Newton and Darwin were not aware of atom structures, but along with many others prepared that path for people like Albert Einstein and Max Planck.  Read more on Einstein:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/03/einstein-by-walter-isaacson.html

The author notes that even scientists can get too comfortable with what they know and resist accepting new ideas  Fortunately there seems to be a good supply of curious people willing to ask further questions.  

I found that book difficult to read at times, but also compelling.  I have skimmed over much information, but assure you there is much meat to be discovered.  Non scientists take a lot for granted, but all of us would benefit from a better understanding of what makes up the universe and how knowledge has been accumulated.  Leonard Mlodinow is a gifted writer who makes it all seem to make sense.  The future is unknown, but there is much information to uncover.  Personally I have a greater understanding of what happened before me. 

How are we advancing today?  Teachers are essential;  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/11/what-teachers-make-by-taylor-mali.html

FARSIGHTED

We make dozens of decisions every day, but some decisions are too complex to be resolved without study.   There are many books that advise http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/08/decisions-are-path-to-success.html  Johnson delves into what he calls "complex decisions," the ones that can change our lives and deserve careful deliberation.

As he recommends stories as a path to understanding Johnson tells us a few examples.  The decision process to kill Osama bin Ladin was very complex and serious.  The Abbotabad  decision benefited from previous mistakes.  We are taken back to a mysterious bit of information that only indicated that an important person might live at a compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan.  Although it was early speculated that this might be where bin Ladin was holed up, the danger of being wrong was critical. At each step of the process multiple opinions are sought and teased out with many choices being eliminated.

Loss aversion is a greater fear than greed for gain and needs to be guarded against.  At some point in a complex decision we try to calculate the risks of something not working out as anticipated.

Uncertainties are certain to be found in complex decisions or as Donald Rumsfeld would say, there are unknown unknowns.  One way of dealing with them is to cast a wide net involving other contributors.  As much as practical scenarios can be constructed.  Simulations might also be tried such as the Pentagon rehearsing possible attacks on Abbotabad that modified their plans.

You might recall there was no buildup to the announcement of a successful mission.  They had also taken into account some of the consequences of the assassination.  They had booked an alternative supply route to Afghanistan a year in advance.  They had taken precautions to minimize the martyrdom of bin Ladin.

Charles Darwin was contemplating marriage, but had many concerns about what he would have to give up.   We know that he adopted a version of what has come to be known as the Benjamin Franklin method.  Other than him actually marrying we don't know his conclusion to the decision.  Later he faced another decision when his daughter Annie was threatened with a little understood disease.  Unfortunately the options were not well studied and she died forcing changes in both his and wife's lives.  He became less religious and open about it while he his wife found comfort in her religion.

Returning to Darwin to illustrate other points.  What surprised me the most was that the decision to publish his theory of Evolution took very long.  He wanted the fame that he expected, but not the notoriety that would ensue and not only create intense religious hostility, but upset his wife.  His wife eventually accepted her husband's lack of religiosity, but in the end Darwin was forced to publish his theory as a rival threatened to publish his similar theory first.

Another set of decisions came from reading novels in particular "Middlemarch." George Eliot wrote "Middlemarch that contains decisions with factors that clash with one another.  Towards the end Johnkson refers to the life of George Eliot who was born Mary Ann Evans.   Unlike Darwin who tried to decide between marrying or not marrying George Eliot chose a third option which was to live together with her partner outside marriage.  Her decision involved her writing career and her political ideals.  An earlier blog dealt with the importance of using stories to persuade people to make a decision:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/06/tell-to-win-offers-winning-formula.html

Throughout the many examples in the book, Johnson maintains that diversity of viewpoints is critical, obviously such as including both genders, age range, a variety of ethnic, experiences, etc.  A single viewpoint is often unable to see a full range of choices.  He criticizes gerrymandering as it groups people with a predominant ideological perspective. 

My take on Premier Doug Ford's decision to cut the number of Toronto city councilors.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/07/move-over-donald-trump.html 

Johnson suggests three complex issues that deserve careful analysis before making a decision: long term;  contact with extra terestial beings, immortality and artificial intelligence.  For some people the downsides are minor but in reality there are serious consequences to making a wrong  choice.  Scientists are now cautioning us against trying to contact beings from outside our planet as they would likely have superior technology and perhaps unkindly intentions.  Other scientists are concerned about artificial intelligence overcoming humans.  Immortality seems like a natural goal,that no longer seems impossible, but  it has difficult to assess consequences.

Of course for many of us we need a little help in making some decisions.  Sometimes we need a little help or we would like to "nudge" someone off the fence.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/01/can-nudge-help-you-make-better-decisions.html

In the acknowledgements he admits that he starting taking notes almost ten years before publication.  A lot of decisions along the way.  Everyone is compelled to make important decisions--what career path to pursue, who to marry, to find a purpose in life.  

HOW TO THINK

It is true.  You already know how to think.  Do you think you could think a little better?  Perhaps a bit pretentious, but actually Alan Jacobs does have a few good thoughts on the matter.

We focus on making better decisions while Jacobs focuses on process.  He alludes to Jonathan Haidt who used a metaphor of a rider on an elephant to substitute for the conscious and unconscious mind. (read more at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/10/are-you-interested-in-happiness.html Jacobs says thinking flows from our situation.  We cannot help the many details of our environment, but at some stage we can make some conscious decisions that will have long term impact.  A key element is the group of people you choose to be active among.  It is pointed out that if that group is resistant to outside ideas they are not the ideal base to develop thinking.

Jacobs believes a crucial factor in our ability to think is to socialize with open minded people.  He talks of the Repugnant Cultural Other (RCO), those other people who are not worth considering.  He himself is a Christian and is conscious that that automatically makes him a RCO in many groups and he is on his guard not to dismiss anyone.  An example he gives regards the Westboro Baptist Church which has gained the reputation of extreme homophobic activities.  To them homosexuals are unacceptable, but Jacobs learned of one member who stumbled on a homosexual and eventually found they could no longer spout hate language at them.

Thinking is thought of as solely an intellectual exercise, but Jacobs uses the example of John Stuart Mill to point out the shortcomings of this assumption.  John Stuart Mill was brought up in an overly rational manner and he became adept at languages, mathematics and similar endeavors, but felt his life was flat.  He discovered emotions through poetry.  He was one of the founders of Utilitarian thinking who felt that every decision depended on which choice would create the greatest amount of happiness.

Logical thinking depends on what your goal is.  One interesting example given was of Wilt Chamberlain, considered one of the best basketball players of his time.  His one weakness was foul shooting to the point of embarrassment.  Someone persuaded him to shoot his foul shots underhanded (like the high scoring Rick Barry) and his percentages improved.  But he stopped doing it and experts asked why.  Of course they assumed his goal was to score many points and win games which to some degree was true, but underlying a more potent goal.  He has bragged that he had sex with several thousand women and Jacobs suggest that was his higher goal.  Underhanded shooting was not considered masculine.

One example of open minded thinking was the Yale Political Union, a debating group with a different focus.  In debating a goal is to break or convert the opposition with the force of your argument.  Debates are usually decided on points for skillful arguing with public conversions rare.  While a debater is admired for the ability to break an opponent in the Yale Political Union they admire the person who is broken as displaying open minded thinking.

In most groups there is an inner ring.  In many cases any member who asks an uncomfortable question is rejected.  In a family (which can include pets, very close friends) the individual is not inter changeable.

Jacobs points out that those who agree with you will not always be in charge.  We all need to abide by the same rules, otherwise we risk losing a peaceable social order.  To deal with our opponents we should seek the most fair minded.

A suggested format for discussing an issue is to let one person make their case.  The second person to summarize that case to the satisfaction of the first person.   Only then the second person makes their case and this time it is summarized by the first person.  Before going forward each person must demonstrate they understand the other's case.  We all need honesty and flexibility to adjust our views accordingly when the facts change.

Sunk costs are known to be a problem with financial decisions.  As more money is committed to a project it becomes more difficult to move to a different solution even when the facts call for a change.  The same concept can be applied to ideas as they can become entrenched.  Jacobs refers to Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" where some people become so tied to a specific philosophy that everything opposed is either distorted or dismissed.  Social media is often used to fortify a viewpoint, but there is also the possibility of expanding to a different viewpoint.  Essentially if the in group you belong to is intolerant to outside ideas it is not a good place for thinking. 

Jacobs brings up the practice of classifying, the science of which is taxonomy.  Charles Darwin who spent a lifetime discovering and classifying thousands of species developed the idea of lumpers and splitters.  Lumping occurs when one entity is added to another.  A modern example might be the LGBT movement is one that continues to add new components.  Splitting is setting up a new category.

To deal with opposing view-holders Jacobs suggests you learn their RCO's moral dialogue.  Humanize problems whenever practical.  People make conclusions based on their circumstances but as circumstances change a change in conclusions is possible.  While we are looking outward Jacobs points out we need to examine our own motives--why does it suit us to think the way we do?

In conclusion I would like to quote Jacobs:  "I can't promise that if you change your mind you won't lose at least some of your friends...  There likely are commonalities.... Do not think of your old friends as losers if you used to think the same."

If you need to think about it more before committing to buying or reading the book check out this website:  https://howtothinkbook.com

Deep Down Dark

First heard of this book praised very strongly on NPR where the speaker was adding it to their Morning Edition Book club  Otherwise the topic was already appealing, but her enthusiasm hooked me.  The ordeal of 33 miners stuck 700 metres (2,300 feet) below the surface got the world's attention.  1.2 billion people around the globe watched the rescue.

A reader expects to hear all sorts of heroic inspiration, but Hector Tobar, a Pulitzer prize winner gives a lot more.   There is no communication for 17 days.  Above the mine there is no certainty that anyone is still alive.  Down below they have no idea if rescue attempts are being made.  After communication is established the dynamics change. but we are able to reconstruct the first days.

The men who were trapped were typical of many miners.  It was the most money they could earn and they were willing to take the risks.  They were mostly poorly educated.   Some had girlfriends as well as wives.  Many had had drinking problems.  One had been a professional soccer player on Chile's national team

When they first became trapped they tried to organize themselves and ration their resources, but in fact a small number stole some of the food.  They drank water used for mining which was less than ideal but helped them survive.  At one point although mostly Catholics, they let a Jehovah's Witness lead prayer meetings, but eventually they broke up.  The faith did help them get through to when communications opened up on day 18.  They also found dark humour joking about death as one way of coping.  Hector explained Spanish profanities which was also part of their coping strategy.  One miner was from Bolivia, but not seriously discriminated against.  After the rescue, the Bolivian Prime Minister visited the miner.

Above ground a lot of decisions and manoeuvring.  Offers come from different parts of the world.  Drilling and rescue experts are called in and determine three different approaches.  Chilean politicians in some cases try to get publicity out of the ordeal

A psychologist was called in as well as other doctors to advise on the best way for the miners to handle their isolation while rescue efforts continue.   NASA psychologists were consulted as they were familiar with handling isolated people.  Food is sent down, but at first carefully controlled.  Some medical procedures are established with one very loosely qualified miner.  Early on they are promised large amounts of money which prompts an interest in motor vehicles.  Many do not have driver's licences and a request goes out for test information.

The men are able to communicate not only with rescue people, but also their families.  One miner asked for his allotted time to be split between his wife and his girl friend.

Charles Darwin is referred to as he had traveled through the area on his way to Galapagos.  the land around the mine for a great distance is described as pretty desolate.  The mine was in the Atacama Desert where Darwin walked.  Chile is such an odd shaped country, 4,300 kilometres north to south but only 350 kilometres at its widest west to east part.

After the rescue they are offered all sorts of trips and many do go to Disney World, Israel (for holy sites),  Dominican Republic.  For many the adjustments are stressing, but others are able to move on.

We all look at this experience as miraculous, but the author has given us a good understanding of the dynamics below and above ground.  The author was able to interview all the miners and much of their families and rescuers and got several perspectives on what really happened.   A good read because of the complexity of the rescue.

The Darwin Economy

Robert H Frank contends that while Adam Smith is credited as the founder of economics it is really Charles Darwin who is more important.  His concern in this book is about hard right wingers who to paraphrase, are too short sighted for the good of everyone.

Referring to our current economic crisis that started in 2008, he deplores that the rich seem hell bent on lowering expenditures and keeping taxes lower for them.  They claim the deficit is the most critical problem, but many readily admit they hate taxes, big government and regulations.  Robert points out that in fact if roads and bridges are not repaired when men are idle and borrowing is cheap these repairs will cost even more as time goes by.  There are no winners, not even rich people who think they are avoiding another "theft" of their property.

Throughout the book Robert gives examples of short sighted thinking that hurts not only poor people, but also rich people. Perhaps more importantly the author points out some of the psychology and philosophy that erroneously support the resistance of the right wing.

For most humans happiness seems related not so much to what we absolutely have, but how we compare ourselves to our neighbours, relatives, work mates and friends.  Not every issue is "positionally" important, but for many people they measure themselves with such factors as the size of their house, the prestige of their car and with scarce items.  Often the really rich bid up prices on some of these items and in turn that can force up pricing all the way down the line.

As part of the argument Robert uses the example of hockey players choosing not to wear helmets when given the chance, but at the same time would like to see a regulation forcing all players to wear helmets.  They want an edge, but they realize there is a risk.  On another field, armament agreements are made because both sides realize they cannot slow down arming up which gets very expensive and risky.

In fact the rich are in a similar spot as the hockey players and the statesmen.  If they gain more money by lowering taxes they will just bid up the price of scarce desirable goods.  They will also lose out on desirable public goods such as improved roads and bridges, education, science, etc that are necessary and desirable to keep pace with the rest of the world.

Robert assumes that ideologues will not be moved by his arguments, but hopes that rational libertarians will appreciate his perspective.  He realizes progressives think that rich people are greedy and cold hearted, but Robert thinks (and backs up his ideas with solid logic) that it is not just greed in absolute terms, but short sighted greed in relative terms.  There are a lot of cliched myths that are trotted out as truths to be beaten down.  Examples include: "the government is the problem";  "Taxes are theft".

Many rich people dismiss luck, attributing their success to hard work and talent.  The author says there is an element of luck in everyone's success, whether it is genes, nurturing or timing.  Small differences are magnified in a lot of winner take all situations.  Many pursue the large payoffs, but only a few are fortunate to achieve the goals while many worthy pursuits fail to attract talent. Entertainment, major league sports, hedge fund selling attract more interest than science, engineering, education.

He has a host of suggestions that seemed based on the idea that anything that is taxed is discouraged, so we should tax harmful things.  His critics say that is social engineering and he really doesn't deny it, admitting that all laws are forms of social engineering.  We have laws against homicide and theft as an attempt to reduce them.  His favorite idea is a consumption tax that is calculated by reporting income and also reporting savings. The difference is considered consumption and can be taxed on a progressive scale.  More conventionally carbon taxes and sin taxes are suggested.  Those who really want what is taxed will not be regulated out of doing so, but if they value other things to be purchased will quite willingly find ways to reduce taxable expenses.  At the same time we will have public goods paid for.

If you haven't got time to hunt up the book and actually read it, you might find this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8j1e-oT0UQ to a video very informative and it might persuade you that maybe an extra effort would be worth it.

This book is another inspiration from Steve Paikin on TVO. I don't want to rely on Steve, but he and his team are very good in their selection of worthy topics and how to bring  out interesting perspectives.

Cracking Creativity

I would like to start off by admitting that I was inspired to read this book by a blog of David Olynyk's. I work in an ad agency, but have nothing directly to do with creating ads or ad campaigns. Ideas have to come from somewhere so I thought this would lead to a better understanding. You might say that the sources of ideas are all around you, just look.

My notion of creativity starts with the fact that there is nothing new. After reading Michael Michalko's book (on Kobo) I think he would agree. All the great genius's are better than the rest of us at re arranging old things and/or discovering things that were waiting to be discovered. Improving our creativity involves re arranging what we already know and discovering relevant things we aren't aware of.

There are a lot of good points in the book, but I would start with the ending. The author studied Charles Darwin in great detail. One event that caught his interest was that after Darwin's famous voyage he presented an expert with a lot of details of finches he had discovered and recorded in the Galapagos Islands. The expert recognized them as finches, but was flabbergasted that there were such obvious differences that he dismissed the information as useless. Darwin didn't identify them as finches, but was able to take this vast amount of information to help him formulate the theory of evolution.

The author's conclusion was that most of us try to fit new information into our framework of information and only when we are proven wrong do we look for alternatives. Creative geniuses always look for alternatives. It seems to me the author's purpose in writing this book is give us some methods used by creative people to develop new ideas.   Do not confuse intelligence with creativity as they are two different mind sets.

Creative geniuses like Leonardo da Vinci had specific ways of looking at things to look for alternatives to conventional thinking. The author adapted some of these ideas for procedures that could be enacted individually. He was also a strong advocate for the idea that groups could do ever better and adapted these procedures for groups.

There is a smorgasbord of ideas. Most of them revolve around the idea that we have a natural tendency to think in the same manner as we have always thought. To find a creative solution to a problem we need to break the mould.

We need to train ourselves to recognize a solution amongst things we were not expecting. An example is Alexander Fleming who doing another experiment noticed that unfortunately some mould had developed on another experiment. Before throwing it out he further noticed that near the mould was something unexpected. This eventually led to the discovery of penicillin.

Often a solution starts with re-stating the problem. Try to get at the basic problem. (eg are we in the car business or the transportation business?).  Ask questions. Some creative geniuses like to translate the problem to a diagram recognizing that words are not always adequate.

Getting back to the basic idea of re arranging what you already know one formula that is useful is labeled SCAMPER. S is for substitute, C is for combining, A is for adapt, M is for magnify, E is for eliminate and R is for re-arrange or for reverse. Many procedures revolve around the idea of identifying different elements, playing around with the concepts, changing them in different ways and then re-combining in different ways. Throw in random seemingly unrelated concepts. There are endless variations on procedures, but it does seem to boil down to breaking down the problem, the challenge to elements and mixing with other elements.

We are always fighting our natural tendency to fit things into what we already know. That is where the many different procedures can be helpful. If one seems too far fetched look for another. As you get involved with other challenges you can try another approach. You can improvise your own procedure.  Groups can add a dynamism, although you have to be concerned with group pressures to conform. They work best when the individuals play off one another instead of always going in the same direction.

Creativity helps solves problems and also helps give a personal unique stamp. I read this book on Kobo which is a fairly new experience for me, however I think it might have been too static to really appreciate the thoughts which are flowing in all kinds of directions. Michael has lots more to say on creativity and you can keep up to date at: http://creativethinking.net/WP01_Home.htm

"YOU ARE NOT SO SMART" by Derek McRaney

I learned about the book from a Twitter reference and then learned about the website. It has an underlying premise that I have encountered in a number of other books that the unconscious brain has a lot more control of your "conscious" decisions than you are conscious of.

Derek McRaney breaks it down in the book to 48 misconceptions and demonstrates the underlying reason for these misconceptions. Basically your brain uses short cuts. We are forced to make countless minute decisions every day (or every hour for that matter) and could be paralyzed without some easier (evolution tested) way to simplify matters.

Free will is an abstract concept that Derek refers to towards the end of each chapter suggesting the more you understand of what you don't understand the better your choices.

It is not my intention to cover every misconception, but a few stood out in my mind.

The human brain has a deep desire to be right all the time. Often you have to stretch to achieve this result. Amazingly facts fade and get distorted to fit the current viewpoint.

One quote in the middle from Charles Darwin, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." David, without disagreeing with Darwin would suggest knowledge might help you make better decisions.

A theme in one chapter is about learned helplessness. Studies have been done in nursing homes, prisons and homeless shelters comparing situations where little details are taken care of by staff to where the inmates are given some responsibilities. Choice makes people happier.

The human mind seeks meaning in random events. McRaney takes a dig at the idea of a soul mate. Carl Sagan, the example he uses was very happy to share this planet with his wife, but knew it was not fate.

A lot of experiments have been done on first impressions. Unfortunately they are hard to overcome. A similar theme is anchoring where your judgment can be affected by objects or ideas presented prior to a particular decision. Associations that can be made deliberate can also affect your judgment.

Procrasination is a normal phenomenon. You need to outsmart your brain with such things as prompts, positive associations, other people to remind you and do not rely on your will power.

He points out that using groups to develop new ideas is fraught with danger. The key really is to convince everyone there are not negative consequences to expressing their real thoughts. The problem is aggravated if the group contains anyone with the ability to fire the others. Another danger in groups is that many individuals loaf relying on others to speak and do the hard thinking.

One practical bit of advice is that venting can actually increase your anger. It has been proven that a better strategy is to take a deep breath. Often, as an example when someone vents their frustration on a punching bag their anger rises to a higher level.

I would recommend this book. As humans try to understand the world, they need also to understand themselves. To get a more up to date perspective on David McRaney's thinking check his website: http://youarenotsosmart.com/