Scan barcode
mahir007's review against another edition
5.0
I have just started to read it , but I already think that it deserves the 5 stars
branch_c's review against another edition
4.0
This book makes a well-presented case that people are not as gullible as they're often claimed to be; rather, what appears to be gullibility is a tendency to follow "evolutionarily valid cue[s]" (p. 73) - including, importantly, the behavior and persuasive efforts of others in our environment.
While there's a lot of concern about fake news and propaganda, the evidence presented here suggests that people are not typically fooled or convinced to act against their interests. Rather, they choose to believe, support, and join groups that already offer something advantageous to them. When the leaders of those groups promulgate information in an effort to persuade people to behave in certain ways, it's not necessarily the information that causes the behavior change. Instead, the information provides a justification for people to behave in ways that they were already inclined toward anyway. Regarding the sentiment attributed to Voltaire that "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities", Mercier points out that "this is in fact rarely true. As a rule, it is wanting to commit atrocities that makes you believe absurdities." (p. 202)
I learned at least a few things from this book, including the fact that in some languages, the grammar rules require that you "specify how you acquired a given piece of information." (p. 168) Mercier also puts forth a theory explaining the proliferation of blatantly obvious email scams. He points out that "while sending millions of messages was practically free, responding to them cost the scammers time and energy." Therefore, they may have made the messages "voluntarily preposterous. In this way, the scammers ensured that any effort spent engaging with individuals would only be spent on the most promising marks." (p. 251) Hard to say whether this theory is true, but I haven't heard any better explanation for what we observe.
Mercier allows that it still makes sense to combat authoritarianism, misinformation, and other sources of false beliefs, but suggests that we shouldn't expect this to prevent people from making "wrong" decisions that they see as being advantageous to them. The points made here are both heartening (misinformation isn't as damaging as we might have thought) and depressing (people will behave badly anyway as long as it's in their interest to do so).
The one thing I take issue with is the idea that we need to recognize and be sympathetic to people's unstated desires and goals, rather than whether they actually believe what they profess to. While there may be social value in this, it seems to me that we need to take what people claim to believe at face value - it's both patronizing and unfair to do otherwise, and claim that we know what they "really" believe. It seems obvious to me that it should be socially unacceptable to profess something known to be false in order to gain some personal advantage.
In any case, that's a tangential issue; Mercier's main points about trust and belief are solid and intriguing, and this book is a clearly written exposition of those points.
While there's a lot of concern about fake news and propaganda, the evidence presented here suggests that people are not typically fooled or convinced to act against their interests. Rather, they choose to believe, support, and join groups that already offer something advantageous to them. When the leaders of those groups promulgate information in an effort to persuade people to behave in certain ways, it's not necessarily the information that causes the behavior change. Instead, the information provides a justification for people to behave in ways that they were already inclined toward anyway. Regarding the sentiment attributed to Voltaire that "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities", Mercier points out that "this is in fact rarely true. As a rule, it is wanting to commit atrocities that makes you believe absurdities." (p. 202)
I learned at least a few things from this book, including the fact that in some languages, the grammar rules require that you "specify how you acquired a given piece of information." (p. 168) Mercier also puts forth a theory explaining the proliferation of blatantly obvious email scams. He points out that "while sending millions of messages was practically free, responding to them cost the scammers time and energy." Therefore, they may have made the messages "voluntarily preposterous. In this way, the scammers ensured that any effort spent engaging with individuals would only be spent on the most promising marks." (p. 251) Hard to say whether this theory is true, but I haven't heard any better explanation for what we observe.
Mercier allows that it still makes sense to combat authoritarianism, misinformation, and other sources of false beliefs, but suggests that we shouldn't expect this to prevent people from making "wrong" decisions that they see as being advantageous to them. The points made here are both heartening (misinformation isn't as damaging as we might have thought) and depressing (people will behave badly anyway as long as it's in their interest to do so).
The one thing I take issue with is the idea that we need to recognize and be sympathetic to people's unstated desires and goals, rather than whether they actually believe what they profess to. While there may be social value in this, it seems to me that we need to take what people claim to believe at face value - it's both patronizing and unfair to do otherwise, and claim that we know what they "really" believe. It seems obvious to me that it should be socially unacceptable to profess something known to be false in order to gain some personal advantage.
In any case, that's a tangential issue; Mercier's main points about trust and belief are solid and intriguing, and this book is a clearly written exposition of those points.
lanzino's review against another edition
3.0
I listened to this book. I found it a bit hard to follow at times, but probably because of not being a native english speaker and the narrator being a bit too fast. However, short after finishing the book, the message about the cost of not trusting vs actually trusting has started germinating some thoughts, so I can actually say that it is having an influence on my behaviours.
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
3rd read:
This was my third time reading this book, and it’s still one of the best I’ve read about why we listen to certain people and trust them. Hugo debunks a lot of myths about gullibility, and the book helps you understand why people listen to certain figures when the rest of us can clearly see the person is lying or sharing bad information. This book is an excellent source if you’re looking to learn more about human reasoning and behavior. I still have a bunch of questions as I continue to be interested in this topic, but this book always answers most of them.
2nd read:
This is one of my favorite books, and I had to read it again. Each day, we’re flooded with information and have a ton of conversations, but why do we trust who we trust? And are we naturally gullible or skeptical? During times of science denial, misinformation, and people having a tremendous amount of reach on social media, we should all understand how trust works. Mercier breaks this down in such a unique way blending evolutionary psychology with actual data, and he argues that we’re naturally skeptical. I think one reason I love this book is because it’s the only one that doesn’t seem to fully embrace the truth default theory, and Mercier has extremely strong arguments about how we get to a place of trusting people. Throughout the book, he also debunks myths about misinformation on social media and other pieces of conventional wisdom that doesn’t have strong scientific backing. This was my second time reading this book, and I’ll most likely be reading it again.
This was my third time reading this book, and it’s still one of the best I’ve read about why we listen to certain people and trust them. Hugo debunks a lot of myths about gullibility, and the book helps you understand why people listen to certain figures when the rest of us can clearly see the person is lying or sharing bad information. This book is an excellent source if you’re looking to learn more about human reasoning and behavior. I still have a bunch of questions as I continue to be interested in this topic, but this book always answers most of them.
2nd read:
This is one of my favorite books, and I had to read it again. Each day, we’re flooded with information and have a ton of conversations, but why do we trust who we trust? And are we naturally gullible or skeptical? During times of science denial, misinformation, and people having a tremendous amount of reach on social media, we should all understand how trust works. Mercier breaks this down in such a unique way blending evolutionary psychology with actual data, and he argues that we’re naturally skeptical. I think one reason I love this book is because it’s the only one that doesn’t seem to fully embrace the truth default theory, and Mercier has extremely strong arguments about how we get to a place of trusting people. Throughout the book, he also debunks myths about misinformation on social media and other pieces of conventional wisdom that doesn’t have strong scientific backing. This was my second time reading this book, and I’ll most likely be reading it again.
theciz's review against another edition
challenging
informative
medium-paced
4.25
An interesting book about gullibility and trust - how these mechanisms work in human societies and challenging some common myths about crowd behaviour, credibility, the influence of social media, etc. I can’t quite take as optimistic a view as Mercier does, but there’s a lot of well reasoned arguments, and a lot to think about. This is pop psychology, but doesn’t suffer for it. Will be interesting to pick Canetti back up after this.
ahmad11407's review against another edition
5.0
"السذاجة المطلقة تتنبأ بأن التأثير سهل. وهذا غير صحيح
ومع ذلك ، لا ريب في أن الناس ينتهي بهم الأمر أحيانًا إلى الاعتراف بأكثر الآراء سخافة.
ما يجب أن نشرحه هو الأنماط: لماذا يصعب الوصول إلى بعض الأفكار ، بما في ذلك الأفكار الجيدة ، بينما تحظى الأفكار الأخرى ، بما في ذلك الأفكار السيئة ، بشعبية كبيرة"
هل الجماهير غبية والناس ساذجة وسهل التحكم فيها، طبيب النفس الاداركي التطوري في كتابه لم نولد بالأمس يحاول بالأدلة العلمية دحض هذه الابنظرة الخاطئة ويقدم تفسيرات رائعة وأكثر
واقعية منطقية والأفضل من كل ذا علمية
" نحن لسنا ساذجين: بشكل افتراضي نميل غالبا مقاومة الأفكار الجديدة.
في غياب الإشارات الصحيحة ، نرفض الرسائل التي لا تتناسب مع وجهات نظرنا المسبقة أو الخطط الموجودة مسبقًا.
لإقناعنا بخلاف ذلك ، يتطلب الأمر ثقة طويلة الأمد ومحفوظة بعناية وخبرة واضحة وحجج سليمة.
يواجه العلم ووسائل الإعلام والمؤسسات الأخرى التي تنشر رسائل دقيقة ولكن غالبًا ما تكون غير متوقعة معركة شاقة ، حيث يتعين عليها نقل هذه الرسائل والحفاظ على مصداقيتها عبر سلاسل كبيرة من الثقة والجدل"
ومع ذلك ، لا ريب في أن الناس ينتهي بهم الأمر أحيانًا إلى الاعتراف بأكثر الآراء سخافة.
ما يجب أن نشرحه هو الأنماط: لماذا يصعب الوصول إلى بعض الأفكار ، بما في ذلك الأفكار الجيدة ، بينما تحظى الأفكار الأخرى ، بما في ذلك الأفكار السيئة ، بشعبية كبيرة"
هل الجماهير غبية والناس ساذجة وسهل التحكم فيها، طبيب النفس الاداركي التطوري في كتابه لم نولد بالأمس يحاول بالأدلة العلمية دحض هذه الابنظرة الخاطئة ويقدم تفسيرات رائعة وأكثر
واقعية منطقية والأفضل من كل ذا علمية
" نحن لسنا ساذجين: بشكل افتراضي نميل غالبا مقاومة الأفكار الجديدة.
في غياب الإشارات الصحيحة ، نرفض الرسائل التي لا تتناسب مع وجهات نظرنا المسبقة أو الخطط الموجودة مسبقًا.
لإقناعنا بخلاف ذلك ، يتطلب الأمر ثقة طويلة الأمد ومحفوظة بعناية وخبرة واضحة وحجج سليمة.
يواجه العلم ووسائل الإعلام والمؤسسات الأخرى التي تنشر رسائل دقيقة ولكن غالبًا ما تكون غير متوقعة معركة شاقة ، حيث يتعين عليها نقل هذه الرسائل والحفاظ على مصداقيتها عبر سلاسل كبيرة من الثقة والجدل"
osmose's review against another edition
3.0
I really wanted to give this book a 5 star, but I can’t go beyond 3. Sometimes, I find that essays such as this one are too long for no real reason and should be reduced by 30%. It is not the case here. In fact, I think Not Born Yesterday would have gained a lot if it had been 30% longer—although that extension would probably have weakened the author’s thesis. Let me explain.
Why the wish for a 5-star review? Because the approach taken by Mercier is inspiring, original, taught provoking, and goes beyond the standard take on the topic of trust and belief acquisition. Mercier isn’t satisfied with the opinion that people are just gullible and need to be educated. It doesn’t take much cognitive effort to see that education can’t solve everything and that people are not simply gullible (if it were the case, why would it be so hard to convince them that they are wrong?).
In the first few chapters, Mercier uses evolutionary biology and psychology to discriminate between different views on trust and communication. Can any species really afford total gullibility? Probably not. The way Mercier develops his concept of open-vigilance is fantastic! And then, how he uses the framework he built in these chapters throughout the rest of the book is definitely fascinating. For instance, I found his analysis of how different types of rumours spread and to what levels they are accurate and/or believed, or his analysis of who we trust particularly insightful.
BUT.
While I was reading Not Born Yesterday, my reactions were constantly cycling between “uh, good point” and “oh come on, that’s a little dishonest”. At one point, the amount of “oh, come on, that’s a little dishonest” became simply unacceptable. Like many thinkers, Mercier seems to be unable to simply point out a flaw in one theory or make a nice addition to it; he must take the whole thing down and make his contribution appear disproportionally big. That tendency really got me annoyed. For readers with even a modest background in cognitive science, it is hard not to think that every two chapters Mercier avoids confronting important counterarguments, makes relatively solid and nuanced results on a topic appear all wrong, and cherry-picks the studies he presents. Often, I would read a passage and be like “no way, what about x, y, z?” Sometimes, only a few paragraphs later I would read a quick sentence nuancing his take, but without affecting his argument, like: by the way, this applies only in that situation or if we interpret x to mean y. Other times, this nuancing but purposefully hidden remark would be found in a footnote, like: many studies show that [the opposite of what I think], but see my article on this. He also depicts some accomplished researchers in a way that can mistakenly lead one to believe they are complete charlatans or flatly incompetent, when Mercier only touches on one aspect of their work. As I progressed in his book, I—ironically—lost trust in his ability to present a charitable literary review on topics he wishes to discuss.
So, why did I wish Not Born Yesterday had been 30% longer? Because Mercier often fails to argue conclusively for many of the key points his thesis is built on and side-steps important critics. For instance, there are specifics places where when he argues against gullibility, I wondered why he did not discuss the sunk-cost fallacy which is relevant in this context (could we be gullible when we first accept a belief in a debate, but not gullible when this belief is later challenged?). (ii) When he argues that propaganda does not work very well, I wondered why he didn’t address the effect of repetition bias or availability cascade. (iii) When he argues that people rationally evaluate arguments, I wondered why he did not discuss belief bias and confirmation/my-side bias. (iv) And so on…
Overall, this book was surprisingly very fun and annoying to read all at once. I like how Mercier challenges my views and often introduces nice ideas in the quest to better understand how reasoning works in general—I just wished he cherry-picked less, argued more rigorously, and that I could trust him more. I recommend it mostly to people with a background in cognitive science, and one should probably take his words with many grains of salt.
Why the wish for a 5-star review? Because the approach taken by Mercier is inspiring, original, taught provoking, and goes beyond the standard take on the topic of trust and belief acquisition. Mercier isn’t satisfied with the opinion that people are just gullible and need to be educated. It doesn’t take much cognitive effort to see that education can’t solve everything and that people are not simply gullible (if it were the case, why would it be so hard to convince them that they are wrong?).
In the first few chapters, Mercier uses evolutionary biology and psychology to discriminate between different views on trust and communication. Can any species really afford total gullibility? Probably not. The way Mercier develops his concept of open-vigilance is fantastic! And then, how he uses the framework he built in these chapters throughout the rest of the book is definitely fascinating. For instance, I found his analysis of how different types of rumours spread and to what levels they are accurate and/or believed, or his analysis of who we trust particularly insightful.
BUT.
While I was reading Not Born Yesterday, my reactions were constantly cycling between “uh, good point” and “oh come on, that’s a little dishonest”. At one point, the amount of “oh, come on, that’s a little dishonest” became simply unacceptable. Like many thinkers, Mercier seems to be unable to simply point out a flaw in one theory or make a nice addition to it; he must take the whole thing down and make his contribution appear disproportionally big. That tendency really got me annoyed. For readers with even a modest background in cognitive science, it is hard not to think that every two chapters Mercier avoids confronting important counterarguments, makes relatively solid and nuanced results on a topic appear all wrong, and cherry-picks the studies he presents. Often, I would read a passage and be like “no way, what about x, y, z?” Sometimes, only a few paragraphs later I would read a quick sentence nuancing his take, but without affecting his argument, like: by the way, this applies only in that situation or if we interpret x to mean y. Other times, this nuancing but purposefully hidden remark would be found in a footnote, like: many studies show that [the opposite of what I think], but see my article on this. He also depicts some accomplished researchers in a way that can mistakenly lead one to believe they are complete charlatans or flatly incompetent, when Mercier only touches on one aspect of their work. As I progressed in his book, I—ironically—lost trust in his ability to present a charitable literary review on topics he wishes to discuss.
So, why did I wish Not Born Yesterday had been 30% longer? Because Mercier often fails to argue conclusively for many of the key points his thesis is built on and side-steps important critics. For instance, there are specifics places where when he argues against gullibility, I wondered why he did not discuss the sunk-cost fallacy which is relevant in this context (could we be gullible when we first accept a belief in a debate, but not gullible when this belief is later challenged?). (ii) When he argues that propaganda does not work very well, I wondered why he didn’t address the effect of repetition bias or availability cascade. (iii) When he argues that people rationally evaluate arguments, I wondered why he did not discuss belief bias and confirmation/my-side bias. (iv) And so on…
Overall, this book was surprisingly very fun and annoying to read all at once. I like how Mercier challenges my views and often introduces nice ideas in the quest to better understand how reasoning works in general—I just wished he cherry-picked less, argued more rigorously, and that I could trust him more. I recommend it mostly to people with a background in cognitive science, and one should probably take his words with many grains of salt.
baskeemink's review against another edition
4.0
Ik heb dit boek onder andere gelezen voor mijn scriptie dat gaat over pseudowetenschapen. Hugo Mercier is een cognitief psycholoog die met veel voorbeelden vanuit de praktijk en actualiteit laat zien hoe wij denken en hoe we bepalen wat we geloven. Uiteraard een erg actueel onderwerp in tijdens van fake news.
De hoofdonderwerpen zijn geloofwaardigheid, goedgelovigheid en de invloed van individuele levensovertuigingen op individuen. Dit boek stelde me soms gerust, maar er is zeker ruimte voor verbetering. Hoe dan ook, het heeft me aan het denken gezet over fake news en omgaan met waarheid en zal zeker informatie uit dit boek gebruiken in mijn scriptie.
4.5 sterren
De hoofdonderwerpen zijn geloofwaardigheid, goedgelovigheid en de invloed van individuele levensovertuigingen op individuen. Dit boek stelde me soms gerust, maar er is zeker ruimte voor verbetering. Hoe dan ook, het heeft me aan het denken gezet over fake news en omgaan met waarheid en zal zeker informatie uit dit boek gebruiken in mijn scriptie.
4.5 sterren
More...