There are some good points here: applications of psychological research to everyday problems and decisions. Like when you made a major life decision--say, a divorce--most people don't regret it because they acquire a sort of tunnel vision: they keep seeing and recalling reasons why it was the right decision. The steps we go through to resolve cognitive dissonance.

But the book left a bad taste in my mouth as it lost focus completely. The authors jumped the tracks and began using the findings on how humans behave and think to explain nation-state behavior! I couldn't believe it. Tavris must be in her 60's at least, has PhD, worked at Psychology Today for years, written many books ... she knows better than this. Unless there's senility setting in.

If you're a French person whose entire family has been killed by Germans, or a Korean person whose family was killed and tortured for generations by the Japanese ... when you find yourself in the others' midst, it's unlikely you'll behave very well. Funny thing is, if that same individual is part of a government, she may well build bridges to the former enemy. Single persons rarely make state policy. Deep personal animosity can be put aside for the moment because the future of the state and its people has to take priority. There are all sorts of U.S. policymakers that could illustrate this point: Kissinger, Albright, foreign-born military leaders.

Then the book veered off into another weird tangent in admiration of Japanese education. We're told an absurd anecdote about a Japanese kid being given time to work out a math problem on his own in comparison with the more rote quality of US education. Or course, she's reversed the nationalities.

The stepped-up reliance on testing in the US--tests as the end all and be all--is very much the Japanese style of education. Could very well be the emphasis was imported from Japan. If you only teach to the test, test scores will improve ... it's just that everyone else, anything that can't be tested, falls by the wayside.

Meanwhile, Japanese wring their hands about how their system must foster more individuality and creativity if they're ever to have a Silicon Valley.

Some of Tavris and Aronson's conclusions about Japan were drawn from superficial studies done by people like xxx Stevenson back in the 1980's. They even go off on one of their tears based on an "epiphany" that Stevenson had watching a Japanese kid at a blackboard. Aren't social scientists supposed to rely on evidence other then epiphanies? Especially when the presence of a foreign observer in a classroom can affect the normal routine?

How could they remain so ignorant of all the real-life books written since then Americans and others that lived in Japan? Like by people with kids in Japanese schools. James Fallows. Karl van Whats-his-name. Sure, Japan hasn't been any country's role model since the late 1980's. But if you're going to bring up such a weird comparison, wouldn't you check to see what has been published since then?

They also mentioned a Chinese (Taiwan) study and then leap to some conclusion about "most Asians"! Most Asians believing that abilities are innate and Americans think whatever.

Of course the real striking differences on this question are along developed vs developed country lines. People in the latter tend to think that with a half decent education to start off, abilities will shine through. In developing countries, people--well, of the lower- and middle-classes, that is--tend to believe a lot more is in the hands of fate. So why even try? Or try to marry a richer man. Hook up with a godfather. And they're right because unless you've got some money or connections, you're not going to get into that private kindergarten or elementary school that gets you along the way. Even tho it's a semi-developed country, Hong Kongers tend to think that way; less so for Singaporean Chinese and Taiwanese. I think this probably has to do with the atrocious public schools in HK. If you only get that far, your fate is pretty much sealed very early on. ( )

I eagerly picked up this book because of my respect for earlier books by the authors, The Social Animal (Aronson) and The Mismeasure of Woman (Tavris), as well as my interest in the subject matter. I was not disappointed.

The book lives up to the claims made in the subtitle: why (and how) people justify bad behavior. One theme is cognitive dissonance, the discomfort that arises in people when they hold contradictory beliefs, e.g., I'm a good person, and I did a bad thing. People tend to resolve cognitive dissonance by changing their moral (and other) judgments. This can lead to a slippery slope, where the first action having been justified paves the way to a greater misdeed. Another psychological phenomenon discussed is confirmation bias, in which people see what they expect and disregard contradictory evidence.

Through many case studies, the authors show how these forces lead people down paths that they never would have taken in a single step.

My only complaint about the book is that I was already familiar with the concepts (in part from Aronson's Social Animal). While I appreciated the case studies, I didn't learn as much new as I had hoped. Of course, this isn't the authors' fault but may be relevant to potential readers who share my background.

I disagree with another reviewer that the book is academic and dry. I didn't find that way (although I admit to being an academic). Its tone is comparable to other good popular science books (although not to self-help books, if that is what readers are expecting). ( )

About: How people self-justify and reduce cognitive dissonance in their thoughts and actions.

Pros: Will make you think about how you think. Lots of examples. Footnotes.

Cons: Dry writing, very academic, examples tend to focus on politics and more variety would have been nice.

Grade: B- ( )