Tali Sharot
Author of The Optimism Bias: A Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain
About the Author
Image credit: Tali Sharot in 2010.
Works by Tali Sharot
The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals About Our Power to Change Others (2017) 213 copies, 14 reviews
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Gender
- female
- Short biography
- Tali received her Ph.D in psychology and neuroscience from New York University and has a B.A in economics and psychology. She is an Associate Professor (Reader) at the Department of Experimental Psychology at University College London and a Wellcome Trust Fellow. Her scholarly research focuses on how emotion, motivation and social factors influence our expectations, decisions and memories. Her papers on the neuroscience of optimism, emotional memories and cognitive dissonance have been published in top scientific journals including Nature, Science, Nature Neuroscience and Psychological Science. This work has been the subject of features in Newsweek, Forbes, The Boston Globe, Time, The Wall Street Journal, New Scientist, The Washington Post, the BBC and others. Tali is the author of The Optimism Bias and co-editor of The Neuroscience of Preference and Choice. She has also written essays for the popular press which have been published in The New York Times, Time, The Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Guardian, Observer. She received awards and honours for her scientific work including grants and fellowships from the Wellcome Trust and British Academy.
http://theoptimismbias.blogspot.be/p/...
Members
Reviews
"The Influential Mind" explains to us, through behavioral science, how illogical humans really are. We say that we're truly logical beings who use higher though to make our own, individual, decisions (not being influenced by anyone or anything else). Well, that's mostly wrong. Try to convince someone to think from a different perspective by using peer-reviewed journals, charts, graphs, loads of very scientific and convincing data? Nope, won't budge them, not at all (well, sometimes, but show more mostly no). Tell them a story using raw emotions and no scientific data whatsoever, describe to them a scene involving babies in pain, whales being slaughtered, things that make you angry, happy, empowered? That person will be more on board with your idea than you are.
Humans are heavily emotional, social creatures. We like emotions, we like the (positive) emotions of other people, we like to be praised, we like to be in control of our own choices and destiny, we follow opinions of the crowd or masses, even if they're wrong. We DO NOT like to be told what is best for us, or that we should be doing this or that for our health, even if we consciously know we should be doing this or that for our own benefit. If there's no reward, real or perceived, then we won't do it! We won't put energy into something that doesn't involve positive emotions, even if it's good for us.
We humans are convinced that we are solid individualists, when in reality we're semi-permeable membranes that absorb the ideas and behaviors of others, without us consciously knowing it, at all times. We mirror each other, we're a collective species. The author is showing us how truly influential we all are, and how much we can alter the people around us with just the slightest nudges. This also applies to ourselves, how consciously altering a habit we have, either trying to stop one or start one, can change our whole direct perception of the world around us, and in turn quite possibly change others around you in the process.
I would recommend this be read alongside the books "The Happiness Hypothesis" and "The Righteous Mind", both by Johnathan Haidt. All three should give you a very good idea on how and why humans think and make decisions the way they do.
Very fascinating book, I enjoyed it a lot. Thanks Tali Sharot! show less
Humans are heavily emotional, social creatures. We like emotions, we like the (positive) emotions of other people, we like to be praised, we like to be in control of our own choices and destiny, we follow opinions of the crowd or masses, even if they're wrong. We DO NOT like to be told what is best for us, or that we should be doing this or that for our health, even if we consciously know we should be doing this or that for our own benefit. If there's no reward, real or perceived, then we won't do it! We won't put energy into something that doesn't involve positive emotions, even if it's good for us.
We humans are convinced that we are solid individualists, when in reality we're semi-permeable membranes that absorb the ideas and behaviors of others, without us consciously knowing it, at all times. We mirror each other, we're a collective species. The author is showing us how truly influential we all are, and how much we can alter the people around us with just the slightest nudges. This also applies to ourselves, how consciously altering a habit we have, either trying to stop one or start one, can change our whole direct perception of the world around us, and in turn quite possibly change others around you in the process.
I would recommend this be read alongside the books "The Happiness Hypothesis" and "The Righteous Mind", both by Johnathan Haidt. All three should give you a very good idea on how and why humans think and make decisions the way they do.
Very fascinating book, I enjoyed it a lot. Thanks Tali Sharot! show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
Author Tali Sharot didn’t expect to stumble on something like the optimism bias while she was researching how traumatic events create “flashbulb memories”, which are unusually vivid memories that as it turns out are often not as accurate as they feel. Why would our brains construct intensely striking memories of harrowing events--like the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001--that are not completely true accounts of what happened?
While trying to answer that question Sharot show more conducted an experiment recording people’s brain activity as they remembered an event in the past and imagined one in the future, but the strange results she got sidetracked her. Every time people were asked to picture a future event, no matter how mundane, they came up with excessively rosy scenarios. People seemed to have a powerful and automatic tendency to imagine an unreasonably bright future. After switching her research focus to optimism Sharot concludes, and argues in this book, that optimism is so important to our survival that the inclination toward it is “hardwired” into our brains. Besides protecting us from stress and worry, optimism can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Though people with an overly pessimistic vision might just give up, people with a helpful level of optimism believe a sunny future is attainable and they’ll work for it. Optimists act in ways that make their rosy predictions more likely to happen.
Interestingly, it’s not just humans who are optimistic. Experiments conducted on many animals, including primates, suggest optimism is a very old evolutionary adaptation.
I don’t think of myself as an optimistic person so I wasn’t expecting to see much of myself in the book’s examples, but as I read I had to admit I am more influenced by this tendency than I would have guessed. At least I’m not alone. Even given facts and figures most people still underestimate the likelihood of experiencing negative events like becoming ill with disease, being the victim of a crime or going through a divorce. Way more than half of us think we are above average in friendliness, leadership qualities, or common sense, etc., and, of course, statistically many of us have to be wrong in those assumptions. The book is full of lots of examples of how we don’t perceive the world quite as accurately as we think we do, for instance most people are not good judges of what actually makes us happy. Also covered are why hard times often increase group optimism, why we value things more after we chose them (monkeys do this too), and how much dread and anticipation change our experiences of events. Especially illuminating for me was the chapter on the causes and treatment of depression. show less
While trying to answer that question Sharot show more conducted an experiment recording people’s brain activity as they remembered an event in the past and imagined one in the future, but the strange results she got sidetracked her. Every time people were asked to picture a future event, no matter how mundane, they came up with excessively rosy scenarios. People seemed to have a powerful and automatic tendency to imagine an unreasonably bright future. After switching her research focus to optimism Sharot concludes, and argues in this book, that optimism is so important to our survival that the inclination toward it is “hardwired” into our brains. Besides protecting us from stress and worry, optimism can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Though people with an overly pessimistic vision might just give up, people with a helpful level of optimism believe a sunny future is attainable and they’ll work for it. Optimists act in ways that make their rosy predictions more likely to happen.
Interestingly, it’s not just humans who are optimistic. Experiments conducted on many animals, including primates, suggest optimism is a very old evolutionary adaptation.
I don’t think of myself as an optimistic person so I wasn’t expecting to see much of myself in the book’s examples, but as I read I had to admit I am more influenced by this tendency than I would have guessed. At least I’m not alone. Even given facts and figures most people still underestimate the likelihood of experiencing negative events like becoming ill with disease, being the victim of a crime or going through a divorce. Way more than half of us think we are above average in friendliness, leadership qualities, or common sense, etc., and, of course, statistically many of us have to be wrong in those assumptions. The book is full of lots of examples of how we don’t perceive the world quite as accurately as we think we do, for instance most people are not good judges of what actually makes us happy. Also covered are why hard times often increase group optimism, why we value things more after we chose them (monkeys do this too), and how much dread and anticipation change our experiences of events. Especially illuminating for me was the chapter on the causes and treatment of depression. show less
Just to get this right up front. The following review is based on the Blinkist summary of the book and the review should be considered in that light. Obviously, one is going to miss a lot when it’s summarised in a few pages. But in some situations I’ve previously read the full book and have been able to compare it with the Blinkist summary and admit to being surprised at how well the Blinkist team have been able to summarise the book. Here are a few snippets from the summary of this book show more that particularly caught my attention:
Once we make up our mind about something, however, whether it be a book, a movie or something political, it can be extremely difficult to change that opinion.......we tend to be inflexible in how we think and behave......This is true in both life and work: even when experience has shown us that certain behaviours fail to bring about great results, we nevertheless continue to repeat those behaviours......In a 2014 study by the neuroeconomist Camelia Kuhnen, 50 participating traders were asked to make 100 consecutive investment decisions, choosing between a high-risk stock and a safe bond with reliable interest rates. When the dividend was revealed to be high, they stuck with their choice, but surprisingly, when the dividend was revealed to be low, they ignored the warning sign and still stuck with the high-risk option. These results indicate that once people have made up their mind, they tend to ignore contrary information and forge ahead regardless.
When participants chose the high-risk stock and were then told about the low dividend, scans showed that their brain activity dropped significantly upon receiving the bad information. This seems to suggest that when people commit to a decision, there is a natural defense mechanism preventing them from facing the fact that they made the wrong choice.
Even though the notion has been thoroughly debunked, the link between MMR vaccines and autism goes back to 1998, when a doctor by the name of Andrew Wakefield published research concluding that the vaccination could modify the immune system, causing neuronal damage such as autism. Wakefield’s findings were published in The Lancet, one of the more respected scientific journals in the world, but subsequent research repeatedly showed that Wakefield was wrong and that there was no direct link between the vaccine and autism. Nonetheless, the original report continued to get attention, leading to fewer parents vaccinating their children, which in turn resulted in more measles outbreaks. In 2013 and 2014, the number of measles cases in the US tripled to 644.
So how can people be made to change their minds? It turns out that the best way is not to argue against their preconceptions but to focus on factual information. When presented with
contradictory research, people became resistant and defensive, while some grew stronger in their original, misguided beliefs.......But if the team merely presented the other, accurate message–that the vaccine can prevent the contraction of the potentially deadly illnesses of measles, mumps and rubella–people paid attention, and many of them ended up changing their minds. “When an established belief is difficult to weed out, seeding a new one may be the answer.”
During a speech, people’s brains synchronize, which is why audience members tend to react the same way at particular points of a speech. This kind of emotional connection between people was also evidenced by a 2002 study by management professor Sigal Barsade, who was studying how people respond when asked to collaborate on a task. The twist was that Barsade had a covert participant in each collaborative group pretending to be in either a good or a bad mood. As you might expect, the groups with the happy actor were more cooperative and had better results, while those with a grouchy actor had more conflicts and poorer results. [All sounds a bit arbitrary to me....If the task involved some kind of group output, the grouchy actor could easily sabotage...but the happy actor might not have to do very much other than not sabotage].
If you were on Facebook in 2012, you might remember that the service infamously manipulated the news feeds of around 500,000 users. What Facebook noticed was that the positive group reacted by creating more positive posts of their own, while those exposed to the negative material created posts that were mostly negative. In a 2015 study by neuroscientists, people using Twitter tended to experience increased heart rate, perspiration and dilated pupils–all signs of emotional engagement........And these emotions get transmitted by tweets and posts to others around the world.
Animals and humans are wired to strive for pleasure–a principle that can’t be unlearned.
When we’re offered a reward, the brain kicks into gear, and we experience quick and alert responses. But if the potential result is something bad, the brain turns sluggish, and our responses suffer.....Having control of one’s own life is another very instinctual desire, as it’s one that gives us happiness. In a famous study from the seventies conducted by the psychologists Judith Rodin and Ellen Langer, two floors of nursing home residents were given two different sets of rules.......In just three weeks, it was apparent that the residents caring for their own lives, and the lives of their plants, were more active and cheerful. After 18 months, they proved to be much healthier as well.....With hand washing for medical practitioners....... What worked was when a sign was posted showing the compliance rate of the entire medical team. After this, the rate of compliance shot up from an average of 38 percent to nearly 90 percent!......Positive feedback, like showing improved progress, tends to work far better than issuing orders because employees still feel like they’re the ones in charge.
Norton’s results showed that people considered their Ikea bookshelf far superior to an identical bookshelf put together by someone else. In fact, people tended to prefer their own furniture even if they did a far worse job of the construction......in a test with shoe making, it turned out that the participants who had made some effort to reproduce the existing design valued their shoes more highly than a standard pair, while the people who watched the shoes being made perceived no difference in value.
When you take a plane ride somewhere, do you pay attention to the potentially life-saving safety instructions given by the stewards? Next time you’re about to take off, chances are you’ll see that no one seems to care about this vital information.....Airlines understood that they could get people’s attention by delivering the same information in a fun and entertaining way. Many now have goofy videos with breakdancing, catchy cartoons or even stand-up comedians.
Some emergency procedure videos are so popular that they’ve received millions of views on Youtube and other social media channels.
So remember: people’s behaviour isn’t always rational. If in doubt about how to resolve a conflict, whether it be in the workplace or a relationship, don’t forget about how the human brain really works. Keep this in mind, and you might just find a peaceful solution.
The key message in this book: The human brain doesn’t function as rationally as you may assume. By being aware of its quirks, we can be better prepared to work with others. This can lead to better ways of getting people to change their behaviour, pay attention to important information or change a potentially deadly opinion on vaccinations. Some of the best methods involve simply remembering that we’re all motivated by seeking pleasure and reward and that we like to feel in control.
My take on the book. It is ok but not much her that’s new to me. Though the suggestion about not arguing with people to get a mind change but just presenting with evidence was new to me. Though seems to contradict the claim made, above, about the filtering of information and disregarding non-confirming details. I give it three stars. show less
Once we make up our mind about something, however, whether it be a book, a movie or something political, it can be extremely difficult to change that opinion.......we tend to be inflexible in how we think and behave......This is true in both life and work: even when experience has shown us that certain behaviours fail to bring about great results, we nevertheless continue to repeat those behaviours......In a 2014 study by the neuroeconomist Camelia Kuhnen, 50 participating traders were asked to make 100 consecutive investment decisions, choosing between a high-risk stock and a safe bond with reliable interest rates. When the dividend was revealed to be high, they stuck with their choice, but surprisingly, when the dividend was revealed to be low, they ignored the warning sign and still stuck with the high-risk option. These results indicate that once people have made up their mind, they tend to ignore contrary information and forge ahead regardless.
When participants chose the high-risk stock and were then told about the low dividend, scans showed that their brain activity dropped significantly upon receiving the bad information. This seems to suggest that when people commit to a decision, there is a natural defense mechanism preventing them from facing the fact that they made the wrong choice.
Even though the notion has been thoroughly debunked, the link between MMR vaccines and autism goes back to 1998, when a doctor by the name of Andrew Wakefield published research concluding that the vaccination could modify the immune system, causing neuronal damage such as autism. Wakefield’s findings were published in The Lancet, one of the more respected scientific journals in the world, but subsequent research repeatedly showed that Wakefield was wrong and that there was no direct link between the vaccine and autism. Nonetheless, the original report continued to get attention, leading to fewer parents vaccinating their children, which in turn resulted in more measles outbreaks. In 2013 and 2014, the number of measles cases in the US tripled to 644.
So how can people be made to change their minds? It turns out that the best way is not to argue against their preconceptions but to focus on factual information. When presented with
contradictory research, people became resistant and defensive, while some grew stronger in their original, misguided beliefs.......But if the team merely presented the other, accurate message–that the vaccine can prevent the contraction of the potentially deadly illnesses of measles, mumps and rubella–people paid attention, and many of them ended up changing their minds. “When an established belief is difficult to weed out, seeding a new one may be the answer.”
During a speech, people’s brains synchronize, which is why audience members tend to react the same way at particular points of a speech. This kind of emotional connection between people was also evidenced by a 2002 study by management professor Sigal Barsade, who was studying how people respond when asked to collaborate on a task. The twist was that Barsade had a covert participant in each collaborative group pretending to be in either a good or a bad mood. As you might expect, the groups with the happy actor were more cooperative and had better results, while those with a grouchy actor had more conflicts and poorer results. [All sounds a bit arbitrary to me....If the task involved some kind of group output, the grouchy actor could easily sabotage...but the happy actor might not have to do very much other than not sabotage].
If you were on Facebook in 2012, you might remember that the service infamously manipulated the news feeds of around 500,000 users. What Facebook noticed was that the positive group reacted by creating more positive posts of their own, while those exposed to the negative material created posts that were mostly negative. In a 2015 study by neuroscientists, people using Twitter tended to experience increased heart rate, perspiration and dilated pupils–all signs of emotional engagement........And these emotions get transmitted by tweets and posts to others around the world.
Animals and humans are wired to strive for pleasure–a principle that can’t be unlearned.
When we’re offered a reward, the brain kicks into gear, and we experience quick and alert responses. But if the potential result is something bad, the brain turns sluggish, and our responses suffer.....Having control of one’s own life is another very instinctual desire, as it’s one that gives us happiness. In a famous study from the seventies conducted by the psychologists Judith Rodin and Ellen Langer, two floors of nursing home residents were given two different sets of rules.......In just three weeks, it was apparent that the residents caring for their own lives, and the lives of their plants, were more active and cheerful. After 18 months, they proved to be much healthier as well.....With hand washing for medical practitioners....... What worked was when a sign was posted showing the compliance rate of the entire medical team. After this, the rate of compliance shot up from an average of 38 percent to nearly 90 percent!......Positive feedback, like showing improved progress, tends to work far better than issuing orders because employees still feel like they’re the ones in charge.
Norton’s results showed that people considered their Ikea bookshelf far superior to an identical bookshelf put together by someone else. In fact, people tended to prefer their own furniture even if they did a far worse job of the construction......in a test with shoe making, it turned out that the participants who had made some effort to reproduce the existing design valued their shoes more highly than a standard pair, while the people who watched the shoes being made perceived no difference in value.
When you take a plane ride somewhere, do you pay attention to the potentially life-saving safety instructions given by the stewards? Next time you’re about to take off, chances are you’ll see that no one seems to care about this vital information.....Airlines understood that they could get people’s attention by delivering the same information in a fun and entertaining way. Many now have goofy videos with breakdancing, catchy cartoons or even stand-up comedians.
Some emergency procedure videos are so popular that they’ve received millions of views on Youtube and other social media channels.
So remember: people’s behaviour isn’t always rational. If in doubt about how to resolve a conflict, whether it be in the workplace or a relationship, don’t forget about how the human brain really works. Keep this in mind, and you might just find a peaceful solution.
The key message in this book: The human brain doesn’t function as rationally as you may assume. By being aware of its quirks, we can be better prepared to work with others. This can lead to better ways of getting people to change their behaviour, pay attention to important information or change a potentially deadly opinion on vaccinations. Some of the best methods involve simply remembering that we’re all motivated by seeking pleasure and reward and that we like to feel in control.
My take on the book. It is ok but not much her that’s new to me. Though the suggestion about not arguing with people to get a mind change but just presenting with evidence was new to me. Though seems to contradict the claim made, above, about the filtering of information and disregarding non-confirming details. I give it three stars. show less
I got an advance reader's edition of this from the publisher Henry Holt & CO through LibraryThing's Early Reviewers. I'd read Ms. Sharot's The Optimism Bias five years ago when I had just started a year-long management program and liked what she wrote, so requested the opportunity to read this. Even though this is an advance copy, and I quote from it below, I don't think there will be substantial changes from the final publication.
"You and I share a role." - That's the opening line of the show more Prologue (in the copy I got), and Ms. Sharot nearly derailed herself with me almost immediately because the first line in the second paragraph was "This duty we all share is to affect others." I was puzzled as to how a "role" became a "duty". I also had a hard time with a small point in her Prologue where she related how a campaign candidate (an expert in fear-mongering) "was affecting [her] thoughts." Affecting is not influencing. But...it is captious of me to take issue with semantics in just the opener...
The eight major divisions in her book treat different ways in which our minds are influenced and how they resist influence. (I thought her subtitles describe more of the story. In "Does Evidence Change Belief (Priors) The Power of Confirmation and the Weakness of Data", she discusses the challenge of overcoming confirmation bias - the prior condition. Humans tend to look for agreement with established views, taking interest when in agreement and ignoring when in disagreement. Nothing new there, but when Sharot called Twitter the "Amygdala of the Internet" - "tweeting is one of the most emotionally arousing activities you likely engage in on most days" - I had to temper my own disagreement bias. Once I stopped chuckling. She makes her case that with respect to similarities in observed responses "a large proportion of our behavior can be explained by commonalities, not differences" - 80 percent predicted by average response and 20 percent by individual differences. That agrees with my position that psychological assessments are statistical in nature, but also is at odds with my position that no one can predict with certainty anything about one person. 80 percent is higher than random, for sure.
On "Should You Scare People into Action? (Incentives) Moving with Pleasure and Freezing with Fear", the data seem to indicate that the carrot is better than the stick in influencing others. I wasn't keen on one of her illustrations in which a woman wanted to persuade her husband to visit a gym and the mentioning of a paunch didn't work but a compliment (following a single visit) on his defined muscles motivated him? "As long as she made her increasing physical attraction to him clear, he kept going back,[...]" Are so many that shallow that that works? Anyway, we seem to like instant reward over future pain. Obvious statement, that, but goes to counter our illusion of rationale.
"How You Obtain Power by Letting Go (Agency) The Joy of Agency and the Fear of Losing Control" - even an illusion of choice invokes a perception of control, which can be influenced. Sharot talks about "the IKEA effect" - tendency to think a shelf one puts together is better than an identical one put together by someone else. (I had a side thought on that: my wife likes to say that fruit salad made by someone else tastes better than made by herself...a wee at odds with that IKEA thing!) "The message, perhaps ironically, is that to influence actions, you need to give people a sense of control. Eliminate the sense of agency and you get anger, frustration, and resistance. Expand people's sense of influence over their word and you increase their motivation and compliance."
People are naturally curious and often make the mistake of thinking that other people are equally curious about the same things. In "What Do People Really Want to Know? (Curiosity) The Value of Information and the Burden of Knowledge", Sharot points out that our instinct being that if we have something (we think is) important to convey, other people would want to know, is wrong. This chapter has some valuable tools for engagement - at least being aware that we might need to reframe our message. Well, of course! Important lesson in reaching others is critically examining one's own perspective in order to frame the message to the target audience. And perhaps not surprisingly, people tend to prefer to remain ignorant, even at terrible costs. To influence, we need to re-evaluate the value of the information we wish to communicate in terms of that audience - and make the message positive, or at least not negative.
It may seem obvious, but mental state has a huge effect on susceptibility to influence...particularly when the state is feeling threatened. In "What Happens to Minds Under Threat? (State) The Influence of Stress and the Ability to Overcome", Sharot explains that being stressed or intimidated changes the way people process information and make decisions, often resulting in "playing it safe" when even a mild risk is the better approach.
The last two chapters involved the influence of what "Others" are thinking on us. The subtitle of "Why Do Babies Love iPhones?" is "The Strength of Social Learning and the Pursuit of Uniqueness". Humans (and higher primates and other animal) initially learn from others by observation and "while we like to see ourselves as different [the paradox is that], we are also quick to adopt the views and preferences of those around us; ...music..., ...technology we use..., ...names we give our children..." The lesson is to be mindful and carfeul when following others' choices. And the second half of "Others" is "Is 'Unanimous' as Reassuring as It Sounds? How to Find Answers in an Unwise Crowd". Sharot discusses James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds, cautioning that crowd sourcing works only under specific conditions. And one must be extra careful to look at how a proposition is posed...how it is framed can affect the outcome (more my observation than in her writing.)
Ms. Sharot states something in her conclusion I've been saying for years, though with a little more academic oomph: "Evolution is slower than technology, and the principle organization of the brain has not experienced significant change since written language first appeared."
Extensively sourced, Ms. Sharot packages only the proverbial tip of the influence iceberg, but she does it well in a conversational, easy read.
(I started this book in June, 2017 but set it aside to finish a couple of other ARCs. And I also set aside the early nits as unnecessarily picked!) show less
"You and I share a role." - That's the opening line of the show more Prologue (in the copy I got), and Ms. Sharot nearly derailed herself with me almost immediately because the first line in the second paragraph was "This duty we all share is to affect others." I was puzzled as to how a "role" became a "duty". I also had a hard time with a small point in her Prologue where she related how a campaign candidate (an expert in fear-mongering) "was affecting [her] thoughts." Affecting is not influencing. But...it is captious of me to take issue with semantics in just the opener...
The eight major divisions in her book treat different ways in which our minds are influenced and how they resist influence. (I thought her subtitles describe more of the story. In "Does Evidence Change Belief (Priors) The Power of Confirmation and the Weakness of Data", she discusses the challenge of overcoming confirmation bias - the prior condition. Humans tend to look for agreement with established views, taking interest when in agreement and ignoring when in disagreement. Nothing new there, but when Sharot called Twitter the "Amygdala of the Internet" - "tweeting is one of the most emotionally arousing activities you likely engage in on most days" - I had to temper my own disagreement bias. Once I stopped chuckling. She makes her case that with respect to similarities in observed responses "a large proportion of our behavior can be explained by commonalities, not differences" - 80 percent predicted by average response and 20 percent by individual differences. That agrees with my position that psychological assessments are statistical in nature, but also is at odds with my position that no one can predict with certainty anything about one person. 80 percent is higher than random, for sure.
On "Should You Scare People into Action? (Incentives) Moving with Pleasure and Freezing with Fear", the data seem to indicate that the carrot is better than the stick in influencing others. I wasn't keen on one of her illustrations in which a woman wanted to persuade her husband to visit a gym and the mentioning of a paunch didn't work but a compliment (following a single visit) on his defined muscles motivated him? "As long as she made her increasing physical attraction to him clear, he kept going back,[...]" Are so many that shallow that that works? Anyway, we seem to like instant reward over future pain. Obvious statement, that, but goes to counter our illusion of rationale.
"How You Obtain Power by Letting Go (Agency) The Joy of Agency and the Fear of Losing Control" - even an illusion of choice invokes a perception of control, which can be influenced. Sharot talks about "the IKEA effect" - tendency to think a shelf one puts together is better than an identical one put together by someone else. (I had a side thought on that: my wife likes to say that fruit salad made by someone else tastes better than made by herself...a wee at odds with that IKEA thing!) "The message, perhaps ironically, is that to influence actions, you need to give people a sense of control. Eliminate the sense of agency and you get anger, frustration, and resistance. Expand people's sense of influence over their word and you increase their motivation and compliance."
People are naturally curious and often make the mistake of thinking that other people are equally curious about the same things. In "What Do People Really Want to Know? (Curiosity) The Value of Information and the Burden of Knowledge", Sharot points out that our instinct being that if we have something (we think is) important to convey, other people would want to know, is wrong. This chapter has some valuable tools for engagement - at least being aware that we might need to reframe our message. Well, of course! Important lesson in reaching others is critically examining one's own perspective in order to frame the message to the target audience. And perhaps not surprisingly, people tend to prefer to remain ignorant, even at terrible costs. To influence, we need to re-evaluate the value of the information we wish to communicate in terms of that audience - and make the message positive, or at least not negative.
It may seem obvious, but mental state has a huge effect on susceptibility to influence...particularly when the state is feeling threatened. In "What Happens to Minds Under Threat? (State) The Influence of Stress and the Ability to Overcome", Sharot explains that being stressed or intimidated changes the way people process information and make decisions, often resulting in "playing it safe" when even a mild risk is the better approach.
The last two chapters involved the influence of what "Others" are thinking on us. The subtitle of "Why Do Babies Love iPhones?" is "The Strength of Social Learning and the Pursuit of Uniqueness". Humans (and higher primates and other animal) initially learn from others by observation and "while we like to see ourselves as different [the paradox is that], we are also quick to adopt the views and preferences of those around us; ...music..., ...technology we use..., ...names we give our children..." The lesson is to be mindful and carfeul when following others' choices. And the second half of "Others" is "Is 'Unanimous' as Reassuring as It Sounds? How to Find Answers in an Unwise Crowd". Sharot discusses James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds, cautioning that crowd sourcing works only under specific conditions. And one must be extra careful to look at how a proposition is posed...how it is framed can affect the outcome (more my observation than in her writing.)
Ms. Sharot states something in her conclusion I've been saying for years, though with a little more academic oomph: "Evolution is slower than technology, and the principle organization of the brain has not experienced significant change since written language first appeared."
Extensively sourced, Ms. Sharot packages only the proverbial tip of the influence iceberg, but she does it well in a conversational, easy read.
(I started this book in June, 2017 but set it aside to finish a couple of other ARCs. And I also set aside the early nits as unnecessarily picked!) show less
This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 4
- Members
- 546
- Popularity
- #45,668
- Rating
- 3.8
- Reviews
- 20
- ISBNs
- 42
- Languages
- 8
- Favorited
- 1
