Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris, Elliot Aronson Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
(Click here)
Book Reviews of Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts
Book Review: Proof That Victory Has Many Fathers but Defeat is an Orphan
Summary: 5 Stars
Authors Travis and Aronson present a wonderful explanation of how we "justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts" in this fascinating and easy-to-read book that will make you smile or shake your head as you recognize the mental gymnastics on the balance beam of your brain and the brains of others.
They show us how our mind overcomes cognitive dissonance through self-justification where we create blind spots to our pride and prejudice, keep editing our memories until it provides a recall we are comfortable with, how "good" people lose their ethical compasses, how we justify our biases and prejudices, how the "us mentality" fulfills the paramount need for belonging and a sense of superiority, which allows us to do bad things to good people, our spouses, our co-workers, and even strangers who pose no threat or insult.
They explain this using a pyramid where every one of us starts at its apex. One story, act or event leads us down one side of the pyramid that will define our beliefs, character and philosophy while the same experience or a different one will lead someone else down another side of the pyramid. To avoid dissonance, the feelings of being wrong, stupid or weak, we will seek confirmation of our new belief so that we tell ourselves we have not gone down the wrong side, until we find ourselves at the base, unwilling to acknowledge even the most irrefutable evidence that might contradict that belief.
When we are confronted with such evidence, it is called dissonance. It can be so threatening that we find a number of ways of projecting or rationalizing our previous action so we don't have to face the embarrassing possibility of having been wrong. When prosecutors feel they have imprisoned the right man even after DNA proves he didn't commit the crime, they have become convinced in their belief, which is now rooted in the base of the pyramid. They will experience dissonance even when it turns out that the victims of the eight people they successfully prosecuted for murder turn out to be very much alive after all. Self-justification in the form of a rationalization will save the ego from the enormous guilt of having put the wrong man in prison.
Travis and Aronson also take aim at Freudian psychoanalytic theory, especially repression and memory therapy through the tragic experience of Holly Romana and the daycare centers of the 1980's, stories that were chilling in the lives they destroyed because of the overconfidence of therapists, police and district attorneys where, despite their experience, their ability to pick out the molester, abuser, or criminal was no better than chance. Their experience gave them confidence but little insight. They make even a stronger case against the theory with Holocaust survivors who suffered unspeakable, repressible misery, yet were able to remember almost every detail of their depositions forty years earlier when they were liberated. Those who clung to repression theory found validation if a survivor couldn't remember every single detail.
What drew my attention to this book was an intuition that no power of intellect, knowledge, or persuasion would influence people whose political opinions differed from mine in a substantial number of Amazon reviews and comments under dozens of titles. I was fascinated with the contradictory message of being told to read extremist authors (who believed that criticism of national policy was an act of treason), with the admonishment that it should be read by, or was only for "those with an open mind." Equally odd was the saying "the truth really hurts" from people who were reading propagandists. As the authors explained, people see themselves as open-minded and fair with reasonable opinions. Therefore, since they are reasonable, fair and just, and find the book "factual," those who don't share their opinion must be unreasonable, biased, and unable to face the truth, at least as they see it. In other words, it's the other guy who lacks an "open mind."
The more I read, the more I found applications from the book in other comments and reviews. One commentator could not understand how I admired the book "The Greatest Generation," by Tom Brokaw, because of my liberal leanings. According to her, I was one of the people "on [my] side of the fence," that "actually despise every aspect of American life." (It was the authors' example of the "us mentality" that provides the person with the sense of belonging). Membership in a particular group is a must, as is the perception to view our group as being more intelligent, open-minded, or moral than those in a different group. This allows us to see traits in the other group that are undesirable, traits that members are unable to see in their own group, unless it is with justification. The stereotype tends to serve as a defining line where there is only one possible rational explanation for things--hers. Although she felt my respect and politics were incompatible, I could be explained as an aberration, in her mind. (There was hope for me). Conflict resolved, dissonance spared, and paradigm and belief remain intact.
The authors demonstrated the power of rationalization and denial that was all so clear here in discussion threads. If people believed there were WMD even after an administration acknowledged that there weren't any after all, they would still believe that they were driven away by trucks to Syria while still not knowing where in Syria they actually were. Some had their belief systems so tied to the previous administration that criticism could only be an expression of irrational hatred or an act of treason. Travis and Aronson's message explained the rationale of not wanting to understand our enemies. It would be much more convenient to believe they hated us for no good reason, and anyone wanting to understand could be simply explained as a terrorist sympathizer. Righteousness without proof of being right, wins.
In actuality, questioning our beliefs or admitting our mistakes doesn't make us look weak or stupid. It creates the opposite impression. Our society promotes the idea that this is a weakness, and it is instilled in our children early on, turning them into human beings who can never be wrong on their jobs, in their relationships, and about their personal beliefs. The fear of ridicule, failure, and retribution is too strong and difficult for us to face. Few have risen to the occasion such as President Kennedy who has been the last president to admit having made a mistake on a grand scale. Richard Clarke was the only one in the previous administration who flat out stated that he was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, and was the only one to ask for forgiveness. (No one came close). N. Wayne Hale Jr. took full responsibility for the Columbia Shuttle Disaster. He was since promoted to Manager of the Space Shuttle Program. General Eisenhower had a statement ready in case the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 had failed. He changed a key phrase in it from "The troops were withdrawn" to "I withdrew the troops."
I cannot recommend this book enough, because knowing what we believe depends upon how we think, and how we think about those of us with opposing viewpoints. It adds tremendous insight into the human condition and our need to protect our own egos. The authors provide some hope believing that we have the ability to recognize our self-destructive thought patterns and change for the better. As they so blithely state, the body might want sugar, but we have learned to eat vegetables.
This book is proof that victory has many fathers, but defeat is an orphan.
When asked by a reporter what three mistakes he made as president, George W. Bush replied: "[When people ask about mistakes] they're trying to say, `Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?' And the answer is, `Absolutely not,' It was the right decision...Now, you asked what mistakes, I made ...some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national television." Page 235.
Just as the authors said, mistakes were made--but not by me.
Also Recommended:
Jackson, Brooks & Jamieson, Kathleen, H., "un-Spun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation," Random House, 2007.
Book Review: The Milgram experiment in a new light
Summary: 5 Stars
The Milgram experiment, where college students volunteering in a study were "commanded" by the head of the experiment to gradually increase the voltage of shocks administered to other volunteers - even as the recipients screamed in pain, is often used as an example of how sheepish people are in the face of authority (The shockers continued shocking after the simple statement by the head scientist that "The experiment requires that you continue." Talk about The Shock Doctrine!)
This book has a different, more pragmatic take on that experiment, to wit: humans drift off into unethical behavior by taking gradual steps, each of which erodes their resistance to taking the next step toward eventual criminal behavior. Once a person takes that first step toward corruption, the following steps become nearly irresistible. Rationalization is therefore a "gateway drug" of which there is an unlimited supply. Let "The War on Rationalization" begin!
The mechanism of rationalization is the subject of this book. The mechanism is described in Dissonance Theory. This theory, which I suppose we should call an Hypothesis until further notice, offers a convincing explanation for why people "blame the victim" so often and so readily. If I do something unethical (which we, as social animals, are more or less hard-wired to recognize, at least on some level), I can either recognize that lapse and atone for it or, as most people opt to do, rationalize that unethical behavior in order to defend myself and my social status, at least to my own eyes and to my own "underlings". Once I choose rationalization to minimize the discomfort I feel at the lack of congruence between my image of myself as an ethical person and the actions which I know were unethical, I slide down the slippery slope toward projection. Projection is the device by which I further alleviate the discomfort I feel by projecting my own unethical behavior onto the victim of my unethical action. This has been the M-O of Rove, etc.. Out a CIA agent investigating WMD in Iran because she's married to the guy who cast doubt on your story about Iraq's WMD (Nope, no WMD here!), then blame the CIA agent and her husband for betraying the country. Works like magic!! Except, of course, that there were no WMDs and the revelation of the agent's name by the press, encouraged by Rove, Cheney, Libby, et. al. put all those associated with that agent in mortal danger. Yeah, that's how dissonance, rationalization and projection roll.
This book does an excellent job of describing the mechanism and showing how we all are subject to its "wonder working ways." I highly recommend it.
Book Review: An important book
Summary: 5 Stars
Nutshell review - This is not only an excellent book but an important one as well. I cannot recommend it highly enough and I am sure that all of us can gain valuable insights into the all too human problem of cognitive dissonance - the logical inconsistencies and contradictions between our beliefs and our actions (or those of others).
Why do we make mistakes but then deny any wrong-doing, sometimes even going so far as to defend them and, sadly, even repeating them? Self-justification is the answer and although it neatly lets us resolve any internal dissonance it unfortunately often comes at huge cost to both ourselves and others. This book is important because we all are at risk of the paired dangers of cognitive dissonance and self-justification. The insights offered in this eminently readable and engaging book provides an excellent guide to stopping our self-justifications before problems get out of hand.
Book Review: Excellent
Summary: 4 Stars
I wrote out a long explanation of why this was such an impressive book - but then lost it through computer error (it was my computer's fault, not me!).
Enough said: this book is excellent. Entertaining, informative and explanatory. Well worth it.
Book Review: Great Primer for Respobsibility taking
Summary: 5 Stars
This book should be in everybodies library. I have read this gem several times and intend to read again. My wife has read and we're getting copies for our adult children. Recommended for anyone wanting to improve relationships with family, friends and co-workers.