The Knowledge Illusion

A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

This question appears on Yale Marketing Professor Shane Frederick's CRT--"Cognitive Reflection Test." He found it in a book of riddles. (Collaborating!--he needn't create his own questions from scratch!) Those getting it and two other similar questions right are, we're told, in the minority. The CRT distinguishes people who like to reflect before they answer from those who just answer with the first thing that comes to mind.

I had no trouble with the bat and ball problem nor with the other two, not necessarily because I "like to reflect." But because I'd seen it before (as well as the other two!) In fact, I saw it most recently in [b:The Enigma of Reason|32336635|The Enigma of Reason|Hugo Mercier|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1488567927l/32336635.SY75.jpg|52973807]. And before that in [b:Thinking, Fast and Slow|11468377|Thinking, Fast and Slow|Daniel Kahneman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1317793965l/11468377.SX50.jpg|16402639]. And before that in countless other places, probably as long ago as when I was still in high school. Maybe most of the people Prof Frederick tests hadn't seen it, but then again, maybe they did. People see terms like "Cognitive Reflection Test" and think they're dealing with scientific experts and believe what such people say. The prevalence of impressive jargon is one reason for what this book calls "The Cognitive Illusion" but not one getting much attention.

What I'm trying to say here is that even the authors of this book think they know a lot more than they do. They talk down to their readers and over explain the obvious. If the topic of this book and some of its observations weren't so important, I'd have given it a single star. The book often asserts "facts" that are poorly sourced or outright wrong. It appeals to the crowd of "most people" 45 times. "If you're like most people," you're this way or that way. Well, most people won't read this book. Nearly a third of Americans don't read books at all. Those who do will most of the time not choose this one. What's more, I'll bet (though I admit I'm just guessing here--something the authors should regularly remind us they often do as well) those who read this book are likely readers of the 2 books I list above with the bat and ball problem so who exactly is the audience this book addresses?

I'm will to speculate that most of its readers are NOT like "most people;" that a good proportion will, for example, not see Christoper Columbus as a the hero the authors do. They will have heard of the Jonestown Massacre and the Dunning-Krugger effect and won't need them painstakingly explained. They will not think that the problem people have with compound interest is because "most people" think linearly but rather because there are large number of financial predators out there who make a good living out of legally deceiving people.

In addition, as another reviewer points out (see? I'm using team work in my review!) the collaborators who wrote this book don't work well enough together to give it the focus that one by a single author might. My guess is that there's a "most people" out there the authors would like to reach but will fail and end up talking to people more like me.

That's a shame because this book has a lot of important things to say. One of them is what Stolorow and Atwood are saying in The Myth of the Isolated Mind and another is what Barack Obama said in his "You didn't build that" speech. In brief, it's that many people forget that their confidence and knowledge and achievements are dependent upon a community of others.

Another point they make is that by downplaying our reliance on others, we become vulnerable to living in a bubble where there's no one to challenge our false beliefs.

A third important part of this book is their description of how science actually works (and so many other fields as well) which is not only rarely described but hidden as a vulnerability.

We give this book a star for each of these three topics, totaling 3 stars. Had they, for example, also spoken about the cult of individuality which is a religious belief in American society, and means that any ordinary attempt to reveal the collaborative nature of knowledge will be emotionally opposed as communism, they could have gotten a 4th star, but this topic is never broached.

Instead they ramble on about measuring the intelligence of groups instead of individuals, "c" rather than "g" (they could have skipped the insider jargon and spoken of I.Q. and been less mysterious) not noticing how many forms of discrimination in employment are hidden behind needing to hire people similar to the ones already hired so they'll work well together. Or they pretend that individual intelligence is unimportant. I suggest you read instead the more interesting discussion in [b:Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World|40406806|Coders The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World|Clive Thompson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1545908174l/40406806.SY75.jpg|62726011]" of the programmers who can turn out 10 times the code of the average employee and the trade off between their outsized skill and the need for functioning and diverse teams.

So--a book which makes important points but ultimately fails.