Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error Paperback – January 4, 2011
|New from||Used from|
$0.61 extra savings coupon applied at checkout.
Sorry. You are not eligible for this coupon.
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
“A mirthful and wise diagnosis of what ails us: Schulz dances us through science, psychology, and literature in a sparkling history of (and ode to) human error.” (Publishers Weekly)
“[A]n insightful and delightful discussion of the errors of our ways. . . . Schulz remains good company -- a warm, witty and welcome presence. . . . [S]he combines lucid prose with perfect comic timing. . . . Being Wrong is smart and lively.” (New York Times Book Review)
“So, please take this advice: Read BEING WRONG, because it’s the right thing to do.” (Associated Press)
“Kathryn Schulz’s brilliant, spirited, and necessary inquiry into the essential humanity of error will leave you feeling intoxicatingly wrongheaded.” (Tom Vanderbilt, bestselling author of TRAFFIC)
“[A]n unusual examination of the virtue and peril of being wrong and of all the ways we think we know things that just ain’t so.” (Boston Globe)
“Engrossing.... In the spirit of Blink and Predictably Irrational (but with a large helping of erudition)... Schulz writes with such lucidity and wit that her philosophical enquiry becomes a page-turner.” (Publishers Weekly (starred review))
“Kathryn Schulz has given us a brilliant and remarkably upbeat account of the long history of human error. If Being Wrong is this smart and illuminating, I don’t want to be right!” (Steven Johnson, bestselling author of THE GHOST MAP and EVERYTHING BAD IS GOOD FOR YOU)
“Kathryn Schultz is engaging, witty and fascinating as she uses a full arsenal of academic research, colorful stories, philosophical arguments and personal anecdotes to create a riveting account of why we, mostly, have been wrong about being wrong.” (Frans Johansson, author of THE MEDICI EFFECT)
“Both wise and clever, full of fun and surprise...[BEING WRONG] could also be enormously useful—there are very few problems we face...that couldn’t be helpfully addressed if we we were willing to at least entertain the idea that we might not be entirely right.” (Bill McKibben, author of EAARTH: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet)
“A funny and philosophical meditation on why error is mostly a humane, courageous and extremely desirable human trait. [Schulz] flies high in the intellectual skies, leaving beautiful sunlit contrails....It’s lovely to watch this idea warm in Ms. Schulz’s hands.” (Dwight Garner, New York Times)
From the Back Cover
To err is human. Yet most of us go through life assuming (and sometimes insisting) that we are right about nearly everything, from the origins of the universe to how to load the dishwasher. In Being Wrong, journalist Kathryn Schulz explores why we find it so gratifying to be right and so maddening to be mistaken. Drawing on thinkers as varied as Augustine, Darwin, Freud, Gertrude Stein, Alan Greenspan, and Groucho Marx, she shows that error is both a given and a gift—one that can transform our worldviews, our relationships, and ourselves.
If you buy a new print edition of this book (or purchased one in the past), you can buy the Kindle edition for only $2.99 (Save 64%). Print edition purchase must be sold by Amazon. Learn more.
For thousands of qualifying books, your past, present, and future print-edition purchases now lets you buy the Kindle edition for $2.99 or less. (Textbooks available for $9.99 or less.)
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
This is not so much a philosophical investigation as a psychological one and as such I think she does a good job, but I would have been much happier with a more considered philosophical treatment for she misses much as well. Philosophically the problem of error is almost infinitely complicated because it isn't just that we can be wrong about almost everything, but also that we can be partly right and partly wrong about something and in fact this is often the case. She doesn't get into this much rather tending to treat any partial case as a case of error because it is not entirely right. This truth has implications for so much. It is afternoon on a sunny day here on the west coast of the U.S. but I might say "the sun did not rise this morning". What? Surely such a statement is wrong as concerns the meaning of the English word 'sunrise'? On the other hand, my observation is perfectly truthful as concerns the astronomical relation between Earth and Sun. Something can be correct on one level and at the same time wrong on another. Schultz notes this, but doesn't much deal with it.
There are a few items about which we cannot be wrong. Dr. Schultz says that if we feel depressed, we are depressed, and if we feel in love then we are in love. Yes tomorrow we might change our mind about that being in love business. We say that "I was wrong, I was not in love" but in fact we were yesterday. What was wrong is reflected in an ever present, hidden, second clause: "I am in love with X, AND I will be forever!" These second clauses are usually invisible and only that part was wrong about the love I felt yesterday. She addresses Descartes and notes that he declared he could not be wrong about being a thinking being. Today that might be more appropriately rendered as "I cannot be wrong about having an experience NOW, even if I can be wrong about what I take to be the content of that experience". Schultz doesn't really get into this, but it is the foundation from which point we judge all of our beliefs (right or wrong) about the world.
At the end of the book she addresses comedy and art. Her view is that both convey their value to us by being wrong. There is a digression to Plato in this, but Schultz never notes that it isn't always the wrongness per se that is funny in comedy or profound about art, but rather that the wrongness is used to highlight truth otherwise obscured by the flow of our lives or perceptions. Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" is not funny merely because of the errors, but because it shows us the truth that we too can be like this. The distortions of art, both classical and modern, are supposed to bring to our minds associations, truths, to which we are often blind.
This is a long book, but not as long as it seems by the number of pages. The text proper ends at the 70% point (I am always reading these books on a Kindle) and there follows from that point many pages of notes taken from the various sources the author read in the process of writing the book. These notes alone are valuable, a short summary of dozens and dozens of philosophers, artists, novelists, psychologists, and scientists on the subject of error. A very valuable compendium. What she doesn't give us is a table, a "classification of errors". There is here in this book all the material she needs to produce it.
The author takes a look at why we fear being wrong so strongly, and how we often can't admit we are wrong until we have a new "right" theory to replace our wrong one. We discover that our error blindness keeps us from perceiving our own errors without hampering our ability to find the same or similar error in others. Practically all facets of our lives are affected by error - from politics to religion to love. Can we eliminate error? Even if it is possible, SHOULD WE? Error appears to be a uniquely human endeavor - as such we should embrace it (at least some of the time). The joy of being wrong is experienced daily through optical illusions, humor and art.
Favorite quotes from the book:
(pg. 31) there is a slippery slope between advocating the elimination of putatively erroneous beliefs, and advocating the
elimination of the institutions, cultures, and—most alarmingly—people who hold them
(pg 32) This was the pivotal insight of the Scientific Revolution: that the advancement of knowledge depends on current
theories collapsing in the face of new insights and discoveries. In this model of progress, errors do not lead us
away from the truth. Instead, they edge us incrementally toward
(pg. 70) In sum: we love to know things, but ultimately we can't know for sure that we know them; we are bad at recognizing when we don't know something; and we are very, very good at making stuff up.
(pg 82) It’s not exactly news that most people are reluctant to admit their ignorance. But the point here is not that we are
bad at saying “I don’t know.” The point is that we are bad at knowing we don’t know.
(pg 86) As that suggests, the idea of knowledge and the idea of error are fundamentally incompatible. When we claim to
know something, we are essentially saying that we can’t be wrong. If we want to contend with the possibility
that we could be wrong, then the idea of knowledge won’t serve us; we need to embrace the idea of belief
instead. This might feel like an unwelcome move, since all of us prefer to think that we know things rather than
“merely” believing them.
(pg 106) In other words, if we want to discredit a belief, we will argue that it is advantageous, whereas if we want to
champion it, we will argue that it is true. That’s why we downplay or dismiss the self-serving aspects of our own
convictions, even as we are quick to detect them in other people’s beliefs.
(pg 123) leaping to conclusions is what we always do in inductive reasoning, but we generally only call it that when the
process fails us—that is, when we leap to wrong conclusions. In those instances, our habit of relying on meager
evidence, normally so clever, suddenly looks foolish
(pg 141) The vast majority of our beliefs are really beliefs once removed. Our faith that we are right is faith that someone
else is right. This reliance on other people’s knowledge—those around us as well as those who came before us—
is, on balance, a very good thing. Life is short, and most of us don’t want to spend any more of it than absolutely
necessary trying to independently verify the facts
(pg 157) Just as disturbing, and more important, we also can’t be sure that some of the beliefs we hold today won’t appear
grievously unjust in the future. This is error-blindness as a moral problem: we can’t always know, today, which
of our current beliefs will someday come to seem ethically indefensible
(pg 161) What zealots have in common, then, is the absolute conviction that they are right. In fact, of all the symbolic
ones and zeros that extremists use to write their ideological binary codes—us/them, same/different, good/evil—
the fundamental one is right/wrong. Zealotry demands a complete rejection of the possibility of error.
(pg 167) Doubt, it seems, is a skill—and one that, as we saw earlier, needs to be learned and honed. Credulity, by
contrast, appears to be something very like an instinct
(pg 179) Whether you believe in flying saucers or the free market or just about anything else, you are (if you are human)
prone to using certainty to avoid facing up to the fact that you could be wrong. That’s why, when we feel
ourselves losing ground in a fight, we often grow more rather than less adamant about our claims—not because
we are so sure that we are right, but because we fear that we are not.
(pg 187) Fortunately, we don’t get stuck in this place of pure wrongness very often. And we don’t get stuck there via the
collapse of small or medium size beliefs. We get stuck there when we are really wrong about really big things—
beliefs so important and far-reaching that we can neither easily replace them nor easily live without them.
(pg 199) All of us know people like this—people whose rigidity serves to protect a certain inner fragility, who cannot
bend precisely because they are at risk of breaking. For that matter, all of us are people like this sometimes
(pg 209) our beliefs come in bundles. That makes it hard to remove or replace one without affecting the others—and it
gets harder as the belief in question gets more central
(pg. 217) we are exceptionally bad at saying “I was wrong”—or at least, we are bad at leaving it at that. For most of us, it’s tough not to tack that “but” onto every admission of error.
(pg 293) This is one of the most powerful ways being wrong can transform us: it can help us become more compassionate
people. Being right might be fun but, as we’ve seen, it has a tendency to bring out the worst in us. By contrast,
being wrong is often the farthest thing in the world from fun—and yet, in the end, it has the potential to bring
out the best in us.