Same Material Different Title

Would you try another book from The Great Courses and/or Professor Steven Novella?

Yes, I would try another book from The Great Courses but "No" I would not listen to another book by Professor Steven Novella. This is the 2nd Great Courses I have listened to by Professor Novella/

What do you think your next listen will be?

Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 3rd Edition

What aspect of Professor Steven Novella’s performance would you have changed?

The information he presents is almost identical to his Great Course on Medical Myths.

Was Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills worth the listening time?

Yes, I enjoy the information presented in "The Great Courses".

Any additional comments?

I listened to "Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths: What We Think We Know May Be Hurting Us" by Professor Novella as part of "The Great Courses" a couple of weeks before. I felt that this book was just a rehash of the same information under the guise of a different topic (the mind) as opposed to the Medical Profession. I recommend that users/members take one of Professor Novella's courses and not both since you will be frustrated he just goes over the same information. I do appreciate his "skeptic" approach to issues pertaining to the mind as well as medical profession but once you have heard him once you will understand his approach. I hope this review helps.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

782 people found this helpful

Clear thinking is valuable beyond measure!

First off, let me preface this review by saying I was already familiar with Steven Novella through his podcast, The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.

When I heard he had this series of lectures available on Audible, I was quite excited!

I was hoping for a clear, detailed and thorough treatment of Critical Thinking - and Novella delivers in spades, covering topic after topic with a treatment that is brisk, peppered with examples, constructed in a logical and understandable manner and order, and delivered eloquently.

The content is exactly what is says on the tin: if you are interested in Critical Thinking, in knowing how you think and how TO think -- there is no fat here. Logical fallacies and cognitive biases are examined, illustrated and explained.

I would caution the potential listener that this is a series of lectures on a specific subject; I enjoyed it immensely because I happen to be interested in the topic. If I didn't have that interest or I was expecting more of a narrative-type production, I think I would be disappointed.

A further caution: if you have a set of "alternative beliefs", prepare to be challenged! Examine the unfavorable reviews to see this side of things.

However -- and in summary -- if you desire to develop your Critical Thinking skills, to build the sharpest reasoning possible for yourself, or just to explore a scientific approach to understanding how your brain plays tricks on itself, then I give this work the highest recommendation!

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

414 people found this helpful

A boring, long, less educational Brain Games

This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more?

Someone who wants a brief overview of a lot of quirky things the mind does, but doesn't really want to know why or how it does those things.

What was most disappointing about The Great Courses’s story?

I don't see how this is a "Guide to critical thinking", he literally just tells you stories of times the mind has done strange things contradictory to logic. It was all stuff I've heard before, several times, from other sources. There was no delving deeper into the why our minds do the things he says in the numerous examples. It was more stories of strange things our minds do, with a one sentence recap of why the mind did it (possibly), and then on to the next story. Literally I think almost everything in the first two chapters was in the Nat Geo show Brain Games.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

194 people found this helpful

Common sense guide to skepticism

What did you love best about Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills?

The Professor did a very nice job of breaking down some modern-day myths and deconstructed them in such a way that there's little room for anyone to argue against it

Who was your favorite character and why?

Marianne? No Ginger. Kidding...this is a series of lectures narrated by the professor who provided the lecture

Which scene was your favorite?

I don't know that there was any one scene (lecture) in particular that was more compelling than the next. I did enjoy the lectures that discussed scientific greats throughout history that alllowed their biases to derail or misguide further achievements.

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

meh...this is more of an academic excercise than a suspenseful thrill read. The material was good, but nothing I couldn't put down

Any additional comments?

the key to the title of this book is A "SCIENTIFIC" guide to critical thinking. Shame on me for not figuring this out, out of the gate, but I originally downloaded this due to an interest in "strategic" thinking in the workplace. While there are undoubtedly parallels in terms of the process of thinking and good information with respect to recognizing biases and how the brain/memory work...this is very much a discussion on debunking or veryifing scientific evidence versus any non-scientific business process.
It's a very good listen nontheless but not what I was expecting and not overly applicable to a corporate business setting (which again, is my own mistake). I only point this out in case anyone else struggles with reading comprehension like I did.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

147 people found this helpful

The Great Courses Lectures...

are perhaps the best use of audible books ever. I have listened to countless courses in literature, philosophy, and medicine, and they NEVER disappoint. They are all given by a leading lecturer in any given field and are ALWAYS high level university material... This set of lectures by Steven Novallis should be heard by absolutely everyone. As a college instructor, I can unequivocally state that the thing most needed in our culture is clear, logical, critical thinking. This is why I am always saddened to see the paucity of reviews on audible books like this one (I think I am the third one here on Audible with ZERO on Amazon!) while readers line up for tripe, titillation and magical beliefs in "books" about little boys who supposedly go to heaven, satanic ritual hoaxes, the Twilight series and, of course, the poorly conceived and even more poorly rendered pornography of James, Day, and a growing list of other female writers striving for their place in the smut trade. It is no wonder so few of us can think clearly and why human evolution remains such a slow and unsteady process...

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

106 people found this helpful

Ok summary

For me personally, nothing really new here. Listening to podcasts from Sam Harris and "you are not so smart" will more than adequately cover the subject but in and of itself it is a good collection of ideas that one is well served to listen to if you have not spent much time looking into this domain before.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

94 people found this helpful

Blew. Me. Away.

Any additional comments?

As another listener stated, this should be required listening for everyone. I honestly feel like that the skills I learned as a result of these lectures have made me a more observant, overall better person. I have a better grasp on the reality of the world around me because I learned how to pierce through the crap, and really wonder why and how things happen. Thank you Professor Steven Novella for sharing your wisdom.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

90 people found this helpful

Great flow

The organization of these lectures was very good. The material was not new for me - if you have read Dan Ariely, Daniel Kahneman or Michael Schermer, etc. then the concepts will not be new - but it was a great reminder and I particularly liked the way the material flowed and was organized. Very logical.

The narration by the professor was excellent. Great diction and pace.

These are essential concepts that are good for me to remind myself of at least once a year.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

78 people found this helpful

well worth the time to listen to, good roundup

What did you love best about Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills?

Most of the facts and ideas presented in this course are well known to everyone who has read a bit about or heard from modern "mind science" or "how our brain works" talks. Yet, Novella's roundup is great to listen to, well paced, always interesting and well worth both time and energy spent.
I really enjoyed, for once, a scientist to remind the listener that he, the scientist, does not know it all and will probably not be right all the time. For one time a tutor explains, in detail, that using your own brain and mind means to check the facts and not just play along. A fair approach.

What other book might you compare Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills to and why?

M. Shermer's "The Believing Brain" is quite similar in general approach, but concentrates too much on personal vendetta of the author and/or believe system. There are more comparable titles, but most, in my eyes (ears), suffer from the same basic problem: Scientists that want to make you BELIEVE that they do not need to believe, because they know all the facts for fact, are ... wretched(?).
Most comparable books start of with or repeat sentences like "well, we know for a fact that ..." - and that, exactly, is not scientific thinking. It's religion.
Novella does not fall for this.

What does Professor Steven Novella bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

Most books that cover the same topic come up with the ever repeating "experiments" that "scientists" have done, some of which date back to the 1930s or whatever. These experiments as well as the conclusions drawn from them are not that convincing, in setup, target and evidence. Yet, "science" seems unable to come up with new studies, new experiments and new approaches, so most books chew through the same data over and over again, almost in religious circles.
Novella gets around this quite well by just shortly pointing towards those experiments, but explaining thought processes and prejudices in more "today's" contexts, seemingly being still in contact with the real world and not lost in "scientist's drinking clubs". His narration, wit, pointyness (does that word exist?) and personal involvement make you believe he actually means what he says, yet has the distance to always remember you: He might be wrong.

Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

There are a few "funny" side notes that are funny enough to make you giggle or even laugh for a moment, but overall the pace (30 minute lectures) and dedication is just about right to not NEED jokes or horror stories.

Any additional comments?

Can you expect "new insights"? No, if you have ever read anything about modern brain science or mind theory. Are you looking for a sumup of the current "believe" in why we believe and how we err in making up our minds: This is a great approach that won't even harm a religious listener (and those are often the targets of pity for so many other authors/teachers).
Not that I am of that kind anyway :-)

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

65 people found this helpful

Between skeptic and denialist

Although many of the principles and fallacies are valid, the author is not realy a critical thinker at heart in my opinion. It shows from the examples and words he chooses. When he thinks skepticism is valid he calls is skepticism, but when he thinks it is not, he calls it denialism, just like using the word 'authoritive source'. That is just labeling. When he discusses MMR/authism, he says: because of this 1 report 'compliance' of MMR vacine dropped. Why not use the word 'usage' ? Compliance sounds like an authority robot and that is what the author is leaning towards. He does not understand the amount of money driving scientific reserach for vaccines and global warming research and how that affects the outcome of research.
He also complains that media has become too diverse with internet and that caused a loss of an 'authoritive filter'. A bottleneck in the media however makes it extremely simple to manipulate. That aspartane is not toxic because the FDA approved it, and foreign FDA's as well does not prove anything. You do not need a big conspiracy to explain this. The producing companies own all these monopolies through the revolving door circuit. It's like saying the intelligence agencies can't all be wrong about WMD in Iraq. You have to understand the revolving door with gvt's and the military industrial complex. They WERE wrong, all of them and you could understand why if you follow the money and watch the interaction between regulators, industry and academia. What about all those regulators saying the mortage market was fine before 2008? The author would have called me a tinfoil head conspiracy nut if I had told them all these regulators were wrong in 2007 with their AAA ratingson on junkmortgages. No, I was right, because you have to understand the revolving door between industry and regulators and the big pool of tax money they fish in.
To filter the bogus from truth he advises to 'check if the web site has an ideology or is a respected academic gvt agency, bound by transparancy'. How silly does that sound after Edward Snowden?
The Canadian gvt, besides funding 23000 scientist also issued a gag order for them recently. The gvt is a big corporation with a license to kill and steal.
Aother argument he uses is to ask 'if the source is licensed' Licensed by the goverment I assume? What makes this bunch of people invulnerable to base instincts? gvt's killed 200 million people world wide in the 20th century. His reasoning has a single point of failure, which is a giant pool of tax money, collected by a monopoly of violence in every country on earth.
His 911 views will also prove a big spot on this book in hindsight. A complete building, WTC7, falls at free fall speed in it's own foot print, presumably caused by office fires. Any critical thinker with some physics knowledge, can know a big steel re enforced building does not lose structural integrity everywhere, completely all at the same time because of some office fires. You have to be a denialist to think so ;-)
Every war in history started with a false flag.Hitler dressed up prisoners in Polish uniforms and had them attack german radiostations in operation canned goods, to justify 'retaliation'. After what has become known on operation Northwood and operation Gladio, you have to watch all events that call for a retaliation war with extreme skepticism considering the past.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

61 people found this helpful