Pensamiento crítico para el tercer milenio: Cómo dar sentido a un mundo sin sentido

by Saul Perlmutter, Robert Maccoun, John Campbell

Basado en el reconocido curso de la Universidad de California en Berkeley, Pensamiento crítico para el tercer milenio es un manual para desarrollar el pensamiento crítico, tomar mejores decisiones y resolver problemas ?individuales y colectivos? en la era de la saturación informativa.

En la actual avalancha de información resulta cada vez más difícil identificar qué es realmente significativo. ¿Qué decisión debemos tomar cuando recibimos consejos médicos contradictorios? ¿Podemos confiar en que las citas que leemos demuestran lo que afirman los autores? ¿Cómo podemos afrontar aquellas conversaciones con nuestros seres queridos cuyos referentes en materia de cambio climático son completamente distintos?

En Pensamiento crítico para el tercer milenio, un físico, un psicólogo y un filósofo nos presentan las herramientas y los marcos conceptuales que han desarrollado los científicos para no dejarse llevar por el engaño, para comprender el mundo y para tomar las mejores decisiones. Todos podemos adoptar estas técnicas y espolear nuestra confianza a la hora de abordar cualquier tipo de problema, sea grande o pequeño.

Así, aprenderemos a:

comprender los hechos del mundo moderno;
trazar un rumbo a través de una profusión de posibilidades;
trabajar colectivamente para afrontar los retos actuales;
y mucho más.
Mediante estimulantes ejercicios mentales, un lenguaje desprovisto de tecnicismos y una serie de vívidos ejemplos extraídos de la historia, la vida cotidiana y las anécdotas del mundo científico, Pensamiento crítico para el tercer milenio ofrece un enfoque novedoso para que podamos dar sentido al sinsentido.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Psychology, Philosophy, Self Help, Technology, Finance

368 pages, Paperback

Published February 19, 2025

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is so much noise in the world that makes good decision-making difficult. How can we make good decisions in the face of an extraordinary amount of complex, often contradictory information? Good decision-making, as the authors point out, requires accurate information from reliable experts, careful considerations of values, and a structure that places the authority to make a decisions in the hands of those who will make affected. If any of these is missing, we’re likely to run into error.

Probalistic thinking can help us with navigating the avalanche of information. The world is dyanmic. Things are constantly changing and we're constantly learning new facts, so a dyanmic approach to approaching problems is necessary.

A bunch of other tools are also mentioned that help us with decision-making.

A critic may say, “why should we use the tools presented in this book? Isn’t experience a better teacher?” But experience isn’t a good teacher, as research presented in this book shows. One study they present concluded that work experience is a poor performance of job performance.

The authors made a very good case for using these tools in everyday life! A very fun read.

[Natalie Park · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Basically how to think critically and analyze disparate pieces of information. It didn’t feel like there was many new ideas but probably it was good to put this out into the world with so much disinformation and illogical conclusions.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is on an insanely important topic, which is becoming a better thinker. The authors include a physicist, a psychologist, and a philosopher, so I was pretty excited to check this book out. Now, as I give my review of this book, just know that it’s insanely bias because I read a ton of books on this topic, so my experience is much different compared to someone who hasn’t read many of these or hasn’t read any at all.

Overall, this book was fine. I was expecting a lot more from this book, but it wasn’t really there. Sure, there were some studies that were interesting and some of the personal stories with lessons the authors have learned to improve their own thinking were great, but there wasn’t much that was groundbreaking in this book. Again, it’s important to remember that I’ve read dozens of these books.

If you’re just now becoming interested in the topic of becoming a better thinker, this is a 10 out of 10 book to learn about biases, heuristics, and other thinking errors. The authors teach a course at UC Berkeley, so they know their stuff. I definitely recommend this book to anyone new to the topic or haven’t read many books in this realm.

[Dustin Barlow · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is very important for modern world. This gave great tools and information to aid in critical thinking and analysis in a world full of misinformation and disinformation. Highly recommend.

[Jon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I spent most of the second half of this book wondering how it would have been different if the authors had taken their own advice about probabilistic thinking and the importance of incorporating counterfactuals. Had they, for example, given serious account of relevant scholarship in rhetoric, education, political theory, etc., they might have been better positioned to at least offer some thoughtful, grounded insights on the current and future political landscape with all its challenges and opportunities. As it is, the book started off with some interesting discussions about the practical advantages of scientific thinking, but by the end it became a rather tired reiteration the claim that society could be amazing if only everyone else could reason like us. The result is a pretty utopic vision of "science" (e.g., no discussion of the challenges posed to scientific thinking within professional communities by the scramble for research funding, publishing expectations, etc.) and a narrow vision of the political.

Probably worth a read for the early chapters, but don't expect any groundbreaking insights for creating collective consensus.

[CatReader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Third Millenium Thinking (abbreviated 3MT), the authors (three academics from different disciplines) posit that in our current era, we need to do a better job of thinking critically, evaluating and weighing evidence, and carefully considering future and distant future impacts of current behavior, more so than in previous generations where technology was less advanced and the world was less globalized. This is an interesting take, though I would posit that the tenets and need for 3MT isn't necessarily unique to our current era.

Further reading -- books that make similar points:
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions by Richard Harris
Elastic: Flexible Thinking in a Time of Change by Leonard Mlodinow

[Florent Diverchy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A handy guide on how to apply scientific thinking in your day to day reflections, in order to reduce bias, deal with disinformation and make better predictions.
Best take away for me: thinking in terms of probability instead of binary and always thinks about why you can be right, but also how you can be wrong.

[Nimish · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not bad in and of itself, but I’d argue this isn’t in any way “new” thinking, but rather explicitly laying out our civilization’s ideal on how people should be (and should have been) thinking for the last few hundred years.

I don’t know if it has been laid out as explicitly anywhere, and there is a certain value to that, and the authors have done so in a very positive and kind way.

But I’d argue that “third millennium thinking” really would be in understanding why these forms of thinking haven’t caught on despite being promoted as extensively as they have. There’s a note around certainty and politicians — how if one day everyone thinks like this, then we as a civilization will be OK with politicians saying “I think there’s a 65% chance this will work” vs demanding unwavering certainty.

There are a lot of ideals this style of thinking had predicted for the last few hundred years that haven’t come to fruition. When confronted with this, the answer to why has always been “ignorance” with the prediction that more people exposed to this worldview would cause adoption and improvements of society. Again, while almost no scientific advance would be possible without scientific thinking like this, it seems clear that there’s a huge brick wall when it comes to social advancements, and simply telling more people about scientific thinking won’t cut it.

I think real “third millennium thinking” has to address that gap.

[Allira]

Adam Grant rec

[Charles Reed · Rating 4 out of 5]

85%

A book focused on training people to act and think logically and with reasoning especially in our extremely powerfully resourced environment? Yes please. A bit lacking in practical application in day-to-day life but there are some great intentions here and this book was executed greatly.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

How do we develop critical thinking in an age of polarization, disinformation, confusion and alternative facts?

The authors state the challenge as follows:
"With all of our direct access to vast universes of data, we are now forced to figure out what facts to base our decisions on, when to do research for ourselves and when to look for experts, what experts are trustworthy (and on which particular topics), and when we might need wise guidance on integrating values."

This book shares ideas, tools and approaches that natural and social scientists use to understand the world, which the authors teach at the Big Ideas course at UC Berkeley. They call it Third Millennium Thinking or 3MT.

These are covered over 5 parts:

1. GETTING A GRIP ON REALITY
- culture and tools of science and their practical ability to build trust in a shared understanding of reality that can guide us in our decision-making.

2. UNDERSTANDING UNCERTAINTY
- science’s tool kit of probabilistic thinking as a potential superpower we can all use to get the most out of a world full of uncertainties.

3. THE RADICAL CAN-DO STANCE
- tricks of the trade that make possible can-do solutions to big, complex, and slow-to-solve problems and how to apply them in the messier process of decision-making, where facts and figures meet values, fears and goals.

4. MINDING THE GAPS
- the myriad ways our individual thinking tends to go wrong, and some new and not-so-new techniques to sidestep these mental traps, developed for science but useful for everybody.

5. JOINING FORCES
- What ideas have we learned that we can build on to solve problems with others (our partners, our teams, our society and our world)  successfully weaving all the rationality we can muster in with our very human emotions?

The following Habits of the Mind are covered:
- Build better instruments.
- Try to separate facts from values.
- Think probabilistically, not in true/false binaries.
- Don’t be fooled by patterns in random noise.
- Distinguish noise and bias.
- Be wary of mental shortcuts.
- Avoid confirmation bias.

And the following Habits of Community:
- State your confidence level.
- Be skeptical about possible solutions, but use the can-do persistent culture of science to make solutions possible.
- Keep each other honest.
- Agree on a desired balance of risks (false positives and false negatives).
- Adopt effective procedures for deliberation.

The following 3MT shifts are needed:
- from “factual thinking” to “probabilistic thinking”
- from “reductionism is all” to a multilevel, nuanced view that includes emergent phenomena
- from “masterstroke solutions” (progress by great leaps) to “iterative solutions” (progress by careful steps) and an “experimenting society”
- from “technocratic decision - making” (experts and leaders decide) to “deliberative decision - making” (collective consultation and consensus - seeking)
- from zero-sum-game trade-offs to more ambitious, more can-do enlarg-the-pie win-win solutions
- Interdisciplinary teamwork
- New collective tools: Open science (preregistration, data sharing), blinded analysis, multilab collaborations and verification, citizen science and fact-checking, Deliberative Polling, scenario planning, prediction markets, superforecasting, online platforms for dialogue and debate

[Terry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some basic ideas on how science should work with reproducible results, statistical review, probability of confidence, etc. And some suggestions on how the non-scientist might apply those to gain confidence in what they are seeing, hearing, viewing, although I doubt that it is generally practical.

The biggest hurdle is that the general public is just not being told confidence levels or relevant statistical review nor would they even really understand if they were told. We hear trust the science but we don't always get the full science or opposing viewpoints presented in a factual matter. We get masks on/ masks off/ masks on for COVID, clinical trial results of some Covid vaccines sealed for 90 years, dissenting opinions marked as "fringe" scientists - certainly not full disclosure of any point of view. Depending on who you listen to, your political persuasion, social media, and other factors it is very challenging to actually hear all those results, reviews, probabilities that are needed for informed opinions. (not to pick on or espouse a view on Covid, just one recent example)

And we also get scientific studies that may be totally accurate but misleading. One recent example is with HRT and the recent reversal of recommended use. As I understand it, a study several years back claimed Hormone Replacement Therapy would lead to a 45% increase in risk for breast cancer and potentially other problems. Although that was true, the actual risk went from 1.8% to 2.6%. It is a 45% increase but the total risk is still a very small number. The truth, but is it the whole truth?

It would have been helpful if the authors would have spent some time suggesting ways to employ these methods in the hyper-polarized political world we now seem to be living. How for instance can we ensure that we know the science behind policies without reading the original and generally highly technical papers that decide those policies? And how does the general population decide which "experts" are generally deserving of our trust? And how do we ensure that those in positions of power, political and otherwise, use those methods?

There is a lot of good information but I'm not sure how generally applicable it is. I think there could have been more said about how a general populace can employ these methods in their life.

I believe there is also one little error in the discussion on systematic vs. statistical error. The majority of the discussion and graph agrees in the definition of those terms but one sentence uses the opposite definition - "clout of darts is spread out (systematic uncertainty) and its center is offset from the bull's-eye (statistical uncertainty)". I would suggest that systematic and statistical should be interchanged based on the rest of the text.

[YHC · Rating 3 out of 5]

《Third Millennium Thinking: Creating Sense in a World of Nonsense》
作者：Saul Perlmutter（2011年諾貝爾物理學獎得主，宇宙加速膨脹發現者之一）、John Campbell、Robert MacCoun

### 書籍大意
這本書不是講宇宙物理，而是三位作者（一位諾貝爾獎物理學家＋兩位決策科學專家）把**科學思維（scientific thinking）**當成一種「生存超能力」，教讀者在資訊爆炸、假新聞、陰謀論、極化對立的21世紀，如何**不被胡說八道淹沒**，做出更好判斷、更好決策、過更有意義的人生。

全書核心只有一句話：
**「科學不是一堆事實，而是一套『面對不確定性時，如何思考得比較不蠢』的紀律。」**

作者把這套紀律命名為 **Third Millennium Thinking**（第三千年思維），強調在AI、社群媒體、假訊息氾濫的時代，這是人類最該學會的「新基本功」——比讀寫算更重要。

### 書籍精華（6大核心工具／思維習慣）

1. **「我們錯得有多離譜？」比「我們對不對？」更重要**
最強的科學態度不是追求「正確」，而是持續問：「如果我錯了，會錯到什麼程度？」
→ 這是降低過度自信（overconfidence）的終極武器。

2. **貝氏思維（Bayesian Thinking）是日常必備**
把信念當成「機率」，每看到新證據就更新機率，而不是「非黑即白」。
作者用貝氏公式解釋為什麼陰謀論者永遠覺得「證據越多，越證明有陰謀」。

3. **「控制組思維」（Control Group Thinking）**
任何主張都要問：「沒有這件事／政策／藥物／信仰的時候，會怎麼樣？」
沒有控制組的因果故事都是故事，不是科學。

4. **「多重比較校正」與「p-hacking」的日常版**
我們每天都在「釣魚式找證據」：試了很多方法，只記得成功的，忘記失敗的。
作者教你如何自己戳破自己的「我早就知道」幻覺。

5. **「預註冊你的信念」（Pre-register Your Beliefs）**
在看新聞／聽意見前，先寫下「我現在相信什麼？預期會看到什麼證據？」
這能大幅減少事後合理化（hindsight bias）與確認偏誤。

6. **科學思維不是「冷血理性」，而是「更溫柔的同理心」**
真正科學的人，會先懷疑自己、再懷疑別人，所以比較不會隨便把別人貼上「壞人」標籤。
→ 科學思維最終讓人更寬容、更謙卑、更願意對話。

### 書中經典舉例（最戳心的幾個）

1. **「我早就知道」症候群的法庭案例**
作者講一個真實陪審團實驗：給陪審員看同樣證據，但一組先知道結局（被告有罪），另一組不知道。
知道結局的那組，事後全都說「證據明明超明顯，我一開始就知道他有罪」。
→ 這就是為什麼事後諸葛很危險：它讓我們高估自己的判斷力。

2. **疫苗猶豫者的貝氏更新示範**
一位反疫苗媽媽說：「我小孩打疫苗後發燒，所以疫苗有害。」
作者用貝氏思維帶她算：
- 先問她原本相信疫苗有害的機率（假設她說50%）
- 再給她看大規模數據：疫苗後發燒機率其實很高（正常免疫反應），但嚴重副作用極低。
→ 她慢慢把信念從「50%有害」更新到「5%有害」——這就是科學思維的溫柔力量。

3. **「控制組思維」破解靈異照片**
有人秀出一張模糊鬼影照片說「這是靈魂」。
作者問：「如果這不是鬼，會長什麼樣？」→ 結果發現同樣相機、同樣光線、同樣角度拍出來，很多照片都有類似「鬼影」。
→ 沒有控制組，就沒有科學。

4. **Saul Perlmutter自己的「諾貝爾級錯誤」**
他坦白：發現宇宙加速膨脹時，最開始他以為儀器壞了，花了好幾個月才敢相信數據。
→ 這是書中最動人的部分：連諾貝爾獎得主都用「懷疑自己」來對抗「我發現大突破」的誘惑。

5. **「預註冊信念」的日常應用**
作者建議：在看選舉辯論前，先寫下「我預期A會說什麼？B會怎麼反駁？我希望哪邊贏？為什麼？」
看完再比對，就能發現自己有多偏頗——這比任何事後分析都有效。

### 一句話總結
**這本書不是教你科學知識，而是教你如何用科學的態度活在一個充滿胡說八道的世界裡——懷疑自己、更新信念、拒絕簡單答案，並用這套紀律去愛人、做決定、面對人生。**

如果你常被假新聞搞亂、容易被情緒帶著走、或想讓自己思考更清楚，這本書會像一把瑞士軍刀，陪你一輩子。
2024年出版，2025年仍被譽為「當代最實用的科學思維指南」。
值得一讀，尤其在資訊戰與極化時代。

[Antonio Gallo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Più nonsenso che senso, basandomi su quello che letto nel libro "Trovare il senso in un mondo senza senso. Pensare nel terzo millennio" di Saul Perlmutter, John Campbell e Robert MacCoun. Si propone un approccio pragmatico e metodologico alla questione del senso piuttosto che una risposta definitiva.

Gli autori - che includono un premio Nobel per la fisica (Perlmutter), un filosofo (Campbell) e un esperto di politiche pubbliche (MacCoun) - sembrano aver trovato un "senso" specifico nel processo stesso del pensiero critico e scientifico. Il libro "mostra come analizzare in modo critico la realtà, prendere decisioni valide e risolvere i problemi - individualmente e collettivamente - utilizzando i trucchi del mestiere degli scienziati".

La loro risposta alla domanda sul senso non è filosofica o esistenziale in senso tradizionale, ma metodologica: il senso si trova nell'adozione di strumenti intellettuali rigorosi per navigare la complessità del mondo contemporaneo. L'opera "ci offre un approccio per dare un senso al nonsenso, insegnandoci a prendere decisioni valide e a risolvere problemi".

In sostanza, gli autori sembrano aver "trovato" il senso nel processo di pensiero stesso - non come una verità assoluta da scoprire, ma come una competenza da sviluppare. Il loro approccio suggerisce che il senso emerge dall'applicazione di metodi scientifici e razionali alla comprensione della realtà, piuttosto che dalla ricerca di significati ultimi o trascendenti. Se voi avete capito, il senso è vostro. Io preferisco il nonsenso.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a primer about methods of clear thinking. It talks about when you should be careful about your own certainty, how you can think probabilistically, being aware of your cognitive biases and so forth. It was nothing new for me. I like to think that I mostly practice these techniques already automatically as I go through the world, though I am sure that I do so less consistently in practice than I think that I do. So in that regard, the book was useful reinforcement.

The thing that I liked best about the book was a point that only comes in at the end, but that is perhaps more effective by being presented that way as a closing thought - clear thinking always has to include a consideration of community. If your thinking is purely abstract, driven only by principles of logic and reason and probability, existing only in Plato's world of perfect forms, then you will miss the most important thing. Cold calculation is miscalculation. It's the lesson of Mr. Spock from Star Trek, who is presented to us as the embodiment of pure logic, but as we get to know him, we come to understand that his logic is always ultimately tempered by his friendship for Captain Kirk and his deep caring about the crew of the Enterprise and their mission.

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book, and super timely, as well as incredibly important given all the misinformation, disinformation, and the way all of us are inundated every day with information, content, and stimulation, most of which is largely just noise and nonsense.

This book is especially important because of the echo chambers in which most of us now find ourselves, chambers of people that only confirm and amplify what we already believe to be true, much of which is still likely inaccurate and/or missing a lot of key facts, and so we walk around in very narrow containers of incredibly limited knowledge, much of which is still faulty and littered with holes. And this applies to thinking and values on both sides of the political spectrum.

This book helps with learning to think critically, examine thoughtfully, and work through this stuff so we don't descend further into a society of extremism, black-and-white thinking, and stupidity. Thus, I highly recommend this book. It's not an easy read per say, though it's also not difficult. It is one worth sticking with and preserving through, though, since it's incredibly important.

[Shana]

Overview with case studies and stories on how to reduce error and bias and promote collective thinking that builds trust and authenticity into decision making and applies the best/most accurate scientific experiment principles to our thinking overall
it promotes building the habit of questioning what we read/propose to prevent the negative impacts of narrowcasting, bias and how we fool ourselves and get stuck in incorrect viewpoints. We tend to seek data that supports confirmation bias and avoid checking for error.

these tools and concepts are vital.

some readers may find this to be very 101, but that's by design.
a good reminder
I found their telling of Jacques Benveniste's memory of water story sneering.. but my bias is 100% of having known him and knowing how committed to his team he was, he was astonished by the findings, not a homeopathic fan looking for corroboration. he wanted and welcomed more research. It seems not all in his lab were unbiased . heartbreaking. He was more than a warning to others .

[Rick Presley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Since I've been around the block for more than a few minutes and since I come from a science background, almost none of this was new to me. However, the authors framed this well I would highly recommend it to those in their 20's or 30's, especially if they want to argue online. It doesn't cover all the logical fallacies or errors in reasoning, but it does go over the essentials and offers habits that will prevent most errors of thinking. The humble attitude throughout is what makes this book stellar. This is not a bunch of know-it-alls warning you about why you're wrong, (or even why everyone else is wrong and you might be right) but is a cautionary warning that even when we have the best of intentions, it doesn't mean we're going to get it right. And we need to be OK with that. And correcting ourselves when we are shown to be wrong, painful though it may be.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This started off as more-or-less a guide to how scientists think, and most of the content was quite familiar, although it is always helpful to have concepts made explicit. I found the greatest value in the later sections dealing with new approaches to working with crowds, acknowledging participants are not all on the same side. The book benefited by being written by a physicist, a philosopher and a social scientist, making the insights broadly applicable and sorely needed in this conflict-riddled world. Scientific optimism was also highlighted as a valuable trait, and manifests here with the authors' parting messages that emerging technologies and 3MT approaches are capable of making a difference.

[Jānis Cimbulis · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors did a fairly accurate review of the book in it's final chapter:

".. we don’t claim it is completely original to us, and we certainly don’t claim it can stand alone as an authoritative work of intellectual history. Everything in the first two columns has been discussed and dissected by many different scholars in many different disciplines.
But we do think the third column describes emerging patterns that have not been fully or widely appreciated yet."

If you replace "column" with "part", the quote perfectly mirrors my opinions while reading the book. The last part is what makes it a worthwhile read.

[Natalia Kasmeridi · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book presents an optimistic vision of societal progress, emphasizing trust and social optimism as key to shaping the future. However, the book assumes these qualities exist in abundance, often overlooking skepticism and division. It also falls into confirmation bias, reinforcing its hopeful perspective without fully addressing counterarguments or historical failures. A more nuanced take on things going wrong and societal divides would have strengthened its arguments.

Regardless, the book gets 5 stars because it's amazing to see 3 different people all with different academic backgrounds come together and explain how people think/should think these days.

[Lorenzo Scarafia · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an age where information is of so easy access through the new technological innovations there needs to be a process of critically evaluating the information, this is a book that gives you the tools to do so, not only for evaluating information but to develop and articulate our own individual thoughts and to open up real useful discussions with your community on anything that you might have ever pondered on. Confidence, estimation, facing the different values and opinions people from different backgrounds from ours might have, and aiming for a new enlightenment through the techniques and tools proposed in this book this is the 3MT.

[Cindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

How can we possibly know what's true when we're bombarded by studies and opinions and research and talking heads at every turn? This was a good start to acquiring the tools we need to sort and evaluate all that. I found myself thinking of people who need this book, but I don't know if they'd ever consider themselves as needing it. Then I thought maybe I'm one of the ones who needs it! It really wouldn't hurt anyone to honestly look at how they form, keep and defend their opinions.

[Mariana Tupper]

Hope is not just another 4-letter word. Three authors share their ideas for how humanity can indeed rise to our current challenges. Working together actually can provide some surprising benefits, even when we assume we disagree. (Especially when we disagree?) These and other ideas/facts/stories are presented for readers to consider. Stimulating conversations await us!

[Marco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super wichtige Denkansätze für eine Welt des Informationsüberflusses. Allerdings empfand ich die selbst gesetzte Messlatte was das Buch “will” zu hoch für das was dann kommt. Ich bin leider kein Fan der deutschen Übersetzung - der Schreibstil erscheint mir recht sperrig und ich vermute das Original ist einfacher zu lesen. Nichtsdestotrotz bietet das Buch hoch relevante Denkanstöße.

[Mike Shaw · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was OK. Hoping for more. The concept of the book sounded more fun than it was.

Good coverage on the scientific method and some of the errors we make, but not super helpful.

For more useful solutions in decision making, I would suggest Decisive by Chip & Dan Heath.

[Stephanie Oldfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

On audiobook, some of the tables/lists are quite disorienting and boring to listen to. It can be hard to follow.
But in general, many compelling points, ideas and strategies for navigating the masses of information we sift through each day.

[Arys Nogueron · Rating 3 out of 5]

For individuals who work for the sciences, this book will not be too stimulating. There are some chapters associated with how to approach conflict within groups and bias. I did enjoy the science and mathematics approach

[Francis Shaw · Rating 3 out of 5]

A work that came out of a university course, I don't think it merited a book. Despite the title, there is nothing new here. If you have read widely in the decision making/problem solving area, most of the content will be familiar to you.

[Austin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book about logical fallacies and how to avoid them in your own life. I think that implementing many of the changes in thinking that this book suggests would greatly improve the vast majority of online discussions. That being said, this book ultimately did not stay with me long.