We all know that when we say someone is "sweet", we don't mean they are literally sweet, or even that they like sweet things. We know that it is a sort of analogy between a person whose personality makes them pleasant to be around, and something which tastes especially pleasant. Thalma Lobel knows this as well. She is, however, asserting that these two different meanings of the word "sweet" are a lot more closely tied together in our mind than we might think. So much so that activating one concept (e.g. by learning that the person has a "sweet tooth") makes the other concept more likely to spring to mind (and cause us to think they are pleasant to be around, i.e. a "sweet person").
Ditto for things that are hard and being a hard bargainer, being physically close together and being emotionally close, being physically higher up and being more powerful (aka "high up in the organization"). Lobel's basic thesis here is that our more abstract concepts do not form in the brain out of nothing; they form out of analogies to things that we learned in early life, and most of that was physical sensations.
The book is divided into chapters on temperature, texture, weight, color (two chapters, one on performance and one on sexual attraction), contrast, distance, height, cleanliness (lots of associations between moral and physical disgust here), and smells. Whatever one thinks of the basic thesis, Lobel does not stint in providing us with the scientific research to back up her claims. People are more likely to think highly of a resume for an important job, if they are reading it while it is attached to a heavy clipboard rather than a light one. If you use computers to change the jersey color of athletes in a video clip and show it to referees, they are more likely to assign points to the side wearing red than the side wearing blue. Every chapter has multiple different research teams, at different institutions in different countries, demonstrating that the human brain is influence by a lot of things that probably ought to be irrelevant.
If you want the other person in a negotiation to be more open to your suggestions, serve them a warm drink. If you want to keep yourself from being too easily swayed by a desire to be agreeable, pick an iced drink. Yikes. I ought not to have to think about what color tie I'm wearing, what temperature drink I'm drinking, and how close I'm sitting to the other person, when I'm having a business meeting. Of course, I am totally free to ignore these things, at least consciously. What Lobel is saying, though, is that just because I am ignoring them, doesn't mean they don't affect how I think and behave.
So, was the fact that this book's dustcover was smooth on the front, but rough on the back, influencing my opinion of it in some subtle way? Was I being manipulated somehow?
How you feel about this book, probably depends on whether you delight in hearing all the ways that humans are less rational than they like to think they are, or if you find it depressing. For myself, I find it good to be forewarned, although I probably won't be trying to use most of what it says, because if I tried I would probably just forget about the actual main points I was trying to keep in mind. When you're trying to make things scrupulously fair, though, as for example when interviewing multiple candidates for the same job or picking jersey colors for Olympic contestants (research shows that the ones assigned red in the real Olympics win more often), it might be worth going back to this book to remind yourself of all the ways you could be unknowingly screwing with your brain's ability to make a logical decision.