Renowned psychologists describe the most useful insights from social psychology that can help make you "wise" - wise about why people behave the way they do, and wise about how to use that knowledge in understanding and influencing the people in your life.
When faced with a challenge, we often turn to those we trust for words of wisdom. Friends, relatives, and colleagues - someone with the best advice about how to boost sales, the most useful insights into raising children, or the sharpest take on an ongoing conflict.
In The Wisest One in the Room, renowned social psychologists Thomas Gilovich and Lee Ross ask, Why? What do these people know? What are the foundations of their wisdom? And, as professors and researchers who specialize in the study of human behavior, they wonder: What general principles of human psychology are they drawing on to reach these conclusions? They begin by noting that wisdom, unlike intelligence, demands some insight into people - their hopes, fears, passions, and drives. It's true for the executive running a Fortune 500 company, the candidate seeking public office, the artist trying to create work that will speak to the ages, or the single parent trying to get a child through the tumultuous adolescent years. To be wise, they maintain, one must be psych-wise.
©2015 Thomas Gilovich and Lee Ross (P)2015 Recorded Books
"The Wisest One in the Room" is a rehash of almost every interesting finding of social psychology research. No new research is presented. All the authors have done is to attempt to reposition knowledge of these findings as wisdom. The attempt almost completely fails, and quite glaringly so when it tries to transition from the anecdote at the beginning of the book about Eisenhower and D-Day to the main body of the book, not one bit of which has any explanatory power about the introductory anecdote.
If one has not read much in social psychology, then this book might be as good as any of several others to give an overview of some of the most interesting findings of the field. It's not actually a bad book. It's just an unnecessary one.
"Decent content, terrible narrator"
Content was good, nothing new, but valuable content brought together in one place and linked in a meaningful way. Narrator spoilt it for me, really irritated me and drove me to distraction.
"Terribly narrated and learned nothing new"
Any unique insights would have helped. This was just a re-hash of research surfaced in other similar, much better novels
The accent of the narrator and his intonation was patronising and grated throughout. I didn't finish the book because of this.
Report Inappropriate Content