i think this is a must read. i had started questioning the way things are even before finding this book but when i did and when i started reading it showed me in how many ways human knowledge is limited, so i think this is one of the books that literally made me a better person.it's a must read for everyone.

Instead of writing a full review, I'd like to take up some issues with the low-star reviews, which seem to have strong patterns to them that should be adressed. As a disclaimer - I am merely a reader of this book, not a psychological scientist, and I do think negative reviews have their place for ANYTHING that is meant for an audience. And they are important because when reading reviews, you want to know whether the product is something *you* would like to have and may share some of your interests with other reviewers. However, bad criticism based on misconceptions or misunderstandings are worth adressing to be fair to those who are considering the product.1) "There is nothing new in that." That's actually the worst argument against that book I have come by - yes, psychology has a thing for scientifically and statistically proving things an alert, smart person will already have realized and experienced all on their own. However, that same alert mind that already knew these things in the book were scientifically/statistically true before it even read about them, should also be able to realize that there are a LOT of people around that do not know these things (in the legal system, for example!) - and who should REALLY read that book. This argument is actually the best justification for the book - "I SAW this was true before I read the book, because I see the mistakes the people around me make because of these misconceptions." So, obviously, there is yet some need to have such a book. Also - while many people claim they already knew everything in the book, I wonder whether they really were consciously aware of them.2) ...but those who need to know about these daily illusions of perception will probably say "the book is boring and I couldn't bring myself to read it", like other reviewers here have said. Fair enough, so popular science lit on the workings of the mind isn't your thing. What does that say about the quality of the book, though? 3) It's popular science lit, moreover, psychology-based where proper objective tests are hard to come by. How do you rate a person's humor? Exactly, you can't - and the authors acknowledge it and clearly mention the problem, yet try as best as they can to find a way to measure the social value "humor" by social standards. Complaining about this strategy is like pointing out a tennis player's lack of skill AFTER he said "Okay, I'll try to hit the tennis ball, but this frying pan just isn't perfect for this sport."4) The complaint that the authors were wrong because they were contradicted by another author is always to be taken with a lot of skepticism. Welcome to science: We disagree to figure things out all the time, results and conclusions are updated, interpretations differ. I will not claim expertise in the field myself, nor say I can judge who is right and who is wrong, but anyone who read the book should know that even expert opinions are to be taken with skepticism. Why should that not be true (and perfectly normal) for this book and any other book on the topic, may they contradict each other or not - and are these common problems within science really a problem with the quality of the book? I find it difficult to measure how much detailed contradictory opinion should be included in popular science lit and how much would simply be confusing to the reader, or give a false sense of the scale of any disagreement within science. It may be quite justified to differ with the authors' choices on the matter, but the complaints I read in reviews are only concerned with the authors being "wrong", not with their lack of inclusion of contradictory opinions.5) The book is repetitive. Yes, the book lives on example after example to drive the point home - and obviously, some fields in these examples are not entertaining to all readers. I found the anecdotes engaging, mostly BECAUSE they were all different from each other and took on a variety of directions. If I am personally not interested in stock markets - and I am not -, that's actually my problem, but I do appreciate authors who can take their thoughts in all possible directions to engage different kinds of readers. Also, the authors themselves give a warning about anecdotal evidence in the beginning, and the difficulty of obtaining objective evidence on some topics. (see also point 3). The book's contents reflect that, indeed. Maybe it would have been better to write this book 30+ years from now when the evidence is in, but I am actually glad to have it now.6) Political direction... I read a review complaining that certain political people receive "excuses" in the book, while others don't and that there may be a political bias in the book. I do not see this political coloration. It merely seemed to me like popular examples were used to drive a point home, nothing more. I also don't agree with the assessment who exactly is "excused" and who isn't. 7) No scientist is ever an expert in a broad field. That includes the authors of "The Invisible Gorilla". But they are often more of an expert than most laypeople are because they do read the scientific literature and discuss it. Expecting a scientist to be that much of an expert that he or she has published scientific literature in all the topics needed to make a good popular science literature book is slightly utopic. The best you can do then is to include a variety of experts, lengthening the author list - but not everyone is interested in writing popular science lit, nor is everyone capable of adapting to a specific style for a specific book.8) Making a movie for scientific purposes that eventually gets famous on youtube and pops up in a couple of news-sources at some point is not making any scientist popular. Claiming "The Invisible Gorilla" got published because that was the authors' claim to fame is at best a red herring. Lastly, a brief review of my own: "The Invisible Gorilla" is an interesting glimpse at popular and current psychological science that actually has some interesting implications for our daily lives and understanding of each other and ourselves. Sure, the science seems rather "new" at some point (whereas 'new' in science can mean a few decades of research) and the topic is not easy to come by from an objective standpoint, but it would be a pity NOT to have heard of these phenomena. The authors could have reduced the examples and anecdotes, but as they are all neatly sorted and headlined, it is actually pretty easy for readers to skip anything they do not care for and still find a lot they actually do care for. In any case, this is certainly worth reading and thinking - and more importantly - talking about. Many people fall prey to "everyday illusions", and even if you are aware of them, having some amunitiont to point them out to others could lead to some really interesting conversations and prevent a few daily mistakes in your vicinity.

I wanted to like this book; it's right up my alley. I love Gladwell, I love Sheena Iyengar, etc. But I could not finish this book - I had to give up after four tries. The authors present a premise, give an interesting anecdote or research that proves the point, and then proceed to beat the reader over the head with a long-winded narrative to prove the point they already proved. Even worse, the additional narrative usually ends up weakening their argument or even disproving the point/premise! On top of that, the authors have a steep bias for experimental research (which uses a control group) and discount any evidence from quasi-experimental, surveys, and the like, which is a problem because one can rarely do experimental research in the social sciences (i.e. we're going to withhold treatment from alcoholics or food from starving children so we can have a control group).

This was a fascinating book on one of my very favourite topics: why our brains don't work the way we think they do. If you haven't already, check out this video. I, for one, was one of the people who completely missed the gorilla the first time I saw it. (If you've seen this video already, check out this one. Trust me.) The invisible gorilla video is an example of the first of six "everyday illusions" Chabris and Simons discuss in their book. In the same way that optical illusions trick us into thinking one thing when we're really seeing another, the mental illusions in The Invisible Gorilla trick us into thinking our minds are more capable than they often are. Here are the six illusions:1. The illusion of attention -- We believe that if something unexpected shows up in our field of vision, we'll notice it. In fact, whether we notice it or not is dependent on what we're focusing our attention on at the time. 2. The illusion of memory -- We believe that if we remember something, especially if we remember it vividly, then that memory is a valid reflection of what actually happened. In fact, memories fade and change over time, and just because a memory is vivid doesn't mean it's accurate. (Fun experiment: Do you remember what you were doing on 9/11 when you found out about the plane crashes? Write it down, and have the people you were with write their memories as well. You might be surprised by the subtle and not-so-subtle differences between memories.)3. The illusion of confidence -- We assume that someone's confidence reflects their level of skill and ability. In fact, there's not necessarily a correlation, and the people who are worst at some skill are often the most overconfident. We tend to follow and believe people who are very confident, but that doesn't mean these people make the best decisions.4. The illusion of knowledge -- We think we understand much more about the world around us than we really do. (Fun experiment: do you know how your toilet, zipper, or bicycle works? If you do, ask yourself "why?" a couple of times, and you'll see you don't really know as much as you thought. e.g. Why does the zipper grip the teeth? No clue.) Moreover, because we think we know how complex systems work, we often make predictions and plans that are doomed to fail. (Think about the financial crisis.)5. The illusion of cause -- We see patterns where there are none, and see causation when there might only be correlation or chronology. Also, once we believe in those patterns and causes, it's extremely difficult for scientific evidence or statistics to sway us. This illusion is why there's a huge anti-vaccination movement in the U.S. right now.6. The illusion of potential -- We believe that we only use a small portion or a small potential of our brains, and thus we can become much smarter, much faster. This is the reason for the whole "Mozart effect" phenomenon (even though no researchers have replicated the original experiment) and Nintendo's Brain Age. While we can become more skilled at tasks with practice, the idea that there's a "get smart quick" solution is an illusion.I think this book is fascinating, and I recommend it. If you read it, you'll start seeing these illusions everywhere, which is I think what the authors intended.

illusions of attention, memory, confidence, knowledge, cause, potential. excellent well organized, informative, important book.each chapter is an illusion caused by our mental structures, like optical illusions effect our perception, a must read for anyone interested in clearer thinking, which ought to be everyone.each chapter presents an illusion, like the gorilla in the basketball passings video. presents the illusion, then using experimental results and interesting examples shows us what the illusion is and how it works. excellent introduction with enough footnotes to get into the literature, the best of popular science writing.i took notes, would have appreciated marking up my own copy, a worth owning book. chapters are independent, able to be profitably read in any order, with a nice summary conclusion. i'd read the first few pages of each chapter to get an idea of whether the book is one for you, an odd way to do it, but reflective of the book's organization, try it you might get drawn into it....