The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic - The Upside of Irrationality

Dan Ariely has done it again! A fascinating book that will make you think and see the world differently! Highly recommend the book - especially if you like social sciences and behavioural economics :)

I chose to review this literature written by Mr. Ariely solely how i was engage with the book at the first page. He give you an amazing perspective to human flaws. Pick it up. See how it relates to you.

A quantitative yet thoughtful look into many of the concepts which each of us carry within us unchallenged. While not a fresh new look at our concepts of the world Dan Ariely certainly shed a different, or refreshed, new light of my thoughts.

Dan Ariely's writing is fascinating. This book reflects each and everyone of us, and is life changing in the way I make decisions after reading it. VERY interesting book, with tuns of examples which makes it an- easy to understand book- for every age. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!

Certainly an interesting book for a wide variety of readers (business, education). I would have rated higher but I found the book to be a bit tedious in spots. He covers the same ground several times. Is an interesting person doing interesting work.

Dan Ariely is back with more studies on the irrational things we humans do. I'm not convinced he really makes many arguments for the upside, and the book lacks some of the punch of originality of the first. Overall, the book is very educational and entertaining.

AFTER HAVING LISTENED TO A LECTURE BY THIS HIGHLY QUALIFIED PROFESSOR, NOW AT DUKE UNIVERSITY, I HAVE BEEN INTRIGUED BY HIS RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ABOUT HOW WE THINK AND MAKE DECISIONS. IN THIS WELL WRITTEN AND READABLE BOOK, HE EXPLAINS MANY OF HIS STUDIES AND REPORTS ON HIS RESULTS WHICH MIGHT INFLUENCE OUR OWN ACTIONS AND THINKING AS WE DEAL WITH OTHERS.

I am a professional economist with an interest in human nature and human institutions. I won't say I understood any less about my areas of interest after finishing "The Upside of Irrationality" but the book did not help me either. It was clever without being wise.

I had expected an elaboration of the work of Thomas Shelling (who was mentioned once) and Robert Frank ("Passions within Reason"), who was not mentioned at all. Occasionally Ariely betrays some suspicion that irrational impulses may be part of rational design, but the overall thrust of the book is to show how we can rationally overcome our irrational impulses to achieve greater good for ourselves and for mankind.

One will acquire much more insight into the nature of human rationality by spending time with Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and Robert Frank's "Passion within Reason". I would recommend these to Professor Ariely as shedding more light on human nature and the human condition than clever experiments conducted in the coffee houses of Cambridge.

Did not like. Its pretty much a collection of thoughts, not particularly interesting ones either. Its kind of phony calling it "economic behavioralism" when it is pretty much just a generalization of thought patterns.

I could not finish reading it because I was tired of reading the exact same thing over and over!

One of those books written by a smart academic with lots of stories, all well documented, all well written, excellent formatting. Everything about this book is first class professional. But there was nothing in it for me.

Great title, the Upside of Irrationality. Nothing I read in the book had anything to do with that title that I could apply to me.

Another way to judge a book is the difference between the used price and the new price on the store.

I am a professional economist with an interest in human nature and human institutions. I won't say I understood any less about my areas of interest after finishing "The Upside of Irrationality" but the book did not help me either. It was clever without being wise.

I had expected an elaboration of the work of Thomas Shelling (who was mentioned once) and Robert Frank ("Passions within Reason"), who was not mentioned at all. Occasionally Ariely betrays some suspicion that irrational impulses may be part of rational design, but the overall thrust of the book is to show how we can rationally overcome our irrational impulses to achieve greater good for ourselves and for mankind.

One will acquire much more insight into the nature of human rationality by spending time with Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and Robert Frank's "Passion within Reason". I would recommend these to Professor Ariely as shedding more light on human nature and the human condition than clever experiments conducted in the coffee houses of Cambridge.

Did not like. Its pretty much a collection of thoughts, not particularly interesting ones either. Its kind of phony calling it "economic behavioralism" when it is pretty much just a generalization of thought patterns.

I could not finish reading it because I was tired of reading the exact same thing over and over!

One of those books written by a smart academic with lots of stories, all well documented, all well written, excellent formatting. Everything about this book is first class professional. But there was nothing in it for me.

Great title, the Upside of Irrationality. Nothing I read in the book had anything to do with that title that I could apply to me.

Another way to judge a book is the difference between the used price and the new price on the store.

Having read and immensely enjoyed his previous book, "Predictably Irrational", I was really thrilled to buy the new book by Dan Ariely. I was very disappointed. The book cover is hideous and the quality of paper of the book is very poor with pages being cut in a very irregular way. But the worst disappointment is the content.
Ariely is clearly milking the success of his previous book which was well-researched and well-put together. "The Upside" makes an impression that it was written over a weekend in the hope to make a quick buck.
The case studies on human behaviour, a strong point of the previous book, are weird and towards the last chapters of the book they disappear altogether being replaced by Ariely's own subjective experiences which he then interprets as general rules for humankind.
I was really disappointed at some of the laughable conclusions he makes. For example: so poor peasants in India get really nervous if offered an equivalent of a 6-month salary for playing some stupid game well. Not surprising. You would get nervous too. Ariely's conclusion: big bonuses make CEO's less effective. What a ridiculous conclusion.
Next example: when deciding between buying a new kitchen or going on an exotic luxury holiday for the same money, go for the holiday because you will enjoy this experience more. How stupid and also irresponsible to suggest this. I absolutely disagree with this conclusion. Underlying principle he seems to recommend here: don't save just spend.
The final chapters on dating are just laughable, there is no underlying research supporting the claims Ariely makes, just a few personal anecdotes.
This book is not even worth the paper it is printed on and Ariely failed big time to live up to my expectations created by his excellent first book.

You know those authors that just like to jibber jabber about a bunch of meaningless stuff? This is one of them. This book wastes a lot of time telling you meaningless stuff. I quit reading it way early in the book. Don't waste your money.

From the very first paragraph of the introduction, it felt like Dan Ariely was speaking directly to me when he pointed out how difficult it is to successfully stop procrastinating, no matter how much willpower I exert. If you find human behavior intriguing and if you like personal growth, you'll like this book. Every chapter is based on experiments Ariely carried out himself.

There are descriptions of many clever and interesting experiments throughout the book. And I think learning how an experiment is done is just as fascinating as learning what the experiment showed. When a researcher wants to discover something, s/he must first invent an experiment that could successfully reveal it. I think the invention of experiments is an underappreciated art form. Sometimes when you read an experiment, you can experience a pleasurable appreciation of the brilliance of the experiment itself.

One great thing about studying sociology is that you learn things that can help you enjoy your life. It is not merely interesting. You learn how to reduce the unpleasantness of chores and how to make pleasant tasks even more enjoyable. Without trying to be, "The Upside of Rationality" ends up being a great self-help book, and I say this as an expert on the topic (I wrote the book, Self-Help Stuff That Works).

Knowing the findings of these experiments will help you make better, saner, but more counterintuitive decisions (sometimes the best decisions aren't the most obvious or natural choices). Sociology experiments have much to teach us about human nature. They are the parables or allegories of the modern age.

I don't think the title does the book justice. It should be called, "The Fascinating World of Human Nature." It is divided into two parts: Work and relationships. Although Ariely is a researcher, the book is NOT written in academic-ese. It is normal, everyday English and easy to read.

I bought this book after having read Predictably Irrational. It's discovery after discovery about how our biases lead us into making pretty funny and unwise decisions. We're full of guesswork. Indeed, we have a reason for just about everything, but as Sherlock Holmes noted, "It's a capital mistake to theorize before one has the data." Read the book and get the data to make wiser decisions.

Following up on his blockbuster hit Predictably Irrational, Ariely presents us with a whole slew of new arguments and experiments that rip apart "rational" economic assumptions. In actuality, rational economic assumptions only work on the basis of financial gain, and ignore half of the brain, the emotional half, that has a greater impact upon our decisions and actions (largely in part because it is a more primitive portion of our brains).

Chapter 1 is an entertaining look at how monetary incentives can pile on the pressure, leading to choking and sub-par performance. This seems to be true in every aspect of work, based on the most recent research we have. Ariely does proffer a solution - offer incentives every few years, rather than annually, to prevent employees from focusing on the prize towards the end of the year, and thereby having their thoughts in the clouds instead of their noses to the grindstone. Sadly, such advice is often ignored of treated with derision by business executives (whose salaries are at stake).

Every chapter is more entertaining and enlightening than the last. Perhaps the research with the most long-lasting impact is Chapter 5, which deals with game theory and revenge. Even when economically disadvantageous (pay the researchers a dollar, and they will strip your opponent of double that), most people who have been wronged will seek to get their own back. While counter-intuitive, it actually makes perfect sense from an emotional viewpoint, and is not truly "irrational."

As one might expect, people have an internal bias toward their own achievements and ideas. Taking a step back, learning more about the field (be it origami or quantum mechanics) can help individuals dampen this bias and evaluate their own efforts and ideas more objectively. The experiments required the participants to value their own creations soon after creating them, after all.

The infamous "shredder" experiment also features prominently, and provides a considerable deal of black humour. The point is unmistakable, whether applied to employment or school. Similarly, we tend to take things out of proportion. When faced with an abandoned child in our neighbourhood (or presented with images from across the globe), we tend to respond with more dollars and hours of aid.

When I first read Predictably Irrational it sparked an interest to read more about behavioral economics. So over the years I read a few books about behavioral economics such as Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (who are the fathers of behavioral economics), and Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. After a while, I noticed that these books quite repeat each other and that they seldom provide any new insights.

As for The Upside of Irrationality, Ariely's writing style is witty and filled with humor. However, as opposed to Predictably Irrational it doesn't provide any new insights. As other reviewers have already mentioned, some of the experiments in this book are questionable. Just to cite one example, Ariely argues that high bonuses are not effective because when high stakes are involved people get nervous, and therefore, their performance drops. He "proves" that by offering three different winning prices (a small, medium and large bonuses) to random people to play various games. In this experiment, the performance of the player dropped as the amount of the bonuses was higher. Therefore, Ariely argues, big bonuses are not the best way to provide incentives to workers. (This only applies to cognitive tasks, and not to, for instance, laying brick, where the bigger the bonuses the harder people work).

Just imagine someone approached you and told you that if you will perform well in some game you will win a sum of money equivalent to an average five-month salary. Obviously, your heart rate will go sky-high and your performance will drop. Now, let's say you're working in some think tank in Washington and you're currently working on some presentation that is due in a few weeks. Do you think the high bonuses, to be received at the end of the year, will affect you in the same way? In my opinion, it will not. In the second scenario, I think the employee will be less subjected to pressure since he had more time to adjust himself to the idea of a large bonus. Moreover, because the reward of the bonus will not be immediate, you'll be less subjected to pressure of a high bonus as well. The example above just comes to show that Ariely's conclusions are inconclusive (people can argue both ways).

All in all, if you're already familiar with behavioral economics you might as well pass on this book, but if you're not you might enjoy this book. Just remember to read this book with a critical eye.

This beautiful book speaks about how the expectation of extracting rational behavior from our irrational selves is flawed. If we were completely rational, we would easily make choices which were in our long term interest and just as easily let go of short term pleasures and gains which did not serve us in the long run. But the fact that this is not how we are is illustrious of our irrational self. However, in spite of the seeming malignant nature of this dilemma there is a benign upside to this phenomenon, which is what this book is about.

The book also behooves readers to think of oneself as the subject of an experiment whose aim is to discover the truths about one's own self and behaviors. The author shares some fascinating experiments with revealing insights. There is much available for us to learn about ourselves should we so desire and go about it meticulously.

While we figure out what experiments we may want to conduct on ourselves, we may think through the findings and lessons from the book and think of how they may apply to our day to day behavior, what could be learned from them, how could we grow as a person of greater self awareness and discipline.

The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic
Standard economic theory assumes that people are rational, utility-maximizing creatures, and behavioral economics repeatedly disproves this notion through various, often humorous, experiments. Ariely is a behavioral economist who has conducted many such experiments over the years. His thinking about research is greatly influenced by a horrific accident he experienced as a youth that left him badly burned. This book aims to put a positive spin on irrationality, arguing that it's what makes us human and gives us the capacity to love others. Ariely also hopes to point out some practical applications of his experiments' conclusions.

A few points:
Don't pay your workers bonuses that are too high. This creates too much pressure that distracts; the effect is worse if it's a loss-aversion experiment.

Clutch players don't perform/shoot any better at "crunch time," they just take more shots.

People prefer to work for a reward rather than have it handed to them. Studies show that people do not by-and-large just put in the minimum effort in order to get the maximum reward. I wrote a personal observation of this on an assembly line years ago. They put in effort and desire to achieve goals, they value their work. But people want to know their work serves a higher purpose. If your boss gives you an assignment and you work very hard on it, and even get recognition for it, if the work gets shelved or the project is canceled, it crushes motivation. This isn't rational-- you know you did a good job, you got paid for it, you got praised by your boss. But those rewards aren't enough. The next time you're given such a task, it will affect your motivation and the quality of your work.

Connecting even the lowliest worker's tasks to the overall goals of the company will increase productivity. I remember this being best exemplified by SRC Holdings in Springfield, MO which includes all its employees in its monthly financial meetings-- all employees (from the janitor to the CEO) see how their work affects the bottom line, the success of the company, and therefore their paychecks. This is considered "best practice" in management and is encouraged by current ISO standards.

Playing "hard to get" in love really does work, when we have to struggle to accomplish or build something we take greater satisfaction than if it was easy. When the task is a big struggle and we fail to complete it, we feel worse than if the task had been easy and we failed.

The IKEA effect. IKEA may sell cheap furniture, but the assembly process it requires causes us to value it more-- we created something. We become attached to and take greater pride in our own creations, which leads to overvaluation of them. My wife and I recently decided to purchase a used house rather than build a new one, even though the new one would have been nicer and was within our price range and had more positive upside. We made this choice, in part, because I remembered how attached my family was to a house we built in my childhood, where my parents designed it and included input from all of us; it was tailor-made. Among the hardest things we ever did was leave that home, part of me still misses it. We don't intend to live in our current location for very long, so we felt that investing in the creation of a new home would have rooted our hearts more than we wanted. It also would have been harder for us to put our clunky, used furniture into a shiny new house.

People who have experienced a great deal of pain develop higher pain tolerance. Our bodies, minds, and attitudes adjust to our surroundings. Studies have found that people who moved from the cold Midwest to sunny California may have been happier temporarily, but over time reverted to the previous baseline of happiness-- and vice-versa for those who moved to the Midwest from California.

Much of the book deals with Ariely's fascination with assortive mating and the "inefficient market" that is the U.S. dating market. He hypothesizes that those who have obvious shortcomings-- like horrible burns-- may compensate by seeking a less-attractive mate who is, say, funnier or smarter than average. Studies find that men tend to be more "optimistic" and "aim higher" in dating activity than women. They seem to be less aware, or less influenced by, their shortcomings.

Emotions affect our decisions long after the emotions fade. If you decide on a particular course of action because you were influenced by an emotion you felt at the time--positive or negative--you will likely continue on that course of action (even if irrational or inefficient) even though you got over the emotion you were feeling. People have a strong "status quo bias," which makes them loathe to change and we often fall for the "sunk cost fallacy" of becoming attached to things just because they're there.

In the end, Ariely praises the biblical Gideon for testing everything. That is sort of Ariely's motto.

The book was pretty good. I still would recommend Kahneman's seminal Thinking Fast and Slow (my review here) before reading this book, but I would add Ariely's book to the "behavioral economics" reading list. 3 stars out of 5.

Rating:3.75

Ariely talks of studies and all the silliness that is inside our head. This book poses more questions than it gives answers which is what I think Ariely wants. I feel he wants you to think about your decisions and why you make them.

A few experiments that I thought were interesting were the Lego experiment where they were seeing if Pay was a motivator for work. Also there was a good discussion on revenge. Being a Behavioral economist Ariely doesn't beat around the bush when trying to find out how and why you act the way you do.

I recommend this book to anyone who enjoy social science. The book is fully of interesting studies and really has you thinking about the decision you make.

The author is a famous researcher in behavioral economics -- a fascinating field. I enjoyed his first book. Here, though, the chapters are very much hit or miss.

Some of his experiments -- real experiments, not merely thought experiments, seem superficial. The LEGO experiment on the value of work is a prime example. He wanted to see if the destruction of one's work product would diminish a person's satisfaction with the work. Can you guess the results?? You got it! A resounding yes. Admittedly, if the results had turned out to be the reverse, this would be a revelation, but these conclusions are common sense.

Equally silly is the IKEA chapter. IKEA sells assemble-it-yourself furniture. You can invent the experiment for yourself and again, predict the results.

However, his chapter on online dating as a "failed market" is excellent. I will not tip his research here.

The book is loaded with insights, proven by behavioral economic research. Did you know you know you enjoy watching a TV show with commercials more than one that runs straight through? That's in here.

Moreover, I must praise Mr. Ariely's candor in describing -- sometimes graphically -- his health and recovery issues -- painful physically and emotionally -- and how they influenced his life and work. The book is worth reading for that frankness alone.

The book is super readable*, and mercifully is not loaded with the required arcane statistics, which must underpin the experiments for scientific validity.

* His notes on his contributors underline that he has worked with some amazing people and that he's the world's nicest guy.

This is a wonderfully written, amusing book on top of being very informative. The author benefited (?!) by being almost burned to death when he was 18. It gave him a new perspective on life, and the limitations of the lifelong scarring, pain, and physical disability forced him to choose a compatible career path. Fortunately for us, it was academia.

He talks about innumerable irrational things we do. The IKEA effect is the love we have for furniture when we have assembled ourselves. The very well known "not invented here" effect, which smothers good ideas in their crib. The ones I found most interesting concerned our mating habits. How do we make ourselves attractive to the opposite sex, and conversely, how does the human animal deal with the fact that he or she is just not that attractive? Keep hitting on people above our class? Rationalize that ugly people have other qualities such as a sense of humor? Or simply retreat into a monastery?

He has interesting riffs on the virtues of a society which employs yentas, the downside of computer dating, the psychology of speed dating in a great deal more.

I'm not going to invest great deal more in this because more than 100 have preceded me. I generally agree with the five star reviews.

After reading the first few chapters of the Upside of Irrationality, I was prepared to give it a fairly negative review. Why? Because most of the points made by Ariely were fairly obvious to me, and not particularly insightful. As a psychotherapist (and author of a book exploring how we repress painful thoughts and emotions which threaten our self-image), I am very aware of how I and most people are often more motivated by feelings and habits than by reason.

I was initially turned off by Ariely's chatty, wordy writing style, full of rambling anecdotes. Later, I also questioned the title of the book, for it is NOT about the UPSIDE of irrationality and could more appropriately be titled Predictably Irrational: Volume Two. I also wondered about the validity of his many hackneyed, gamey experiments with college students, and the conclusions he drew from limited data.

However, I'm glad I continued reading, because although more than 75% than of the book was known territory for me, the 20% or more that wasn't provided a few gems of insight which made my reading experience worthwhile. Ariely's open sharing of his physical pain and vulnerability and some of the mistakes he made moved me, enabling me to connect emotionally with what I was reading and therefore be capable of "getting it" on a gut level.

For most people, reading nonfiction is primarily an intellectual exercise. If we learn about ourselves or human behavior, we usually learn via our left brains. Rarely do we have the kind of "aha" experiences that catalyze our right brain or impact us on a deep, core level.

What I find most valuable about The Upside of Irrationality is that Ariely's basic premise - that we are often motivated by emotional patterns and habits unknown to our reason - is reflected and constructively expressed at least as much through his writing style as his content. That is to say, his ability to tap into our compassion and engage our feelings means that his conclusions are likely to penetrate beyond our reason, creating the kind of bridge between our rational and irrational selves that leads to true insight. And gaining one or two real insights from a book - insight rather than knowledge - can be a rare experience in a world which bombards us with data that rarely penetrates beneath the surface of our consciousness.

To elaborate further: I found many of Ariely's conclusions obvious, while acknowledging that they may not be obvious to readers who are more identified with their minds than their feelings, or who have not studied human psychology or been in psychotherapy. Some of these conclusions are: We tend to perform worse when under a lot of pressure. Our motivation increases with the sense of meaning we contribute to an activity. We are attached to our own ideas. We experience pleasure in taking revenge against someone who offends us. Attractive people are more likely to form intimate relationships with attractive partners than unattractive people are. We tend to respond to one person in need of help, but are less inclined to take action in regard to long distance crises involving large numbers of people.

The hypotheses and conclusions that were less obvious and more meaningful to me were in the latter part of the book, and pertain to adaptation and to the effect of short-term emotions on long term decisions. Knowing that we benefit most when we don't interrupt unpleasurable experiences helped me decide to have periodontal surgery on all four quadrants of my mouth at once rather than one quadrant every six months. Learning, on the other hand, that interrupting and spreading out pleasurable experience over time is particularly beneficial reinforced my new tendency to take half a dozen four-day vacations a year rather than a two week vacation every year or two. Examining how decisions I made when in a pronounced emotional state in the past have impacted and continued to impact present decisions enables me to bring a greater degree of self-awareness and wisdom to my current decisionmaking.

In conclusion, whether you are likely to find most of Ariely's book valuable, or only one or two chapters, I do recommend it. We all can benefit from gaining even a tiny bit of insight into our irrational behaviors, and as a result become more congruent with ourselves.

Once again, Dan Ariely (successfully and delightfully) takes on the school of rational economists who insist humans are "rational, selfish, maximizing agents." His research in the field of behavioral economics (as well as his keen insight developed from years of being human) has lead to his realization that: "If we place human beings on a spectrum between the hyperrational Mr. Spock and the fallible Homer Simpson, we are closer to Homer than we realize."
Each chapter in this irresistible book takes a fascinating look at the irrational forces that move us away from Spock and more towards Homer:
*We behave more irrationally when the incentives are high
*We are less productive when we feel the work we are doing is not meaningful
*We tend to over-value our own ideas and creations
*We tend to under-value others' ideas and creations
*Our desire for revenge is one of our most basic human drives, and as such, it is incredibly difficult to overcome
*Our ability to adapt to both positive and negative experiences results in us often missing the mark when predicting our responses
*Although our individual level of attractiveness does not change who we find "hot or not," it does ultimately effect the relative importance we place on the "deeper" qualities of our (potential) mates
*The most effective services and products are ones that accommodate to our "Homer Simpson-likenesses"
*Individual emotional appeals--and not hardcore facts and data about the struggling "masses"--are the most effective ways to get us to respond to the suffering of others
*Acting on our emotions is often the result of the leakage from our past experiences, as well as the cause of unhelpful future decisions and habits
*We have oodles of irrational tendencies--most of which influence us in ways beyond our awareness

That's the downside of irrationality. But, as the book's title broadcasts: there's an upside to irrationality too. Dan shows how these same irrational forces are also the exact traits that make us wonderfully human. They are what allow us to: find meaning from our work, trust others, adapt to changing circumstances, love our creations and ideas, care about others, and enjoy our imperfectly perfect lives.

So, how do we become aware of the downsides of our irrational influences and harness their upsides? Ah...that's exactly what this book is all about. The secret to finding a comfortably human balance in the Mr. Spock/Homer Simpson spectrum lies within!

A personal celebration, inquisition, investigation, and critique of the myth of the "rational person". Not a whole lot of new ground covered though. Well written, breezy style, easy-to-read, with lots of experiments the author conducted described in detail.

By itself the book is good. Recommended for sure. But if you have read other books in this area, behavioral economics, like Stumbling on Happiness or Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, then at least some of the material will read familiar. Especially the parts about expectations and adaptation, which is covered at length and in a lot more depth in Stumbling on Happiness.

The organization of the book is also a bit different. It is divided very clearly into two parts, and is also more personal than other such books.

The underlying premise of the book is that while we, humans, should be rational, and make decisions that are in our best interests, we often do not.

..... "From a rational perspective, we should only make decisions that are in our best interests."

But we don't. Surprise! The title is a bit misleading, but given the incredible success of Dan Ariely's first book, Predictably Irrational, it would have been irrational for him not to reuse part of the title for his second book!

The very first irrationality described, so to say, is the fact that more pay does not necessarily translate into better performance, or even better motivation. Thankfully, the financial crisis of 2008 proved that more money does not translate into better results. Quite the opposite in many cases.

..... "But beyond that point, motivational pressures can be so high that it actually distracts an individual from concentrating on and carrying out a task - an undesirable outcome for anyone." The irony of these findings is illustrated quite unsurprisingly, when the author presented his findings to a select group of MIT alumni, "They all nodded their heads in agreement with the theory that high bonuses might backfire - until I suggested that the same psychological effects might also apply to the people in the room. They were clearly offended by the suggestion." .... "... Upton Sinclair once noted, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.'" [page 38 of the ARC]

Another finding that is contrary to rational thinking is one of "contrafreeloading" - contrary to expectations, people do not want to always maximize their reward whilst expending a minimum amount of work. Borne out in several experiments, people do value the rewards if they perceive they have expended at least some effort into it.

As a corollary, "... sucking the meaning out of work is surprisingly easy. If you're a manager who really wants to demotivate your employees, destroy their work in front of their eyes. Or, if you want to be a little subtler about it, just ignore them and their efforts." [page 76 of the Advance Reviewer's Copy]. Ouch!!! How many times, at how many places have we seen it, experienced it, and possibly even inflicted this form of motivational destruction onto others?

It stands to reason therefore, that beauty lies not in the eyes of the beholder as much as it lies in the eyes of its creator. "The Ikea Effect" chapter covers this irrationality.

..... These results showed us that the creators had a substantial bias when evaluating their own hard work. [page 94] ... When the effort is unfruitful, affection for one's work plummets. (This is also why playing hard to get is often a successful strategy in the game of love. If you put an obstacle in the way of someone you like and they keep on working on it, you're bound to make the person value you even more. On the other hand, if you drive that person to extremes and persist in rejecting them, don't count on staying "just friends.") [page 105]

The Laws of Labor and Love, or the 'four principles of human endeavor', are:

..... * The effort that we put into something does not just change the object. It changes us and the way we evaluate that object.
..... * Greater labor leads to greater love.
..... * Our overvaluation of things we make runs so deep that we assume that others share our biased perspective.
..... * When we cannot complete something into which we have put greater effort, we don't feel so attached to it.

Or what about revenge? Surely there is nothing so irrational, and emotionally destructive as revenge, is there? Well, it turns out, Ariely posits "that the threat of revenge - even at great personal expense - can serve as an effective reinforcement mechanism that supports social cooperation and order. ... I do suspect that, overall, the threat of vengeance can have a certain efficacy."

Don't believe me? Or the author? What about PET? Positron Emission Tomography.

..... The results showed increased activity in the striatum, which is a part of the brain associated with the way we experience reward. In other words, according to the PET scan, it looked as though the decision to punish others was related to a feeling of pleasure. ... All this suggests that punishment, betrayal, even when it costs us something, has biological underpinnings. [page 126]

...

..... It seems that at the moment we feel the desire for revenge, we don't care whom we punish - we only want to see someone pay, regardless of whether they are the agent of the principal. [page 146]

And so on... This book is not likely to become a classic or an instant hit, but offers enough nuggets of insight that you may want to bookmark several pages and return to them every now and then to remind yourself that man is, after all, not a rational animal.

Dan Ariely continues exploring the irrational world of behavioral economics in the Upside of Irrationality. Drawing on his own research as well as others, Ariely is able to bring out of the dense academic world glimmers of light that have relevance to his readers. Not only do we learn a lot from Ariely, but he engages us with some simple principles to improve our life. Whereas Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions focused on the marketplace, this new book looks at how the lessons and learnings of behavioral economics is applicable both at work and at home, and in doing so, forces us to re-examine the decisions we make and our view of the world. For example, he discusses why we value the output of our own hands, be it assembling furniture, folding origami, or baking a cake, more than others would. In a chapter on how emotions affect decisions, he demonstrates how the appeal of a single individual for charity can often outweigh the collective need of millions anonymously suffering halfway around the world. The success of Ariely's writings (and for that matter his engaging podcast "Arming the Donkey") are 3 fold. His lucid observations are able to peal the layers of a research topic and illuminate the core learnings from a set of experiments. He has a dry wit that entertains while educating and would often cause me to laugh out loud (his 2 sentence description of the academic article review process was not only hysterical, but completely on the money). And finally, his personal vignettes and experiences (some of which were quite horrific as he battled 3rd degree burns on much of his body as an 18-year old and others quite humorous) serve to add depth and understanding of his personal journey to understand human behavior (including his own). While one might expect Ariely, given his knowledge of his field, his fantastic output of books, articles, blogs, and podcasts, to be a Superhuman Behaviorial Economist, it is somewhat reassuring to read about his own behavior to see that he is merely a Moderately Irrational Superhuman Behavioral Economist.

Dan Ariely does a great job mixing good narration, experiments and tests, personal experience, as well as old and new phenomenons about life. Most of the chapters in the book explores some of the irrational phenomenon in our daily lives, and finding a way to either rid or live with the particular irrational human behaviors.

I especially like how the chapters are set up: Ariely introduces a topic, explains the many tests that he planned and conducted, and then discusses the findings and possible way you can put a positive spin to the many irrational human behaviors. The experiments are very easy to follow, and even enjoyable to read. There are several (not many) charts and graphics that appear throughout the book.

I won't spoil much, because this book is filled rich and plentiful with interesting topics. But I will say that my favorite two chapters are about the meaning of labor and the "Ikea effect." The meaning of labor is about how it gives more meaning and motivation to one when the result is considered and appreciated, rather than tossed away and done to keep the worker busy. The Ikea effect is about how one will feel attached and take pride in a work because they themselves invested time and effort into the project. Both are indeed irrational, but we can certainly make the irrational behavior a positive in our lives.

I highly recommend this book because of its eye-opening experience and advantage it gives you with more perspective on our daily lives.

I had a sufficiently positive impression of Dan Ariely from his first book, "Predictably Irrational", to be willing to give this one a try. My residual impression from the earlier book was of a smart, likable guy, with a knack for designing clever experiments to capture the irrational side of human behavior, particularly when making decisions with economic consequences. This area of investigation has risen to prominence over the past 5 to 10 years, there is now a flood of titles on the market, which shows no sign of abating in the foreseeable future. "Predictably Irrational" holds up well against the competition: it covers a lot of ground in reasonably concise fashion, and is very readable. Each chapter's primary message is grounded in, and illustrated by, specific experiments conducted by Ariely and colleagues, and this is the book's particular strength.

Given the strength of Ariely's first book, and the relatively short interval since its publication, it would be truly surprising if this second book reached the same high standard. "Sophomore slump" is a real phenomenon (just a manifestation of what statisticians would call "regression to the mean") and Professor Ariely is not immune to its effects. A reviewer predisposed to be critical of the author might argue that this is a sequel that is short on substance, presenting results that are either
(i) blindingly obvious (e.g. that people need to believe their work is meaningful to feel motivated),
(ii) needless and not particularly illuminating amplification of ideas already presented in the first book (overvaluing of ownership and the power of anchoring),or,
(iii)material presented previously, and better, by other authors.

That assessment seems unduly harsh to me - the sequel shares many of the positive qualities of the original - primarily Ariely's clear and engaging style, which guarantees readability at the very least. Unfortunately, an engaging style doesn't quite make up for some obvious weaknesses. The material in the earlier book was fascinating because most of the results were surprising -- counterintuitive or non-obvious -- but the experimental work was strong enough to be persuasive. The experimental foundation of the work discussed in the second book is noticeably weaker across the board, at times barely rising about the level of anecdotal data, with the author displaying a regrettable propensity to issue pronouncements of a general nature solely on the basis of his own personal experience. Even if one disregards the relative weakness of the empirical evidence to support them, claims made in the second book are simply not as interesting as the earlier work - either they are immediately obvious, or restatements of material likely to be familiar to anyone who has done any prior reading in this general area.

Finally, there is the unavoidable impression that a significant portion of the material is nothing more than padding (the book is studded with space-filling sidebars that are notably lacking in content: examples include a one-page explanation of the myth of Sisyphus, complete with stick-figure diagram, a verbatim transcript of an online rant about the 2008 banking bailout, graphs that were superfluous, cartoonish, or both). The most egregious padding is Ariely's inclusion of far too many personal anecdotes from his own life, a feature that severely tests the reader's patience and is an implicit acknowledgement that this is a book based primarily on anecdotal evidence, rather than hard science.

With these caveats in mind, I actually enjoyed the book quite a bit. But I can't give it a resounding endorsement. Instead, I would steer readers to Ariely's earlier effort (Predictably Irrational), and to "Stumbling on Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert and "Nudge" by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein . Cumulatively they afford an accessible account of the same material that is more thorough and more rigorous than that given by Professor Ariely in this slightly disappointing followup to his earlier masterpiece.

If I were to grade on content alone, I'd give only 3 stars; Professor Ariely's clear, engaging style raises my rating to 4 stars.

I've not yet read Predictably Irrational, but I'm a big fan of books like Freakonomics and Blink. Given that this book seemed to be more of the same, I highly anticipated receiving it!

The goal of the book is to shed light on the benefits of irrational thinking, and why seemingly odd decisions are better for us.

I found the first half of the book to be less about illustrating the benefits of irrationality, and more an exploration of the hows, whys and how nots to incentivize people (including ourselves) to do things, and how what works and what doesn't can be counter-intuitive at times. The book's second half, which is more inwardly focused, spends more time exploring how we adapt, and what we do to compensate. The second half of the book felt a bit closer to the theme.

For the most part, I found the book highly entertaining and informative. I especially liked the names the author gave to various concepts (e.g. the Ikea effect - how you tend to value more the things you build yourself), as they were great mnemonic devices. The author expressed that he took a more personal approach to this book, and many of the chapter experiments were prefaced with his motivations behind the research. I found this approach really enjoyable - it didn't feel so much like a `sensationalist' book, and more a book about personal journey, insight and discovery.

I didn't necessarily agree everywhere. At one point in the book, Airely asserts that the effect of stress on performance is parabola shaped. While I agree with that, and I agree that too much stress can affect performance, I didn't necessarily agree that we always score better in practice tests, and likewise didn't agree that rehearsals are superior to the actual performance. I'd say it probably depends on how prepared you feel, or how comfortable you are. I imagine an actor who relishes the stage will shine and bring that extra bit of energy when performing to a rapt crowd versus preparing in front of an imaginary stage. If you're not confident in your abilities or if you're not familiar with the task though, I can see how the added pressure of social judgment can hinder your ability to perform the tasks.

I also liked that at the end of each set of anecdotes, the author posed questions and thoughts for us to apply the ideas to our own day-to-day life. It was a challenge to question how rational, or accurate my decisions have been, and to be more aware of biases that I could make going forward. In all, this book is less an armchair read and more an enlightening journey on how to change our behaviour, and to see where we can better compensate for our "irrational" judgment.

Definitely highly recommended!

You know those "Big Idea" books? You know, the ones that take some sort of small insight based on psychology or behavioral economics - and then they create an all encompassing theory of how the world works based off of that one insight. And you think you can nudge, blink, sway, wink, or something else to total enlightenment.? Those books. I don't particularly like them.

Thankfully, this book is not one of those books. Areily doesn't do that here. He is a practicing economist whose main insight is that we are all susceptible to decision-making biases. Each chapter details experiments to back this up, where even those that are cognizant of those biases fall prey to them. He says that we must learn to appreciate the imperfections in the human creature that is more Homer Simpson than Mr. Spock.

I liked this book because I like to be a geek about narrative descriptions of behavioral economics experiments, but also because the author has a bit of humility about what he knows - but he also has optimism, knowing that we are not at the end of history, but only at the beginning of coming to an understanding of who we are.

Dan Ariely's followup to his first engaging book is just as well-written. It presents a similar mix of sociology experiments and personal stories, albeit with a firmer eye on the benefits of ignoring logic. You wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone acted purely in accord with his or her best economic interests of the moment, would you? Nobody would rescue a drowning person (real risk to the self outweighing slight personal benefit of saving a life). People would abandon sick or elderly relatives, and so on.

There are already plenty of books about cognitive bias, human irrationality, and so on. Ariely's first book was a standout because he is a good writer who comes across as personable. Also, he knows how to summarize, and he knows how to describe a dry experiment in an interesting way. His second is nearly as good, and it shifts focus slightly to make practical recommendations based on conclusions drawn from the experiment. If you want to reward yourself, don't buy the Porsche and the new wardrobe in the same month. Spread it out and you'll derive more total enjoyment. Conversely, if you have to retrench, move to the studio apartment and give up eating out all at once. You'll accommodate to all the changes at once, taking less total time and hurting less. Of course you probably knew that as a child from yanking bandaids off in one move or jumping into the cold pool instead of dipping in a toe, and from stretching out your dessert by eating it one bite at a time.

Caveat: you may not be convinced that human behavior in an experimental situation properly reflects human behavior in more complex situations. And Ariely sets up too much of a strawman in the form of the rational economic actor. Even economists probably don't believe in that being any more.

Still, this is a good read. Recommended so long as you don't expect huge breakthroughs.

Many people have some strong opinions towards this book and one of the complaints is that it's too similar to Dan Ariely's previous book (Predictably Irrational) but in fairness, I didn't read that book so I can't comment on whether I agree or not with those claims.

Books like these, about behavioral economics and psychology (including Freakonomics ...etc) should be enjoyed and taken as a simplification of complex phenomena. Once you begin taking these books too seriously and analyzing the science behind them, they lose their appeal. Granted, no book should be published that includes false information but there is a difference between a book geared for the general public and one that is used a university textbook or is comprised of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.

Having said that, I did enjoy this book and I believe that Ariely has included a wide variety of topics to explore. I especially liked the parts where he weaves his own personal life into the mix. It makes the book more human and his research easier to relate to. One of my favorite sections was about the issues with online dating and I wonder if his recommendations for its improvement will be applied someday.

Overall, this book makes for an interesting read with its combination of science and humor but should probably not be taken too seriously.

I am an employment lawyer. I help employers deal with their workforces. And I often cite Ariely and his work to support this simple but key idea:show appreciation for your employees, apologize when you are rude, and you will have a better workforce.Great experiment where he has people circle adjacent Ss on a piece of paper. They can do it on up to 12 sheets. They get a small monetary reward for each sheet they complete and turn in but the reward goes down with each sheet turned in.When they turn in each paper before completing another, they go to one of three lines:line one, person is acknowledged; line two, the proctor takes the sheet, no acknowlegment;line 3 not only is there no acknowledgement but the paper is shredded in front of them. The results? The number of sheets turned in by the acknowledged group 9.03, the ignored group 6.77, and the shredded group 6.34. So, ignoring someone's efforts is on par with when you destroy their work. This is one example among lots. Book is rich with wisdom, almost like chocolate cake, too rich. A rewarding read.

Dan Ariely's first book, Predictably Irrational was a revelation: a deceptively simple and accessible book that destroyed many of our fond illusions about rationality and autonomy. His genius is in coming up with simple experiments in which the counter-intuitive results lead us to question the social psychology that underpins so much of what we are. I've recommended the book to many friends, and watch Ariely's blog for new material. So naturally (or is it...?) I looked forward to his new book.

It's good. If you enjoyed the first book, you'll probably like this. But it isn't as strong. The personal story that he weaves through the material is interesting, and compelling, but ultimately it doesn't contribute all that much. And the title is downright misleading: it implied to me a thesis that many kinds of irrational behavior can be shown to be more effective (productive, successful) than a strictly rational approach would bring. Instead the book establishes a more modest hypothesis: irrational actions rarely turn out as badly as we might expect. Can an avoidance of downside be construed as a form of upside? It's a bit of a stretch.

A good book, but not quite as compelling as its predecessor.

In this book, author Dan Ariely uses a very easygoing and direct narrative style and takes us through this insightful journey through human mind, which ultimately concludes that human brain is "irrational" by design.

This informative text will help you to learn:
1) How behavioral economics experiments reveal the mind's irrational processes;
2) How workers attach value to what they do, and why that matters;
3) How humans adapt and
4) How to understand your own adaptive processes.

There have been lot of books based on such experiments like Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently, which help one to understand the inner workings of human brain. However, the real challenge lies in adaption one's own behavior and get the most out of daily-life situations.

We face such situations everyday where "rational thinking" is needed. But in the end we end up making decisions based on what we have seen, known, or liked.

Overall, this book is very interesting and recommended.

A fascinating look into the ordinary world of human beings, minds, motivation -- and how UN ordinary it really is.

Of particular interest to me were the segments on Revenge, and the effects of an apology on future revenge. I thought the tests were very well thought-out and was surprised, (perhaps just a little, based on my own experience) by the outcomes. Seems like humans are of one mind when it comes to certain actions and mindset(s).

Of great eye-opening interest was the deconstruction of the myth of the Clutch Player. Maybe that applies to basketball, and perhaps Hockey, even tennis -- but what about baseball and football? I think more research is needed in that area.

Dan Ariely impresses me greatly by the way he approaches his own tragedy -- and by his determination to proceed despite life-threatening injuries.

This is a landmark book -- unique in its approach to certain day-to-day things we either took for granted, or never really paid much attention to.

Being a student of behavioural economics I typically read almost anything new that comes out connected to the field and I tremendously enjoyed Ariely's latest book. I found that he got the mix just right between the number and complexity of research studies that would appeal to a wide range of readers. The book is an easy read but provides the reader with many new instances that challenge our general assumptions and biases and makes us think a little more deeply about our own behaviour. The studies covered some new research ground and certainly add to the body of knowledge. Ariely's books are quite personal, filled with many anecdotes from his experiences and while some readers may be put off by his frequent use of "a sample of one" it does imbue his books with a bit more humanity than the dry academic behavioural treatises one reads in academic journals. The book also provides a good resource list of further reading into the studies covered, allowing the reader to delve further into the depths of human's often counter intuitive and irrational behaviour to their heart's content (I'll probably read them all if I could just get past my procrastination problems...)

Like "Predictably Irrational", "The Upside of Irrationality" is a fascinating look at how we assign value and make decisions.

As I read this book I found myself telling everyone I talked to about whatever the last topic I read was. After my boyfriend heard Ariely interviewed by Leonard Lopate, he came home and told me Ariely had talked about all the same research I'd felt compelled to talk about. And this stuff is compelling.

This book is a bit more personal than "Predictably Irrational" -- Ariely talks about speed and internet dating, charitable giving, and attraction more than he talks about bank accounts and savings plans. I find both angles interesting, so I enjoyed this book as much as enjoyed the first one.

If you found the topics covered in "Predictably Irrational" a bit dry, but like the idea, this book might be for you. If you enjoyed PI, this book is for you. If you think behavioral economics is a bunch of bunk, well, you should probably read this anyway.

Highly recommended for all decision-making humans. :-)

In this sequel to his bestseller, Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics, returns to the how and why of human beings' inexplicable thought processes. Through a series of telling, small-scale social experiments, he attempts to quantify such unquantifiables as how satisfaction in work becomes nourished or destroyed, how people value their attractiveness and the attractiveness of others, how humans adapt to adverse or positive circumstances, and how to make pleasure more enduring and annoyances less upsetting. Those who read Ariely's first book might have the context to better appreciate this one, but he doesn't seem to hold anything back as he explains his traumatic physical injuries and the lessons, both painful and joyous, those experiences wrought. The author's warm, direct, compassionate tone, and his willingness to share his frustrations and discoveries, lead getAbstract to recommend this insightful, easy-going tour of the irrational side of the human psyche.

Writing as reviewer #31, having written a number of other reviews myself: what is it about this book that virtually all of the reviews thus far, even the negative ones, are multi-paragraph and thoughtful? Usually, by the time a book has 30, we're seeing the "loved it!" "hated it!" "Didn't arrive on time!" filler. Not here. Ariely's work sticks in your mind, and you are inspired to write more than you normally would.

That said--it appears that behavioral econ gets really really close to marketing, as a field of study. Economists are testing and discovering what marketers have known since Ogilvy wrote his first ad.

Both of Ariely's books are "news you can use." I find myself referring to the stories--we cheat, given the opportunity. We make decisions about sex differently when we're drunk (duh, but that's rarely addressed in sex ed). (Still haven't forgiven him for presenting 50-yo women as "beyond the pale" in that experiment, BTW.) Those experiments are from the first book. I know the one about Legos and meaning in work from this book will find its way into my life--watching work get canceled or undone has had a huge effect on my own career and motivation.

Many of the review copy books that come my way get passed on to book swaps, in hope that someone else will find them more useful. I'm keeping this one. I'll be back in it.