Reviewed by Kathy London

The topic of this book by David H. Freedman might seem disheartening, but proving wrongness is not Freedman’s point. Rather, he is interested in how people can seek out trustworthy advice: “you are [not] helpless to judge…. Look over the evidence, gauge the quality… weigh the likely biases… and take your best shot at deciding…”

While I enjoyed Freedman’s book, I did skim sections where examples kept going long after I thought his point was made.

I admire Freedman for tackling the first obvious question: “Is This Book Wrong?” I suggest you read the appendix first. Freedman’s researcher-father kept, framed and hung on his office wall, a letter that torpedoed one of his published studies. “It reminds me how easy it is to be wrong” his father said. Freedman admits his book is probably “riddled with factual and conceptual errors”, describes how errors probably snuck in despite his attempts to keep them out, but why you should read it anyway.

Freedman’s introduction addressed the second question that sprung to my mind: if experts are wrong, why are we better off now than a hundred years ago? Freedman argues that most progress comes when experts, every once in a while, get it right: wrongness “punctuated” with success.

Freedman considers a range of “experts” – journalists, pundits, consultants, coaches, self-help authors, celebrities, doctors, stockbrokers, auto mechanics – anyone you (or the media) might turn to for advice. These experts may have a conflict of interest with the people they advise. They pander to their audience. They confuse cause and effect and correlation; arbitrarily grab whatever data is at hand without much justification. They exude confidence. Freedman is not the only writer on wrongness and others find error very “human”. Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow), for example, says people are never more prone to error than when they are overconfident, and few people display more over-confidence than “experts.”

Depending on how cynical you feel, some of the chapters are lessons on creating the next child-care or diet best-seller, or management-consulting fad. Freedman is “struck by how nuggets of mass experts’ advice that feel nearly epiphanic when you hear them can fall apart on… closer inspection.” (Let children stay up late to achieve an earlier bedtime? Drink huge amounts of water to lose weight? Total Quality Management? Reengineering? Six Sigma?)

You might expect problems from media experts. But what about scientists publishing studies in respected journals? I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s words: The first principle is not to fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Substituting what’s easy to measure for what’s important is a common problem. For example, irregular heartbeats are an ominous sign, and antiarrhythmic drugs smooth the heart’s rhythm. Doctors were thrilled with this discovery. But long term studies showed the drugs tripled death rates! Heart rhythm can be measured quickly, but death rate studies take a lot of time and money.

Studies are often poorly designed or sloppily run. Even the “gold standard” randomized controlled trials, with all their expense and complexity, can go wrong. The chapter on outright frauds is grimly fascinating, like watching a car wreck. Even with these problems, Freedman thinks scientists are our most trustworthy experts. Freedman’s advice: When considering the “latest breakthrough” keep in mind that “the more surprising, novel, and exciting an idea, the less likely it is to be right.”

“We happen to be complex creatures living in a complex world, so why would we expect answers to any Interesting questions to be simple?” Good advice will be at odds with everything that draws us to bad advice. People seek out advice that is dramatic, clear-cut, universally applicable, and easy to put into action; which supports their biases; and is delivered by upbeat, doubt-free experts. Unfortunately, these are characteristics of bad advice. Once you know that, you stand a better chance of making good decisions.