Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, ... consultants, health officials and more

Thoroughly researched, highly readable and convincing.

I think every journalist should read this book because I believe journalists should be skeptics of scientific authorities instead of evangelists that pass on whatever the scientific authority says. Michael Knowles of the DailyWire got it right in 2020 and 2021 because he was a skeptic, instead of a scientific evangelist. A liberal reporter wouldn't let Donald Trump, for instance, get away with anything but his skepticism dries up the moment he or she talks with Dr. Anthony Fauci.Yet, this gets into some deeper topics such as how researchers design studies to get a certain outcome because of who is paying for the study and moving the goalposts about what should be measured. It also explains the different types of studies that I think many reporters nowadays have no clue about. Every National Coffee Day, a story comes out saying "Study: Coffee lowers your risk of Heart Disease!" where everyone who doesn't understand the different types of studies think that means "Coffee Prevents Heart Disease!" The study does not say anything like that. That study is an observational study that studies statistical categories and and those categories have overlap like a Venn diagram where there are a group of people who don't have heart disease and a group of people who drink coffee have some overlap. Why that is? The study cannot tell us that. There could be factors that behind why there is the overlap that were not in the data.

Thought provoking book. I have recommended it to my family and friends.

I honestly tried to finish the book, but it gets boring pretty quickly, it keeps giving examples of all the miscarried investigations the author could find, which would be nice as a database. As a book though, the point gets accross pretty quickly and the scattered ideas couldn't fill 50 pages.It may have been an interesting topic by 2010, right after the crisis, when everyone was getting into explaining how we weren't able to predict important crashes. But to read it in 2017 seems insufficient, you will get nothing out of the chapters on internet and to keep reading how diet studies are flawed over and over again just made me quit reading the book.If the idea that a research study can be flawed is new to you and you need to convince yourself that people lie in many ways, you may remotely enjoy the book. 5 years ago.

If your job requires you to make decisions based on advice or research studies, then you should read Wrong by David Freedman. The book takes a look at the state of studies and the unsettling observation that a surprising minority of studies is inaccurate, flawed or just plain wrong. The book looks at several types of studies with a concentration on the medical studies we hear so much about and so often hear conflicting advice. For example, red wine prevents heart disease when another study shows no relationship.The book is Freedman's investigation and exploration of the reasons behind the why these studies are wrong. The book takes the reader on a systematic investigation of the forces that lead to the publication of inaccurate studies from the need to simplify study finding, the bias of publishing only positive findings, to the social pressures that suppress whistleblowers. Freedman paints a comprehensive picture of the weakeness of the scientific research, including research conducted by Nobel Laureates.Freedman also takes a look at business research and business books which suffer from these same weaknesses and biases. He points out the structural weakness of the two major basis of business books - that today's `winners' offer immutable lessons for everyone else, or that companies need radical new approaches to address new issues. That discussion, in Chapter 6, should be required reading for every business guru and person offering advice. Readers should also go back to Clayton Christensen's HBR article Why Hard-Nosed Executives Should Care About Management Theory that was published in September 2003 to round out their understanding of business research.Freedman provides practical advice on characteristics of different types of advice. Below is a summary of the statements to give you an idea of how comprehensive the book is, each point is discussed in detail in the last chapter and this cements the value of the book for a researcher or those who make decisions based on research.Characteristics of less trustworthy advice include:- Advice that is simplistic, universal, and definitive- Advice that is supported by only a single study, or many small or less careful ones, or animal studies.- Advice that is groundbreaking- Advice that is pushed by people or organizations that stands to benefit from its acceptance.- Advice that is geared to preventing future occurrences of a prominent recent failure or crisis.Characteristics of expert advice we should ignore:- Advice that is mildly resonant- Advice that is provocative- Advice that gets a lot of positive attention- Advice that other experts embrace- Advice that appears in a prestigious journal- Advice that is supported by a big, rigorous study- Advice backed by experts that boast impressive credentialsCharacteristics of more trustworthy expert advice- Advice that does not trip other alarms- Advice that is a negative finding- Advice that is heavy on qualifying statements- Advice that is candid about reputational evidence- Advice tat provide some context for research- Advice that provides perspective- Advice that includes candid, blunt commentsThere are to many points here to repeat in this review, but this is the most valuable part of the book and one of the reasons I am recommending the book - particularly for those who engage in research or are making decisions based on research they either commission or review.STRENGTHSWrong offers a comprehensive view of different types of studies from medical, business, public policy, etc. This gives the book broad appeal and the careful reader insight into the overall modern research process.The discussion on the wisdom of crowds (Chapter 4 - the Idiocy of Crowds) is perhaps one of the better responses to the current craze of social media. This book is definitely worth the read.The book offers numerous examples, predominantly of medical studies, which the reader can remember hearing about. The South Korean scientist cloning human stem cells, the debate about the connection between red wine and health are among the flawed science and study Mr. Freedman uses to support his analysis.The book is blunt and direct and the author calls out people by name and points out the weakeness of their past work.The author gives you direct references to other skeptical scientists and people who have the job of verifying studies and assuring the quality of research. This has led me to their work, something I never would have found on my own.CHALLENGESThis book is not for everyone and while its premise, that many scientific studies are based on poor research, biased, or just plan wrong will have popular appear, the book is not own written for the mainstream. People who do research or make decisions based on research or give advice will get the most out of this book. That is something I do and I found the book very powerful.The book occasionally drifts into areas and alleys that seem to be more for the author's benefit than the readers. The middle chapters particularly go into detail on things that I did not find particularly interesting. This required me to work my way through chapters five, seven and eight which I found a bit heavy and indirect.The book has a strong bias and purpose in pointing out the weaknesses and outright failures of research and the research process. The readers have to remind themselves that this is a book about an issue rather than research on the research process. If you know the bias, then you can get a lot out of this book.

Entertaining and interesting book.