What is the value of ‘Misbehaving’ after ‘Nudge’ and ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’?
After all, ‘Thinking’ told us the discovery process by behavior science demigod. ‘Nudge’ explained how to apply behavior science to practical policy-making.
‘Misbehaving’ has its value independent from ‘Nudge’ and ‘Thinking’. Unique in ‘Misbehaving’ is a candid account of the struggle getting recognized when your opinions are different from the establishment, a humble understanding on the fortunate events that helped a young investigator to start, and to stand in the field. ‘Misbehaving’ tells the reader many ‘insider baseball’ stories — how Thaler got skinned at conferences / journal submissions (but the tone wasn’t vengeful), and how he got back to his feet and respond with empirical evidence.
‘Misbehaving’ is Thaler’s account of ‘life as a professional renegade’.
‘Nudge’ and ‘Thinking’ read like champions writing home from the finishing line or the celebratory after-party, while ‘Misbehaving’ is Thaler’s account of ‘life as a professional renegade’. This is part of the appeal: don’t we all like a good underdog story? Most of us are, at best, underdogs in our fields, Thaler’s humble ‘renegade-getting-recognized’ story is fuzzily encouraging. In this way, ‘Misbehaving’ reads like a grand-parent writes to the grand-children: sharing the stories of life, and perhaps planting a vague idea that ‘fight-on’ could be fun.
‘Misbehaving’ reminds of Richard Feynman’s books in being funny, irreverent, and honest.
‘Misbehaving’ writing reminds me of Richard Feynman’s books in being funny, irreverent, and honest. In the Conclusion chapter, Thaler likened his now mainstream status to ‘The lunatics are running the asylum!’ — You won’t find exclamations like this in either ‘Nudge’ or ‘Thinking’. It reminds me of Feynman on his safe-cracking, or thoughts of ‘cargo cult science’. Thaler comments on a general practice in academia: “As usual after such meetings … both sides were confident that they had won.” Thaler saved some directness for his intellectual opponents — there is no sugar-coating on what he thought of them (“least scientific”). Yes, it is a little easier to be direct and unapologetic after you have turned mainstream, your collaborators have won the Nobel (and yourself 2 years after publishing this book, in 2017) — but the book is direct and honest about himself too. Take Thaler recounting how his thesis advisor assessed him: ‘We did not expect much of him’. Enjoy!