The Power of Logical Thinking: Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning…and Hard Facts About its Absence in Our Lives

Marilyn Vos Savant

St. Martin's Press

Intro: This is a good, entertaining book. Ms. vos Savant writes a weekly question and answer column called "Ask Marilyn" for Parade magazine. The back cover of the book identifies her as the person listed in the Guinness Book of Records "as having the highest recorded IQ". (This ignores the fact that, as I understand it, the scaling of IQ scores has been changed, and it won't be possible for anyone else to score as high as Ms. vos Savant). I won't waste time here with my issues with IQ and "intelligence testing" in general, except to say that just because a person has a high IQ doesn't mean that he/she is any more logical than the rest of humanity. I think that including this claim on the back of the book was stupid - it seems to be a blatant attempt to convince people to buy the book because she's so smart that she must know more about logic than the rest of us. I think, however, that this blurb on the book jacket was not necessarily her own idea, as she states clearly in her book that IQ tests are of questionable validity.  This was probably a decision made by someone who was concerned with raising sales, but who hadn't actually read the book.  In reality, Ms. vos Savant shows admirably that she does have a generally good grasp of logical thinking, superior to many other educated people. However, I don't think that one must have a high IQ to be logical. This seems to set the situation up that people can blame their illogic on a "low" IQ as opposed to the fact that they just aren't putting the time into being logical. Anyway, on to the book…

The book is divided into three different sections (each consisting of at least two chapters).  I'll deal with each section in order...

Part 1: How our own minds can work against us

This part of the book lists many of the questions that have been posed in her column and her answers to them. The questions are all logic problems, and many of them have very non-intuitive answers. In fact, many of the answers seem to defy common sense. Many of the answers even seem wrong (but aren't) to people who should know better. She presents many of the angry letters she's received from professors of mathematics and statistics stating that she has her answer completely backwards. In the case of each problem, she explains the logical steps that lead to her answer, often illustrating the basic math needed to prove that her answer is correct. If nothing else, I urge everyone to read this section. It's fun to read, and it gave me a feeling of accomplishment when I was able to get the correct answer myself. The majority of the problems in this section deal with abstract questions, the type that might be used in a math test, as opposed to "real world" problems that we might encounter every day. However, this section gives and introduction that makes the later parts of the book (which do deal with the real world) easier to understand, since you've been exposed to the logical thought processes that are needed.

Part 2: How number and statistics can mislead

This section of the book gives a basic introduction to statistical theory. This is vital to have a chance of evaluating the statistical evidence that we encounter every day in medicine and politics. The introductory section isn't too math-oriented, just enough to enable the reader to analyze statistical evidence. The section ends with some real world problems - the problem of interpreting medical tests such as those to detect people with HIV infections or cancer. It's frightening to read about the tests, how they should be interpreted and then read how poorly most doctors do! It will certainly make you pause before blindly agreeing to do whatever your doctor recommends. Anyone who wants to make informed decisions about medical care should definitely read this section carefully.

That being said, I do have some issues with the things she says in this section. Specifically, at one point she states in regard to the furor over the talking Barbie doll that said "Math is tough" that people should just accept it, and admit that math and logic are harder than other subjects. This is complete crap. To any particular individual, math might be hard, but it's not true for everyone. I've known plenty of people who were great at math but couldn't write a decent sentence. In my case, I'm ok at math and ok at other subjects, but I definitely do better in science than english class. I'd rather write 20 page lab reports than a single sonnet! In my case, poetry is hard, math is sort of hard. There's no reason to say math is intrinsically harder than any other task, because it clearly isn't. It may be very difficult to apply good mathematical/logical thought to life, but I have a similar problem applying good grammar when I speak - neither one comes naturally, and if I don't force myself, I'm an illogical person with poor grammar (and bad posture as well)!

Part 3: How politicians exploit our innocence

This section lists a series of statements made by the different politicians running for president in the 1992 election. The majority of these statements have to do with economics. In each case she shows why the analysis the politician used is wrong or at least misleading. There are 23 statements, the majority of which seem to come from President Clinton, but there are some attributed to Bush and Perot as well. While I found her explanations of this section interesting in terms of the economic theories involved, I'm not sure how useful they'll be in terms of helping people know when a politician is being less than honest. Aside from rigorous fact-checking and analysis of everything politicians say, it won't be possible for anyone to really know for sure. Granted, the 23 cases she chose seem to be things that were repeated time and again during the election, maybe it will serve as an example of how to check the slogans and major claims candidates make. In the end, I have to admit, that I generally resort to assuming that both sides of any election are full of crap and try to find some issue that isn't related to economics or statistics to base my judgments on. I don't have the time I'd need to find the sources and statistics used by each candidate when they discuss economic policy. I think that someone with the time and dedication to do this would gain a great deal from this section (and maybe more people should be like this so that politicians couldn't sway votes with shoddy math anymore).

 last updated 16 Sep 1999