Since moving in with Neil, we seem to discuss my "stuff" a lot...especially my ever growing book collection. I thought I'd get a different perspective. ( )

Interesting research but I feel like it was repeated a couple of times. ( )

While an interesting read, it was not as concrete as I expected it to be. The anecdotes about the studies the author had done were good and relevant but there was not as much substance to the book as I had hoped. ( )

I forget exactly where I heard about this book. I suspect it was either on The Happiness Project blog or the Non-Consumer Advocate blog. Either way I read about it, looked it up, and heady with the power of Lansing library's website, immediately placed a hold on a copy and was able to go pick it up a few days later. I love my new library!

Anyway, the book's subtitle is a tiny bit misleading. Of course you could read this book and figure out what other people might think of your stuff, but a more accurate subtitle would be "What you can figure out about other people by snooping through their stuff." I know, not quite as concise, is it?

What I found most interesting in this book were the kinds of conclusions people jump to in judging other people and which ones have a tendency to be correct and which are worthless. Like how people place too much importance on the face-to-face interview in hiring and admissions. Also interesting were the average personality differences between people in different parts of the country or of different political orientations. And the difference between decorations/possessions as outward-focused identity claims versus self-directed emotional regulators.

This was a diverting pop-psychology read. I certainly learned some things. I am glad, though, that I checked it out and didn't run right out and buy it. I don't know exactly what I was looking for in this book, but this ended up feeling just a little... light. ( )

[b:Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals|6953508|Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals|Hal Herzog|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1369453733s/6953508.jpg|7188492] says that this book says that our refrigerators *don't* reveal much about us. Um, that simply can't be right - of course a person who has only fresh celery and wine is a different person than one who has ancient takeout leftovers....

Ok, well, then I read the book anyway. And the deal is that you've got to put the information from the 'fridge in context with the other clues in the home of the person being judged. And you've got to believe that relating the clues to the Big Five Personality Traits (that psychology academics are so enamored by) is the main thing that matters.

I personally disagree with that basic premise. For one thing, when those Big Five are broken down into facets, some facets of each apply to me and others don't. Then the author admits that most research uses the generalized term and doesn't even look at the facets, oversimplifying an already simple labeling system. So consider, for example, that I score one of the questions related to Agreeableness very highly. I also score its converse very highly. So, am I agreeable or not? 'Sometimes' isn't an option.

I also have the same complaint about this book that I do most of the other psychology and neuroscience books I read. Using college students as subjects does *not* give you an understanding of the general public!

For one thing, he *never* talked about shared bedrooms. The owner of that space was either female, or gay male, or male who had had an overnight guest - it was never a long-married couple. I guess it's too hard to learn anything about the characters of people using a shared space. :snark:

Well, if you're trying to figure out whether this guy you're on a second date with is worthy of intimacy, I guess you're not visiting the bedroom of a married couple. But still, the book could have been more than 'know people better quicker by knowing what to look for in their dorm rooms.' I wish it had been.

There are some other great reviews here on GR about this book - I recommend you read them, whether or not you're planning to read the book itself. You'll probably learn more from them, than from the book.

ETA: Thank you to the generous folk who liked my review already, as I wrote it upon finishing the book. You prompted me to look carefully at it, and realize that it was full of elliptical sentences, poor grammar, weak seques... and today, Jan/15, I did some serious revisions. I'd like to consider revising the star rating down to 2 stars, but I didn't write clearly enough about any plusses, or additional minuses, the book had for me, and it has been over three years since I read it, so I'll let it stay at 3 stars. ( )