Eric Barker is what I'd call a human behaviour researcher, he's not some billionaire or conqueror of the world or anything like that but his book Barking Up the Wrong Tree provides fascinating insights into the science and statistics that determine success. Barker's work has been featured on many platforms including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Business Insider just to name a few.
Barking Up the Wrong Tree is more a product of numbers and statistics but it is not an arduous read by any means. Barker delivers his points in a concise and digestible manner which is right up my alley. With anything statistics related we have to consider that correlation does not mean causation; however, it is still important to consider these statistical links as the numbers can still guide us to a better more intuitive or 'correct' understanding of human nature. Everything starts with correlations.
The book opens with a simple yet poignant quote:
"Nothing important comes with instructions." - James Richardson.
Day to day we hear sayings like this all the time but few of us have really fully considered the implications of quotes like these. Growing up we followed sort of this cookie cutter approach to growing up, like the path has already been carved out for you. In a world where so much of what we do is do what has already been done, it takes a brave soul to do something without instructions; stepping out of the echo chamber is not for the feint of heart, many will come across quotes like these without truly grasping the root idea behind it. Taking some time to think about what is being said is quite important in my humble opinion. Ok. Off to the book now.
The book is split into 6 chapters with each chapter covering a seemingly conventional topic, something that all of us have heard before. Barker then breaks down that topic by explaining the concept through the experiences of people, people that range from Navy SEALs to serial killers, gang members to Albert Einstein. His structure of delivery of these concepts is quite unique in the sense that he doesn't tell you begin the chapter by just listing how conventional wisdom is wrong rather he begins each chapter with seemingly conventional beliefs, presents evidence to support these conventions and later on in the chapter presents more research to sort of go beyond convention. I think he's trying to tell us that sometimes conventional wisdom isn't wrong it's just not entirely right - it's not the whole truth. As with many things in life these things are complicated and there is no one right answer all the time what he is offering is a fresh perspective for the reader to ponder upon. The best example of this type of structure is in the chapter "Do Nice Guys Finish Last".
The conventional saying nice guys finish last is a well... conventional idea. He starts by presenting evidence suggesting that nice guys do seem to perform lower in their fields he categorizes them as so called "givers" i.e. people who are dutiful, easy to forgive and generally generous to others. On the other hand, he calls the not-so-nice guys as "takers" these are people who manipulate, lie and engage in morally dubious behaviour for selfish reasons. He starts by presenting evidence to suggest that yes on average the so called 'takers' are more successful by metrics such as salary, ranking and stuff like that. He gets you kinda depressed if you're a nice guy but later in the chapter he explains how that's not the whole truth. Givers are commonly skewed to the bottom of success metrics but the people who are at the very top we're talking CEO's, CFO, Presidents, etc. are actually givers. So it seems that being a giver exists at two extremes. He explains that takers in the short-term often do better it's the environment and the long-term perspective that give 'givers' the edge. Doing good requires teamwork and it's much easier to do great things with givers than takers. He acknowledges that getting to a stage where you have a closely knitted environment is difficult and he offers some suggestions to fend of 'takers' trying to take advantage of you and aligning yourself with other 'givers' to better protect yourself. He's not saying saints win in the end, quite the opposite he recognises that you need to have your guard up when the situation calls for it. Givers can't always be givers they sometimes have to do things to look out for themselves like making sure that all the extra work you do gets noticed.
I found this book quite interesting and he really pushes points in a realistic manner sometimes we overlook how important some things are in our lives (due to focusing illusion) and this book brings the little qualities to light. Being aware of the statistical significant of these actions or behaviours can be enough for people to change themselves for the better. Nietzsche said "all great men are actor of their own ideals". Perhaps this book can help you get to those ideals by making you more aware of the little more unconventional stuff.
