Fans pick 100 books like Victims of Groupthink

Though not a volume pertaining to “hard science,” Mackay’s book is an early and essential inquiry into “group psychology” long before the phrase was coined. I used this and Kuhn’s books as background when writing World on Fire.

Why do perfectly respectable people act against their own self-interests, often violently, I wondered, when drawn into the seductive folds of a crowd? Mackay wrote his first edition in 1841, just a few decades after the convulsions that swallowed up Priestley and Lavoisier, then updated it in 1852: he chronicled the spreading group madness of such historical phenomena as the South Sea Bubble, “alchymists,” the Crusades, witch manias, and the “popular admiration of great thieves.”

Mackay’s 1852 preface crystallized his theme with the question: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds while they only recover their senses slowly and one… show more.

This is one of my favorite books because rather than observing the follies of others, this author details his own. Reading it is like watching a tragedy when you already know the well-meaning protagonist is going to die.

The author chose to remain anonymous for obvious reasons: He thought he was a rare fool. But getting wiped out happens all the time, to many people. If you want to experience vicariously a dangerous thrill ride that you may or may not already have taken, this is your ticket. The book is out of print and hard to find.

Over 100 years ago, a stockbroker wondered why his clients lost money over a full cycle in the stock market. After all, if stocks were back to where they started, shouldn’t they have broken even? He found that at bottoms, investors were cautious short-term traders, whereas at tops, they were confident long-term owners.

This little booklet is available inexpensively on Amazon.

It was during the earliest days of the first Trump campaign, and I was reading this one-hundred-plus-year-old book with one of the first debates playing in the background. It felt like he had used this book as his operating manual (although I'm almost positive he never read it). When I got home, I started telling my friends, "I think this guy could win." They thought I was crazy. The rest was history.

This book is the definition of timeless. Le Bon was remarkably perceptive about what makes groups of people react in certain ways and how leaders can get them to do their bidding. 

The current war in Ukraine cannot be understood without reference to the rampant misunderstandings and misperceptions that animate both sides. 

This book is the bible of misperception, and for my money, the greatest book ever written about international politics. In it, Jervis explains how countries rarely understand one another; misperception is the rule in national security, not the exception. And those misperceptions all point in one direction: They make other actors appear more belligerent than they are.

Because of predictable psychological processes, we tend to think that they can’t be trusted....and as a result, cycles of hostility and misperception follow. And finally, war.

If I could get presidents to read one book of political science, this would be it.

If you want to go a little deeper, you can’t do much better than this outstanding study of how Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower sought to sustain public support for the Korean War.

Written by a historian who knows his sources like the back of his hands, this book is jam-packed with evidence of the ways in which presidents try to control the narrative about an ongoing war. And beyond its impressive use of archival materials, it also challenges the conventional wisdom about a president’s ability to lead public opinion using the “bully pulpit.”

Presidents can and do try to do that. But the Korean case illuminates the unique challenges of selling a limited war, in which the administration struggled to calibrate its mobilization campaign with the complex politics of waging war. 

I think Maartje’s book has been transformational in the study of neutrality. As she rightly points out, the study of neutrals has been skewed by more modern ideas of neutrality being a passive concept. It shows that in the nineteenth century, it was held in ‘high regard’ in diplomacy and statecraft. She superbly describes how neutrality, far from being a sideshow outside of the main events, was at the center of political thinking and shaping of the period between the Vienna Congress and the First World War.

I like how Maartje shows that neutrality after the Napoleonic Wars was self-serving. States avoided conflicts that they did not need to enter, and overall, this prevented any conflicts that did arise (such as the Crimean War) from becoming wider European conflagrations. Some states, like Belgium, were ‘neutralized’ by the larger, more powerful states to avoid conflict, whereas other countries actively sought neutralization… show more.

I have chosen this work for the Egyptology list because Ancient Egypt must be ideally analyzed into a regional context, which overpasses its borders. In this sense, the present work is a magnificent example of how all the cultures of the Near East were integrated within a network of more or less fluid contacts.

Professor Liverani's work shows the mastery of the great scholar who knows all the sources and analyzes them from a new diplomatic, economic, anthropological, and political perspective.

The authors are three of the best analysts of Chinese affairs in Washington today. Bush is the leading authority on Taiwan, having been responsible for relations between the U.S. and Taiwan for many years when in government service. 

He and Bonnie Glaser are long-time friends whose judgments have served me well in my own work over the last 20-30 years, especially with recent editions of my book. Glaser is widely regarded to have the best sources in Beijing and her predictions of PRC behavior are constantly on the mark. Hass served on the National Security Council during the Obama years and is now at Brookings.  

I write stories about famous people and moments in history. I like to strip down the narrative and make history read like a top-notch thriller. But to do that, I need to stand on the shoulders of authors who devoted ten or a dozen years to researching and writing the detailed lives of a subject they adore. I do not have the attention span to spend so long on one character.

I love this book because William Manchester (and Paul Reid, who stepped in to finish the book when Manchester died) loves Winston Churchill. What he wore, how he spoke, who he loved, what he drank. It is hundreds of pages of gorgeous detail, waiting for a long winter’s reading night.