What do you think?
Bullshit Comparisons: A Field Guide to Thinking Critically in a World of Difference
Bullshit Comparisons will challenge the way you think about rankings, charts and other marketing and political tools designed to create odious and dangerous comparisons.
Is Boris Johnson really like Winston Churchill? Are electric cars actually greener than petrol ones? Which is the world's most successful university? Is Lisbon the new Barcelona? Should we compare the achievements of younger and older siblings even when we know it damages their self-worth? We make comparisons every day, but how helpful are they?
Looking across a dazzling range of situations both familiar and unfamiliar, Bullshit Comparisons is a ground-breaking examination of the role of comparison in modern society, illuminated by examples spanning from the FIFA World Footballer of the year, to wine-tasting in London, hospital care in Sierra Leone and avocado farming in Colombia.
Challenging us to think critically about the use of comparison through accessible, personal, and often amusing research, Andrew Brooks reveals the uses and abuses of comparisons in a book that isn't like anything else you have read.
Is Boris Johnson really like Winston Churchill? Are electric cars actually greener than petrol ones? Which is the world's most successful university? Is Lisbon the new Barcelona? Should we compare the achievements of younger and older siblings even when we know it damages their self-worth? We make comparisons every day, but how helpful are they?
Looking across a dazzling range of situations both familiar and unfamiliar, Bullshit Comparisons is a ground-breaking examination of the role of comparison in modern society, illuminated by examples spanning from the FIFA World Footballer of the year, to wine-tasting in London, hospital care in Sierra Leone and avocado farming in Colombia.
Challenging us to think critically about the use of comparison through accessible, personal, and often amusing research, Andrew Brooks reveals the uses and abuses of comparisons in a book that isn't like anything else you have read.
- GenresNonfictionAudiobook
256 pages, Hardcover
Published May 21, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 27, 2024
while some of the chapters are interesting, the book really doesn‘t deliver on its promise. for one, the author never discusses how comparisions work, what makes them bullshit, how exactly they can be objectionable… and some chapters are just not convincing. if the author admits that there are parallels between palestine and apartheid, what exactly makes the comparison bad? the claim, after all, is not that they are identical.
December 20, 2024
Book was bullshit...
August 7, 2026
By Gemini
《**Bullshit Comparisons: A Field Guide to Thinking Critically in a World of Difference**》（中譯參考：《瞎扯比較：在差異世界中批判性思考的實用指南》）是由倫敦國王學院（King's College London）地理學學者 **Andrew Brooks** 所著。
在資訊爆炸的時代，我們每天都會接收到無數的比較：從「政治人物是不是下一個邱吉爾」、「電動車真的比汽油車環保嗎」 到「里斯本是否為下一個巴塞隆納」。作者承襲哲學家 Harry Frankfurt 對於「胡說八道（Bullshit）」的經典定義——**「胡說八道並非直接撒謊，而是對真實情況漠不關心，只為了達到說服、行銷或政治操弄的目的」**——深入探討日常生活中各種被濫用、扭曲的比較。
---
## 核心架構與各部重點精華
本書主要分為三大篇章，透過多個具體且發人深省的日常與歷史案例，引導讀者拆解隱藏在比較背後的思考陷阱。
---
### 第一部：人（Part 1: People）
第一部著重於**個體與社會身份**之間的比較，揭示我們如何習慣性地將複雜的人類行為與個人價值，簡化為單一指標或不當類比。
* **重點精華：**
* **手足與同儕的無效比較：** 探討從小到大常見的「你看弟弟/別人多乖」這種拿手足進行對比的現象，指出忽視個體天生差異與成長環境微觀差異的比較，不僅毫無意義，還會嚴重損害個人的自我價值感。
* **跨時代運動員與英雄的類比：** 透過「梅西與馬拉度納誰更偉大」 或「鮑里斯·強森是不是當代邱吉爾」 等討論，分析將不同時代、不同體制下的個人強制對比時，如何因為去脈絡化而淪為純粹的情感操弄或政治包裝。
* **外貌與外在標籤的刻板印象：** 以趣味的「狗與主人是否長得很像」等課題，探討人類大腦如何強行建立非理性的視覺與心理關聯（Confirmation Bias）。
---
### 第二部：空間與地點（Part 2: Place）
第二部聚焦於**地理、都市發展與國家經濟**的比較，揭示政策制定者與媒體如何透過「懶人包式」的城市或國家類比來推銷概念。
* **重點精華：**
* **城市複製的迷思（例如：里斯本是下一個巴塞隆納嗎？）：** 分析都市行銷中最愛用的「下一個矽谷」、「下一個巴塞隆納」等標籤。這類比較忽視了當地獨特的歷史背景、在地社區文化與階級結構，盲目複製外國成功的模式往往導致士紳化（Gentrification）和在地居民被邊緣化。
* **全球發展指標與貧窮陷阱：** 檢視世界銀行或國際組織對國家進行的排名與成功故事（如非洲發展模式）。作者指出，把已開發國家的發展路徑直接套用到開發中國家，是忽略殖民歷史與全球貿易不平等的「胡說八道比較」。
* **大學排名與制度性偏差：** 拆解「全球最佳大學排名」背後的指標系統。這些排名看似客觀，實則偏向擁有巨額資金與英語出版優勢的高校，並不能真正反映教育品質或學生的真實體驗。
---
### 第三部：歷史與未來（Part 3: History）
第三部探討**歷史類比與大規模社會變革**，揭示政治人物如何藉由扭曲歷史事件，為當前的政策或爭議辯護。
* **重點精華：**
* **歷史事件的簡化與武器化：** 探討英國等國家對「二戰記憶」的過度執念（例如將所有危機都比喻為『敦克爾克精神』或『二戰抗戰』）。這種比較遮蔽了當代問題的真實根源，用過度浪漫化的歷史情懷取代了務實的政策討論。
* **歷史制度的強行套用：** 討論如「中國是否為新型殖民強權」 或「以色列是否存在種族隔離」 等議題，強調在引用歷史專有名詞（如 colonialism、apartheid）時，必須精準檢視結構性證據，而非僅作為宣傳口號。
* **科技與環境問題的錯置類比：** 檢視「解決氣候變遷能否像當年登上月球的太空競賽一樣？」這個常見的說法。太空競賽是一個封閉且具備明確技術目標的計畫，而氣候變遷則是涉及全球地緣政治、經濟利益與社會行為改變的複雜系統，將兩者類比會讓人誤以為只需一個「神奇科技」就能解決危機。
---
## 經典名言佳句摘錄
1. **關於「胡說八道」的本質：**
> *"Bullshit survives in the nearshore between truth and lie, something that is slippery and dishonest, yet not as salty as a baseless fiction."*
> （胡說八道存活於真理與謊言之間的近岸，它是滑頭且不誠實的，但又不像毫無根據的虛構那般苦澀。）
2. **關於批判性思考與比較的雙面性：**
> *"Comparisons are part and parcel of our intellectual furniture, but they need to be carefully positioned and used honestly... While primarily highlighting the bullshit comparisons that confuse, this book also intends to cast new light on comparisons that kindle understanding."*
> （比較是我們心智架構中不可或缺的一部分，但必須被小心定位與誠實使用……本書在揭露那些令人困惑的『瞎扯比較』之餘，也旨在重新點亮那些能帶來真正理解的比較。）
3. **關於關係性思考（Relational Thinking）：**
> *"Relational comparison can bring order to a chaotic world. Without comparative data there would be no evidence to challenge gender pay gaps or plot patterns of disease."*
> （具備關係性的比較能為混亂的世界帶來秩序。如果沒有合理的比較數據，我們就沒有證據去挑戰性別薪資差距，或是描繪出疾病傳播的規律。）
---
## 總結
Andrew Brooks 在本書中並非倡導盲目的虛無主義、要求我們完全放棄比較，而是提醒讀者：**「比較」是一種強大的思想工具，既能揭露不公（如性別薪資差距、污染趨勢），也能被用來作為掩蓋真相的煙幕彈**。學會識別隱藏在指標（Metrics）、模型（Models）與隱喻（Metaphors）背後的胡說八道，是當代人培養獨立思考與批判能力必備的修養。
《**Bullshit Comparisons: A Field Guide to Thinking Critically in a World of Difference**》（中譯參考：《瞎扯比較：在差異世界中批判性思考的實用指南》）是由倫敦國王學院（King's College London）地理學學者 **Andrew Brooks** 所著。
在資訊爆炸的時代，我們每天都會接收到無數的比較：從「政治人物是不是下一個邱吉爾」、「電動車真的比汽油車環保嗎」 到「里斯本是否為下一個巴塞隆納」。作者承襲哲學家 Harry Frankfurt 對於「胡說八道（Bullshit）」的經典定義——**「胡說八道並非直接撒謊，而是對真實情況漠不關心，只為了達到說服、行銷或政治操弄的目的」**——深入探討日常生活中各種被濫用、扭曲的比較。
---
## 核心架構與各部重點精華
本書主要分為三大篇章，透過多個具體且發人深省的日常與歷史案例，引導讀者拆解隱藏在比較背後的思考陷阱。
---
### 第一部：人（Part 1: People）
第一部著重於**個體與社會身份**之間的比較，揭示我們如何習慣性地將複雜的人類行為與個人價值，簡化為單一指標或不當類比。
* **重點精華：**
* **手足與同儕的無效比較：** 探討從小到大常見的「你看弟弟/別人多乖」這種拿手足進行對比的現象，指出忽視個體天生差異與成長環境微觀差異的比較，不僅毫無意義，還會嚴重損害個人的自我價值感。
* **跨時代運動員與英雄的類比：** 透過「梅西與馬拉度納誰更偉大」 或「鮑里斯·強森是不是當代邱吉爾」 等討論，分析將不同時代、不同體制下的個人強制對比時，如何因為去脈絡化而淪為純粹的情感操弄或政治包裝。
* **外貌與外在標籤的刻板印象：** 以趣味的「狗與主人是否長得很像」等課題，探討人類大腦如何強行建立非理性的視覺與心理關聯（Confirmation Bias）。
---
### 第二部：空間與地點（Part 2: Place）
第二部聚焦於**地理、都市發展與國家經濟**的比較，揭示政策制定者與媒體如何透過「懶人包式」的城市或國家類比來推銷概念。
* **重點精華：**
* **城市複製的迷思（例如：里斯本是下一個巴塞隆納嗎？）：** 分析都市行銷中最愛用的「下一個矽谷」、「下一個巴塞隆納」等標籤。這類比較忽視了當地獨特的歷史背景、在地社區文化與階級結構，盲目複製外國成功的模式往往導致士紳化（Gentrification）和在地居民被邊緣化。
* **全球發展指標與貧窮陷阱：** 檢視世界銀行或國際組織對國家進行的排名與成功故事（如非洲發展模式）。作者指出，把已開發國家的發展路徑直接套用到開發中國家，是忽略殖民歷史與全球貿易不平等的「胡說八道比較」。
* **大學排名與制度性偏差：** 拆解「全球最佳大學排名」背後的指標系統。這些排名看似客觀，實則偏向擁有巨額資金與英語出版優勢的高校，並不能真正反映教育品質或學生的真實體驗。
---
### 第三部：歷史與未來（Part 3: History）
第三部探討**歷史類比與大規模社會變革**，揭示政治人物如何藉由扭曲歷史事件，為當前的政策或爭議辯護。
* **重點精華：**
* **歷史事件的簡化與武器化：** 探討英國等國家對「二戰記憶」的過度執念（例如將所有危機都比喻為『敦克爾克精神』或『二戰抗戰』）。這種比較遮蔽了當代問題的真實根源，用過度浪漫化的歷史情懷取代了務實的政策討論。
* **歷史制度的強行套用：** 討論如「中國是否為新型殖民強權」 或「以色列是否存在種族隔離」 等議題，強調在引用歷史專有名詞（如 colonialism、apartheid）時，必須精準檢視結構性證據，而非僅作為宣傳口號。
* **科技與環境問題的錯置類比：** 檢視「解決氣候變遷能否像當年登上月球的太空競賽一樣？」這個常見的說法。太空競賽是一個封閉且具備明確技術目標的計畫，而氣候變遷則是涉及全球地緣政治、經濟利益與社會行為改變的複雜系統，將兩者類比會讓人誤以為只需一個「神奇科技」就能解決危機。
---
## 經典名言佳句摘錄
1. **關於「胡說八道」的本質：**
> *"Bullshit survives in the nearshore between truth and lie, something that is slippery and dishonest, yet not as salty as a baseless fiction."*
> （胡說八道存活於真理與謊言之間的近岸，它是滑頭且不誠實的，但又不像毫無根據的虛構那般苦澀。）
2. **關於批判性思考與比較的雙面性：**
> *"Comparisons are part and parcel of our intellectual furniture, but they need to be carefully positioned and used honestly... While primarily highlighting the bullshit comparisons that confuse, this book also intends to cast new light on comparisons that kindle understanding."*
> （比較是我們心智架構中不可或缺的一部分，但必須被小心定位與誠實使用……本書在揭露那些令人困惑的『瞎扯比較』之餘，也旨在重新點亮那些能帶來真正理解的比較。）
3. **關於關係性思考（Relational Thinking）：**
> *"Relational comparison can bring order to a chaotic world. Without comparative data there would be no evidence to challenge gender pay gaps or plot patterns of disease."*
> （具備關係性的比較能為混亂的世界帶來秩序。如果沒有合理的比較數據，我們就沒有證據去挑戰性別薪資差距，或是描繪出疾病傳播的規律。）
---
## 總結
Andrew Brooks 在本書中並非倡導盲目的虛無主義、要求我們完全放棄比較，而是提醒讀者：**「比較」是一種強大的思想工具，既能揭露不公（如性別薪資差距、污染趨勢），也能被用來作為掩蓋真相的煙幕彈**。學會識別隱藏在指標（Metrics）、模型（Models）與隱喻（Metaphors）背後的胡說八道，是當代人培養獨立思考與批判能力必備的修養。
January 5, 2025
"..., but millions of new fossil-fueled engines pumped carbon emissions into the atmosphere and transformed the global climate."
How can someone call BS on things if he is that naive? The author wrote that after Columbus discovery ~80% of native Americans were killed by "diseases"? Ha ha ha, really? Are you that naive? Not because of genocide?
No matter how educated you are and well read and studied you are, you just cannot get rid of blind belief in propaganda and authority and that is the authors ultimate Achilles heel. While he can be skeptical of some things and is rightfully claiming that some comparisons are absurd, ultimately it does not go far enough that would make this work stand out.
How can someone call BS on things if he is that naive? The author wrote that after Columbus discovery ~80% of native Americans were killed by "diseases"? Ha ha ha, really? Are you that naive? Not because of genocide?
No matter how educated you are and well read and studied you are, you just cannot get rid of blind belief in propaganda and authority and that is the authors ultimate Achilles heel. While he can be skeptical of some things and is rightfully claiming that some comparisons are absurd, ultimately it does not go far enough that would make this work stand out.
July 9, 2024
I enjoyed this book but it was not really what I expected it to be. The author discussed some of the rather spurious comparisons that are made between people (who's the greatest Briton), places (such as university rankings) and history (such as China's colonialism and is Israel apartheid). Overall it is an easy and enjoyable read but for me there is not a clear threat to the arguments running through it and so I am not sure what I have really learned from it.
June 28, 2026
Struggles to deliver on its promise, goes on many seemingly related tangents
November 3, 2024
This is a worthwhile book, but it could have done with a bit more cooking. The threads don't quite hang together or come together cohesively.
The core of Brooks' point is this: making comparisons and drawing analogies is an easy way to make an argument, but it's often not very accurate. We need to be conscious that when we make comparisons (or someone else makes them) they're balancing ease-of-making-a-point against accuracy-of-the-point. Often we are not conscious of that, and so we take the comparisons too literally (or argue against them too vigorously).
He illustrates this with numerous examples, none of which tie together very well. The first chapters are about the mental health effects of parents comparing their kids or fans comparing sportspeople, which are no doubt important but seem divorced from the wider issue of rhetorical comparisons.
Then we move into place-based comparisons (is Israel-Palestine comparable to Apartheid South Africa?). This is interesting, but leaves out a crucial consideration: Brooks is at pains to illustrate that Israel-Palestine and Apartheid South Africa are not comparable, on the basis that the two places are radically different. South Africa is very large, Israel-Palestine is very small. Israelis and Palestinians are about half each of the population of their lands; white South Africans were a tiny minority dominating a huge majority, therefore comparison not accurate.
This is troublesome for two reasons related to Brooks' wider aim of illustrating how we need to be conscientious about using comparisons:
1. It rejects the role of how language and thought evolve and how they assign significant features to words and ideas. Organisations around the world, up to and including United Nations, have settled on a definition of apartheid which relies on the significant features of racialised rule of law. If Brooks feels—rightly—that there were other significant features of apartheid South Africa which don't compare to Israel-Palestine then he's right to make that point, but it does not follow that apartheid can't be applied there. Apartheid is a word that means something, and Mr. Brooks doesn't get to retroactively decide what it means.
2. Mr. Brooks doesn't admit the balancing role of analogies and comparisons. If we accepted his telling then almost no comparison would be valid almost ever: Israel-Palestine isn't experiencing apartheid because it doesn't have the very particular features—Bantustans, an off-kilter demographic balance, political boundaries and a specific administrative regime, durably mobile labour—that Brooks wants to use as the definition of apartheid. But no one said Israel-Palestine is South Africa, they said it's like apartheid South Africa, balancing accuracy against recognisability. The test of analogies is not "is this correct in every particular?". It's "is this illustrative and does it reflect salient facts?" Otherwise no word could ever be applied more broadly than its original context. Mr. Putin's regime in the Russian Federation is widely accepted as being fascist, for instance; one wonders whether Brooks would accept that definition, since Mr. Putin doesn't speak Italian or German, doesn't have '30s era military hardware, and doesn't have a moustache.
Some of Brooks' points are well made and enlightening: he observes the way that British culture loves to draw comparisons between pretty much everything and the Second World War, and that there are almost never any salient similarities so the comparisons are bullshit. The comparisons are bullshit because there are no significant similarities, though, not because there aren't enough to satisfy Mr. Brooks in particular.
The lack of clarity around that critical point seriously undermines Brooks' analysis. His argument could be salvaged, but it needed another round of ferocious editing.
The core of Brooks' point is this: making comparisons and drawing analogies is an easy way to make an argument, but it's often not very accurate. We need to be conscious that when we make comparisons (or someone else makes them) they're balancing ease-of-making-a-point against accuracy-of-the-point. Often we are not conscious of that, and so we take the comparisons too literally (or argue against them too vigorously).
He illustrates this with numerous examples, none of which tie together very well. The first chapters are about the mental health effects of parents comparing their kids or fans comparing sportspeople, which are no doubt important but seem divorced from the wider issue of rhetorical comparisons.
Then we move into place-based comparisons (is Israel-Palestine comparable to Apartheid South Africa?). This is interesting, but leaves out a crucial consideration: Brooks is at pains to illustrate that Israel-Palestine and Apartheid South Africa are not comparable, on the basis that the two places are radically different. South Africa is very large, Israel-Palestine is very small. Israelis and Palestinians are about half each of the population of their lands; white South Africans were a tiny minority dominating a huge majority, therefore comparison not accurate.
This is troublesome for two reasons related to Brooks' wider aim of illustrating how we need to be conscientious about using comparisons:
1. It rejects the role of how language and thought evolve and how they assign significant features to words and ideas. Organisations around the world, up to and including United Nations, have settled on a definition of apartheid which relies on the significant features of racialised rule of law. If Brooks feels—rightly—that there were other significant features of apartheid South Africa which don't compare to Israel-Palestine then he's right to make that point, but it does not follow that apartheid can't be applied there. Apartheid is a word that means something, and Mr. Brooks doesn't get to retroactively decide what it means.
2. Mr. Brooks doesn't admit the balancing role of analogies and comparisons. If we accepted his telling then almost no comparison would be valid almost ever: Israel-Palestine isn't experiencing apartheid because it doesn't have the very particular features—Bantustans, an off-kilter demographic balance, political boundaries and a specific administrative regime, durably mobile labour—that Brooks wants to use as the definition of apartheid. But no one said Israel-Palestine is South Africa, they said it's like apartheid South Africa, balancing accuracy against recognisability. The test of analogies is not "is this correct in every particular?". It's "is this illustrative and does it reflect salient facts?" Otherwise no word could ever be applied more broadly than its original context. Mr. Putin's regime in the Russian Federation is widely accepted as being fascist, for instance; one wonders whether Brooks would accept that definition, since Mr. Putin doesn't speak Italian or German, doesn't have '30s era military hardware, and doesn't have a moustache.
Some of Brooks' points are well made and enlightening: he observes the way that British culture loves to draw comparisons between pretty much everything and the Second World War, and that there are almost never any salient similarities so the comparisons are bullshit. The comparisons are bullshit because there are no significant similarities, though, not because there aren't enough to satisfy Mr. Brooks in particular.
The lack of clarity around that critical point seriously undermines Brooks' analysis. His argument could be salvaged, but it needed another round of ferocious editing.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews