Where to start with my review of this book? It brought up a lot of feelings for me, some laughs, some tears, and kickstarted a couple conversations wiWhere to start with my review of this book? It brought up a lot of feelings for me, some laughs, some tears, and kickstarted a couple conversations with my [trainee] therapist wife about the theory and process of therapy. It's refreshing to see a clearly accomplished writer such as Gottlieb demystify a lot of what constitutes the modern practice of psychotherapy, which I think is extremely valuable in removing the stigma from it. It's also an easy read, as she effortlessly blends stories from her own practice with those from the relationship between her and her therapist. I know Gottlieb's book is a couple of years old but I hope it will continue to motivate people into seeking out a therapist when they're feeling stuck.
I did have a few minor stylistic complaints about the book, none of which are showstoppers. First, Gottlieb has a tendency to end her bite-sized chapters (no more than 3 minutes of reading apiece) with a cliffhanger or foreshadowing of what will happen the next time we encounter these characters. Perhaps this is owing to her first career as a Hollywood and then television executive, and it works in a few places, but it starts getting tiring after a while. The stories themselves are compelling enough so they don't really require gimmicks to move the book forward. Second, knowing what I know about therapist confidentiality, I was a bit uncomfortable with the level of specificity and detail Gottlieb revealed about her patients. I know she has a disclaimer at the front, but still -- I'm sure some of her patients recognize themselves in these characters and I'd be a little worried about the level of consent here. Lastly, there is an aura of privilege that permeates the book that makes me a little uncomfortable. For example, going into the practice of becoming a therapist, Gottlieb is already a famous journalist, having published cover stories in The Atlantic and other top-tier publications, for example. While she describes her own dilemma as to whether or not she should give up her book contract (for a book she no longer wants to write), she has the luxury of examining this largely through an emotional lens rather than one of survival. Yes, it will hurt to repay the publishing house's advance, but it's not like she doesn't have talents and can pick herself up to take another swing at things.
There is also one larger flaw, which I didn't notice at first, and that is survivor bias. The picture Gottlieb paints, almost exclusively, is the one where the patient's goals are achieved and they are happier. It's a bit too convenient and smacks of the proverbial television "series finale" where all the loose ends are neatly tied up. Those loose ends that are still at loose ends, like Charlotte -- we never find out what happens to her! -- are probably not the ones that fit with the cheery finish, so they're not addressed. Thus, while Gottlieb is mostly convincing that therapy is hard work but can lead to great outcomes, her presentation is slightly disingenuous. For instance -- perhaps Gottlieb has been lucky in this, but we never hear a story of a patient that, despite a therapeutic intervention, still commits suicide. That is a therapist's worst nightmare but we never hear about stories of failure.
Overall, though, I still gave the book five stars because it's a nice, accessible primer on talk therapy, and hopefully will alleviate some folks' fears about finding "someone to talk to"....more
Rich Mironov is a Silicon Valley product management veteran, part of that early cohort of PMs who really defined what modern product management means.Rich Mironov is a Silicon Valley product management veteran, part of that early cohort of PMs who really defined what modern product management means. He did this not only through his work at a variety of startups, but also in his blogging and newsletters, of which much of this book is derived from.
I actually wasn't familiar with Rich until I was introduced to him this year by way of a PM colleague. Rich then sent me an electronic copy of his book, saying that he hoped I would enjoy it but with the caution that it is quite old at this point. It is that, being that it predates the widespread adoption of software-as-a-service (SaaS), agile development methodologies, and the subscription economy. As such, it's true that some of his essays are not quite as relevant in 2020, but the others, especially regarding the fundamental role of "product", are still insightful. Rich was accurate in positioning product management as a strategic function that sits between the market and engineering, and defined a set of core competencies that involve balancing business acumen and delivery management. His essays on roles & responsibilities read as fresh today as they did in 2003, which means that in this area of the tech industry, not much has changed, to the detriment of customers everywhere. (My previous company's failure to even have a product management discipline until nearly six years into its existence, coupled with its inability to recognize that the future of enterprise software was SaaS, invariably led to its downfall -- something that Rich could probably have predicted five years before the firm was even founded.)
Rich's writing is concise and accessible, and while I wouldn't recommend the entire book to product managers today, the essays that I mentioned above are still worthwhile. I'm guessing they can also be found on his website at mironov.com....more
Rhodes' book, though weighing in at nearly 500 pages, is an eminently readable account of his time working in the Obama White House, where he initiallRhodes' book, though weighing in at nearly 500 pages, is an eminently readable account of his time working in the Obama White House, where he initially led speechwriting and communications, but eventually drove meatier initiatives like the negotiating the normalization of relations with Cuba. The book is deeply personal without veering into mawkishness, as Rhodes describes not only the frenetic, unrelenting pace and its impact on the relationship with his wife, Ann, but also how heavily world events weigh on him particularly when he's hauled before a Congressional committee in the wake of the Republican-led Benghazi fishing expedition. Throughout the book, though, I was most struck by the ordinariness of the day-to-day existence of a White House staffer; as Rhodes describes it early on, there are no more than 20 or 30 people in the West Wing on a given day, and his interactions with Obama are very similar to ones between any CEO and a senior VP. Of course, the stakes are significantly higher, but decision-making processes and both the subtleties and explicitness of team communications are exactly the same as in any modern American corporation.
It's clear that Obama made a very good chief executive, with a long-term worldview as a steward of the 300-year-old American project onto which he improved a few things, which is what made America's election of his successor that much more shocking. It's like Obama delivered to Trump a finely furnished residence, only for him to trash the place, set it on fire, and live on a dirty mattress in the soot-covered basement, and it's from this perch that Biden must somehow rebuild the place.
As for Biden -- one wonders if Rhodes holds out much possibility for such a rebuilding. He spares no criticism for what he views as the older generation of career politicians and "principals", lumping Biden, Hillary Clinton, and many other elder bureaucrats into this bucket. One comes to see a Biden presidency merely as a caretaker administration, trying to hook up some basic services to that destroyed home, perhaps, but never fully restoring it to the same level of grandeur. Though, in Rhodes' telling, Obama is an indefatigable optimist and cheerleader, only occasionally showing his exasperation or frustration with what he is able to achieve, Rhodes himself is much more cynical, arriving late to the conclusion that even a president can only move the needle a small amount.
Obama left office as a very popular president, and I firmly believe that his legacy will be one that is recognized only in the decades ahead. Rhodes' book is a very accessible insider's memoir of those eight years from a different perspective than Obama's own (being that he himself has a memoir coming out soon) and is highly recommended....more
Reading a book about challenging the cult of speed, written in 2003 before the social media era, does seem like a bit of an antiquity at this point. IReading a book about challenging the cult of speed, written in 2003 before the social media era, does seem like a bit of an antiquity at this point. It's not that Honoré doesn't have a point. It's just that exhortations to slow down seem about as effective today as they have been over the last century (that is, not at all). The truth is that speed is really a symptom of something else, modern capitalism, that Honoré only addresses obliquely throughout the book, saving his explicit call-out for the conclusion. As such, the Slow movement has a serious branding problem, positioning itself as a purported rejection of speed when even Honoré would admit that we should live life at the "right" speed, rather than introducing artificial speed traps to daily activities that actually need to be done quickly. This opens up Slowness to ridicule, somewhat deservedly, as being an invention of a few arty Italians who simply want to relax and opt out of competing in the global economy.
As a polemic, the book is not a must-read. Despite Honoré's relatively good reporting, it's not enough of a compelling message to drive individual change (unlike a related title, Matthew Walker's Why We Sleep, that should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who's skimping on sleep). Honoré also relies too much on anecdotes rather than using science to make his case, and even still, does not put himself front-and-center enough to make an emotional connection with his audience. Overall, a mediocre tome that, a decade-and-a-half after publication, probably nobody remembers....more
Extremely boring. Only had to read it because of class.
Look, I think there's a bunch of good information in here, but it suffers from the typical textExtremely boring. Only had to read it because of class.
Look, I think there's a bunch of good information in here, but it suffers from the typical textbook problem of each chapter basically being a lit review of everything that exists on the topic, disguised behind a thin veneer of a narrative. It's not readable.
Obviously, if you're doing your Ph.D. in negotiation and what you're after is the most comprehensive, authoritative reference about negotiation theory, then this is your go-to resource. However, for the rest of us in the real world (i.e. not in academia inventing laboratory experiments that even the authors admit are not representative of actual negotiations), you can skip it....more
This is one of those highly-hyped novels that I thought was going to be better than it was. I had read the excerpt in the New York Times and was intriThis is one of those highly-hyped novels that I thought was going to be better than it was. I had read the excerpt in the New York Times and was intrigued enough to borrow it from the library. One definitely wonders how much of the acclaim for "Elena Ferrante" comes from the mystery surrounding who exactly she is, since it's a pseudonym. Strip aside that excitement, though, and "Ferrante's" The Lying Life of Adults strikes me as just another decent but not outstanding book.
Perhaps the best that can be said about the novel is that it offers a very specific perspective into a Italian life, an existence which can only be easily described to us North Americans as high in drama, with the possibility for every little action being blown out of proportion and therefore also countermanded by subtle cues, language choices, body language, and so on. As a reader, it makes you detest almost every single character in the book, including Giannina, the narrator, since everyone is both vain and selfish, optimizing their actions solely for short-term pleasure, damn the torpedoes and anyone else's feelings. Without giving too much away, Gianinna herself justifies a purely transactional act at the end of the book by trading off something else that could possibly have been even more destructive. Where's the applause in that?
In the end, there is nothing terribly special about this novel. I think the glowing reviews in major media overstate its quality and many book experts are getting sucked in by the novelty of a pseudonymous author shining a flashlight into a culture that not many of us know. But once we are there, there is very little redeeming about the characters or the plot that make this book worth your while....more
Graeber's original article for Strike! struck a nerve with many folks, particularly among the population of generic office functionaries who wake up eGraeber's original article for Strike! struck a nerve with many folks, particularly among the population of generic office functionaries who wake up each day, go to work, and despairingly ask themselves what good their jobs are doing for society. However, his original article was imprecise at defining what exactly is a bullshit job, so he does spend a significant amount of time doing so. It's not the same as a shit job; a shit job is one that is unpleasant (say, being a garbage collector) but might still serve a clear benefit for society (municipal garbage strikes don't typically last very long, for obvious reasons). A bullshit job, says Graeber, is one that serves little to no value to society, the occupant of it knows it does so, but feels obligated to keep up appearances, which obviously leads to quite a bit of emotional distress.
Once he gets over the initial "cuteness" of the phraseology, Graeber actually does make a pretty good, multifaceted attempt at diving into the origins of how work came to be structured in the way that it is today. For example, he notes that the economics as a field of study arose from theology, and asserts that the perception of work being synonymous with moral rectitude has this origin -- that it simply wouldn't do, in a Puritanical society, for us to be lazing around working fifteen hours a week (idle hands are the devil's playground, etc.). This is a recent phenomenon, and in fact, Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism, which is actually advocating for unbridled hedonism, has now somehow been perverted into advocacy for mass social welfare policies. There's way too much to get into in a simple review, but Graeber has done his homework, despite the fact that occasionally his assertions are too neat by half. (Example: He takes a quote from Obama regarding the mass medical industry unemployment that might result from a single payer health care system out of context and interprets it in a way that strongly buttresses his argument, whereas we have no idea what Obama's motivation was behind saying it, other than as a statement of fact.)
It's only at the end of the book that Graeber reveals himself to be an anarchist (obviously, you do pick up on the fact that he's very left-wing before this). This makes his advocacy for universal basic income (UBI) somewhat baffling, because at the end of the day, someone would have to administer a UBI program. I still do not understand how anarchism is not just the same as libertarianism, with the same aims and the same shortcomings, except that somehow the left thinks that their version of letting everyone do whatever they want without the constraints of a central organizing authority to ensure fairness will result in different outcomes? There have not always been strong governments in the history of human civilization, and yet, without question, life in those societies was nasty, brutish, and short, so I strongly oppose any notion that we should lionize anarchy. One only seems to find folks who are already privileged being the ones to advocate anarchy, so one should therefore be skeptical of it. That aside, I do find the logical arguments underpinning his advocacy of UBI compelling....more
First of all, as other reviewers have pointed out, the title is misleading; I had been hoping to read a book from Yang on the Asian-American experiencFirst of all, as other reviewers have pointed out, the title is misleading; I had been hoping to read a book from Yang on the Asian-American experience. Yang opens strong with a few of these pieces and then moves onto other topics like Aaron Swartz, pickup artists (I guess now known as "incels") and others. A bit disappointing, but not surprising for an essay anthology; I find such compilations to be like undercooked chicken i.e the outside -- beginning and end -- are fine, but the inside is bad. True to form, Yang finishes on a few strong pieces about white supremacy and microaggressions.
Yang's viewpoints are simultaneously reasonable yet radical at the same time. The fact that he himself is a person of color allows him to be a provocateur, calling out horrible behavior and thought policing in the social justice community while simultaneously illustrating how hypocritical many activists are, since white people would not be permitted to speak such truths. While I don't agree with some of Yang's viewpoints, I don't think he is irrational, but I am sure that is the reaction he gets.
When reading his book, one must remember that essayists by definition are firmly on the blowhard spectrum, using thesaurus words and sometimes writing only about the most esoteric topics, because that is how one's thinkpieces get published in both niche "literary magazines". It doesn't mean that there's no substance to the essays, it just means the reader must be prepared for the essayist's propensity to use complex words when simple ones will do. (You don't win at essayist bingo unless you sneak "praxis" into your essay, for example.)
Stylistic criticisms aside, this compendium isn't entirely a waste of time. But do skip the middle section and focus on the essays near the beginning and end. Those pieces are the best examples of a reasonable, moderate, Asian-American voice today....more
Having now finished it, I regard Liz Phair's memoir just like how I view her music: slightly to moderately better than average, but not something thatHaving now finished it, I regard Liz Phair's memoir just like how I view her music: slightly to moderately better than average, but not something that I would pick up in the absence of other motivating factors. I did listen to Phair in the 1990's as a result of a college dorm neighbor who introduced me to many other indie pop/rock artists, but I never really gelled with it, much as I respected her unique talents and sound. I similarly would not have picked up her book had a former colleague of mine not started reading it.
In sum, there are some stories in here that are not terribly interesting, some others that are tear-jerkers, and mostly ones that are somewhere in between. Perhaps for some folks, when reading memoirs from famous people (and/or their idols, who for me Liz Phair is definitely not), that they are shocked when these celebrities turn out to be pretty much the same as you or I: they are human beings who can both be incredibly kind and incredibly hurtful, have made mistakes (in some cases, mistakes that are amplified by virtue of the celebrity) and often, at the end of the day, for which recording/performing is really just a job. Not every day being a "rock star" is a delightful one, as Phair effectively explains in her story about needing to perform through a 103 degree flu, subsequently botching a televised rendition of "Winter Wonderland", and then being ridiculed for it.
While I don't regret reading Phair's memoir -- she comes across as a complex human being, not substantially different than any of us -- but that's the same reason that I probably wouldn't recommend it....more
Extremely dry. It's a textbook, and textbooks are written by academics, so the whole thing is like an academic paper. However, Ghemawat and his co-autExtremely dry. It's a textbook, and textbooks are written by academics, so the whole thing is like an academic paper. However, Ghemawat and his co-authors generally don't use high-falutin' language; the content is digestible but it requires a high level of concentration and attention.
Some chapters are more practical than others. The one on competition is pretty good and has some useful tactics; others are less so, like "sustainable competitive advantage", where the chapter opens with some data about how essentially, there is no forecasting or establishing sustainable advantage, yet it goes on to explain in great deal some complicated academic theories about what you might do (???) I skipped the rest of that chapter.
Obviously, I wouldn't recommend reading this voluntarily. If you just want the information (which by the way is solid), there are many other publications out there that present the material in a more accessible way....more
A masterful set of short stories from Adam Johnson, author of The Orphan Master's Son. In my opinion, Johnson ranks among the top contemporary writersA masterful set of short stories from Adam Johnson, author of The Orphan Master's Son. In my opinion, Johnson ranks among the top contemporary writers of short fiction alongside George Saunders and Karen Russell. He tackles some extremely challenging subjects and situations but emerges on the other side unscathed. Highly recommended....more
Like all good Michael Lewis books, The New New Thing is ostensibly about a particular topic (in this case, the Internet boom of the 1990s) but is in rLike all good Michael Lewis books, The New New Thing is ostensibly about a particular topic (in this case, the Internet boom of the 1990s) but is in reality a character study. This one is about Jim Clark, the founder of companies like Silicon Graphics, Netscape Communications, and Healtheon, many of which have faded into obscurity not twenty years after this book was originally written. Reading this book, it's hard not to feel three things: awe at what Clark was able to accomplish and his remarkable prescience about what was around the corner in technology; annoyance at his incredible hubris, selfishness and arrogance that only increased as he became richer and richer; and anger at the ecosystem of bankers, venture capitalists, and Silicon Valley engineers whose pursuit of pipe dreams written on the back of napkins (literally) precipitated the dot-com crash -- not covered in the book, by the way, being published right before the 2000 stock market implosion, though you could see the writing on the wall. (The parallels to When Genius Failed, the book I just finished reading on the rise and fall of Long-Term Capital Management, are obvious.)
Twenty years later, it's hard to imagine that there will ever be another character like Jim Clark. Today, entrepreneurs who are as unhinged and maniacal as Clark -- yet have enough instincts and knowledge to actually pull off a success -- are rare. Or, they are complete know-nothing charlatans like Elizabeth Holmes. Meanwhile, those individuals who are outlandishly rich, like Jeff Bezos (net worth: $200B, compared to Clark's $2B) came into this wealth by being everything Clark was not, thus repudiating Lewis' unwritten thesis that mania makes the most money. (In the end, Clark does reckon with this and realize that battling with gigantic monopolies like Microsoft is a losing proposition.)
One can read Lewis's book as a history lesson that provides deep context on what ails the technology industry and society today. Both this book and Cluetrain Manifesto provide the reader with a direct link from today all the way back to the early Internet entrepreneurs and their overall naivete about how the Internet would change everything. It has changed a lot, but it certainly hasn't changed human nature, and the lack of guardrails around engagement on social networks, for example, is, in 2020, what threatens to tear society asunder. The foundations for this destruction were all laid by Clark and his cronies, only it was seen as positive/creative back in the day, and now we are reckoning with it....more
Not gonna lie - this is a pretty dismal book. And it hits home too, for two reasons: Kristof and WuDunn know many of these characters personally (sincNot gonna lie - this is a pretty dismal book. And it hits home too, for two reasons: Kristof and WuDunn know many of these characters personally (since they are the family and extended family of kids that Kristof went to grade school with) and also, Yamhill, OR, is not far from where I live. I've driven through the town and been to similar places like it, and you can just see the crushing despair in those places -- which were probably a lot different from when Kristof lived there in the 1970s.
If you've read other books about class and inequality in America, there's no new ground being covered here. But if you haven't, the authors lay out a very compelling argument for how trauma is passed down from generation to generation, how it's gotten worse over the last 40 years as our government has willfully withdrawn its investment in institutions, and how it can be turned around. Sadly, Kristof's subjects are among those enthralled by Trumpism: populism that directly contravenes their own self-interests, so the cycle of despair continues. That is, obviously, to the extent that they even vote.
Unfortunately, until and unless the majority of Americans wake up to the fact that strong institutions are all that hold a country together -- that and a system of norms and laws that are adhered to by everyone, including the president -- things won't get better. It is fascinating that Kristof himself has hope, as expressed in one of his recent New York Times columns; however, many of us just assume things will get way worse before they get better....more
Lowenstein's book, written shortly after the failure of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), reads as foreshadowing of the 2007-2008 financial crisis.Lowenstein's book, written shortly after the failure of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), reads as foreshadowing of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. It's too bad many Americans had and still have never heard of this hedge fund, whose strange name did not preclude it from imploding within 5 years, sunk by a complex web of derivatives transactions and excessive leverage, all fueled by, of course, a healthy dose of Wall Street broker hubris. In 1998, the derivatives that sank LTCM were "equity volatility"; the ones that blew up the markets in 2008 were "collateralized debt obligations". It almost doesn't matter what the name is, as the more esoteric the financial instrument, the more problematic they are, being so divorced from real life things that it's impossible for the average person to understand their risk profile. And perhaps that's the point.
You'd think that after injecting $3.5B to save LTCM in 1998 (and organize an orderly liquidation) that the consortium of top-tier banks would have learned their lesson. Obviously, they did not, given how ironic it is that several of the firms who came to the rescue themselves imploded a decade later: Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG, among many others. In LTCM's case, Lowenstein points a finger at the US Federal Reserve: having begged and cajoled the bankers into throwing LTCM a lifeline, the object lesson that those banks learned was not "we should avoid doing that again", but that the Fed would always be a backstop against organizations that are "too big to fail". The banks themselves were complicit in making LTCM what it was, extending it credit on generous terms and getting sucked in by prestigious names in finance like Merton Miller and Scholes, and they were all too eager to get suckered again in the runup to the later financial crisis -- with almost exactly the same playbook. And in some cases, the exact same players, like Jon Corzine, Dick Fuld, and others!
Aside from severe regulatory failures (which continue to this day, by the way), two obvious lessons in finance one should take from this book:
1) Past performance is no predictor of future performance (duh) because markets are not random normal distributions -- they resemble them in most cases, but it's in the tails that you really get killed (and so-called "black swan" events are not as infrequent as the mathematicians would have you think). See also: the Law of Requisite Variety -- in a complex system, the number of states in the system is nearly infinite
2) Yes, eventually markets always bounce back, but you may be bankrupt by the time that happens. I'm sure that bond spreads eventually returned to historical norms, and had LTCM had the benefit of time and capital, it would have made a princely return on its wagers. But neither time nor capital is infinite, something that these so-called geniuses in Greenwich, CT didn't account for. Being disciples of "efficient markets" theory and neoliberalism, they probably didn't pay much mind to Keynes' observation, "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" -- and that was their downfall.
One last closing note. It's been twenty years since LTCM blew up; ten years or so since the last financial crisis. In the middle of a pandemic-induced recession, the stock market is irrationally at the highest it's ever been, having won back all its losses in 2020. What outrageous, derivative-backed bets is Wall Street engaging in right now that are going to torpedo the market in short order?...more
Walker has definitely done his research -- he is a scientist, after all -- and makes a compelling case, using data, for getting a full night's sleep. Walker has definitely done his research -- he is a scientist, after all -- and makes a compelling case, using data, for getting a full night's sleep. I don't need convincing, but of course life often intrudes, and Walker rightly calls out the American work ethic of long hours as being not only ineffective to corporations but damaging to employees' health. Yet, like man-made climate change, it's one of those obvious truths that lacks a path to action for most people. Walker is unfortunately a minority voice; hard to stack up his evidence against someone more well-known, say, like Ellen K. Pao, for example, who boasts that her superpower is that she can be "effective" even on four hours of sleep a night. (Bullshit, is what Walker says.)
The other knock against Walker is that as a scientist, his prose is extremely wooden. It's clear he's passionate about his material, but he falls into the typical trap that writing for the common person is not the same as writing for fellow academics who are coming at iconoclastic ideas with pitchforks and tiki torches. It's not just that he needs to make a point, but that he has to back it up with fifteen pieces of evidence before he can proceed. After a while this gets, er, tiring. Good thing in the preface he gave the reader permission to doze off while reading his book, because that definitely happened to me several times.
Despite his rigorous research, he still occasionally commits a fundamental error of conflating correlation with causation. Not all the time, but there are definitely areas of the book where he puts up a graph with one declining line and one increasing line and tries to make the leap to causality. One glaring example: "poor sleep causes people to get fat." In general, his latent and subtle fat-phobia (and parroting of common, but unscientific views on "obesity") do make me question the quality of evidence in other situations. It's not enough for me to reject his conclusions in the broad, though.
Altogether, I'm not sure the book is a must-read. The TL;DR is that someone has done the work to assemble a relatively strong case for us regularly getting enough sleep, and I think that's enough for most people to know without needing to dive into all the ins-and-outs....more
A dystopian allegory that is surprisingly related to the last (non-fiction) book I read, Jennifer Eberhardt's Biased -- illustrating how implicit biasA dystopian allegory that is surprisingly related to the last (non-fiction) book I read, Jennifer Eberhardt's Biased -- illustrating how implicit biases and class hierarchy could easily burst into the open. Basically a modern-day Lord of the Flies but set among white-collar professionals in a London high-rise building. Ballard paints a compelling story of tribalism and the speed of descent into it that is credible particularly in the polarized politics of the current day. The book is gruesome at times, but Ballard uses it to contrast the violence with the fact that certain normal routines continue -- some residents, even until the very end, continue to travel to and from their jobs, and consume services from the shopping center even while riots rage right next door.
Chilling if you read it as an allegory, less effective as an actual novel simply because the events are obviously constructed in such a way to teach a lesson and are not terribly believable....more
Had to read this for class. Not totally worthless -- there are some practical chapters on intellectual property law and venture funding. But the rest Had to read this for class. Not totally worthless -- there are some practical chapters on intellectual property law and venture funding. But the rest of it is the driest possible way to describe something that should be fun, which is starting a new venture. It'd be like learning to windsurf by reading Windsurfing, one in the McGraw-Hill Series in Civil Engineering which would contain flowcharts about surfing, diagrams showing the physical forces involved in windsurfing, and the most boring prose describing how surfing works. New product development and innovation happens to be my area of expertise so it's disappointing that such an incredibly dull textbook exists.
I can think of about ten other books that are better at articulating the process of starting a new venture, in a much less scientific but much more exciting way. And finally -- when starting a new venture, there really is no substitute for simply Getting Out Of The Building and doing it. All the textbooks in the world won't solve the fact that you have to "learn by shipping", to paraphrase Stephen Sinofsky....more
I read this book years ago and remember it as being a remarkable work of fiction that barely made it to see the light of day, because Toole died and hI read this book years ago and remember it as being a remarkable work of fiction that barely made it to see the light of day, because Toole died and his mother spent years posthumously trying to get it published? The world is better for having this book....more
Eberhardt's book is a reasonably good overview of implicit bias and what to do about it, covering a variety of areas -- policing, education, employmenEberhardt's book is a reasonably good overview of implicit bias and what to do about it, covering a variety of areas -- policing, education, employment, and many others. It does cover a lot of material covered elsewhere, so if you have (for example) already read about Kahneman & Tversky's System One versus System Two thinking, you'll have the fundamentals for the origins of implicit bias and will already understand its origins to be innate. That nature, however, doesn't mean that we shouldn't take active steps to combat our knee-jerk reaction, which is central to Eberhardt's thesis that we must -- for the sake of fairness and equality. It's hard, in this day and age of apparent regression to tribalism to look back on history and see how relentless activism along these lines has led to immense societal progress. We don't have whites-only lunch counters anymore, for example. But it would be a mistake to let our feet off the accelerator pedal now, especially with the rise in authoritarianism driving many implicit biases into explicitness.
The only flaw in Biased is stylistic. Eberhardt is an academic, and her prose can be dry, meandering, excessively factual (as though we are fellow academics in need of 20 pieces of evidence to win us over) and lacking in emotion. Indeed, in her acknowledgements section, she credits a close relative with helping her to inject emotion back into her writing because the academic style does not allow for it and she has spent her entire career removing it from her work. Eberhardt has only been semi-successful in this endeavor; some chapters are better than others. And the book is long. Still, Biased is an important contribution to the field, and Eberhardt's impeccable credentials and experience make her an author you should listen to....more
This is one of those books that I never would have voluntarily picked up had I not received it in a book exchange at one of the nightly mini-block parThis is one of those books that I never would have voluntarily picked up had I not received it in a book exchange at one of the nightly mini-block parties that is occurring on my street (with everyone standing at least six feet from one another, of course). Mrs. Fletcher turns out to be one of those relatively uncomplicated light reads with enough sass, punchy characters and unusual situations that makes you wonder if there's a genre called "made for TV books" -- only to discover that indeed, Perrotta has a track record of books that are adapted for the screen. (Election, starring Reese Witherspoon, being the most well-known of these.)
Once you realize that there apparently is such a genre, the reader can overlook some of the flaws in a book like this. I mean, high literature it's not. It's a fun romp, sort of like Sex and the City but with a forty-six year old divorcée in suburban New Jersey instead of Carrie Bradshaw and her friends in Manhattan. If you stick purely to what could be interesting about that setting, and the types of situations that an author like Perrotta could dream up in that context, it's mildly interesting. However, the characters definitely will be unevenly developed, and the further you get from what's interesting, the less consistent they will behave. (Brendan's rapid transition from being a CrossFit-loving, womanizing jock to a sensitive, emotional guy -- and back again -- being a prime example.)
What the shallowness does make it easy to do is for a screenwriter to have fewer complicated edges to sand down for the subsequent screenplay. Despite all the risqué and taboo acts that happen in this book, there's nothing particularly complex about the characters and their motivations that needs to be explained away. They largely aren't internally inconsistent humans, they don't have flaws or characteristics that end up being marginal or non sequiturs, and everything resolves itself reasonably nicely by the end of the book. What's not to love if you're searching for a quick yet titillating read in the middle of a pandemic? If that's what you're looking for, read this book. I don't regret reading it, even if it's not normally the kind of thing I would voluntarily digest....more
The Righteous Mind is one of the most insightful books that I have read within the last year. I’m familiar with the concept of the rider and the elephThe Righteous Mind is one of the most insightful books that I have read within the last year. I’m familiar with the concept of the rider and the elephant from Chip & Dan Heath’s work. But I’ve never had it grounded in a foundation of moral psychology and as a jumping-off-point for understanding the different moral axes on which humans operate. In particular, Haidt’s explanation of why liberals (progressives) and conservatives see things in such a different way, based on the moral axes they favor, is extremely valuable in understanding the motivations behind partisan behavior. (Although as a progressive, I do find Haidt’s implication that progressives fail generally because they don’t have as broad a moral foundation to create despair because it rings true.)
Besides the Humean concept that intuition comes before reason, the second most important lesson I learned from the book is that humans truly prioritize the appearance of morality over actual morality – the Glauconian viewpoint that Haidt returned to again and again. It validated my belief that “virtue signaling” is actually a real phenomenon and more prevalent than one would think.
There were a couple of places in the book where I had some slight disagreements with Haidt, particularly in the chapter on the origins of religion. I definitely don’t believe religion was invented or continues to exist chiefly as a way to control or repress groups of people, although they can certainly be weaponized in that way by fundamentalists. And speaking of fundamentalism, I have long understood that many horrors ascribed to it (such as suicide bombing) chiefly originate from political aims. Religion is just a convenient mechanism for assembling the necessary hive mind (or leveraging an existing one for political expediency), not the other way around. This is why the totalitarian Chinese government is so fearful of organized religion; after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, they are understandably wary of any group that has a common set of aims, because it provides a foundation upon which other causes, like a struggle for democracy, can be grafted.
Where I disagreed is in Haidt’s application of normative language to religion: for example, stating that we don’t know what will happen to purely atheistic societies over several generations (a reasonable statement) but then following it up with “They are the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (for which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have few).” – as though return-on-investment on resources invested based on breeding quantity were the only way to evaluate the quality of that society.
Having now read this book, I feel better equipped to have civil conversations with conservatives – those, at least, that are willing to engage on that level and not simply resort to dogma. I made many margin notes about the difference between small-c conservatism and the Republican Party in 2020, only to see Haidt address this issue head-on (one that has only gotten worse in the years since he wrote this book). I’ve also read Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, which I felt didn’t give any practical tools for combating extreme partisan politics (beyond a fantastical theory that if we had just never invented television, then civil society wouldn’t have crumbled), so it was refreshing to see that Haidt supplies some basic resources on how to counteract this phenomenon.
All-in-all, The Righteous Mind is a great introduction to morality and philosophy for someone who studied neither as an undergraduate (being that I did a professional rather than a liberal arts degree). Haidt manages to make the work of Kant, Bentham and other philosophers accessible to all....more
Earlier this year, I read that Elizabeth Wurtzel had died of metastatic breast cancer, and I remembered that Prozac Nation was one of those books thatEarlier this year, I read that Elizabeth Wurtzel had died of metastatic breast cancer, and I remembered that Prozac Nation was one of those books that I'd always meant to pick up, if for no other reason than that a girl I knew in high school was on Prozac, and boy did she never let anyone forget it. I was always extremely annoyed that this person exploited her mental illness for gain. Not only that, but I couldn't understand that apparent inconsistency. How could someone who was supposedly depressed also simultaneously be that narcissistic? It wasn't until I went to college and experienced depression firsthand that I realized that depression has many forms. Wurtzel makes a great case for how many apparent behaviors can co-exist, like high achievement (she was a brilliant, driven, published writer) and lethargy (there are many times in this book when she can't even get out of bed). There is no template for depression and in fact, Wurtzel's lack of congruence with classical clinical depression causes her many doctors to not take her seriously until she finally meets the psychiatrist/therapist who ultimately saves her life.
That being said, Prozac Nation was both an illuminating and a frustrating read. Illuminating because Wurtzel's nihilism about the purpose/meaning of life ring true for me, and she normalizes it; I doubt that even after her "recovery" did she really change her fundamental beliefs about these things. And she rightly observes that believing life has no purpose means that a person is likely to be a depressive. At the same time, after about the halfway point, I, like her friends, started to get tired of her manic behavior and her poor life choices. The fact that she is keenly aware of them and knows that her behavior is terrible doesn't make it any more tolerable to read. By the end of the book, she "gets the help that she needs" (such a terrible cliché) and "makes a recovery", but does she really? Looking over her Wikipedia page -- which I did because I just had to make sure she didn't ultimately die of suicide -- it sounds like she spent much of the rest of her life lurching from crisis to crisis as well. Can a person like this ever become not a mess? The conclusion to Prozac Nation puts a nice, neat bow on it, which is not really authentic.
That said, the book is definitely representative of an era and a generation, and Wurtzel is introspective enough to recognize that (and also to recognize how much of a mess she is). Despite the fact that it was by turns infuriating, I would still recommend this book to others....more
Loading...
