A book on introverts in a world where extroversion is the norm, how introverts can better deal with that world, and how extroverts should make better use of the special qualities that introverts possess.
Sadly, the book is typical example of the Malcolm Gladwell school of writing, with a mix of some research, wide extrapolations and the author’s ideas all mixed up. And descriptions of how the researchers look—really?!
I actually think the book /has/ a point, and I think some of the ‘findings’ make sense; but perhaps a magazine article would be enough for this?
Sadly, the book is typical example of the Malcolm Gladwell school of writing, with a mix of some research, wide extrapolations and the author’s ideas all mixed up.
To me, that amounts to “not worth reading”.
I actually think the book /has/ a point, and I some of the ‘findings’ make sense; but perhaps a magazine article would enough for this?
Every book of this sort has a point, and some of its findings will always “make sense”. That’s just part of the same marketing template, as is the “Catchy Title: Subtitle From Which You Can Extrapolate The Entire Contents Before Opening The Book” title.
It’s the title that’s the giveaway. It will put off people who don’t like the message from picking the book up at all, thus planting a positive bias into the reviews and word of mouth. It also primes every favourably disposed reader with the message, making its arguments to that end “make sense”.
Indeed these books seem to be engineered for effect (Gladwell is an absolute master at that). Slightly ‘unexpected’ conclusions that go well with the readers’ cherished beliefs, and optimized for short attention spans.
Sadly, the book is typical example of the Malcolm Gladwell school of writing, with a mix of some research, wide extrapolations and the author’s ideas all mixed up.
I agree that’s an unfortunate tendancy; I’m currently reading Nassim Taleb’s “Fooled by Randomness” and it has a bit of the same problem.
I wouldn’t say Taleb is part of the MGSoW though. Taleb has some good points, the biggest obstacle I have with enjoying his books is the author’s pretentiousness.
Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy looks like it might be interesting, but I haven’t read it yet. (The basic premise is that an unbiased look at the psychological literature confirms that stereotypes are generally accurate and biases generally weak and fleeting.)
Via Davis Kingsley I was introduced to An Elementary Approach to Thinking Under Uncertainty, a little textbook that does a pretty good job of helping students apply the cogsci of rationality to their everyday lives, stuffed full with examples and exercises (which could be a gold mine for CFAR, honestly).
Non Fiction Books Thread
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking - Susan Cain
A book on introverts in a world where extroversion is the norm, how introverts can better deal with that world, and how extroverts should make better use of the special qualities that introverts possess.
Sadly, the book is typical example of the Malcolm Gladwell school of writing, with a mix of some research, wide extrapolations and the author’s ideas all mixed up. And descriptions of how the researchers look—really?!
I actually think the book /has/ a point, and I think some of the ‘findings’ make sense; but perhaps a magazine article would be enough for this?
To me, that amounts to “not worth reading”.
Every book of this sort has a point, and some of its findings will always “make sense”. That’s just part of the same marketing template, as is the “Catchy Title: Subtitle From Which You Can Extrapolate The Entire Contents Before Opening The Book” title.
It’s the title that’s the giveaway. It will put off people who don’t like the message from picking the book up at all, thus planting a positive bias into the reviews and word of mouth. It also primes every favourably disposed reader with the message, making its arguments to that end “make sense”.
Indeed these books seem to be engineered for effect (Gladwell is an absolute master at that). Slightly ‘unexpected’ conclusions that go well with the readers’ cherished beliefs, and optimized for short attention spans.
I agree that’s an unfortunate tendancy; I’m currently reading Nassim Taleb’s “Fooled by Randomness” and it has a bit of the same problem.
I wouldn’t say Taleb is part of the MGSoW though. Taleb has some good points, the biggest obstacle I have with enjoying his books is the author’s pretentiousness.
I enjoyed Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. I liked it best for being a tour through the way linguists and cogsci people refined their methodologies (or how much data it took to force them to), more than as a study of cutting edge conclusions.
Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy looks like it might be interesting, but I haven’t read it yet. (The basic premise is that an unbiased look at the psychological literature confirms that stereotypes are generally accurate and biases generally weak and fleeting.)
Via Davis Kingsley I was introduced to An Elementary Approach to Thinking Under Uncertainty, a little textbook that does a pretty good job of helping students apply the cogsci of rationality to their everyday lives, stuffed full with examples and exercises (which could be a gold mine for CFAR, honestly).