I haven’t read any of these, though Arguably, Thinking Fast and Slow, and Malcolm X are on my list. If you’ve read any, weigh in.
I thought that Pinker’s Better Angels should have made this list, but it was on the list of 100 Notable Books.
FICTION
By Chad Harbach. Little, Brown & Company, $25.99.
By Stephen King. Scribner, $35.
By Karen Russell. Alfred A. Knopf, cloth, $24.95; Vintage Contemporaries, paper, $14.95.
By Eleanor Henderson. Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers, $26.99.
By Téa Obreht. Random House, cloth, $25; paper, $15.
NONFICTION
Essays.
By Christopher Hitchens. Twelve, $30.
A Father’s Journey to Understand His Extraordinary Son.
By Ian Brown. St. Martin’s Press, $24.99.
A Life of Reinvention.
By Manning Marable. Viking, $30.
By Daniel Kahneman. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, $30.
Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War.
By Amanda Foreman. Random House, $35.
Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Just started reading it. And stopped just as soon.
Why?
The content is potentially fascinating.
But it deserves and needs careful typographic formatting. Book glutton that I am, I voraciously fell for the Kindle download instead of the printed book.
Now, I’m all in favour of eBooks when properly produced. This Kindle edition was clearly produced while unThinking. UnKindled forever, I’m awaiting the printed copy.
While we’re at it: Freeman Dyson has a review of it @ NYRB. The last six out of 32 paragraphs are dedicated to Freud and William James, and why Kahneman conspicuously does not mention either. 18.75% of the review making you think, not quite slowly: WTF?
Jerry, perhaps you’re already aware of this book–Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter–but it looks interesting since it discusses, among other things, the free will problem from a physics and information theory perspective. The author, Terry Deacon, is a creative anthropologist/neuroscientist. Might be worth a looksy…
It’s a shame but predictable that “highbrow”/NYT culture would glom onto such a simplistic and misleading brain notion as “THINKING, FAST AND SLOW”
But the behavioral econ folks, and econ folks in general, are nothing if not good sales promoters and marketers of easy to digest ideas and platitudes. Oh well.
We have a long slow education process ahead of us re: brain stuff.
I’m reading it right now. Only 5 chapters in, but so far really enjoying it. What am I missing that I should be getting?
If anyone enjoys a book about brain science, it’s pablum. Brain science stuff is very hard work to follow, let alone comprehend.
It destroys about every ideological and common sense belief we lug around. Learning about brain science is very hard work first, then maybe enjoyable. Maybe.
Yes, simplistic ideas are always enjoyable and that is what DK and all the behavioral econ, and econ folks in general write for — pop enjoyment, well and sales.
Simple mind experiment. Does it make sense that evolution would have a produced any brain, let alone the most complex one, that would work in 2 modes!? duh
Doesn’t it seems a bit (hugely) disingenuous that with all the vast amount of detailed and hard won details of brains research recently that some guy comes out basically saying:
“Gee folks, your brain is real simple to understand. It’s just got two speeds!” Wow!
It’s silly to the point of stupid. But best selling and now blessed by the NYT.
Wish some neurocog folks would quickly debunk all this but DK is a sci-celeb in American pop culture and become a sci-tertainment “product” so that won’t happen.
So I should be looking for a book I won’t enjoy. Um, thanks. Any suggestions?
It makes no sense that any perceptual, processing and behavioral strategies would be simple dichotomies.
The world is filled with “grey” and any successful brain will need to be able to fine tune it’s responses based on graduated perceptions, processing and responses.
One could say the human brain is the least dichotomous and most nuanced of all brains.
BTW, (false) dichotomies are natural to our perceptions apparently because we can only hold one idea at a time each in one half of the brain.
A neurocog fact DK conveniently “forgets.”
Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked, or what I’ve written. I appreciate your taking the time to reply, but you seem to be responding to some other Observer. For the record, I understand that the brain is more complex than can be described by simple dichotomies, and I was never under any other impression. I accepted your point on this from the get-go and simply wanted to know what else I should be reading to learn the true story.
If you don’t have any titles to suggest, it’s perfectly alright to say so. I am a lay reader with no advanced degrees in either psychology or neuroscience. Is there anything written for someone like me that would serve me better? Or are you suggesting that it’s hopeless for anybody without advanced degrees in the subject?
As a layperson with a strong interest in science, I’ve been gratfied at how helpful scientists have been in guiding me towards more information about their subjects.
Will you please extend me this same courtesy?
This is all related to physiology and the research is brand new and complex and getting more so.
No, without serious study it is about as sensible to think a layperson can understand as any other medical and advanced biological topic.
Sorry the pop notion of easy understanding of advanced topics is a sales myth used to sell nonsense like DK’s work.
Anyone who want’s “courtesy” instead of hard facts,is best to stick with middle-brow pop culture veriosn os brain science a la the NYT.
Does it make sense that evolution would have a produced any brain, let alone the most complex one, that would work in 2 modes!?
Sure it does. Critical thinking and analysis costs time and effort, which competing biological species don’t always have. So it makes perfect sense that a successful biological species – a product of millions of years of evolution – would have the ability to use critical thinking when resources are available to do so, but more instinctual, ‘hard-wired’ thinking mechanisms when time and resources aren’t available.
Now, I am not saying that we do have two systems, as I haven’t read the book. But your dismissal of the idea is not at all convincing.
Argument by authority — same one religious folks rely on.
“If anyone enjoys a book about brain science, it’s pablum.”
Your statement is snobbish to the point of uselessness.
Many books written about specialized fields, particularly in the sciences, are written with non-scientists in mind, but this does not make them “pablum”, as any non-scientist reader of a physics book can tell you.
The forward to Kahneman’s book is written by Stephen Pinker, the author of “How the Mind Works”, and whom I think we can all agree is no piker.
Additionally, Kahneman is interviewed by Sam Harris at Harris’s blog.
If you don’t mind, I think I’ll go with their recommendations and not yours.
To study brain research there are vast amounts of free resources, just Google. Look for videos and podcasts or technical articles.
We always seek out items that we don’t fully understand or challenge our existing knowledge and pre-conceived notions. We avoid pop science.
Our experience is that it takes a lot of reading and study. We have been at it for years.
Is a doctor “snobbish” if he question pop medicine claims?
If you dig into the neurscience of DK book, they are superficial to the point of being misleading and factually wrong.
Holy crap, but you’re full of yourself. Anybody with minimal reading comprehension can see that I asked for the courtesy of being told where I should read to start learning the hard facts. I obviously did not ask for one instead of the other, and the fact that you misrepresent me to insinuate that I had must mean that either you are dishonest or you can’t read. I’ll do you the ‘courtesy’ of not calling you a liar.
Until this point I had not encountered a scientist who was functionally illiterate. You, alas, are my first.
lol abusive ad homimen, the last refuge of the lost. Best to stay with comfy happy talk/comic book versions of science. Why strain your brain?
You don’t know what an ad hominem fallacy is, do you? Look it up; it’s not what you think.
I’ll note that you also accused Eric of resorting to an argument from authority. Again, no. But at this point I’m not surprised you got that wrong also.
It is you being abusive and gratuitiously insulting. I merely pointed out you were being dishonest as well.
Now let’s look at the record, which is available for all to see. You posted about the deficiencies in DK’s book. I asked what I could read to start learning about the true state of brain research, and you responded by presuming to know what I would or would not enjoy. Fine. I asked again, politely, for some suggested titles. You responded by deliberately twisting my words into the opposite of my true meaning in a childish effort to insult me. Well, it worked. I am insulted.
Why you feel you have to piss on somebody who expresses a sincere desire to learn more is beyond me. Why you feel you have to lie to prop yourself up is equally beyond me. So if you feel abused, cry me a river. Dennett is right. There comes a time when a person forfeits his right to civility, and you did that several posts ago.
Having gotten several more chapters into Thinking, Fast and Slow, I do think you’re probably right. It probably is simplified to the point of being somewhat misleading. How much so I have no way of determining, but that is what I was trying to find out. DK himself acknowledges that he is simplifying, but he insists he is doing it for the greater good of making it accessible. Is he justified? I have no way of evaluating that, but I would like to be able to.
You accused Eric of using an argument from authority. Can’t you see that that’s essentially what your using on me. You’re telling me that I can’t possibly understand the real work that’s out there, so I’ll just have to trust your assessment. Where would this website be if Dr. Coyne had adopted the same attitude?
I don’t know much about your discipline, but I do know that your consdescending attitude is a piss poor way of communicating about science.
Observer,
Can I just step in here as a biased (towards you) arbiter?
A few others and I had a similar back-and-forth with sleeprunning a week or so back; this is what s/he does, picks incoherent fights and repeats the same allegations about his/her interlocutors.
Believe it or not, the quality of sleeprunning’s prose has markedly improved in the last fortnight.
As regards neuro-science, I ain’t an expert, but if you google V.S. Ramachandran, he’s an excellent communicator; the BBC Radio 4 Reith lecture from, I think, 2004 is well worth a listen; his appearance at Beyond Belief 2007 is concise, witty, well-delivered and flat-out fascinating.
Regards.
Some people like to discuss ideas and facts. The more challenging the better.
Those who can’t understand ideas like to rail on about people/personalities (their own mainly) and cry for civility and to not be upset with ideas they don’t like.
Standard fare for the weak minded and theological/ideological.
Ho hum.
You project beautifully, sleeprunner, but you think poorly. You have presented in this thread precious little in the way of facts, and nothing valid in the way of argument.
It is, however, a fact that you have lied about my post. If you dispute this, I defy you to show where I said that I was asking for courtesy in the place of hard work. Do that or admit that you’re a liar and a bully.
As you can see, I’m not interested in your civility. I am interested in facts and ideas. Curious, isn’t it how you have consistently failed to present any. One would think, with all your posturing, that you could suggest one title, one author, one website, one lecture that you can recommend as a place to start the process of learning the facts. Do you teach? What textbooks do you assign? What journals do you have your students read?
Or have you really studied this subject? Frankly, I’m beginning to have my doubts. Because other than content free chest thumping about “middle brow” science writing, there is no detail in what you offer to demonstrate any expertise over the subject matter. The best you have offered is a fatuous ‘thought experiment’ that fails to prove what you claim it does.
This thread exists because of your claims to have facts and ideas and my request to find out where I can study these same facts. So far you’ve you’ve done nothing but bluster incoherently. You are, evidently, a garden variety troll. Ho humm yourself.
Comment less, read more.
We are hear to learn not to teach, especially folks who just squat in their own hostile emotions, ignorance and fear.
And again you fail to comprehend or rebut anythingI’ve written. You remain a liar and a troll.
Ah name calling, clever. We don’t argue with the uninformed.
You are quite simply the best playtoy ever! I push your buttons and you keep giving me treats.
You don’t argue because you have no arguments. And obviously I am not name calling when I call you a liar, but merely illustrating the fact that you have lied. I have shown specifically where, and you can’t rebut it because you know as well an I do that each and every time you claim that I’m trying to avoid hard facts you’re responding to a post in which I practically beg you to give recommendations where I can find those same facts. I don’t really believe you’re delusional enought not to see that, so the most parsimonious explanation is that you’re dishonest.
Far from being angry at you, at this point I’m amused. I have no further interest in getting recommendations from you. I just emailed my sister-in-law the psychology professor and she sent me a reading list.
You said in another thread that liars and bullies should be confronted. So I confronted you. Why should you be excepted from your own rules?
Ewwww. Homoerotcism! Have to admit that’s a new one. Yuk.
And still no substance from you.
Bear-hugs Observer from behind and drags him away, for his own protection,
“Leave it Observer, he’s not worth it! He’s probably drunk. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. In the morning he’ll have the mother of all hangovers.”
I see sleeprunning as the Caliban (etymology, perhaps, ‘cannibal’, ‘with blackness’ or ‘wild dog’) to David Berlinski’s Prospero.
Caliban’s famous speech:
“Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises,
Sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears; and sometime voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked
I cried to dream again.”
The Tempest Act 3, Scene 2.
Regards.
I have the Kahneman, but have yet to start it. When he did his talk at the RI the other week he did not sign books as I think he looks as if he has arthritis – but that is a guess. He was very interesting and I am looking forward to that – & Frank’s The Darwin Economy.
I noted this entry:
MALCOLM X
A Life of Reinvention.
By Manning Marable. Viking, $30.
On occasion, I’ll go into a B&N, to the help desk, and ask if they have any biographies of Malcolms I through IX.
So far, everyone that I’ve asked this question has turned to their computer and begun searching.
I *lol*’d… 🙂
We are making our, painful, way thru the book Bloodlands –
http://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465002390
The most vomit inducing experience we have had in awhile. Why this necessary book didn’t make the NYT list instead of the pablum by Kahnaman — “happy talk” always wins in America.
If there was ever a “kill shot” at religion, magical thinking and philosophy these endless monstrosities are it.
Every human being should be taught this book for the rest of human history
Pinker also needs to consider how pure evil could quickly and with no resistance take over whole swatches of modern humanity.
“Killing became extermination last in the lands that the Germans took first. Though the Germans had overrun all of the former lands of eastern Poland in the first ten days of the war, in June 1941, many of the native Jews of Poland’s southeast, now the west of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, had survived until 1942. German forces had already passed through by the time Himmler began to order the destruction of whole Jewish communities. By the time German policy had shifted, most German forces had already departed. In 1942 the Germans undertook a second round of mass shootings in the western districts of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, this time organized by the civilian authorities and implemented by the police, with a great deal of help from local auxiliary policemen.”
Snyder, Timothy (2010-10-12). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (pp. 220-221). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.