![]() ![]() We got proof in the book's anecdotes (which I very much appreciated weren't just the same dozen that appear in all the similar books) that dishonesty wasn't necessary for all the various things people think it competes with, but we never got any proof that we didn't have to choose, that there were no painful tradeoffs, that we could be like the hero in some bad TV show and manage not to have to give up anything to achieve our goals. ![]() And we can do all of this by understanding and working with what’s real, not shutting our eyes to it. I only buy physical books, its certainly my preferred method of reading but I would love if they also came with a download. That way, you can play it on your home setup or in you car via your phone, etc. We can fight effectively for social change. When you buy new vinyl it comes with a digital download. We can take bold risks and persevere in the face of setbacks. We can find ways to cope with fear and insecurity. With a bit of extra effort and cleverness, we can have both. The paragraph in the conclusion I was thinking of at the end wasĪ central theme of this book is that we don’t have to choose. It's not a summary, but I do think it's an accurate point. I answer, well isn't that convenient for you? With regard to that claim, I was a little reminded of people who adopt a vegan lifestyle because of the ethics of using animals for food who proceed to claim that veganism is the healthiest diet for a human. One could challenge that the overstatement served a didactic purpose, but, if so, it's at odds with the thesis itself. I think a much weaker claim, such as 'we suffer such harm from believing wrong things that clearly believing more-correct ones is beneficial' or 'many of the times you think you could benefit from incorrect beliefs, you can achieve the same benefits without the incorrect beliefs' would have been much better justified. From tribalism and wishful thinking, to rationalizing in our personal lives and. I don't think that this claim was actually established book. In other words, we have what Julia Galef calls a soldier mindset. to Reddit threads and modern partisan politics, Galef explores why our brains deceive. ![]() One of the repeated claims of the book, stressed strongly at the end, was that believing true things is always better than believing false ones. In other words, we have what Julia Galef calls a soldier mindset. This makes a lot of sense and I definitely found many of the people Galef talked about inspiring. The book was very anecdote-centered, which beefs up the pages and, (spoiler alert) serves a secret motive: to provide role models, which helps impact behavior more than mere argumentation and description. Are you a soldier, prone to defending your viewpoint at all costs - or a scout, spurred by curiosity Julia Galef examines the motivations behind these two mindsets and how they shape the way we interpret information, interweaved with a compelling history lesson from 19th-century France. It was (no insult intended) part of its own genre of mass market non-fiction - not a whole lot of depth, and sometimes drawing a point out longer than necessary. Perspective is everything, especially when it comes to examining your beliefs. I enjoyed the book, but was not as wowed as I'd hoped for as much as I admire Galef. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |