چقدر چقدر چقدر این کتاب خوب بود! یکی از قشنگترین نثرهایی که دیده بودم. شاید تنها اعتراضم به نثرش این باشه که (به عمد) تعدادی جمله رو هزاران بار تکرار چقدر چقدر چقدر این کتاب خوب بود! یکی از قشنگترین نثرهایی که دیده بودم. شاید تنها اعتراضم به نثرش این باشه که (به عمد) تعدادی جمله رو هزاران بار تکرار میکنه. بینهایت بامزه و طبق همیشه از فیلمش (یا سریال تلوزیونیش توی این مورد) بهتر بود. مواخرش خیلی شوکه کننده بود و این برای کتاب طنزی که دربارهی دعوا و مرافه یک خانوادهی عقب افتادهی اشرافی، نوشته شده، به نظر امری غیر ممکن میاد!
خوندن این کتاب جزو کارهای خوبی هست که یک شخص در زندگیش میکنه. پیشنهادش میکنم :)...more
No, I am not listening. This is the problem with most journalists understanding of science. You cannot repurpose scientific theories and findings to sNo, I am not listening. This is the problem with most journalists understanding of science. You cannot repurpose scientific theories and findings to suit your argument. She calls the science of listening flimsy. That's fair. However, you cannot mis-use attachment theory, Dunbar's finding, and endless other researches and theories about other subjects in support of a very specific concept you are using. That's not scientific support, That's using findings in rats to make headline for your magazine. You also cannot say (and I'm paraphrasing here) that scientists make a "jargony" definition for listening, and not specifying which definition you are using. And that would be generous. As Kate Murphy casually use "listening" synonymous with auditory reception of sound, perception, attention, working memory, social interaction, and etc, whenever convenient.
it would have made a difference if what she was saying was more than just some tips on what people are doing wrong, and not saying "oh be curious like a child" . Well, thanks for the insight, every f***ing person knows that. How can I do that?
It was interesting. I have to say, I was looking for a systematic way to understand "nudge". This book failed. It was mostly a book about how using suIt was interesting. I have to say, I was looking for a systematic way to understand "nudge". This book failed. It was mostly a book about how using subtle cognitive "tricks" can help with public policy, mainly in america. If that's what you are looking for, great! But it was not a good scientific explanation of this concept. And maybe I should read Thaler's papers instead of his books....more
Extremely helpful book. My therapist recommended it. It was by far the best recommendation she gave. I loved how practical and helpful it was. I'm actExtremely helpful book. My therapist recommended it. It was by far the best recommendation she gave. I loved how practical and helpful it was. I'm actively looking to work on the skills that this book discussed. I hope I find more like it!...more
Very interesting state of the science arguements. Though it was not a even as close as a framework for thinking about consciousness, it was non the leVery interesting state of the science arguements. Though it was not a even as close as a framework for thinking about consciousness, it was non the less interesting as it shows some non-cliche arguements and examples about the subject. I liked it....more
I like Oliver Sacks for how he describes the world and how he analyses every little fact. I love how he finds "marvelous" from defective beings: be thI like Oliver Sacks for how he describes the world and how he analyses every little fact. I love how he finds "marvelous" from defective beings: be that a man or a theory or a phenomena. However, I cannot reconcile with his interest in psychoanalysis, and specifically Freud. Though I gather that he liked his methods because Freud was more of descriptive kind of guy, Sacks forgets how Freud just ignores systematic findings, scientific methods and oppositional evidence. If you do that, you will end up with a guy that has beautiful imaginative mind with wonderful descriptions of psychosis and the being inside. However Freud was never "that". And using him to argue for considering opposition in science, is ridiculous to me. However, Oliver Sacks argument for a need of depth is completely valid to me. I just don't think that he was successful at giving a good solution to that problem. ...more
Hmmm. It is hard to give a review for this book. It is full of great arguements against conventional thinking. and deWaal is certainly well read aboutHmmm. It is hard to give a review for this book. It is full of great arguements against conventional thinking. and deWaal is certainly well read about science and morality. But he is mostly driven by arguing against skeptics (skeptics of animal-cognition, not in general) so he is great at giving counter examples. But he is not that great at proposing new ideas. So I might be wrong. Basically, from what I understood, bottom-up morality is descriptive to prescriptive morality with emphasis on socially enforced ones. I might be wrong because he was not that clear -to me- about it. Which is, underwhelming. Both because intuitive morality is at the end a prescriptive morality, however he wants to say that they are not that different. The arguments against different schools of normative thinking was also weak because from a utilitarian point of view, he was arguing a straw-man, as a utilitarian (like me) wouldn't exactly argue as he did in the place of a utilitarian. Though I have to say, it may have been not because if an intentional effort, but because he probably did not check his argument with a utilitarian. Overall, I don't think this book-essay was a "great-read" type, but it is certainly better than reading a fiction in search of meaning....more
To be honest, I'm disappointed. Her book on fake memories was very educational and interesting. And the sentiment and courage behind this book were amTo be honest, I'm disappointed. Her book on fake memories was very educational and interesting. And the sentiment and courage behind this book were amazing. But the content in this book was not as detailed and interesting as I hoped. Her citations and arguments did not impress me. I mean relying on Zimbardo's Standford prison experiment was disappointing, as anyone who dug deep into this experiment would know how fraudulent, unreliable, questionable and unreplicated this so-called experiment was. And the chapter on AI? Relying on Hawking and Musks arguments? Are you kidding me? There are good arguments against AI, but the only interesting thing about Hawking and Musks anti-AI arguments is that how can a genius in one field be so stupid in another. Again, the sentiment behind this book was amazing. But the execution was highly disappointing. I would have given her a worse rating if it wasn't for the courage and progressive thinking that this book would have taken. ...more
This book offers a great argument against what we think of as empathy in psychology: the ability to feel what others feel. Though the book was written This book offers a great argument against what we think of as empathy in psychology: the ability to feel what others feel. Though the book was written by a prominent child psychologist I failed to find anything about psychology that I did not know already. Also the author failed to offer any explanation about why empathy came to be from evolutionary perspective. So I can say that this book was mostly a philosophical, ethical arguement against the use of empathy as our moral compass. The writing style was in Steven Pinker called "classic style". And it was page turner....more
Amirography
>
Books:
by-the-bed-books
(75)
Loading...
