Pretty typical pseudoscience BS. You know pseudoscience by its label "New Science." Is that like New Coke? There is no New Science. There's just ScienPretty typical pseudoscience BS. You know pseudoscience by its label "New Science." Is that like New Coke? There is no New Science. There's just Science. Imagine a book labeled New Science Fiction or New Fiction. Of course it's new. Everything is new when it comes out, until it's not new. I'd expect a new book on science to contain the latest research. Otherwise, it would probably be called History of Science. So the fact that this book isn't called Science but New Science is a dead giveaway that it's not actually Science but Pseudoscience. And if that isn't a dead giveaway, then surely the subtitle is: "Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter & Miracles." Um, Miracles? Those phenomena attributed to supernatural powers? Science is the study of nature. Supernatural means above nature. Ergo: Miracles are not science.
Pseudoscience is very compelling for people with no background in science. People have always wanted answers, and are easily entertained by outrageous answers. That's the purpose religion has served, but now that science is considered a more legitimate form of inquiry, people expect modern answers to have the scientific stamp of approval. So pseudoscience includes enough legitimate science to seem authentic, but comes to outrageous conclusions, which the evidence doesn't actually support. End result: People who don't know better are wowed, which sells books while diluting real science and confusing public understanding of it.
This particular book is by a nut who was suicidal and had a spiritual awakening through his research. He claims that he submitted his research to journals, but they were rejected because Science is an old boys club. Translation: His research was rejected because of insufficient evidence and/or repeatability. Real scientists are used to failure, and they learn from it. Pseudoscientists write books about it and call it New Science.
Just a taste of some of the silliness in this book: Cells membranes help them function, therefore we're not limited by our genetics; matter and energy become interchangeable as the speed of light is approached (Relativity), therefore all matter is therefore just energy, and we can pick up on one another's "vibes"; at the subatomic level, traditional Newtonian physics no longer applies, therefore traditional physics is done for and quantum physics can be applied at the cellular level; beliefs can affect a medication's potency (Placebo effect), therefore we can radically change our bodies just by thinking differently; and my favorite: HLAs are effectively unique to each individual, therefore our "selves" are spirits which are reincarnated to whomever acquires our HLAs.
Trust me, if scientists found evidence for any of this, you'll know about it. It will be published in journals, the scientific community would be embroiled in controversy (controversy doesn't imply falsehood in science; it's part of the process, with healthy debate among scientists who try to prove and disprove each other's works, eventually leading to a consensus), and the media would be having a field day with it. You won't need to read about it in some suicidal scientist's pop science book....more
Pretty interesting psychology book. A very candid look at what psychologists and biologists have found out about our changeability. Huge industries haPretty interesting psychology book. A very candid look at what psychologists and biologists have found out about our changeability. Huge industries have been erected around change, particularly dieting. Every brand has its own promise for change, which often contradicts the other brands. They don't need to be right to make money, just persuasive. So why not learn about what the science actually observed works or doesn't work?
This book covers several things people commonly want to change about themselves: anxiety, panic, phobias, obsessions, depression, anger, PTSD, sexual habits and preferences, weight, and alchoholism. This book spells out exactly what evidence exists for how changeable each of these are, and how effective or promising each of the various popular therapies actually are.
Some of it is a little surprising. For example, he argues that weight is not so changeable. Dieting often just makes it worse. He makes a good case, and I don't disagree with him, but I think his case is incomplete. He only discusses dieting as a cutting back of calories. But then, oddly, he briefly mentions some approaches that do work somewhat: exercise, eating healthy instead of eating less, and eating slower. This seems to contradict somewhat his premise that weight isn't all that changeable.
He also makes an interesting case about alchoholism, namely that AA's philosophy is mostly wrong. He doesn't deny that it works for many, but suggests there's a confirmation bias, and so doesn't work nearly as well as people think. Furthermore, the philosophy it employs has a cost of making its adherents feel powerless (indeed, the first premise of AA is that we are powerless). All it does it replace one dependency (alchohol) with another (theology and the AA group). For those whom alchohol has ruined their lives, this may not be a bad trade-off, but Seligman believes we can do better. Unfortunately, no one dares challenge AA's monopoly on recovery.
This book is quite worthwhile to read, but be forewarned that it is pretty dry (pun not intended)....more
A highly flawed book on self-esteem. Probably a better title would be The Psychology of Objectivism. Self-esteem, in this book, is more like personal A highly flawed book on self-esteem. Probably a better title would be The Psychology of Objectivism. Self-esteem, in this book, is more like personal empowerment, specifically the kind that Objectivists value. The author is extremely judgmental and annoyingly sexist. I'm not even hugely sensitive to that sort of thing. He just comes across as an arrogant pig. Once you get past all that, he makes a decent case for self-awareness, acceptance, and reason for making individuals more stable and happy, but he doesn't say much about how you do that. He mostly just bitches about all the parasites in the world.
This book belabors every point it makes. I can summarize the entire book in one paragraph: "Ayn Rand is awesome. Human beings are awesome because they have the capacity for reason. Most people suck because they don't exercise that capacity, and leach off of everyone else. Cool people accept reality and apply reason to make their lives better, thereby gaining confidence in their ability to handle whatever life throws at them. Ayn Rand is such a person. Did I mention Ayn Rand is awesome?"
Do yourself a favor and stick to cognitive psychology. You'll get the same benefits, without all the elitism, and with more specific guidance for how to actually apply it to your life....more
This book argues everyone has a minor form of Multiple Personalities Disorder, that everyone has a bunch of little people in their heads, with very diThis book argues everyone has a minor form of Multiple Personalities Disorder, that everyone has a bunch of little people in their heads, with very different personalities, ages, even genders and names. I figured this can be a useful metaphor, but this author believes it quite literally. He thinks it's some kind of revolutionary discovery, but he also believes it has a long legacy, as if Freud somehow lends scientific legitimacy. In some spots he says there's a ton of research to support this view, and in others admits there is virtually none. Sometimes I'm amazed how far Freudian thinkers go to extend their debunked theories, to religious proportions. This Freudian spirituality masquerading as science reminds me of Scientology.
This guy is a total nut. He's obsessed with 12-step programs, but hopes his theory will completely revolutionize them. He also abuses 12-step terminology, like "recovery" and "toxic." He's extremely judgmental and dogmatic. He's anti-atheist, calling the disbelief in a Higher Power to be "toxic." He says if you're ambivalent about his theory, it means you're "wounded." Not that, maybe, possibly, his theory might be totally loonie toons?
I've saved the worst part for last. The writing is awful. It's mind-numbingly repetitive, and has terrible grammar and many misspellings. It ignores many writing conventions. It abuses quotation marks. Its lists alternate randomly between bullet points and underscores (underscores??). I'd say this is the worst book I've ever read, but I save that honor for Consumer's Guide to HSAs....more
One of Alan Watts' more mediocre books, correlating Eastern philosophy of liberation with Western 70's-era psychology. Its main premise is that both aOne of Alan Watts' more mediocre books, correlating Eastern philosophy of liberation with Western 70's-era psychology. Its main premise is that both address the suffering caused by the "double-bind" of social conditioning, which is basically the demand that we follow a strict system of rules while also being genuine, an impossible contradiction of expectations. This book is very old for such a new field as psychology, so it's limited to the theories of Freud, Jung, Carl Rogers, existentialism, and gestalt therapy. Most of what we know about the human mind came after this book was written, so this book definitely counts as outdated.
This book has its moments. There were a few explanations that I found extremely interesting and helpful, particularly the chapter, The Ways of Liberation, which explained nirvana and rebirth in such reasonable terms. Otherwise, most of this book was drab....more
This is memoir of a one-year project to make and keep resolutions designed to bring more happiness into the author's life. There's nothing profound abThis is memoir of a one-year project to make and keep resolutions designed to bring more happiness into the author's life. There's nothing profound about this book, but it's pretty clear that that's not the point. Happiness doesn't need to be profound, and the steps to being happier don't need to be groundshaking. It's quite simple, the sum total of all the little things, and our attitudes and behaviors toward them. It sounds silly to say that the key to happiness is to have a positive attitude, but it really is. Don't knock it--it's harder than it sounds. I've enjoyed reading this book, and although it hasn't given me any profound insights, it has inspired me and got me thinking about some of my attitudes and habits.
This book isn't about philosophy or psychology, and while impressively researched, it doesn't talk much about all of the theories on happiness except in passing. This book is very practical and specific to her case, but while many of her stories are personal, most of her struggles are universal.
I give the author a lot of points for her sincerity. This felt like a real person, doing the best she can to make her life better, as well as those of others. I never felt like she was trying to sell anything or be disengenuous in any way. However, her websites turned me off. They look like product websites. Apparently, this book is huge. Aside from being a #1 bestseller, it's also in the process of becoming a television show. Okay, this book is good, but not that good. In fact, it's bordering on becoming overrated....more
Probably one of the most popular self-help books ever written. I found it inspiring and insightful, although not all that original. Most of it was jusProbably one of the most popular self-help books ever written. I found it inspiring and insightful, although not all that original. Most of it was just common sense and standard psychology, particularly behaviorism and cognitive-behavioral therapy. The gist is that we can change our lives by changing our beliefs and thoughts, and associating pain with bad habits and pleasure with more beneficial habits.
While it's always good when someone makes psychology more accessible to the layman, there's something about this book, and Tony Robbins in general, that feels way too much like he's trying to bottle it and sell it. For example, there is a very common, though inspiring, sentiment in American culture that we can and should constantly better ourselves. But Tony Robbins had to invent an acronym and trademark it: CANI!(tm), which stands for "Constant and Neverending Improvement!" Which brings me to his writing style! Why must he end every other sentence with an exclamation point? It makes it exhausting to read!
Seriously though, I know there are plenty of people who feel totally comfortable to business- and marketing-speak, who find Tony Robbins sincere and invigorating. More than once, I found myself thinking big, imagining what other great things I might want to accomplish in my life....more
This is about philosophy of science and spirituality, and the quest for a new paradigm to reconcile them. It touches on several common errors and fallThis is about philosophy of science and spirituality, and the quest for a new paradigm to reconcile them. It touches on several common errors and fallacies in this quest, most of which the author admits he's committed in the past. One is the confusion between the eye of flesh, eye of reason, and eye of contemplation, and that using one of these eyes for the wrong thing constitutes a "category error." Another is the pre/trans fallacy, which both science and religion commit in opposite ways, in confusing the lowest and highest levels of development with each other.
The author talks of objective reality, as distinct from subjective and intersubjective. The "eye of flesh" implies objectivity, but this eye is worthless without a brain to find meaning from these images--in other words, the eye of reason, the realm of intersubjectivity. His models are mostly developmental, identifying stages of development, implying, of course, that the higher stages are better than the lower stages. All of this leaves out values--in particular, the values of the author himself, which have gone into shaping these models. He obviously values spirituality over science, for example, because he lists it as a higher stage of development, but people with different values would likely create different models. In other words, it's subjective or intersubjective.
He's a big fan of Freud, whose theories have already been debunked at great length. He still finds value in them, and explains ways that Freud has been misunderstood, or was, in fact, wrong. I was completely unpersuaded, and found his obsession with Freud annoying.
I also didn't like the writing. The author loves his acronyms, and he never misses a chance to make up new words, making his writing very hard and slow to read, and makes everything he says sound more sophisticated than it really is. However, there were several times the author articulates something very well, and I'm frustrated that he can't write like that all the time....more
Most books about Buddhism are written by Buddhists, but this book is unique in that it's a memoir by a man who actually knew little about it. In a styMost books about Buddhism are written by Buddhists, but this book is unique in that it's a memoir by a man who actually knew little about it. In a style surprisingly similar to Thoreau, the increasingly rushed but also increasingly meaninglessness and superfluity of the world compelled him to immerse himself in an experiment with different lifestyle, that of a Buddhist monastery in Burma. He articulated his experiences and speculations quite eloquently, although I lost interest a few times toward the end....more
Loading...
