This book was really interesting and I learned a lot about food and cooking, which are great interests of mine. However, I read it specifically becausThis book was really interesting and I learned a lot about food and cooking, which are great interests of mine. However, I read it specifically because it seemed like an intellectually innocuous concept, yet somehow the author still got preachy. Hard to give more than three stars to a book that yielded an eye roll every 10 pages. I just wanted a non-fiction version of the British baking show in a book. ...more
I had incredibly high expectations for this book. Several friends shared Brooks’s NYT article with me thOne of the best reads of the year hands down.
I had incredibly high expectations for this book. Several friends shared Brooks’s NYT article with me that he wrote to tease the book because it echoed a lot of conversations I had been having recently. I loved the article, but forgot there was a forthcoming book associated with it. Then I had a conversation with a guy at a party that was one of the better conversations I’ve ever had with a stranger. Towards the end, he suggested Brooks’s new book. Within a week, two more people I greatly respect suggested the book, despite the fact that it had only been released for about 3 weeks at that point. Quite the build up…
Ultimately, I’d say the book met expectations, which, as I mentioned, were incredibly high. It probably was not an A+ in my view, but a very solid A. At times it felt a little cliche, and at times Brooks pursued rabbit holes that I wasn’t particularly interested in, but more often than not, when I sat down with the book, I gleaned incredible insights and struggled to put it down.
As for the content, the title kind of says it all. For most of us, our ego gets in the way of our ability to genuinely know people, or at least to make them feel known. Brooks does his best to guide the reader through why this is and how to overcome it. He has a way of writing sentences that make you say, “that is exactly how I sometimes feel” or “that is exactly what this person I know is like”. He provides language for ideas you already had, which allows them to crystallize into beliefs and behaviors.
I say this often, but this is just the kind of book that I am dying for others to read so that I can discuss it with them. I don’t think you’ll regret it. Also, it makes a great Christmas present bc its pretty....more
This book was comprehensive, in-depth, informative, up-to-date (as up summer 23), and relatively agenda-free. I specifically learned a LOT about the iThis book was comprehensive, in-depth, informative, up-to-date (as up summer 23), and relatively agenda-free. I specifically learned a LOT about the inner workings of the CDC, NIH, FEMA, CMS, etc., and the interplay between the federal, state, and local governments in response to the pandemic. When the book did assign blame, it felt fair and measured, and it never got too partisan for my taste. The solutions and policy proposals of the authors seemed a bit lofty and unrealistic, but that is why they’re academics not legislators, so whatever.
So with all that said, why only three stars?
First off, I am not sure that I liked how this book was written by a team of 34 experts. For some reason, whenever a critical mass of experts is achieved, proclamations take on this air of irrefutability, and this book was no exception. Plenty of audacious claims presented as absolutes. One lesson I learned from COVID is that just because 100 experts say something is absolutely true or untrue does not mean that it is so. I thought that the group-author aspect of this book allowed it to ignore that reality.
Secondly, this book committed a sin that the econometrician in me always struggles to forgive: country-to-country comparisons without statistical (or even qualitative!) Mention of covariates. I think the main reason I still haven’t considered socialism is because everyone who advocates for it loses me the second they mention Norway. I don’t want to belabor this point, so I’ll just say that this book talked about Germany more than a book on the US’s pandemic response should, in my opinion.
All that being said, this was a good book. The thesis was that we have a 19th century public health system that remains unprepared to confront 21st century challenges. I agree with this thesis and I’m glad I read a book on it....more
I’m shocked that this story is not more well-known; it’s like Anne Frank meets Shawshank Redemption. Certainly a page turner at least for the first 2/I’m shocked that this story is not more well-known; it’s like Anne Frank meets Shawshank Redemption. Certainly a page turner at least for the first 2/3 (esp the middle third which contained the meat of the escape).
The book drug a bit towards the end because the author (rightfully) wanted to tell the full story of Walter’s life, and the last 70 years naturally were not as harrowing as the first 20. Still gotta give this book five stars though because I think I am developing a unique interest in what we might call “risk-taking truth-tellers”. From Solzhenitsyn to Legasov to maybe even Snowden and Assange, I think there is something incredible about individuals who risk their lives to reveal hidden truths to the rest of society. This is easily a four star book even if you take it on pure entertainment value, but with the added ethical layer, it was 5 stars for me. ...more
I read this book to help me develop an informed opinion on social security policy. I feel much more informed but I still don’t have a strong opinion. I read this book to help me develop an informed opinion on social security policy. I feel much more informed but I still don’t have a strong opinion. I’m generally anti-entitlement programs, but open to exceptions (ie. CHIP, Pell-grants, disability, etc.) Still not sure if SS fits into my exception category… probably it does?
Anyway, the book was well organized and informative. The downside is that it was dryyy. And I’m a guy who can endure some dry books. Also, I didn’t follow the authors logic at times when he defended certain aspects of social security. An example is how he related the fact that SS invests in US treasury bonds.
First, he used this as a counterargument to the notion that the govt uses SS to fund its expenditures. I think he asserted that they don’t spend your contributions; they invest them in treasury bonds… but treasury bonds are literally loans to the US government. So if the govt takes our money and then lends it to itself to spend, it is still spending that money, which is fine if it pays the bond when it matures, but the fact remains.
Along the same lines, in defense of SS’s solvency, he points out that not all of the SS payouts come from taxpayers. Some come from the returns gained on those treasury bonds. But where do you think the govt gets the money to pay 110 dollars back on a bond they bought for 100 dollars using your taxes? Answer: also from your taxes (or they just print it but that’s a whole other story).
I could be missing the mark here. The author was certainly knowledgeable so I feel that he maybe wasn’t wrong, so much as short on his explanations. Anyway, this is worth the read if you’re uncomfortable holding political opinions prior to reading books on said matters. Or maybe also if you’re planning for retirement and want to be incredibly thorough. Otherwise, don’t bother. ...more
I went into this book wanting to like it for some reason - I guess I liked the idea of it. And it actually started strong. But then, in my opinion, itI went into this book wanting to like it for some reason - I guess I liked the idea of it. And it actually started strong. But then, in my opinion, it got real bad.
It should not be titled “A brief history of equality”, but “A brief history of oppression” or something, because it was ultimately more about class struggle than anything, which! Is! fine!; class struggle is important and I’ve actually had a bit of a pro-labor streak in my thinking lately. Anyway, said history picked up around 1500, which I found odd given the fact that many societies were actually far more oppressive and less equal before this point. Eventually, I understood why the author would start at this point when he essentially stated that inequality and oppression are a byproduct of capitalism. I have two major problems with the arguments that ensued:
1. Inequality is actually one of the most natural things there is (as opposed to being a byproduct of capitalism). He states that it is “first of all a social, historical, and political construction.” I am not nearly the academic that the author is, but to me this seems to miss the mark. When I look at the spectrum of all life on earth over the course of the last 5 million years, it seems that equality is actually the recent social invention, inequality is not a “construction” at all, but the natural default. This may seem like I’m nit-picking, but the argument above is presented as an axiom in the prologue of the book, so the degree to which I disagree is a pretty big deal.
2. In all his analyses, the author focuses on gaps in wealth, or property ownership. I agree that these are important, and increasing, and should be mitigated to a degree. However, this unidimensional measure of inequality is really convenient if your goal is to attack capitalism. Of course capitalism led to disparities in wealth, because it basically gave birth to the idea that accumulation of wealth (as capital) was even really a thing (beyond some hereditary feudal system). So yes, society breaks down to those who are, in the truest sense, “capital”ists, and those who aren’t, and then if you measure equality based on how much capital individuals have accrued, disparities are wide. The author does not bother to mention the unprecedented-in-human-history explosion in living standards of the “bottom 50%” during this 500 year capitalist experiment. We might’ve lost equality (as measured by wealth accrued), but with it we lost about 95% of deaths by starvation, violence, and infectious disease, not to mention the fact that social mobility, while still limited, at least exists for basically the first time in history.
So all of the above thoughts developed in the first 30% of the book or so. I wanted to keep getting riled up, but slowly I began to realize what was really causing my frustration: the author just says things as if they are obvious and true, when they are actually quite bold and contentions. Three examples:
-“in the future, this kind of indicator could play a growing role in assessing the extent to which countries respect their commitments and in defining compensation mechanisms, as well as in developing systems of individual carbon cards, which will certainly be part of the indispensable institutional tools for meeting the climatic challenge”
-“It is time to understand that the logic of remedial justice and universalist justice are complementary and have to move forward in concert, one supporting the other.”
-“each country, each citizen on the planet, should have some part of the tax revenue derived from multinational companies and the worlds billionaires”
Do I disagree full-stop with the notion that carbon cards could be important, or remedial and universalist justice are complementary, or everyone should receive tax revenue from multinational operations? Not necessarily. But to just state it like that is another matter.
So, after reading the quotes above and a few others, I took a deep breath upon realizing what kind of book this was going to be, and just sat back and plowed through a classic 3-star “this is how we fix the world” sermon....more
This book, as the title suggests, was all about the 90s. As an extremely nostalgic person who constantly yearns for the less-techy past, it was reallyThis book, as the title suggests, was all about the 90s. As an extremely nostalgic person who constantly yearns for the less-techy past, it was really a must-read, and it won’t be the last “decade book” I read this year.
The book itself was good. It loses as star because at times it felt disordered and unnecessarily long, but maybe that is just how cultural commentators write. I can’t give 5 stars to any book for which I look forward to most of the chapters ending, and for this book, that was the case.
Nonetheless, I thought the author was both entertaining and insightful. Most importantly, he penned a number of quotes that seemed to cut to the core of thoughts I’ve had but never wrapped words around. I think that aside from great stories, such quotes are the best thing a writer can produce, so I’ll finish this review with a catalogue of lengthy quotes I loved:
“There were still nuclear weapons, but there was not going to be a nuclear war. The internet was coming, but reluctantly, and there was no reason to believe it would be anything awesome. The United States experienced a prolonged period of economic growth without the protracted complications of a hot or Cold War, making it possible to focus on one’s own subsistence as if the rest of society were barely there.”
“Its hard to explain the soft differences between life in the 2020s with live in the 1990s to any person who did not experience both of those periods - far more difficult than explaining day to day differences between live in 1960 and 1990. For the most part, the dissonance between the sixties and nineties involved how things were designed, manufactured, and packaged. A teenager in 1960 would purchase physical music on a polyvinyl record; the 1990 version of that teenager would purchase music on a polycarbonate disc. The cost of a record in 1960 was $3, which accurately translates to $13.30 in 1990 dollars. That evolution is easy to comprehend, unlike the profound structural dissonance between consumer life in 1990 and 2020. A person native to the 21st century can’t reconcile why anyone would pay $13.30 for twelve fixed songs; the majority of all recorded music can now be accessed for less than $10 a month. For those who experienced both paradigms firsthand, the explanation for why the former did not seem idiotic is both simple and abstract: That is just how it was. That is just what you did. For this those that missed the era entirely, the difference is so maddening that it barely justifies consideration. This is not like the difference between driving a car and riding a horse. It’s like the difference between building a fire, and huddling in the dark waiting for the sun to rise.”
“Sports can be whatever you want them to be - escapist, political, symbolic, inspirational. But one quality that coincides with all of those projections is the degree to which sports are clear, at least when compared to conventional reality: The rules are outlined in a book, the outcomes are nonnegotiable, and success or failure is a direct extension of physiological meritocracy. Unlike life, sports make it simple for the ordinary person to deduce who is good and who is bad, who has won and who has lost”
“The full spectrum of social and psychological consequences that accompanied the advent of the internet is too profound to explain or understand. It exponentially expanded the parameters of external existence while decreasing the material size of interior existence. It allowed any person to simultaneously possess two competing identities - one actual and one virtual. It altered the value of concepts whose value had once been stable and self-evident: solitude, distance, memory, knowledge. Most critically, it decontextualized every fragment of data that moved through its sphere, which eventually encompassed all data available.”
“[In the internet] every message or image is preceded and allowed by a different message or image with which it may have no natural relationship, except to modify the meaning of whatever is currently being experienced. It is literally a context of no context, thus negating the very notion of contextual meaning.”
“The internet was an amorphous concept constantly described as encroaching, yet always two years away. It was both an unavoidable future and an unworkable playground, controlled by strangers you didn’t know and didn’t want to meet… The internet was coming. The internet was coming. When was it coming? Soon. How soon? Not today, and maybe not tomorrow. But definitely soon. It was always never quite there. And then, one day, there it was - impossible to avoid and impossible to recognize until the update was complete and all alternatives had been eliminated.”...more
Incredibly mixed emotions on this book. In the ways I liked it, I really liked it a lot. I think that Attia has such an incredible perspective on healIncredibly mixed emotions on this book. In the ways I liked it, I really liked it a lot. I think that Attia has such an incredible perspective on health. I am no medical expert, but as far as I'm concerned, Attia's "Medicine 3.0" is the best chance we have at moving towards an actually healthy society. I trust Attia as much as anyone I've read when he speaks to how we can live long healthy lives, and if I could choose any person in the world to be the doctor for those I love most, it would be Dr. Attia hands down.
This book did however have some negatives. First of all, a few sections were cripplingly technical. I'd say about 15-20% of the book read like a biochemistry textbook, and I'd say only about a quarter of that volume was necessary to get his points across to the reader.
Secondly, and more importantly, I think that Attia's approach, while it may represent an ideal, is unachievable for most of the population. For those who have the time, the motivation, and especially the money to live out this book's lessons, it is golden, but many people do not. Furthermore, some of his suggestions are behaviorally extreme, and in this book he doesn't do much to offer a middle ground. In general, I'd say that the book might be a bit too inaccessible or unattainable. It's like his target audience is someone who would come into his practice, but the issue is that those who come into his practice are a very unique subset of the population.
All that being said, I have heard Attia discuss this book in podcasts and I think he does incredibly well to avoid the pitfalls mentioned in the paragraph above. I have a 5-star opinion of this man, and a 4-star opinion of this book....more
Listened to this after hearing 10 minutes of the author on RFKs podcast. Biggest takeaway: everyone should dial back their geopolitical opinions a bitListened to this after hearing 10 minutes of the author on RFKs podcast. Biggest takeaway: everyone should dial back their geopolitical opinions a bit bc everything is 100x more complex than we think. Stick to simple issues like healthcare and gun control (sarcasm - there are almost no simple issues in my opinion)...more
If I weren't trying to raise my standard for 5 stars, this book would get 5. It's like 4.49 rounded down to 4. The first 80% of it followed the classiIf I weren't trying to raise my standard for 5 stars, this book would get 5. It's like 4.49 rounded down to 4. The first 80% of it followed the classic "Monsters Inc." narrative arc (one of my favorite narrative arcs; one that contains a very convincing conflict as far as I'm concerned). The last 20% included some unexpected twists that I also found enjoyable.
To me, the most impressive aspect of this book was the way it mostly struck that tricky balance of fantastic (in the original sense of the word), but believable. It is no easy task to write 100s of pages of fantasy, futurism, absurd problems and even more absurd solutions without descending into a chaotic mish-mash of abstractions and plot holes. Weir took me on a wild ride without ever inducing one of those "what the heck is even going on?" moments that often plagues books when authors attempt to take readers on a wild ride.
Strongly suggest this to those looking for pure and nerdy entertainment value....more
These books rock. Such an interesting concept. Only lose a star for all the Big Bang Theory-esque humor. Not a big BBT guy. Love the two What If booksThese books rock. Such an interesting concept. Only lose a star for all the Big Bang Theory-esque humor. Not a big BBT guy. Love the two What If books though. ...more
If you don’t own a house: useless. If you aren’t a big reader: boring. If you aren’t a cheap-o DIYer: stressful. If you are all of those things: a gooIf you don’t own a house: useless. If you aren’t a big reader: boring. If you aren’t a cheap-o DIYer: stressful. If you are all of those things: a good read. ...more
4.5 stars. A rather intense retelling of the deadliest hurricane in American history. Larson does a great job of compiling firsthand accounts to accur4.5 stars. A rather intense retelling of the deadliest hurricane in American history. Larson does a great job of compiling firsthand accounts to accurately recount history in a narrative form that reads more like fiction, but is (more or less) entirely true.
Considered 5 stars but it’s not the same caliber as one of his other books: The Splendid and The Vile. ...more
3.5 stars, and first book in about a year that I listened to more than I read (gotta love when the library has both available for checkout at the same3.5 stars, and first book in about a year that I listened to more than I read (gotta love when the library has both available for checkout at the same time tho).
I have mixed emotions about emotions. Part of me really sees value in therapy and putting words to feelings and self discovery. But 70% of me is water, and the other part - the real part - often suspects that we’ve forgotten the use of resilience and the “put up and shut up” mentality that often keeps the world turning.
Surely some people need a correction from hardness to softness, and for those people, this book does well to compel them to open up and feel. BUT I kind of suspect that even more people might need a correction from softness to hardness, and for those people, this book could validate that they’re doing the right thing by relitigating their emotions over a cup of coffee for the 23rd time instead of moving on with life.
On a separate note, this book had some nuggets and some good story telling. It especially turned my wheels with regard to how we deal with the passing of time and our own mortality. Despite the above rant, I thought it was pretty good. ...more
Read bc we’re in Disney World. Super interesting. Super good. Would recommend if you’re into this kinda thing. Especially interesting now with all theRead bc we’re in Disney World. Super interesting. Super good. Would recommend if you’re into this kinda thing. Especially interesting now with all the DeSantis jazz occurring. ...more
Wonderful book! Didn’t knock my socks off 5-star style, but I have 0 negative things to say. Here are some things I like to read about: team sports, WWonderful book! Didn’t knock my socks off 5-star style, but I have 0 negative things to say. Here are some things I like to read about: team sports, WW2, patriotism, human achievements. All that was bottled up well in this too-good-to-be-true-but-actually-true story. ...more
Great read! I liked the ideas and practical applications in this book a lot! It was still a 21st century self-help(ish) book with a conversational tonGreat read! I liked the ideas and practical applications in this book a lot! It was still a 21st century self-help(ish) book with a conversational tone, which is a genre I’ve yet to love, so it’d be dishonest for me to give this 5 stars despite the fact that I think HOLO HLTH (the author’s company) is doing 5 star things. Nonetheless, the actual content of the book was awesome. This was a solid reminder that health is multifaceted and the importance of one’s faith in his or her health journey. ...more
Time to start reading all the books by primary candidates, except four years ago, that meant reading a bunch of books by Democrats. It’ll be differentTime to start reading all the books by primary candidates, except four years ago, that meant reading a bunch of books by Democrats. It’ll be different this time around.
Lots of thoughts on this one (and on DeSantis in general). Given his culture-warrior, abrasive, kinda populist persona, there is sort of a ceiling on how highly I could think of DeSantis, but I will say that this book brought me closer to that ceiling. I was telling Talia that I already knew all the things I don’t like about him, but this book highlighted the things I do like about him (which was obviously the goal, as he is the author).
Two interesting lines of though emerged as I read this book:
First, I realized that a lot of my emotions related to politics are rooted in a contempt for the abuse of unearned, usually self-appointed, positions of power. I find myself riled up toward the left and right fairly often, and I’ve never really gotten to the core of why that is, but as I read about some of DeSantis’s experiences, I began to put language to the kind of self-important overreach that might just be what irks me most about certain entities on both sides of the aisle.
Second, DeSantis really explores the concept of individual states being laboratories of democracy. In other words, we can test policies at a state level to get an idea of how they might work out at a federal level. This got my wheels turning a lot, especially given my Jeffersonian sympathies. I do not agree with DeSantis full stop (or even “most-stop” if that is a word), but I think that any opponent of DeSantis has to reckon with his track record: top notch educational and economic outcomes, pretty low per capita covid deaths despite an elderly population, highest net immigration of any state in the last 4 years, and in his re-election bid, he won the vast majority of female votes, Hispanic votes, low-income votes, and carried the state by the largest gap in the last 40 years of gubernatorial elections. And before you write him off as a total ideologue, he also has fought the Florida GOP to conserve the Everglades and to overturn their gerrymandered congressional mapping (which would have actually strongly favored the advancement of his agenda). Again, I know what I dislike about DeSantis (and there is plenty), but reading this book reminded me that he has done some things quite well.
His argument is that Florida could serve as a blueprint for America. He’s obvious as biased and one-sided as can be, but having just finished his book, I’m at least convinced that he may have a point there. ...more
Super interesting deep dive into “cults” from Jonestown to CrossFit (yes she considers CrossFit “cultish”) to QAnon. This book was definitely an intriSuper interesting deep dive into “cults” from Jonestown to CrossFit (yes she considers CrossFit “cultish”) to QAnon. This book was definitely an intriguing read; one of those non-fiction books that wasn’t even a story per se but kept me turning the page.
I was especially interested in the authors background as a linguist because she was able to provide some insights into the way language perpetuates cultish behavior. I think that often times, the author hit the nail on the head when discussing how exactly cults form and function.
The downside of this book was that I found the author to be cynical and condescending at times, particularly towards beliefs other than her own. A classic case of “obviously anyone who isn’t an idiot agrees that… (insert belief that billions of people hold)”. Never a fan of this. It almost docked an otherwise enjoyable read to two stars, but then in the last 5 pages, the author went on a rant that seemed to contradict her former attitude, but was also rather redeeming. Part of that rant is worth quoting to close:
“While I’m hardly likelier to [join a cult], I have acquired a newfound ability to suspend harsh judgement in those who might. This comes from knowing that one’s out-of-the-box beliefs, experiences, and allegiances are less a mark of individual foolishness and more a reflection of the fact that human beings are physiologically built to be more mystical and communal than I knew. It’s in our DNA to want to believe in something, to feel something, alongside other people seeking the same.”
Last opinion: even if some fitness trends are cultish, probably 90% of the time it’s better to be engaged in this brand of cult-like behavior than to be chronically unhealthy. ...more
Loading...
