Dr. Shauna Blump, PhD

Is the narrator AI? Mispronounces nearly every Latin name

Revisado: 08-27-24

The book is very good but the narrator is either AI or has no idea how to pronounce the simplest Latin names. As a history buff hearing how he butchers “Capitolinus” or even Maximus is so irritating.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Sappy but informative

Revisado: 09-30-17

I was interested in learning more about Clinton's point of view about the election, and I finally got that information about halfway through the book.

The first half of the book is sappy sentimentalism. Clinton reminds the reader she is a human (who would have guessed). The writing is loaded with cringe with her asides about popular television shows and her a-la buzzfeed style. She clearly had someone work on this book to attract younger readers.

The good parts about the election (Comey, Russia interference, Emails) come much later in the book. It's really a list of excuses, but honestly this was what I was expecting. She does offer a lot of facts that in hindsight explain the result of the election well. However, at the same time she peppers opinions and neglects to bring up other controversial issues such as deleting 33,000 emails.

Overall, if you love Clinton and her story you will like this book. If you are interested in a history of the election, this book offers an interesting point of view. But that's what this book is, an opinion. It's her attempt to write history in her words. Similar to Churchill writing volumes on the history of WW2. Thus to the victors but in Clinton's case she is saving face.

The style is mixed with intellectual comparisons and SAT words but she adds in style elements that you would expect from a Millennial online blog ("Gulp!" her words.)

Not impressed overall, HRC is an extremely intelligent woman and I find this work lacking. Interesting though.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 26 personas

Biased but good

Revisado: 05-03-15

What made the experience of listening to The Rise and Fall of Soviet Communism: A History of 20th-Century Russia the most enjoyable?

I was expected an unbiased report on communism and Russia but what I got is a professor that makes jokes at communism and people laughing in the audience.

If it wasn't for slight biases it would have been better.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 7 personas

Expected more on Communism

Revisado: 04-19-15

What did you love best about A History of Russia: From Peter the Great to Gorbachev?

Very good and entertaining but the lecturer covers 1950-1980 in one lecture.

Was expecting more detail in those years.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Scientifically accurate. Historically false

Revisado: 11-30-14

Would you say that listening to this book was time well-spent? Why or why not?

I am a genetic researcher and a collaborator in an international consortium on characterizing the diversity of the human genome across varying populations.The science in this book is up to date. He mentions the paper on EDAR variants in east Asians, which is true. Unfortunately he is outside the loop in academia and got somethings wrong.

Race is not an issue in science, we acknowledge there are genetic differences in people and we correct for that in GWAS. We do not make claims, as Wade does, such as Africans tend to be more aggressive because of a single gene variant. Aggression is not determined by one gene, and not all Africans carry this trait. A fact Wade neglects in his racially charged book.

THE LARGEST FLAW is his belief that there was "a genetic change that occurred in Europe after the 1300's that made them more innovative", and subsequently dominating world culture. There is not a shred of evidence backing this claim.

He completely neglects the fact that China, India, and the Middle East were all innovative societies at one point. Instead he broadly paints a revisionist view of history and claims that China's authoritative government and the Islamic Empires' intolerance is based on genetics and is the explanation why these regions are less influential. China was very innovative at many points in its history and the Arab empire from 700s-1200's was extremely tolerant (relative to fundamentalists) and science flourished for 500 years.

Europeans are one of the least diverse continental groups of people. How do you explain the innovative, liberal governments in the West to the autocratic governments that still exist in the East?

IN SUMMARY: The science is up to date, and is valid. But Wade's interpretation of the science is flawed. He is not an expert but a science writer. His historical views are revisionist and racially charged.

If this book were a movie would you go see it?

No

Any additional comments?

Good on science, bad on interpretation, horrible and revisionist in history. Racially charged, even though he claims it's not.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 35 personas