The Hiberantor

Fascinating story of Kiehl's work

Revisado: 01-11-16

In this fascinating scientific exploration into the biological differences between psychopaths and non-psychopathic people, Kiehl discusses his own dealings with psycopaths in prisons. Kiehl is known as the first person to use an MRI in a prison to study the differences between psychopaths and non-psychopathic prisoners.


Kiehl would determine psycopathy by interviewing prisoners and then rating them 1-3 on a list of 20 attributes. A score of 30 indicates a psychopath. Approximately 20% of inmates were psychopaths. A balanced number of people who rate high and low on the psychopathy scale would be chosen for the experiments.

Once the study subjects were put in the MRI, they would be shown pictures of three types: a morally neutral photo (perhaps an ice cream cone), a morally ambiguous photo (perhaps a wrestling match), and a immoral act (perhaps someone placing a bomb in a car). The prisoners would then rate one a 1-5 scale how immoral the picture was. When a person who scores low on the psychopathy scale sees an immoral picture, his limbic system lights up; but a psychopath's limbic system remains eerily dark.

In his book, Kiehl also discusses findings other people have made about psychopaths - like the fact that they have no startle reflex. This mixture of scientific, psychological, and personal narrative make for a fantastic book.

I enjoyed this book quite a bit - especially the ethical implications of whether a psychopath deserves an insanity plea because their brains function differently than "normal" people and they are unable to physiologically respond the "right" way to the thought of immoral activity. Kiehl himself longs for a day when psychopathy will be caught earlier in childhood, so that they can receive treatment rather than incarceration. But the issue is quite an ethical dilemma. Where do you draw the line on the insanity plea?

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Great sequel to The Good Earth

Revisado: 01-11-16

This second book of The Good Earth trilogy picks up exactly where the first book, The Good Earth, left off. Wang Lung, the protagonist of the first story, is on his deathbed and his sons solemnly promise not to sell this precious land. But as time passes, the men who have barely known the sweat and blood that went into that land begin to sell it off piece by piece. Meanwhile, Wang "The Tiger" has become a rising warlord. In distant parts of China, a revolution is gaining force. The story takes place in a time of warlords between between Imperial China and WWII. It focuses most of its attention on Wang the Tiger and his slow rise to power, though it jumps over to Wang Lung's other sons frequently.


This book was powerful - almost as powerful as the first. It was a story of disintegration and rebellion. It showed how dedicated sons of a hard-working land-owner can become soft and negligent with wealth. The sons of Wang Lung rebel against his wishes not to sell his land. Their sons become even softer and less willing to fight for the wealth they've been born into. And, of course, the seeds of revolution are rumored but never seen.

Buck's writing is as subtle as it is powerful. I found myself learning a bit of Chinese history while listening, even though there was no outright explanation of what was going on. It just became clear. What's more, it made me want to read more about the fall of Imperial China, the time of warlords, and the subsequent revolution. To me, the fact that she can teach and make me crave to learn more shows what a fantastic author she is. I definitely recommend that everyone interested in classics pick up a copy of The Good Earth. And if they really enjoyed it, this is a fantastic sequel.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Interesting but a bit biased

Revisado: 01-11-16

This is the story of Rosenhouse's exploration of Creationism. Rosenhouse is an intelligent, rational mathematician and declared atheist (though the way he describes his beliefs I'd put him in the agnostic category myself). He decided in college to explore the seemingly irrational views of ultra-conservative Christians to try to understand how they can possibly deny evolution. This book describes his journey through conferences, museums, and personal conversations. It also has a light smattering of history of the creationist-evolutionist debate.


This was a surprisingly considerate and fair book considering the fact that it was coming from an atheist talking about Creationists. From the beginning, Rosenhouse insisted that although he was well-known as "that atheist guy who goes to Creationist conferences," he was almost always treated with respect and kindness. This is possibly because his main goal was to educate himself rather than to change anyone's mind. He did, of course, make public comments/questions to the speakers at the conferences, but they always were polite and seemed to be answered politely as well.

Despite this even-handedness, there were a few times that I cringed while reading this book. For instance, he lumped Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, Christian Science and and other lesser known ideologies all in with Creationism. He even said that they were pretty much the same thing. They're really not, though. Denying the possibility of evolution is not the same as saying that God directed evolution. Yes, I can see where an atheist might think the second option wasn't sensible either. But the basic difference remains - one set denies evolution altogether the other does not. To me, and I would imagine to many atheists as well, an all-out denial of the evidence for evolution is less sensible than saying God directed the evolution. Another lapse in his even-handedness was when he criticized the Creationists as being name-callers - as if that doesn't go both ways. Trust me, I've been disappointed in interviews and essays by prominent evolutionary theorists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. Scientists can disparage and name-call too.

From what I could tell of his book, the conferences were all about getting together with people who totally agree with you to say "Here's what we agree on, now how can we get others to see the light?" Then they'd have the requisite book signings and other gatherings. So Rosenhouse had plenty of time to hobnob. In his book, he related several interesting conversations between himself and Creationist individuals. Most of these conversations seemed to include teenagers. He'd give information about which authors to read if they wanted to learn more about evolution, or just have an interesting discussion about the points of each argument. I imagine he had a lot of conversations with teenagers because they're less jaded about trying to convince people of their points of view.

This was an interesting book, and I'm glad I read it. It had some shortcomings (noted above), but listening to this book actually educated me on certain things. For instance, years ago I was turned off by Richard Dawkins when I heard an NPR interview in which he disregarded a question from a Creationist. This question could have been easily answered: it was the old "how could evolution be scientifically possible when entropy (chaos) is always increasing?" (This is the second law of thermodynamics.)

The answer is: entropy always increases in a "closed system." A closed system is one that doesn't have any exchange of energy with the outside. Like the entire universe. There's only one universe. There's nothing that it can exchange energy with. On the other hand, Earth is not a closed system. It's always losing atmosphere to the space surrounding it. It's always getting light and heat from the sun. That's called an open system. Animals are open systems too. We breathe, we eat, we poop. That's energy exchange. Evolution took place in an open system, therefore the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply and there is no contradiction.

Ok, maybe that wasn't easy to explain...Point is, Dawkins could have answered the question politely instead of rudely disregarding it. Although I still think Dawkins was in the wrong, after reading this book I now understand how frustrating it might be to be constantly answering exactly the same question over and over and people ignoring my answer.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Sweet

Revisado: 01-11-16

When Kitty's cantankerous care-taker insists that one of his own nephews marry Kitty for her to inherit his fortune, three of them rush to Kitty's home to propose. When she spurns those three, they patiently explain that she must marry one of them or else she will be left destitute. Kitty hatches a plan (which the reader is left only vaguely aware of) to free herself from these constraints - but it requires her to go to London for a few weeks. That's where her cousin Freddy comes in. He didn't propose - had no wish to propose - but only came because he was curious what this big summons from his uncle was about. In secret, Kitty convinces Freddy to propose marriage so that he could take her to London. Of course, she'll break it off when the few weeks are over....


This is my first book by Georgette Heyer. I've heard so many great things about her that I wanted to see for myself. At first, I wasn't too pleased with the book, but I warmed to it once time had passed, and Kitty matured in London. You see, I didn't like Kitty at first. She seemed so manipulative - getting Freddy to propose when he clearly didn't want to. And it seemed her plan could end up destructive to both of them - even if we didn't know what the whole plan was about. I realized as she grew that the plan was just naivete and not pure manipulation, but I still found all the dangerous lies a bit disturbing. Regardless, everything turned out well in the end, and I was left with a warm fuzzy feeling about the novel.

Heyer's writing is delightful. She mixes humor with the beloved Regency Romance genre, and she's often suggested to readers who have finished all the Jane Austen novels. They definitely have the same feel as an Austen, though the humor has a slightly different tone. Austen has more sarcasm in her books. Both writers have a mixture of wit and silliness. I will hopefully have time to read another Heyer soon. Just think, a brand new author to explore!

Well narrated.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Better as an audiobook

Revisado: 11-27-15

I am Malala is Malala Yousafzai's memoir about her time in Pakistan promoting education for girls. She begins by discussing her family - from her grandparents, to her parents, and then to herself. She discusses the major political and geological forces that impacted her childhood and led up to her eventually being shot by the Taliban. She finished the book talking about how she felt when she awoke in England not knowing what had happened or where her family was. It is truly an amazing story.

I do not usually read memoirs - not sure why, I just tend to gravitate towards the heavier non-fiction. But this book was pretty fascinating for me. Malala was so intelligent and perceptive. I loved her voice. (I don't mean the narrator's voice, though she did a lovely job.) This book makes me want to read more memoirs.

I'm glad I listened to this as an audiobook. Hearing the Paki accent was a great addition to the book.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Good coverage of military PTSD

Revisado: 11-27-15

In this important work, Morris traces the history of what we now call post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), even back into the ancient days. He begins the book with his own experiences with PTSD. He then talks about how PTSD affects the lives of its sufferers. He also discusses the major treatments for PTSD, many of which he has tried out himself. He apparently interviewed quite a few people for the book - at least he claims he did - though those interviews are generally chiseled down into two or three sentence mentions.


One thing that disappointed me is that this is not a book about PTSD in general - it is a book about PTSD in military. PTSD is suffered more by women than by men. Most Americans with PTSD are women who have been raped or beaten or otherwise traumatized during a non-war setting. One review I read said "rape is also discussed extensively." It wasn't. Rape got a side comment every once in a while - generally in the form of a quote from Alice Sebold's memoir. However, most of the research on PTSD, and Morris' own personal experience with PTSD, is military-related, therefore it is understandable that he would focus on military PTSD. Plus, if you actually read the jacket carefully (which I did not), it's pretty clear that this is a book mostly about military PTSD.

The book also tended to wander and get a bit dull at times, but its important content made up for this minor annoyance. In the end, I thought this was a good book that could have been an amazing book if he had taken that extra step to include womens' experiences a little more.

The narrator was great - no complaints there.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 3 personas

Heart-breaking

Revisado: 11-21-15

When Pete Earley's son was diagnosed with schizophrenia Earley was devestated. His son's potential career was on the line, he wasn't willing to accept treatment, and he was generally unpredictable and very unsafe. When Earley tried to get his son into the hospital, his son was turned away because he didn't want to be treated - and laws say that unless someone is an immediate threat to himself or others, he can not be treated involuntarily. Earley had to pretend his son was a threat to Earley's well-being to get his son hospitalized. Then Earley went to a commitment hearing to make sure his son stayed in the hospital until he was better. Early was appalled by his son's defense lawyer who did her best to defend Earley's son despite his son's clear mental illness. In her own defense, the lawyer said it was her job to defend the rights of someone who did not want to be committed. Earley's son won the case and was released.

After this incident, Earley's son broke into a house, peed on the carpet, turned over the all the photographs, and took a bubble bath. He was arrested and charges were filed against him by the family. Despite Earley's pleading with the family that his son was not targeting them specifically, that he was sick, the mother felt threatened and continued to press felony charges. Earley knew that the charges would be an irremovable bar from his son's career choice.

Because of the horrors of being unable to treat his son, and the unfairness of the charges, Earley decided to research the state of the mentally ill in the Miami jail system. There are, according to the staff psychiatrist, "a lot of people who think mentally ill people are going to get help if they are in jail. But the truth is, we don't help many people here with their psychosis. We can't. The first priority is making sure no one kills himself." The psychiatrist said that the point of the prison was to dehumanize and humiliate a person. Such treatment is counter to improving anyone's health.

Early did a fantastic job of reporting the horrors of how mentally ill are treated in prison, and about the money wasted due to unnecessarily lengthy time in jail without trial, and high recidivism rate.

Fantastic narration.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Fantastic as people are saying

Revisado: 11-12-15

When a team of Mars explorers runs into some problems while on Mars, they think that astronaut Mark Watney has died. The rest of the crew avoid the storm by immediately heading back home to Earth. Unknown to them, Watney is still alive and must survive on Mars alone with meager supplies left behind by the Mars expedition. With his extraordinary resourcefulness, he manages to survive while desperately hoping that Earth will realize that he's still alive and come to rescue him.

This book was as fantastic as everyone says it is. Watney's struggle to survive is fascinating, and the action moves forward at a steady pace. Yeah, there's a lot of technical language, which made the book a little slower than I would have liked at times, but it was never so slow that I wanted to stop listening. It was more of an "ok, I get that you're doing awesome technical stuff, let's move on." But those scenes were only paragraph-long.

The narration in the audiobook was also excellent. The humorous parts were so well executed that I had to laugh out loud on numerous occasions.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Interesting concept good narration

Revisado: 11-11-15

Neuroscientist and former addict Marc Lewis writes an engaging study of the biological changes that occur in an addicted brain, complete with personal stories about himself and several addicts that he interviewed. Lewis points out that there are two major models for addiction - the disease model and the choice model - and argues why he believes the disease model has outlived its use and is now harming rather than helping addicts.

The disease model of addiction is highly accepted by clinicians, psychologists, and insurance companies right now. It posits that the more an addict uses a substance, the more his brain changes, and the more he needs the drug. Furthermore, some people have a biological preinclination for addiction - it doesn't mean that they will become addicts, but the genetic preinclination raises their chance of becoming an addict under the right environmental stimulus. The combination of genetic factors and changes in the brain suggest to clinicians that addiction is a disease. A lot of money, therapy, and medication currently goes into treating addiction as a disease - often successfully.

Lewis argues, though, that changes in the brain and genetic preinclination do-not-a-disease-make. After all, every experience changes your brain - and some events, like falling in love, change your brain in much the same way addiction changes it. Furthermore, much as people have a preinclination for addiction, they also have a preinclination to temperament. For instance, an introverted, agreeable parent is more likely to have an introverted, agreeable child. Despite this heritability, temperament is not considered a disease. So why do we pick-and-choose which heritable brain-changing habits are a disease?

My answer is that addiction is considered a disease whereas in-love and temperament are not considered diseases because in-love and temperament do not generally cause clinically significant impairment in an individual's ability to function in the workplace and social interactions. And when they do inhibit the individual's ability to function, then they are considered a disease.

Instead of the disease model, Lewis supports the "choice" model. People choose to abuse substances in the first place, and continue to make that choice. And when they give up the substance abuse, it is generally because they have chosen that now is the right time to give it up.

Lewis spends the great part of this book describing why he feels viewing addiction as a disease is harmful to addicts as well as unhelpful for treatment. When an addict views his problem as a disease, then he might feel helpless to make his situation better. Whereas if he views it as a choice, he recognizes that he has power over this problem. You might notice that this is in stark contrast to the first step of AA in which the addict accepts that he is powerless over his addiction. In fact, in the stories of Lewis' interviewees, none of them mentioned AA or NA as a helpful tool for stopping their addiction.

Lewis also points out that although medication and therapy generally help the individual to give up alcohol to begin with, there is a very high relapse rate. And that is because although the individual doesn't want the negative effects of his addiction, he has not yet accepted the choice to give up the drug.

Lewis claims that many people view the choice model and the disease model as mutually exclusive, but he believes that they are not. I would tend to agree with him on this. I don't see the harm in viewing addiction as a disease - in fact, I think this model would be very helpful to a certain subset of addicts - it provides them a reason to say "this is not my fault, I have a disease, and I need to live as healthy a life as I can in order to not let it ruin my life." But I also think the choice model is helpful to another subset of addicts - it provides them the ability to say "I have the power to choose not to use. I am not powerless."

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 14 personas

Thorough and personal

Revisado: 11-04-15

Noonday Demon is Andrew Solomon's amazing memoir / history of depression - it's a must-read for anyone who wants to delve deeply into the causes and effects of depression. Solomon begins with his own journey through several severe depressive episodes. For a broader personal understanding of depression, he intermittently includes stories of "depressives" that he's interviewed. In his research for this book, Solomon explored many standard therapies for depression (i.e. medicine, psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, electroconvulsive therapy, etc.); but he also explored some very atypical therapies such as an African ritual in which he lay naked and covered in goat blood while people danced around him with a dead chicken. (He actually found it very cathartic.)

He followed his personal journey with epidemiology, biological causes, and historical development of depression.

I found this book fascinating. Solomon did a great job of inserting little vignettes of his own story or stories of people he interviewed into his more intellectual portions of the book, so that the material never became dry despite its length. Solomon came up with so many interesting points that I was always interested in what he would say next. His own story was touching. His facts seemed very well-researched. In short, it was simply an amazing book.

The narration was quite good, no complaints there!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 11 personas