Jordan E.

Sensible and clear AF

Revisado: 11-02-24

Brian Preston is exceptional at distilling complex topics into simple guidelines. This book primarily covers the financial order of operations (affectionately known as the “FOO”), which is a mental model of what to do with the next dollar that you earn regardless of your income level.

This book is also unique and distinct from many other financial plans, as Brian’s recommendation to save 25% of your gross income. Personally, I find this extremely sensible and refreshing, because it pulls back the curtain on the reality of what is required to actually generate your current income in retirement. My only criticism is that pre-paying future expenses so late in the FOO does mean that younger people especially are encouraged to not live life and as a result do not learn to spend well. I would have liked a bit more emphasis in the book on thoughtful spending, but the FOO is just so ironclad, sensible, simple, and clear in all other ways that I can’t help but to give it full marks.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Excellent book, a little bit of a straw man

Revisado: 03-24-23

I thought this was an excellent book - it presents an extremely complex topic with a simple, distilled thesis, and does a great job storytelling as well as summarizing the evidence. My only complaint is that it’s fighting against a straw man version of “conventional wisdom” for much of the book. While some of it is, much of it is anything but.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A reasonable core message, lots of irrelevant examples

Revisado: 12-05-21

The core message of this book is that we should not measure our worth by our productivity. We should replace this with unconventional compassion for ourselves. The rest of the book develops the argument as to why. I liked (and largely agree with) that core piece. However, most of the authors examples and experiences were so extreme as to be completely irrelevant to most people’s lives (one person who let a gall bladder get necrotic from overwork, the author herself who allowed herself to run a fever for a full year). Most of the given examples would not fit into most people’s idea of what is reasonable - it’s full of people who have no idea how to set boundaries or stand up for themselves and seem not to value themselves very much. It’s also full of far left-leaning weirdos (the authors word for herself, not mine). Virtually all the examples given were centered around leftist activism, climate change, or COVID, and this was a major unnecessary weakness of the book which often made it challenging to relate to for someone who does not share the authors politics.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

You have much more to give, this book will help you realize that

Revisado: 01-01-20

I thought I was an ambitious, competent person who always strive to do his best. This book made me realize how woefully far from the mark I have been straying, and how much more I actually have to give. It also helped me more fully articulate what actually motivates me, what I actually value, and what kind of life I want to live. Only time will tell if these lessons stick with me.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Flawed Science and Overly Optimistic

Revisado: 04-06-19

I have been fascinated by neuroplasticity and the ability of the brain to reorganize and change itself, but Carol Dweck's book is an overly optimistic title which makes promises that are only backed up by wishful thinking, not science. She claims you can actually change your intelligence (or g factor for those psychologists out there) among other things like personality traits (she implies if not outright claims you can change the Big Five).

While her initial 1998 paper was groundbreaking and her subsequent work followed up on it, none of it has been replicated, and recent high-powered attempts to replicate in 2017 supported the null hypothesis. Carol Dweck makes big promises, but to overturn a century of intelligence science and some of the most well-tested and prediction-capable psychological theories out there (i.e. the Big Five) you need a great deal of evidence, and that just isn't there.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 27 personas

Fundamentally Dishonest and Manipulative

Revisado: 07-28-18

This book is based on the premise that it is a good idea to get other people to do what you want by explicitly manipulative means, by using social pressure and tricks of language. It misunderstands the purpose of influence: it’s not to get what you want, but to allow yourself to be influenced, to come to a more complete understanding of others and the world. I’m all for using skills to communicate with the intention of simply effective communication, but this approach is downright Machiavellian.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Poor Science and Misleading Presentation, a deeply ideological book

Revisado: 07-08-18

Let me start by saying this book raises some good points. Conditional learning is not done nearly enough in schools, and context does really matter when we learn. Even in physics, the “facts” depend on the underlying model we choose to use, what we decide to ignore and what we decide to focus on.

However, it’s a grossly ideological book, predicated on the idea that all cognitive differences and diseases are simply a consequence of our mindsets. This belief makes it’s crescendo in Chapter 6, when the author called into question the idea of intelligence (even a more nuanced view of multiple kinds of intelligence) because the idea of intelligence presupposes an external reality that can be correctly or incorrectly perceived. Yeah, that’s called physicalism, it’s the basis for all of modern science. Giving up physicalism just to make less-intelligent people feel better would be laughable if it weren’t so pernicious. Especially because she relies on it to actually do science, which she cites as evidence.

Of the science she does present, it’s entirely her own. This would be acceptable *maybe* for an autobiography, but not for a book. As a scientist she should know better. She has a chapter on the importance of novelty and the fact that games are more pleasant than work just because of our mindset, but makes no references to the vast literature on what is now called “gamification”. Doesn’t even say the word. She also wholly misrepresents rote memorization, calling it “overlearning”. Overlearning is a TYPE of memorization, and an ineffective one. Spaced repetition is the modern incarnation of science-backed memorization, and allows for long-term retention with minimal time invested. She makes no mention of the forgetting curve either. When she does talk about her own work, some of the studies are so badly constructed as to be laughable. You can’t overturn 50 years of neuroscience with a sample size of 30 and poorly-controlled experiments across cultures with multiple confounding variables. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. I don’t care if the author is from Harvard, bad science is still bad science. When you hear hoofbeats (assuming we’re in North America, because as you well know context matters), think horses, not zebras.

Instead of other scientists’ work or real-life examples, she cites fairy tales, primarily the Brothers Grimm, to make her points. These are only weakly connected to the point she is trying to make and their repeated use is questionable at best. All in all, this book is a train wreck of bad science, misrepresentation of existing science, and a few gold nuggets buried here and there. I would not recommend it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 4 personas

Overall Good Book, A few mistakes

Revisado: 06-02-18

Overall I like this book. I think it provides a good framework for thinking about success at an individual perspective. However, some of what the author claims is wholly unsupported by research. For instance, he claims that telling other people your goals increases your commitment to them. This is true only for proximal goals, for goals that are immediately and quickly attainable, and not for longer term goals. Telling others your longer-term goals is a fast way to failure.

His insistence on visualization also has little to no support, and he completely glosses over the fact that habits control much of our lives independent of our desires (see Charles Duhigg) and that willpower is finite and can fail even when our desire may be strong(see Baumeister’s research).

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Finally learning to accept myself

Revisado: 02-06-18

This book was just incredible. I’ve never heard anyone challenge the idea that extroversion is the ideal in society, and I have successfully molded myself into one. But I have started to notice how much happier I am spending most of my time alone, focused on problems I care about. I think this book acknowledges the rather huge advantages that come with acting like an extrovert, but now I better know how to use my own innate strengths as well. Amazing book.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

More of a personal story than anything else

Revisado: 11-29-17

This was a decently written book, but the research presented is of poor quality, not critically analyzed, and not generally relevant. Her research presented is almost exclusively interview-based and always presented as case studies. For an example of a failure in critical analysis, the author cites the increased proportion of people living in politically homogeneous districts as evidence that we are self-segregating in the areas we move to, omitting the fact that the primary reason for this is redistricting, not relocation.

The personal aspect of the book on loneliness would be more compelling if the author was not giving this advice from the comfort of a committed and functional relationship, family, and career. It’s a bit like having someone who once got a paper cut giving instructions for open-heart surgery. I’m not saying she didn’t deal with loneliness, but she dealt with it using resources many of her listeners don’t have.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña