Escendus

some interesting parts some propaganda

Revisado: 10-20-23

Essentially woke gnostic themes and eventually moves to defense of gnatiicism with a bo true Scotsman fallacy. Leaves out obvious counter arguments and doesnt consider God as an active actor in the evolution of Christianity. But assuming there are no direct lies it was very interesting info in many spots.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Politically indefensible strawman arguments

Revisado: 09-10-23

Gives examples rejecting the concept of white privilege but mostly attacks religion and conservatives.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Impossible to listen to

Revisado: 05-26-19

Distracting and unpleasant music perpetually plays over the reader .. I couldn't concentrate on the actual content. Maybe it wouldn't bother others but this recording was entirely useless for me.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 7 personas

Not actually book about memes

Revisado: 03-29-19

This is a mediocre book about organizational behavior drowning in the author's eccentricities and blinded by his philosophic assumptions. Essentially, it's shallow.

I'm betting he either didn't read or didn't understand Dawkins' logical connection of memes to genes. He continually uses the word "meme" to refer to what could be better described, using the gene-meme construct, as either phenotypic expression or genetic signaling - such as a mating competition strategy Dawkins describes in bird species. (See Dawkins' The Selfish Gene)

Now these topics are not unrelated, but its simply superficial to talk about these strategies without discussion of their particular contribution to the specific "memetic spelling" (if I may stretch the biological metaphor) that birthed them. He's one level above memes. Essentially he's engaging in game theory within predetermined rules, he's NOT engaging in a meta-discussion of how memes CREATE the rules of that game. A very similar, deeper and more thorough discussion of the (non-meme) topics he discusses can be found in "The Dictators Handbook," which I would suggest instead.

If you have already read this book then let me clarify what a meme is, using this author as a solid illustration. It is obvious in the discussion of his values he is unprepared to state WHY he holds his values, how they were adopted and/or what purpose they serve. THAT would be the meme .. not what the values (memes) make him do once he has adopted them .. that would be the phenotype.

I would guess his belief system, memeplex, is formed around a memetic code that gives him guilt over a sin nature which must primarily be absolved via social absolution .. thus he includes a series of unrelenting lectures about how he personally identifies with the most moral and enlightened among us and is not one of "the enemy" group. The annoying virtue signaling serves this meme rather than the stated purpose of the book, attempting to procreate his morality in the reader by something other than logical argument, and avoiding the presentation of a defense and/or enumeration of his actual values .. (argument requires presentation of an opposing meme / viewpoint and risks the procreation of an opposing meme). In short, you know they are actual memes because they are assumed, not argued. - Although I'm a theist, this is something I deeply appreciate about Dawkins' anti-theism books, he is not a slave to his memes, and does his best to steelman his opposition .. which is the mark of actual free-will.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Was hoping for more philosophy

Revisado: 12-16-18

This was more like a literature review replacing definitions and arguments with religious and historical examples.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Errors in recording

Revisado: 09-12-18

Some parts of the recording repeat themselves and I assume were intended to be removed in editing. Not enough too bad though.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Several good ideas -

Revisado: 07-09-18

Certainly worth reading but its a bit repetitive in spots if you've already read Jung and Campbell, however he does a good job adding research to theose ideas.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 4 personas

Useless by any measure of learning..

Revisado: 10-09-17

This author is a good sports commentator, but apparently incapable of being a coach. She critiques, rather than instructs, as she reads some well written pieces which are generally pedantic, artistically written rather than written for a purpose and, I suspect, were primarily selected to boost her ego. Then she tells us what just happened. Thank you captain obvious.

This course would be an utter waste of time for anyone who actually wants to hone the accuracy, incisiveness and persuasive power of their written work. I would like to ask her what she was thinking when she outlined this topic, but her unending, repetitive, hammering away at the audience with the words "I" and "my" probably provides a clue. It's the same predictable level of narcissism one expects from a very bourgeois feminist who delights in being not-fit-for-purpose, just like snotty designer shoes in a rainstorm.

While I think it's likely a general failing of the English professoriate that they critique rather than teach, I would, however, suggest the course on "Building Great Sentences" by a different professor. It's actually intended to be instructive and I found it to be quite good.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Trying to be a novelist

Revisado: 12-07-16

Not enough Aristotle. Too much waisted space on uselessness. I tend to think the writer has a higher opoinion if himself than his subject matter.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 6 personas