The first book, The Power of One, is an epic. I want to say it is about 700+ pages, but excellent. It starts off with a young English boy growing up in the countryside of South Africa just prior to the start of WW2. He gets shipped off to boarding school dominated by people who hate the English. The first part of the book he is shit upon (almost literally), and after he is out of boarding school he meets some really great people that turn things around. The essential message as you guessed it, is the "power of one" that he eventually learns. The power of one is a bit ambiguous and mysterious because the author changes the meaning slightly as the kid ages. The jist is that it is believing in yourself and having the courage and strength, along with using compassion and wisdom, to take a stand. There are a lot of motivating and inspiring parts that have to deal with that.
The kid, Peekay, is supposedly brilliant, though, because of the bad things that happen in the beginning, he has to come to grips with letting it shine. Also, because of previous experiences, he is hell bent on becoming the welterweight champion of the world when he grows up. I wouldn't say I hated the end, but it was sorta disappointing. I won't spoil it, but something comes full circle, and while I was all, "yeah! Take that you bastard! You show him Peekay", all the momentum that the book is building for his greatness (there are elements of spirituality and fate and how it is Peekay that is supposed to lead and unite people) just disappears. Or rather, it seems as if the author was planning a sequel for all that stuff. Seriously, if there isn't a sequel, the books ending is sorta a let down.
I just checked and there is both a sequel, called "Tandi", and a movie called "The Power of One" starring Morgan Freeman as well as others that combines both books (I knew the story seemed similar to a movie I saw in the 90's). That explains the ending and makes it better. Knowing there is a sequel makes this classic one of the better books I've read - Top 10 for sure. The strange thing is that the book makes no mention of a sequel or a movie. Maybe, I got an early edition or something. It did reach me free of charge in a hostel in SA, but I put off reading it till I got to Vietnam. When I finished, I left the book at a guesthouse in Siem Reap, hoping it would find it's way into good hands, also, free of charge.
The second book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, was a flop (as Ivy can attest to because I forced her to listen to me rant about statistical method, survivorship biases, unsupported jumps in logic, weird fetishes with musicians, etc). The jist of this book is that humans instinctively thin slice experiences as they are happening and make decisions immediately. These decisions, according to the author's research, are using better than the decisions made when we gather a lot of data and try to come out with strategic ones. However, sometimes prejudices and intense moments can distort those judgments. Good news being that we can cultivate and improve this ability. Sorry, it's a little hard to explain in a couple sentences.
It seems pretty obvious that we naturally make snap decisions, what was a bit novel was to claim they are better than the one's that we gather info for and take time to decide on. I started the book agreeing with the author, but as the book went on, I felt he was making a lot of poorly supported assertions. I wanted to be on his side. I loved his previous book, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. However, The Tipping Point used a lot of case studies and logic to back up his argument, whereas in Blink he tries to use mostly psychology. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but 
he gets lost in the application of such to real world examples.
Also, being well versed in statistics and method, I scrutinized his "evidence" a bit more than I would have a few years ago. Red flags popped up all over the place. The first, using a "study" as support. For any readers of my nutrition posts, you'll recognize why that's a red flag. Plus, he makes outlandish claims that can't be verified, but seem just. Claims that are similar to, "Bob Golomb is an amazing car salesman [while all the others aren't], because he sees everyone as a potential buyer. He thin slices better than anyone, but doesn't let prejudice take over" (that is a paraphrased quote). This seems like a reasonable claim and I'd probably have swallowed it if I hadn't have read The Game
. Sales people sarge. In the terms of The Game, this guy is known as a natural. Every sales person on earth is taught to treat anyone as a potential buyer. Fuck, I was taught that at Sears. You simply wouldn't have a job if you didn't. There is a certain skill set to be a good salesman and it is very very similar to the skill set that PUAs use. I would venture to say that Neil Strauss has 100 times more insight into what made this particular guy the best salesman in the region than this wildly unsupported claim that it's because he doesn't listen to prejudice. Was he tested to find out if he does or does not? No. In fact, a lot of the claims that Malcolm Gladwell (author) makes to support his Blink argument (this person is better at this than that because...), inadvertently venture into the social dynamics arena and they come out sounding ridiculous when compared to theories and field experience of the PUAs.
he gets lost in the application of such to real world examples.Also, being well versed in statistics and method, I scrutinized his "evidence" a bit more than I would have a few years ago. Red flags popped up all over the place. The first, using a "study" as support. For any readers of my nutrition posts, you'll recognize why that's a red flag. Plus, he makes outlandish claims that can't be verified, but seem just. Claims that are similar to, "Bob Golomb is an amazing car salesman [while all the others aren't], because he sees everyone as a potential buyer. He thin slices better than anyone, but doesn't let prejudice take over" (that is a paraphrased quote). This seems like a reasonable claim and I'd probably have swallowed it if I hadn't have read The Game
. Sales people sarge. In the terms of The Game, this guy is known as a natural. Every sales person on earth is taught to treat anyone as a potential buyer. Fuck, I was taught that at Sears. You simply wouldn't have a job if you didn't. There is a certain skill set to be a good salesman and it is very very similar to the skill set that PUAs use. I would venture to say that Neil Strauss has 100 times more insight into what made this particular guy the best salesman in the region than this wildly unsupported claim that it's because he doesn't listen to prejudice. Was he tested to find out if he does or does not? No. In fact, a lot of the claims that Malcolm Gladwell (author) makes to support his Blink argument (this person is better at this than that because...), inadvertently venture into the social dynamics arena and they come out sounding ridiculous when compared to theories and field experience of the PUAs. There's other problems statistically, like when Malcolm surveys the CEO heights of the fortune 500 companies yet provides zero details, just his conclusions. Look, if you are going to do your own research, you might want to be a little bit better at documenting. How big was the final sample (aka response rate)? Did you look for any biases in your sample? etc. I'm not saying I think he manipulated data or anything, he just can't throw around these claims without giving readers the chance to verify his conclusions.
Lastly, what the fuck is up with his strong push to make Kenna famous? That's a leap of faith to claim that it's the radio industries fault. We live in a day where it's easy to get his music. If he was that good, what about tipping points (did Malcolm think about his last book)? Not to mention that not just that entire portion, but most of the rest of the book, would be thrown into question by readers who didn't find Kenna some amazing artist. I remember Kenna from MTV in highschool. I like his song, "War In Me" and another that I found in college, but he didn't stun me. It was good, not great. Not to mention the survivorship bias he's using when writing about him. He mentions by name some record label execs that loved him. Did any execs hear him and have my reaction? Probably, but we don't hear about them. Oh, and that duesh bag, Fred Durst liked him? well then he must be good. The author apparently has not noticed that the only music that record execs want to produce (unless they are indy labels) are almost always garbage musicians. They play what will sell A LOT of records. Most people have no taste or don't know enough about music to pick up on talent. Maybe kenna is talented, but too niche for mass production and maybe that was why he didn't explode. Oh, he had fans tell him he was great? Well, that settles it, he should be a rock god. OK, I have to stop, I'm getting riled up over a shitty book.
Lastly, what the fuck is up with his strong push to make Kenna famous? That's a leap of faith to claim that it's the radio industries fault. We live in a day where it's easy to get his music. If he was that good, what about tipping points (did Malcolm think about his last book)? Not to mention that not just that entire portion, but most of the rest of the book, would be thrown into question by readers who didn't find Kenna some amazing artist. I remember Kenna from MTV in highschool. I like his song, "War In Me" and another that I found in college, but he didn't stun me. It was good, not great. Not to mention the survivorship bias he's using when writing about him. He mentions by name some record label execs that loved him. Did any execs hear him and have my reaction? Probably, but we don't hear about them. Oh, and that duesh bag, Fred Durst liked him? well then he must be good. The author apparently has not noticed that the only music that record execs want to produce (unless they are indy labels) are almost always garbage musicians. They play what will sell A LOT of records. Most people have no taste or don't know enough about music to pick up on talent. Maybe kenna is talented, but too niche for mass production and maybe that was why he didn't explode. Oh, he had fans tell him he was great? Well, that settles it, he should be a rock god. OK, I have to stop, I'm getting riled up over a shitty book.
To sum everything up, the idea that it exists and can be nurtured is good and makes sense logically, however, the bottom line is that this book is heavy on prose and light on real evidence.
as toilet paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment