![]() ![]() But pretending that we might be able to eventually defeat it seems like a fools errand too. To be clear, I'm NOT for embracing that part of our lizard brain. McCoy) would scream something to Spock like "Can't you just feel something for once you cold Vulcan!" Who at least once every other episode (or sometimes Dr. That it's okay to say "Fuck the nerds and the teachers! I'll do whatever the fuck I want!" He tapped into our idiot Captain Kirk. But that wants to told that it's okay to be irrational. Trump tapped into that part of our brain that not only is irrational. Whatever you think of Sam Harris, he had a short podcast right after the election where he had an epiphany about why Trump, who he hates (which is why I still like Sam) is so appealing to not just ignoramuses but also to many otherwise intelligent seeming people. That humans are gonna' destroy the earth no matter who we vote for. ![]() That we're gonna' die no matter how much exercise we get. At some time in our lives we, as sentient, feeling, empathetic but basically irrational beings, have to come to terms with the fact that we're gonna' make bad decisions. So why bother trying? I know you're not being that binary about it, but you do make a good point. Basically, you're saying it might be irrational for us to think we can overcome our inherent irrationality. So I thought I might give this book a shot. But despite my less than stellar education I am a curious person who is slightly captured by the Sam Harris / Astral Codex wing of the "Rational" movement. I didn't even graduate college so I doubt her bad use of metaphors would bug me as much as it bugs you. I must admit that even though you seem to not be recommending this book, your review almost had me ordering it on Kindle. Freddie's review is the exception-what most reviewers do is brag about what her book says about them. And she's *pretending* to write a book to convince soldiers. Galeff is writing a book for elites and self-described "rationals" who will get off on explaining how they are “scouts”, and clearly superior to all the close-minded soldiers. I'm clearly in a minority on this, but her ideas and manner of expression are the very lightest weight of pop psych, and that's comparing her work to *other* forms of pop psych (like MB, OCEAN, etc.) So her entire book is a contradiction of her theory. But Galef is saying that a Scout is best. And here's the hilarious part, really: the type of person who says "No, my way's best" is a soldier. Most of the personality "tests" make it clear there's no one right way. One key difference that makes her version even worse is that she declares a winner. There are a vast number of "personality architectures" out there, from Myers Briggs (P/J) to OCEAN (ratings on both O and C) to whatever, and they all have that basic dichotomy. There isn't a single original concept about Scout and Soldier. (actually, I just clicked out of the browser, but I clicked ferociously.) ![]() I read a few pages of the book when it came out because everyone was so wow and I couldn't throw it across the room fast enough. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |