Sunday assorted links

by on October 16, 2016 at 2:59 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Ursula Le Guin profile.  And Bob Dylan as Richard Wagner.

2. Tom Sietsema on the Michelin picks for D.C.

3. Maria Konnikova reviews Tim Harford at NYT.

4. Inaction markets in everything, age of television college football edition.

5. David Warsh on the Laureates.

6. If you could get everyone to read one book, what would it be?  I find most of the listed answers strange, and overly specific, and dependent on the readers already knowing plenty of other books.  Surely your selection needs to be a bestseller if indeed by “everyone” you mean everyone.  I find The Bible, Krishnamurti’s Think on These Things, or even Jonathan Livingston Seagull, or perhaps a book about the enjoyment of sex, to be more plausible picks.  Which book would you recommend?

1 Ray Lopez October 16, 2016 at 3:05 am

This is amazing, no comments yet. One book? Maybe “Pawn Power” by Hans Kmoch, a chess cult classic (I’ve not read it yet)

2 Ray Lopez October 16, 2016 at 3:12 am

From the list: “A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.” is an amazingly bad book. I understand the concept of history for the ‘ordinary person’ (Everyday Stalinism by Sheila Fitzpatrick is an example), but looking through this book shows it is light on specifics and heavy on generalities about the underclass, a recipe for disaster. It’s like those “World History” books that are full of generalities and give as much weight to Africa in the classical era as Athens–completely absurd given the evidence. A good “one book”, besides the chess book above, for everybody would be the one-volume “Columbia History of the World” edited by the late, great, Peter Gay. Or any similar one-volume book by Issac Asimov.

3 Jack October 16, 2016 at 9:15 am

My son had to read large parts of the Zinn book in middle school and even he recognized it as tendentious rubbish. His teacher was a lesbian who came to work in overalls (my son said she looked like was going to work on a farm) and had lots of strong opinions on the various unjust things the US had done. The only positive was that she like most of his middle school teachers was often absent so it is unlikely that any of the students took away much from the Zinn book.

4 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 11:35 am

Over the period running from about 1954 until his death, Zinn published a biography of Fiorello LaGuardia for which he received some professional kudos (it was his dissertation adapted for a university press) and a couple of common-and-garden labor histories (one of which he was one of 3 co-authors). That’s it for his original work. George Will, comparing his own experience in academe during the period running from 1967 to 1969 and his father’s experience a generation earlier offered that the academic job market in the post-war period had grown to be an amazingly soft deal, so you get tenure at a research university for reworking your dissertation.

Now, Zinn wrote and wrote, but every other book he published was a verbose piece of opinion journalism. He did no archival research nor did he even offer a systematic rendering of his secondary sources. His signature was the ‘bibliographic essay’ appended to the end of each volume, where he tells his audience what sort of material he’d been reading during the time he wrote the book. There’s hardly a footnote, end note, or Turabian citation in sight in those volumes. And, of course, all his work partook of 20th century sources writing in English.

One other thing: Zinn’s a nice counter-example to cretins like Andrew Kopkind who peddled the notion that we’d have had a consequential red movement in this country were it not for government ‘repression’. Here’s a man who was not only a Communist Party member but the sort who showed up for semi-weekly cell meetings and was later an employee of the American Labor Party in it’s but-end red haze period when it was shot-through with crypto-Communists. The FBI knew this about him. Yet, he was treated very indulgently by his employer from 1959 until his death.

5 dearieme October 16, 2016 at 10:22 am

The corny propagandist rubbish usually taught as American History clearly needed to be balanced, or replaced, by a version suitable for adults and bright children. Zinn’s book isn’t that: it’s just the dreary marxist equivalent of the rubbish that needs replacing.

6 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 10:53 am

Not buying that you’ve ever read one American history text published prior to 1980.

7 Gabraham Lincoln October 16, 2016 at 4:32 am

#2: Without a doubt, Harari’s “A Brief History of Humankind”.

8 Gabraham Lincoln October 16, 2016 at 4:34 am

Oops, that’s #6

9 MatteoZ October 16, 2016 at 5:08 am

good choise!

10 jim jones October 16, 2016 at 5:00 am

5. Men won every single Nobel in 2016

11 So Much For Subtlety October 16, 2016 at 5:17 am

So clearly they are sexist. And Imperialist for privileging Western modes of knowledge and learning. After all, is there is a Nobel Prize in Witchcraft^H^H I mean Traditional Non-Western Systems of Medical Healing?

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2016/10/14/liberal-student-rejects-science-because-it-discriminates-against-witchcraft/

The prizes were also disproportionately given to Jews. So obviously they are ….. something bad, right?

12 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 10:33 am

Maybe historical barriers against women has reduced the number who are competitive at that level.

13 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 11:12 am

Back in the world we actually live in, petty harassment of young men has been an escalating feature of schooling at all levels in this country for about 4 decades now, and about 57% of those enrolled in tertiary schooling as we speak are female. Women have constituted a majority of matriculants since 1979.

What’s interesting, though, would be the distribution of degrees awarded. Engineering, mathematics, information science and technology, physical sciences, geosciences are predominantly male. Psychology, biology &c., teacher training, nursing, and peri-medical occupations are predominantly female. Those awarded business degrees are about 58% male. Ditto history degrees. Those awarded medical degrees are 53% male, close to the composition of the labor force. Ditto law degrees. It’s about a fifty-fifty split among the miscellany of social research disciplines (i.e. economics, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, geography, and demography). The arts and humanities are chock-a-block with women.

So, your thesis is what, Nathan? That academic administrations shot through with people who think masculinity is a pathology are chasing girls away from the engineering school?

14 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 11:35 am

When’s the last time an engineer got a Nobel prize? Usually these are for chemists, physicists, writers, and the like, no?

So, my number one client, in selecting winners of research bids, explicitly prioritizes having at least ONE woman on each project. And how many women are there on each project? One. Just one. All the rest (3-4 other people, usually), being men. And the project leader almost always being a man.

So, in 30 years time, there will be more chance for more women to win these prizes.

But when you’re talking about the Nobel prize, it is the situation in universities 50 years ago, and not the situation in universities today, that is relevant to understanding the headline stat of “all men, no women, won a Nobel this year”.

Whatever this “petty harassment of young men” is that you refer to, I just have no clue what you’re talking about. Specifically, with regard to what that has to do with university graduation rates, etc.

15 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 1:15 pm

I just have no clue what you’re talking about.

Nathan, I cannot help it if you’re ignorant.

So, my number one client, in selecting winners of research bids, explicitly prioritizes having at least ONE woman on each project. And how many women are there on each project? One. Just one.

So what? If they were systemically unfair, there would be competing teams composed of women displaced from the boys’ club. It doesn’t occur to you that their composition is the actual population distribution of those meeting their needs or that they stick the dame on there to keep the diversicrats off their back.

But when you’re talking about the Nobel prize, it is the situation in universities 50 years ago, and not the situation in universities today, that is releva

About 40% of the bachelor’s degrees in this country awarded in 1966 went to women. As we speak, 60% of all degrees in the physical sciences are awarded to men and 66% of the doctoral degrees are awarded to men, because that’s the composition of the population interested in this stuff.

16 prognostication October 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm

If they were systemically unfair, there would be competing teams composed of women displaced from the boys’ club.

Ah, yes, the Econ 101 view of the world. Markets always clear, actors always behave rationally, and path dependency doesn’t exist.

17 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm

Path dependency? Do these women have faculty positions? Can they fill out grant applications? Can they contact each other and meet at conferences? If they can, they’re standing on the same platform as the Big He.

18 So Much For Subtlety October 16, 2016 at 6:43 pm

Troll me October 16, 2016 at 11:35 am

So, my number one client, in selecting winners of research bids, explicitly prioritizes having at least ONE woman on each project. And how many women are there on each project? One. Just one. All the rest (3-4 other people, usually), being men. And the project leader almost always being a man.

A lot of European funding bodies will not fund projects unless they have a woman on board. This has created a class of token females. If you have a pulse and identify as a woman, especially if you are willing to go along to get along, a great future in science beckons.

So, in 30 years time, there will be more chance for more women to win these prizes.

No there won’t. Because women will still be either unable or unwilling to do the work. They will just have their name on the paper. See the Fields Medal.

19 So Much For Subtlety October 16, 2016 at 5:13 am

1. Ursula Le Guin profile.

So living in, and transforming, the West is fine if you are a member of the Le Guin family. It is not fine for anyone else.

Someone who has made a career out of hating White heterosexual America is remarkably uninsightful about her motivations.

20 prior_test2 October 16, 2016 at 6:27 am

Are you absolutely certain you have not confused Le Quin with Samuel Delany (though saying he hates ‘White heterosexual America’ would be distinctly too strong)?

Or are you still upset that Ged was not white, without anyone really pointing that fact out until he was whitewashed?

21 So Much For Subtlety October 16, 2016 at 6:37 am

Why would I be upset Ged was not White? He was just right as he was. At least until the Tombs of Atuan. Delany is simply weird. Maybe a little disturbed. However his worlds are definitely within the Western mainstream.

Le Guin, on the other hand, seems to be settling a score with her childhood. So she starts out imagining a world as unlike the comfortable Californian suburbia she grew up in. Usually they are not heterosexual. Often not White. Always not comfortably off or capitalist. She can do it well, from time to time, but as a theme she has mined it dry over the years.

22 prior_test2 October 16, 2016 at 6:54 am

‘Why would I be upset Ged was not White? ‘

Because that is just about the only controversy I am aware of in connection with Le Guin and race, particularly in the last ten or so years.

‘However his worlds are definitely within the Western mainstream. ‘

If you think ‘Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand’ is within the Western mainstream, well, OK, sure. I wouldn’t, not exactly. Triton would be a pretty hard fit too, to be honest. Though the idea of a war that destroys something like 95% of the human race on multiple planets/moons in the solar system only being noticed by a character because a door does not open is breathtakingly imaginative.

‘Usually they are not heterosexual.’

Um, with the notable exception of the Left Hand of Darkness – which is set in a quite heterosexual framework, with Gethen seen as an experiment by the Hainish with it outlandish, and utterly atypical human biology – Le Guin is almost relentlessly heterosexual. Though in all fairness, she does have plenty of characters who do not seem to care much about it – almost as if Le Guin was aware of the Kinsley scale, and that many societies just don’t make a big deal of personal sexuality.

‘Always not comfortably off or capitalist.’

Well, you got her there – she really does have a problem with capitalism. Thankfully, most of us care less about what needs to be bulldozered to keep the wheels of capitalism turning, right?

23 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 10:36 am

Failing to hate people who are different from you does not imply that you hate people who are like you.

Just because you think someone holds outdated views does not mean you “hate” them. For example, surely we disagree on many things, but I do not hate you for it.

The lack of hate should not prevent people from using strong words in argumentation, perhaps even ones which will make the others look dumb, ignorant, petty, racist, or various other things that people don’t like to be portrayed as.

24 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 11:17 am

Failing to hate people who are different from you does not imply that you hate people who are like you.

They don’t hate people who are like them. The people who are like them are the only people they actually relate to as adult citizens. They despise people who have certain features in common with them but are unlike them in respects they consider salient (or, they regard such people as pairs of hands). The people unlike them are exotics whose interests they advance to injure the people they really despise.

25 So Much For Subtlety October 16, 2016 at 6:24 pm

Why do you think that is a response to anything I said?

Le Guin is interesting because while she pushes radical alternatives to her White middle class heterosexual suburban upbringing, in fact she has chosen to live a White middle class heterosexual suburban life. Her views are an affectation. She does not live them herself. A lot like the nice people at the Guardian who endorse Islamic radicalism. They would not dream of moving to Syria themselves, but they think Sharia is so culturally diverse and vibrant!

As I said, what is interesting about her is how utterly unaware she is of her own motivations. As is that interviewer. I particularly like the way they name-drop all the important markers of Upper Middle Class life – a sabbatical in London, trips to Italy, the decor of her kitchen – without reflecting on it at all.

26 y81 October 16, 2016 at 6:37 pm

Le Guin used to be more interesting 40 years ago, when she was expounding various Asian and other offbeat intellectual concepts I didn’t know much about. As her interests have morphed into pure chattering class difference feminism, her work has become progressively more boring.

27 y81 October 16, 2016 at 6:40 pm

BTW, I don’t know what circles So Much for Subtlety moves in, but the number of non-working UMC matrons I know who fill their days with fussing over their children, Lady Bountiful charity work, and fighting with their housekeepers, all the while proclaiming their defiance of traditional gender roles and oppressive class structures, is quite large.

28 yo October 16, 2016 at 5:22 am

Krishnamurti’s a great pick. Kottke’s original article is just disgustingly America-centric. No foreign books, no respect from me.

29 Roy LC October 16, 2016 at 6:22 am

And it is entirely about 2016. I mean hewould have an almost completely different list five years either way.

30 londenio October 16, 2016 at 5:49 am

Jonathan Livingstone Seagull? Really? I always thought it was sentimental self help stuff. Like The Little Prince but without literary flair. What is the Straussian reading of JLS?

31 prior_test2 October 16, 2016 at 6:34 am

Writing a best seller is a matter of luck?

32 prior_test2 October 16, 2016 at 6:38 am

Though possibly, considering that Prof. Cowen wrote an entire book defending how capitalism leads to an abundance of art available to all, that such a book proves Prof. Cowen’s point about the sort of art that capitalism can be counted on to provide in abundance?

33 londenio October 16, 2016 at 9:16 am

I want to update my comment. I read JLS as a teenager. Upon taking another look, i would categorize JLS as a book the world would be better if nobody had read it. What other book falls into this category?

34 cthulhu October 16, 2016 at 2:46 pm

Erich Segal’s “Love Story.”

35 chuck martel October 17, 2016 at 9:37 am

The only book that takes longer to read than it did to write.

36 Roy LC October 16, 2016 at 6:17 am

The Bible wouldn’t be a bad choice because everyone who hasn’t read it already thinks they know what is in it, and if everyone actually had read it the number of annoying idiots who love to tell you about disconnected bits of it would probably be reduced.

Also just as an arbitrary book it is really long and would create a lot of shared references. Because of this I would pick a complete Catholic/Orthodox bible since the deuterocanonical books have more narrative bits.

But this is asking about a particular book, if I could get one concept across it would be thermodynamics but I can’t think of a book on the topic that doesn’t require a lot more effort than mere reading.

37 prior_test2 October 16, 2016 at 6:34 am

The idea that ‘Malafrena’ is considered worthy of inclusion in anything, even something called the Library of America, is quite surprising. I considered that book to be quite inferior for an author such as Le Quin – unlike Prof. Cowen, I don’t just read books by reading a few pages or skimming. nor do I just leave barely read books behind. Though in that case, it might have been a good idea.

38 Joao Eira October 16, 2016 at 6:46 am

You must do a post about Jonathan Livingstone Seagull. Found that book so ridiculous I had to finish it out of pure spite, but would like to know what you saw in it.

39 prior_test2 October 16, 2016 at 6:54 am

Wasn’t it enough to just look at the pictures?

40 WB October 16, 2016 at 7:31 am

The Bible is a poor choice, because almost nobody would finish the book. You not only need to pick something important and intelligent, but also something readable. Otherwise it’s a bad pick.

If by “everyone” we mean every literate person in the United States, then I’d select Robert Dahl’s How Democratic Is the American Constitution? It’s a clear, easy-to-read discussion of the Constitution’s many shortcomings. Perhaps if everyone read it, we’d finally have people stop venerating the damn text and, instead, consider some much-needed reforms.

41 Ja-Rule's Eternal Banger October 16, 2016 at 3:20 pm

I believe that the premise is that you can MAKE everyone read a book, so the bible’s length and (I guess) lack of readability don’t factor into whether people finish it or not. Everyone finishes it.

42 rayward October 16, 2016 at 8:26 am

1 and 6. Alex Ross likens Dylan to Wagner because each is “neither a composer nor a poet but an actor, a theatrical personality”. Cowen must disagree with this characterization of Dylan: if Dylan’s lyrics are mere gibberish, what’s the point of reading them. Indeed, what’s the point of reading anything if the words have only a single meaning that can be discerned by an imbecile. The Bible is worth reading because the words have meaning above and beyond their sensus litteralis. Leo Strauss was critical of modernity for elevating social science above philosophy. Micro is social science on steroids: Plug in the data and all of life’s questions are answered. Marginal Revolution, indeed. The Protestant Reformation undermined the Catholic Church’s monopoly on Biblical interpretation. Realizing the chaos that might result, the faithful were told that only the literal (sensus litteralis) meaning of Biblical text applies, but what’s literal to you may not be literal to me; hence, a document, the Bible, that means all things to all men. Chaos! To restore order, Biblical scholars, beginning in the 19th century, developed what’s known as the historical critical method for interpreting text (“critical” in the sense of close reading). Of course, the historical critical method isn’t limited to Biblical text, and can be applied to any text, including text written by ancient philosophers and lyrics written by Bob Dylan. Strauss’s contribution to the academy is his emphasis on close (or critical) reading of text. What he would think of micro is a puzzle that Cowen may be able to answer. As for Dylan, I listen to the music and ignore the lyrics.

43 chuck martel October 16, 2016 at 9:49 am

6, On Power, Bertrand de Jouvenel

44 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 10:26 am

“Electromagnetic interaction with biological systems” by JC Lin (1989). You can buy a copy here or peruse a copy at just about any engineering library at any university where people might brag about the fact of attending such a prestigious institution.

It shows that extensive scientific evidence existed, 30 years ago, of things that people still get locked up by quacks for talking about.

Namely, it explains the use of radio waves to remotely influence your mind, explained (incompletely) at the molecular level.

So, for example, Congress might be made to feel giddy and patriotic when considering bills to extend torture-ready prisons such as Guantanamo. Or disinterested/stressed or what have you when considering actions to investigate abuses of such technologies.

45 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 10:28 am

http://www.springer.com/la/book/9781468480610 outlines the book and you can buy it there.

46 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 10:28 am

#6

47 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 11:19 am

It shows that extensive scientific evidence existed, 30 years ago, of things that people still get locked up by quacks for talking about.

No, your showing evidence of giving credence to people who are actually manifesting a classic symptom of schizophrenia.

48 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 11:46 am

Why don’t you march on down to the engineering department at your local Ivy League school, have a read through that book, and then not beat yourself up too hard for the volumes of wool pulled over your eyes in recent generations.

FYI, his research is widely quoted in NATO and WHO reports on related subjects.

49 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 1:19 pm

Why don’t you have a talk with a psychiatrist trained at a biological program like Washington University’s about the social competence of people on their patient roll who think John Yoo is beaming messages into their heads? You know, like does that person hold a job, or bathe, or have a girlfriend or think their next-door neighbor is plotting to decapitate them.

50 Troll me October 17, 2016 at 1:45 pm

I’m not stupid enough to ever have that conversation with a person holding that piece of paper.

Anyways, how about you let me know if you even understand the meaning of the titles in the related reference sections before you propose your ominiscient ability to evaluate the scientific merits of tomes you have not even opened.

51 a Fred October 17, 2016 at 2:13 am

Nathan, those people who annoy you so much, the ones with that little country in the middle east, are they involved with this?

52 Troll me October 17, 2016 at 1:48 pm

The fact of expressing an under-exposed perspective with regard to a certain conflict does not imply that either side of that conflict is monolithic.

But wouldn’t you love me to goad me into some statement that you could twist into looking like a Jew hating rant or something …

Do you know, it is more accepted in Israel to oppose certain actions and strategies in occupied Palestinian territories than in the USA. The Israeli right has the most powerful nation on the planet whipped.

53 Troll me October 16, 2016 at 11:50 am

In the 1930s-40s, “schizophrenia” was women who didn’t do their chores happily, complained about it, and whose husbands dragged them off for mental evaluation.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, “schizophrenia” was highly related to participating in civil rights actions.

By the mid-1970s, “schizophrenia” was essentially synonymous with the precise experiences that would be had if targeted by new tools which use EM waves to mess with people and were being harassed as a result of speaking about it.

Aside from numerous delusions consistent with your age and political affiliation, you’re clearly a smart guy Art. Connect the dots.

54 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 1:26 pm

In the 1930s-40s, “schizophrenia” was women who didn’t do their chores happily, complained about it, and whose husbands dragged them off for mental evaluation.

Nathan, working psychiatrists in 1935 were predominantly employed in state asylums looking after people who were demented and didn’t know whether or not they were coming or going. They had some short-term patients as well, but a great mess of it was depressing work because you couldn’t do much for them but offer milieux therapy.

Schizophrenia is not a straightforward diagnosis because it’s manifest reliably in the course of people’s lives and not so much in acute phenomena. The acute phenomena include hearing voices and getting the witless idea that the CIA cares one whit about random vagrants.

55 Kevin- October 16, 2016 at 6:02 pm

So much misinformation and wacky ideas here, from both of you.

Troll me, absolutely nothing you’re written in these posts is true. Seriously, those are some conspiracy ideas that seem to be leaning towards delusions.
And AD, your ideas of what psychiatrists were doing in the 1930’s, and how clearly schizophrenia usually manifests itself, are pretty muddled.

56 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 7:21 pm

And AD, your ideas of what psychiatrists were doing in the 1930’s, and how clearly schizophrenia usually manifests itself, are pretty muddled.

No, they’re not. As late as 1940, about 80% of working psychiatrists were employed in asylums. See Fuller Torrey’s account and others of the evolution psychiatry in the succeeding 3 decades.

As for what I did and did not say about the presentation of schizophrenia, get back to me when you can read and digest more than two sentences.

57 Troll me October 17, 2016 at 1:49 pm

Kevin – Read “Protest Psychosis” and “CIA Doctors” and you will find plenty of corroborating references. They are easily available on Amazon at a decent price.

58 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 1:30 pm

By the mid-1970s, “schizophrenia” was essentially synonymous with the precise experiences that would be had if targeted by new tools which use EM waves to mess with people and were being harassed as a result of speaking about it.

Actually, schizophrenia was defined by Emil Kraepelin (d. 1926) and originally called ‘dementia praecox’. He wasn’t referring to dissatisfied housewives.

59 a Fred October 17, 2016 at 5:11 pm

“But wouldn’t you love me to goad me into some statement…”

Perfect Freudian slip.

Your previous anti-semitic rants have been self-goaded.

I’m not talking about your rote recitations of anti-Irael boiler-plate, but the complaints you’ve posted here about individual Jews and the generalizations you choose to draw from them.
Watching you charge into what’s literally foil-hat territory is amusing.
I’m sure you can connect them if you try…

60 a Fred October 17, 2016 at 5:40 pm

“But wouldn’t you love me to goad me into some statement…”

Perfect Freudian slip.

Your previous anti-semitic rants have been self-goaded.

I’m not talking about your rote recitations of anti-Irael boiler-plate, but the complaints you’ve posted here about individual Jews and the generalizations you choose to draw from them. Watching you charge into what’s literally foil-hat territory is amusing. You’re filling in the puzzle pieces very predictably.

61 Peter M. October 16, 2016 at 10:37 am

I found the list narrow, for some of the reasons already discussed. The Bible is largely a work of fiction and an authoritarian argument for faith (superstition) over reason. A book celebrating science and reason, while also being interesting, would get my vote. Perhaps Beak of the FInch. For an American audience I might suggest Lies My Teacher Told Me. Like Zinn, the author takes a contrarian approach, but unlike Zinn he also strives for balance and accuracy.

62 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 11:20 am

or an American audience I might suggest Lies My Teacher Told Me. Like Zinn, the author takes a contrarian approach, but unlike Zinn he also strives for balance and accuracy.

Sorry, you don’t establish yourself as an apostle of reason by trying to pass off Zinn or James Loewen as historians.

63 Donald Pretari October 16, 2016 at 1:21 pm

#6…I would recommend The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. It raises important issues in a straightforward and readable way, and is sensitive to other viewpoints.

64 Art Deco October 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm

Not a bad idea.

If it was specified to be a contemporary American audience, I might suggest Anne Tyler’s Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant.

65 Mark Thorson October 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm

Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Not many books stay in print continuously as long as that one.

66 Donald Pretari October 16, 2016 at 2:25 pm

It’s a great book, but, like The Power Broker, a hefty tome.

67 Mark Thorson October 16, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Yes, but it’s an entertaining book. Remember, the question was a book for everyone to read. Any such book must be entertaining. This book also teaches by example some lessons everyone should know because they might apply in their own lives.

68 Donald Pretari October 16, 2016 at 2:26 pm

You can get it free now I believe.

69 cthulhu October 16, 2016 at 2:49 pm

#6 Steven Pinker, “The Blank Slate.”

70 Pearl Y October 16, 2016 at 9:12 pm

I second this

71 ant1900 October 17, 2016 at 11:46 am

Shout it from the rooftops. Every chapter in that book could be its own book.

72 Lanigram October 16, 2016 at 3:16 pm

Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow”. Once you understand predictably irrational humans, it’s 42 all the way down.

73 harrison October 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm

#4: This is going to be my go-to example of Coasean bargaining from now on.

74 Shane M October 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm

I don’t know if it counts as a book, but the only one I feel like I could recommend in this manner would be _Meditations_ by Marcus Aurelius.

75 ricardo October 16, 2016 at 10:15 pm

#6 The Once and Future King.

76 ex-PFC Wintergreen October 16, 2016 at 11:05 pm

#6

Catch-22, but I admittedly I’m biased.

77 blades October 17, 2016 at 12:06 pm

+1!!

78 Efp October 17, 2016 at 10:56 am

The Big Picture, by Sean Caroll.

79 Nicole Rosica October 17, 2016 at 12:26 pm

“But What If We’re Wrong” by Chuck Klosterman. A bit pedantic, but it takes absurd ideas and walks through how logical they can actually be… if only we (as a people) stop assuming we know everything about life. It was very thought-provoking and leaves you with the takeaway to question everything and be open to keep learning.

80 Christopher Stone October 17, 2016 at 4:20 pm

Infinite Jest, David Foster Wallace, I’m really, really into tennis

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: