The Fattening of America is written by economist Eric Finklestein. The book outlines the behaviors and policies behind obesity in America from an economist’s view. I personally wish he delved into the corn subsidies more deeply (it was almost as if he was afraid to broach the subject!), but it’s still a very well-referenced book with tons of information that may just change your perspective on healthcare, government and fat people. The author utilizes his obese “Uncle Al” as an example of a “ultility maximizing” person who is truly just making economical decisions that result in his obesity.
Sometimes my eyes dulled over at the sheer amount of info in this book, but mostly the author is funny, hip, engaging and insightful. The book is definitely germane to the current healthcare debate, and is a must-read for anyone who would like to argue both sides intelligently. The references are top-notch and most are searchable on the Internet. We all really need to know where the money is truly going. Take a look at this book and be amazed.
New York Magazine journalists Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman team up to add commentary and more information to their articles in this new book published by Twelve, a division of the Hachette Book Group.
The last page of the book has this blurb about Twelve:
“TWELVE was established in August 2005 with the objective of publishing no more than one book per month. We strive to publish the singular book, by authors who have a unique perspective and compelling authority.”
They lost me at “compelling authority.”
Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman are journalists, not scientists. This book isn’t a synthesis of research; it’s an opinion piece with a conservative bent (indeed, Ashley Merryman’s back-flap bio boasts that she “lives in Los Angeles, where she runs a church-based tutoring program for inner-city children.”)
I’m not advocating gatekeeping; there’s definitely a place for independent research and grass-roots efforts. Child Psychology isn’t one of those places. NutureShock is just another parenting book in a long line of books written by reporters for profit. The authors have a reputation for reporting on overlooked studies with rare results, as they boast in their chapter notes that their New York Magazine articles were popular. Compiling and expounding on past work seems to be the best way to write a book these days; this doesn’t mean that the articles, as a book, make a cohesive or worthy statement.
Basically, I found the book to be the amateur, armchair science that is fun to read in small bites while on the train. Read it for entertainment purposes, but don’t implement the few approaches outlined at home; they aren’t tested enough, and the results have yet to be repeated to gain respect in academia.
The book does, unwittingly, bring up some good points about statistics, studies, and systemic judgments based on those studies. Statistics and study results are nothing to respect when presented alone. The best way to make decisions about anything is to weigh multiple instances of evidence, to never rely on one event. The authors do their best to rip up school district decisions on testing, anti-obesity and anti-bullying programs, by claiming these decisions were not based on scientific results but just made using traditional thought and instinct. While some programs in districts may be made more based on hope than science, the majority of IQ testing and other educational programs are based on years of study and a large meta-analysis of results of hundreds of studies. To suggest otherwise, as the authors do, is hasty, irresponsible, and insulting to educational scholars, teachers, and parents.
The authors proceed to cite a study here, a successful preschool program there, to illustrate their point that decisions about children should be based on evidence. I agree. But A LOT of evidence. Not an anecdotal story or two (which the authors provide), nor 1 or 2 labs that keep getting the same results for their handful of articles. The authors bemoan the lack of long-term studies in almost every chapter, yet fail to mention the very sophisticated and accurate methods of behavioral statistics answers this issue. They sing praises of a preschool program called Tools of the Mind, but conveniently forget to list the challenges associated with the program. This book is a thinly disguised attempt to steer the conversation toward a conservative agenda in education.
The writing is ok. Their lack of academic tone in parts is jarring. For example, on page 190, the authors use colloquial language where they shouldn’t have:
“… a separate word to distinguish the kind of popular teen who diminishes others –in Dutch, for instance, the idiomatic expression popie-jopie refers to teens who are bitchy, slutty, cocky, loud and arrogant.”
An academic article would have used words like “promiscuous,” “disagreeable,” and “condescending,” especially since the Dutch don’t use the English colloquial words that are listed. I also question the choice of listing the derogatory words for females first, or at all.
At times the authors conduct their own “studies,” but we should disregard these results. We have no idea what the sampling was, what the control group was given (if there even was a control group), or how the study was designed at all. Until their results can be repeated many times, then one-off studies should merely bring up ideas for further study.
The only good that comes out NutureShock is the reminder to hold studies, especially those recounted by non-scientist media, in suspicion. If you are planning to pick up this book, read it for entertainment purposes only. It may make you think a bit differently in some aspects of child-rearing, like how your teen may see arguing as the opposite of lying, or how we whites actively avoid talking about race. The authors should have stayed with reflecting trends in traditional parenting, and avoided passing themselves off as authorities.
Don’t bother with iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind by Dr. Gary Smalls and his partner Gigi Vorgan unless:
1. you are a Baby Boomer who is feeling overwhelmed with the web, and would like to commiserate with one of your own.
2. if you are internet addicted and in turn socially inept (there are a few pages of well-worn self-help advice on how to improve your social interactions and get off the web).
Interspersed in these split personality pages are a few references to fMRI studies about which areas of the brain light up when we are completing internet tasks. You won’t be able to pinpoint the studies, though, because the authors don’t use notations. No footnotes, no endnotes, just a list of references in the back of the book. They do list their references but we have no idea which studies go to which fleeting mention.
The book is ok, but it can’t decide which way it wants to go. As someone who is under 40 (Generation X) and considers herself a digital native (I had a computer in my house in the late 70’s), I found this book to be downright offensive at times. The anecdotal examples of exaggerated technology-addicted situations were inane and sensationalistic with fear. It’s the typical refrain we hear constantly from the stereotypically selfish and self-focused “me” generation of Baby Boomers.
The “evolution” that the authors posit is just silly. We all know that evolution doesn’t happen within a single generation. That would mean that my children have a different brain structure than my mother because I grew up with technology, have been on the internet since 1988, and have worked deep in computer systems administration. That’s not possible. The authors should instead use “adapt” instead of “evolve.” There should be more emphasis on what is known in academic circles as “brain plasticity.” The brain is a wondrous thing and can utilize different parts in different ways.
If we are indeed seeing a new generation of socially inept people, it’s the culture of the internet that has influenced their behavior. The tools haven’t morphed our brains down to the DNA and protein levels. The culture is the thing changing because of the tools, but this is how it has always been. Telephones, fax machines, cars and television haven’t changed that basic human brain structure that gets passed down from generation to generation. There is no true “evolution” happening because of the existence of lolcats (I’m sure the authors know this, and have just postulated an overblown theory to get attention for the book).
Unless you are in said state of panic about the internet and its implications, skip this book. The small self-help parts aren’t going to help you. Dr. Smalls probably meant for you to read them to your WoW-addicted daughter.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Book 1 of 3, called “The Millenium Trilogy,” written by Stieg Larsson (deceased).
You can find a story synopsis at the wikipedia entry. Please see it for a synopsis. This post concentrates on my experience with the book and its themes.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson was translated from its original Swedish into English by Reg Keeland. Before I get into the review of the book, I feel I must mention the controversy that surrounds the English translation of the novel. The translator Reg Keeland was apparently so aghast with the English editor’s after work that he insisted that the credit of translation be given to a pen name; he was so disgusted with the final output that he wanted no part of it. He especially seemed annoyed with the change in title. The original Swedish was either “The Man Who Hated Women” or “Men Who Hated Women.”
I consider myself a pretty typical American reader, and I have to say, I’d have never, ever picked up a book with that kind of title. “The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo” plays to our American sense of intrigue, and it does refer to a trait of one of the main characters. I have more issue with one version of the cover image.
The hair should be black and spiky and the skin should be pale.
The hair and skin color of the woman in the photograph don’t remotely match the description of said “girl” (a woman of about 25 years old). [I have a whole other issue with calling women over age 18 “girl” but I’ll mention that in a bit.]
I haven’t found any interviews with Mr. Keeland to know exactly what his complaints are, but I found the book to flow well regardless. I was never stopped abruptly by unfamiliar cultural nuances or odd dialogue. Knowing that Mr. Keeland was severely disappointed with the final English translation makes me curious what I missed. I’d love to know how this excellent book could be better.
Finding out the original title whilst in the throes of the plot was a strange experience. Before knowing the original title, I really had no idea where the plot was going. Once I had “Men Who Hated Women” in my head, I had different suspicions on where the events were leading. I almost wish I didn’t know, because the shock of the final battles would be even more startling. Then again, I’m too sure I could’ve stomached it without the forewarning.
If it weren’t for the buzz and the interesting title, I’d have avoided this book. I’m not much of a crime thriller reader. I read all 4 Dan Brown books and enjoyed them, but I don’t search out crime novelists. When I heard rumblings about Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I didn’t catch that the book was in the crime thriller genre. It sounded interesting, so I picked it up from the library.
The book is massive: 465 pages. I knew I wouldn’t be able to finish it in the small amount of time I had it on loan from the library; it’s a new book and it had limited release time. I turned to the audio version. By listening to the book on CD, I could fit in some “reading” time while I was running, cooking or cleaning. When I could, I’d pick up the story in the print version right where the audio book left off.
It took weeks and a few different tries to finally get a hold of the UNabridged version of the audio performance of the book. For some reason, the library records have the abridged version and unabridged version under identical records. Other people had requested the print book, so I had to let it go for a while before I could get it back. I’d returned and then signed out the print version again while I waited for the unabridged copy of the audio book to show up.
When I did get the print book back, I was even more eager to continue on with the story. The first few chapters set up the characters so beautifully that I was haunted. Like an “earworm,” an incomplete song that repeats in your head, the characters and scenes would come back to haunt me. The only way to solve an earworm, psychologists say, is to look up the lyrics of the song and sing them through, from beginning to end. It’s thought that earworms occur because your brain is trying to resolve the discrepancy in the lyrics. Solve the discrepancy and the lingering haunt of a refrain disappears. That’s the theory, anyway.
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman
Doubleday Business (2008), Hardcover, 224 pages
ISBN: 9780385524382
PurpleCar’s Review:
Have you ever driven through a snowstorm, against all logic, to get to a meeting? Held onto a tanking stock? Reading Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior may help you understand why. An easy read in the style of The Tipping Point (Malcolm Gladwell), Sway uses anecdotes and popular psychology research to outline some common behavioral pitfalls. Although the book lacks in-depth analysis and contradictory research to be considered serious academic fair, it gives familiar examples of illogical actions in the face of mounting evidence. Sway explains concepts like loss aversion, commitment, and diagnosis bias and how they play out in individuals and groups. Personally, I found a lot of value in being reminded of how important dissenters are, even if the dissenters are wrong, and how “stay the course” is usually the worst option.
Tags: book review, how is the book, review 
Entries (RSS)