If you are reading popular books on social science (which many business books are), it is very likely that the author is pushing research they are personally invested in succeeding. They are often not trying to convey a nuanced understanding of a phenomenon. Furthermore, popular books are often not peer-reviewed to the same extant or at all as regular research literature.
A better alternative is to read review articles in journals. They are shorter than books and will also give a more reasonable estimate of the certainty experts have in a certain field of results. For example, in psychology there is the Annual Review of Psychology, which generally publishes ~50pg readable summaries of literature by experts in the field. For the love of social science, please stop reading popular books on the brain/mind.
What makes you think that? I just skimmed their methodology [1] and didn't see any indication that it's anything other than a list of books that have sold the most (omitting some categories like textbooks).
The interesting thing about the methodology page is that it consistently uses strongly-worded and reassuring terms, but at no point do they mention any numbers or statistics whatsoever. It's made to appear as if they're transparent, but it doesn't actually offer you anything of the sort. Additionally, we can read it and find lines like the following:
>if and when they are included, are at the discretion of The New York Times Best-Seller List Desk editors based on standards for inclusion that encompass proprietary vetting and audit protocols, corroborative reporting
This seems to fit with another quote that a commenter here found for us:
>In 1983 (as part of a legal argument) the Times stated that the list is not mathematically objective but rather editorial content.
On top of this, there's likely to be biases in the information they receive: It's obvious that every large book store in the country (including all digital platforms) doesn't report directly to the NYT, and it would be very unlikely for there to be no bias in which stores decide to work with the NYT or not.
Well, I (am parent^) looked it up. And as a lot of things, that was half right half wrong. Here is a quote from wikipedia
"The list is based on a proprietary method that uses sales figures, other data and internal guidelines that are unpublished—how the Times compiles the list is a trade secret.[3] In 1983 (as part of a legal argument) the Times stated that the list is not mathematically objective but rather editorial content. In 2017, a Times representative said that the goal is that the lists reflect authentic best sellers.[4] The list has been the source of controversy over the years."
I wish there were a market for pamphlets (as there was in ye olde days). Hear me out. So many categories of books (business, psychology) could more effectively communicate their core thesis to a lay audience via 40-90 pages[0]. A long article. But the economics basically require the author to format as a 200-400 page book, resulting in the kinds of filler this post suggests.
I realize I could read a summary online, but that takes the interpreted benefit without directly rewarding the actual author. I am paying for the ideas, not the length, and would love to reward the most efficient way to deliver that.
[0] Obviously I realize there are many great exceptions to this tongue-in-cheek take on the market.
I'd recommend reading summaries of business books instead of reading them wholly. It's usually a few decent observations and a bunch of filler and repetition so they can be sold as books. The quality of summaries varies widely, though.
I would also suggest mind maps channels on youtube. I was attempting to read more, but the condensed versions firstly allow me to understand if I want to read the book, secondly prep my brain with a basic understanding of the book ( I am a horrible reader with little retention ). Thirdly, it gives me a lot of the core concepts of the books.
It also free up my time which also allows me to spend time on things I actually need to read rather than just reading the current hype.
The survivor / confirmation bias is my biggest issue with a lot of these books.
I listen to a lot of "How I Built This" and have noted that the vast, vast majority of the founders on that program will answer the "what percent is luck vs skill" question with 90 (or above) for luck.
This rarely seems addressed, specifically in the entrepreneurship segment of these books. Which is understandable as "get lucky" is not a pitch that is going to sell a lot of books. But it's unfortunate when some of these folks use blanket advice like quit school or quit your stable day job because it worked for me.
> "But I have noticed that some authors have an idea and without fleshing it out and properly researching it they decide to write a book about it."
My rub isn't the lack of research, it's the lack of a balanced argument. For instance, Gladwell. Study after referenced study to support his theory, but rarely if ever a counter point.
Confirmation bias gone wild. Which in this day and age is understandable. It's the norm. What's disheartening is how this approach gets passed off - and generally accepted - as expertise.
If you are attempting to follow the advice of business books verbatim that could be the problem.
Most / all of the good ones I have read tell one view of what led to success. I take what I learn and attempt to apply it to my own schools of thought and with any luck come out of the exercise with a more well rounded opinion than I went in with.
Your post seems to advocate for peer reviews in business books as well, don’t you think that unbiased reviews from readers fill that need?
Reader reviews are absolutely unable to determine most of the things the author points out. I generally don't read business books because my "school of thought" is that "science works for gaining understanding, nothing else does."
The author of this joke piece is pretty spot on in terms of the non-scientific mistakes these books almost always make. E.g. correlation != causation, anecdotes != data and so on.
I think there's pipeline of Harvard Business Review (and similar) articles to the book shelf, and it has to stop. The article has the meat, and then it's repeated/filled/fluffed into a book.
Readit News
A better alternative is to read review articles in journals. They are shorter than books and will also give a more reasonable estimate of the certainty experts have in a certain field of results. For example, in psychology there is the Annual Review of Psychology, which generally publishes ~50pg readable summaries of literature by experts in the field. For the love of social science, please stop reading popular books on the brain/mind.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/methodology/
>if and when they are included, are at the discretion of The New York Times Best-Seller List Desk editors based on standards for inclusion that encompass proprietary vetting and audit protocols, corroborative reporting
This seems to fit with another quote that a commenter here found for us:
>In 1983 (as part of a legal argument) the Times stated that the list is not mathematically objective but rather editorial content.
On top of this, there's likely to be biases in the information they receive: It's obvious that every large book store in the country (including all digital platforms) doesn't report directly to the NYT, and it would be very unlikely for there to be no bias in which stores decide to work with the NYT or not.
"The list is based on a proprietary method that uses sales figures, other data and internal guidelines that are unpublished—how the Times compiles the list is a trade secret.[3] In 1983 (as part of a legal argument) the Times stated that the list is not mathematically objective but rather editorial content. In 2017, a Times representative said that the goal is that the lists reflect authentic best sellers.[4] The list has been the source of controversy over the years."
I realize I could read a summary online, but that takes the interpreted benefit without directly rewarding the actual author. I am paying for the ideas, not the length, and would love to reward the most efficient way to deliver that.
[0] Obviously I realize there are many great exceptions to this tongue-in-cheek take on the market.
I would also suggest mind maps channels on youtube. I was attempting to read more, but the condensed versions firstly allow me to understand if I want to read the book, secondly prep my brain with a basic understanding of the book ( I am a horrible reader with little retention ). Thirdly, it gives me a lot of the core concepts of the books.
It also free up my time which also allows me to spend time on things I actually need to read rather than just reading the current hype.
I listen to a lot of "How I Built This" and have noted that the vast, vast majority of the founders on that program will answer the "what percent is luck vs skill" question with 90 (or above) for luck.
This rarely seems addressed, specifically in the entrepreneurship segment of these books. Which is understandable as "get lucky" is not a pitch that is going to sell a lot of books. But it's unfortunate when some of these folks use blanket advice like quit school or quit your stable day job because it worked for me.
My rub isn't the lack of research, it's the lack of a balanced argument. For instance, Gladwell. Study after referenced study to support his theory, but rarely if ever a counter point.
Confirmation bias gone wild. Which in this day and age is understandable. It's the norm. What's disheartening is how this approach gets passed off - and generally accepted - as expertise.
Most / all of the good ones I have read tell one view of what led to success. I take what I learn and attempt to apply it to my own schools of thought and with any luck come out of the exercise with a more well rounded opinion than I went in with.
Your post seems to advocate for peer reviews in business books as well, don’t you think that unbiased reviews from readers fill that need?
The author of this joke piece is pretty spot on in terms of the non-scientific mistakes these books almost always make. E.g. correlation != causation, anecdotes != data and so on.
There are services that trim them back.
Deleted Comment