If you're not a person who tends to get sucked into a book, and has every waking thought resonate with what you've read, then read some Chomsky.
You may not agree with his views (it's so far to the left, that it makes your head spin) but rather read it for how he writes. His terse words are a window into his psyche.
Everything is presented in a very "matter-of-fact" way. I've read most of his books and it's surprising how very little he thinks of his own opinions. For him, it's not a revelation that the world is corrupt and full of structures that incentivise the destruction of the middle class etc., it's just a matter of fact. "That's how the world is and this is where I think it's going, good luck with changing that.", that's what it feels like.
I was pretty young when I started reading them, around 16. It temporarily changed me for the worse, the books are so pessimistic, that it tends to put that person I described above (getting sucked into books) into a depressive state.
If you want to start somewhere, try "Manufacturing Consent" (by Chomsky and Herman).
If you've already read that, then try "On Palestine" by Chomsky as well, I don't recall reading it but it does seem timely now.
I like Chomsky, and I agree with most of what you say. He is matter-of-fact, maybe cynical, but I wouldn't say pessimistic. He's trying to present the truth (or specifically, the truth of how those in power gain and maintain power). That's his role in trying to build a better world. I recall him saying somewhere (but I can't seem to find it now) that he's a bad organizer, so I think he sees his role as shining a light for others to use.
I like listening to him speak more, tbh. He can come across as a rambling old man with disjointed thoughts. Then, after going off for 10 minutes, he brings it back. The world is complicated, and Chomsky has a very firm grasp on how complicated it all is, and in order to explain a point, he often has to untangle a large web of relationships and history. Sometimes exhausting, but also kind exhilarating. He refuses to short snappy news bits because he knows a statement that challenges the status quo needs strong evidence and explanation, and that necessarily requires a longer form (he discusses that point in Manufacturing Consent).
The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman. It had a huge impact on the way I view UX issues, and the relationship between users & developers/companies, and I prioritize users' "dumb questions" way differently now as a result. It's also made me feel less bad about times that I have a problem with using some piece of software, whether it's a settings menu that I can't find what I need in it, or some complex setup process.
Not because of the actual topic, although that's important too; but because of the first 150 or so pages, where Pinker starts by saying something like: you won't believe me about how violence has declined unless I first disabuse you of the notion that the past was nice. He then describes how truly awful pretty much everyone and everything was in the past. It was an eye-opener.
Those who romanticize the past (which is most people) do themselves a grave disservice.
"The righteous mind" by Jonathan Haidt. I loved it so much that I gave it to three different peoples.
It's about psychological studies of morality, and what tends to influence one sense of morality.
It had a huge impact on me because I feel that it helped me grow as a person, and being able to understand other culture/other principle, even if I don't necessarily agree with that.
Lots of stuff that seems plain evil from a western point of view (ergo, centered about the morals of individuality) would look more sensible once understood from a moral coming from a sense of community, and the necessarily conservative need to foster a stable societal structure.
It doesn't mean that I agree with things like opposing the rights of woman to drive/open bank account, but it help understanding the motivation better.
Another interesting point he brings is the differentiation between a moral judgement (X is good or bad), and the moral reasoning (X is bad because of Y and Z). Notably, the moral judgement come before the moral reasoning, the latter being used not as a way to reach a conclusion, but as a way to defend a moral judgement with our peers.
Jonathan Haidt is mostly known for his works on the political polarization of the USA.
Another book I found incredibly enriching (but unfortunately only in French) is "Au coeur des services spéciaux", which is an interview by Jean Guisnel (a french investigative journalist) of Alain Chouet, a former director of the DGSE (the french CIA basically).
Alain Chouet studied Arabic and the arab/muslim world even before joining the DGSE, and what I picked up at the bookstore as a way to understand the french intelligence services turned out to be an extremely interesting (and respectful) exposé of the muslim and arab world, with the prism of political Islam, the history of terrorism as seen by french intelligence service, his opinion on many nuclear programs, and of course a great deal about 9/11.
The writing of the book is very fresh thanks to the conversational/interview style used, and while the book show its age more and more (it's from 2013), I still believe it's a worthwhile lecture if one is curious about such subject, especially given the current context.
I'm assuming this thread is non-programming related since that's like everything else on this website
Probably Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. And it didn't impact me in a way where I agreed with it, it was more the opposite. It sort of made me realize "oh, this is what bullshit looks like" and I was able to take that and apply it elsewhere
I'll give an example... Hegel sort of works like this: person X says A, person Y says B, there's a disagreement, they both fight to the death and person X enslaves person Y, then person Y goes crazy, turns to religion (I'm not bullshitting here either, he introduces the priest at this point in the master slave dialectic [0]), then person Y affirms their own slavery both physically and mentally. This is the basic process on which "history" happens
Think about this for a second, all of those people who died in the 20th century because of this guy's bullshit. I read his garbage cover to cover, lesson learned: bullshit is dangerous. There's a reason why Hegel doesn't like math. After I read this guy, it made me realize something: non-technical non-fiction is fiction
[0] "As a separate, independent extreme, it rejects the essence of its will, and casts upon the mediator or minister [priest] its own freedom of decision, and herewith the responsibility for its own action. This mediator, having a direct relationship with the unchangeable Being, ministers by giving advice on what is right." (para 228)
lots of great recommendations already, but this is a relatively quick read and a great story.
How To Build A Car
If you're into F1 -- or precision engineering -- it's a cool book that gives you insight into a fantastic designer and his approach to producing machines
I could go on but those are two books I thought about while going about my day today
Like that time you beat Archimedes to the punch and moved the world with a cantilever?
To not just 'standup philosopher'-post: Gödel, Escher, Bach (already mentioned by another I see); Euclid's Elements; Polya's How To Solve It; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats - clearly non-fiction, if you know cats. :)
Oh! Pascal! was magnificent. The other influential Pascal text for me was “Elementary Pascal”, where Holmes writes Pascal for Babbage’s engine to solve mysteries. Books these days don’t seem to have the same whimsy.
On Writing by Stephen King is one of the best books about the craft of not only writing, but any solo creative endeavor. It is also immensely entertaining and dark. The Audiobook is read by the author and he does a great job.
Readit News
You may not agree with his views (it's so far to the left, that it makes your head spin) but rather read it for how he writes. His terse words are a window into his psyche.
Everything is presented in a very "matter-of-fact" way. I've read most of his books and it's surprising how very little he thinks of his own opinions. For him, it's not a revelation that the world is corrupt and full of structures that incentivise the destruction of the middle class etc., it's just a matter of fact. "That's how the world is and this is where I think it's going, good luck with changing that.", that's what it feels like.
I was pretty young when I started reading them, around 16. It temporarily changed me for the worse, the books are so pessimistic, that it tends to put that person I described above (getting sucked into books) into a depressive state.
If you want to start somewhere, try "Manufacturing Consent" (by Chomsky and Herman).
If you've already read that, then try "On Palestine" by Chomsky as well, I don't recall reading it but it does seem timely now.
I like listening to him speak more, tbh. He can come across as a rambling old man with disjointed thoughts. Then, after going off for 10 minutes, he brings it back. The world is complicated, and Chomsky has a very firm grasp on how complicated it all is, and in order to explain a point, he often has to untangle a large web of relationships and history. Sometimes exhausting, but also kind exhilarating. He refuses to short snappy news bits because he knows a statement that challenges the status quo needs strong evidence and explanation, and that necessarily requires a longer form (he discusses that point in Manufacturing Consent).
I'd also recommend Manufacturing Consent.
Not because of the actual topic, although that's important too; but because of the first 150 or so pages, where Pinker starts by saying something like: you won't believe me about how violence has declined unless I first disabuse you of the notion that the past was nice. He then describes how truly awful pretty much everyone and everything was in the past. It was an eye-opener.
Those who romanticize the past (which is most people) do themselves a grave disservice.
Yes, democracies are cracking under strain.
Yes, wars are happening that could spill over to larger areas and cause serious harm.
Yes, social media and lack of truthfulness is a huge issue.
Yes, global warming sucks and we need to do more.
But still, on so many measures, things are better than they ever have been, and trending in positive directions.
It's about psychological studies of morality, and what tends to influence one sense of morality.
It had a huge impact on me because I feel that it helped me grow as a person, and being able to understand other culture/other principle, even if I don't necessarily agree with that.
Lots of stuff that seems plain evil from a western point of view (ergo, centered about the morals of individuality) would look more sensible once understood from a moral coming from a sense of community, and the necessarily conservative need to foster a stable societal structure.
It doesn't mean that I agree with things like opposing the rights of woman to drive/open bank account, but it help understanding the motivation better.
Another interesting point he brings is the differentiation between a moral judgement (X is good or bad), and the moral reasoning (X is bad because of Y and Z). Notably, the moral judgement come before the moral reasoning, the latter being used not as a way to reach a conclusion, but as a way to defend a moral judgement with our peers.
Jonathan Haidt is mostly known for his works on the political polarization of the USA.
Another book I found incredibly enriching (but unfortunately only in French) is "Au coeur des services spéciaux", which is an interview by Jean Guisnel (a french investigative journalist) of Alain Chouet, a former director of the DGSE (the french CIA basically).
Alain Chouet studied Arabic and the arab/muslim world even before joining the DGSE, and what I picked up at the bookstore as a way to understand the french intelligence services turned out to be an extremely interesting (and respectful) exposé of the muslim and arab world, with the prism of political Islam, the history of terrorism as seen by french intelligence service, his opinion on many nuclear programs, and of course a great deal about 9/11.
The writing of the book is very fresh thanks to the conversational/interview style used, and while the book show its age more and more (it's from 2013), I still believe it's a worthwhile lecture if one is curious about such subject, especially given the current context.
Probably Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. And it didn't impact me in a way where I agreed with it, it was more the opposite. It sort of made me realize "oh, this is what bullshit looks like" and I was able to take that and apply it elsewhere
I'll give an example... Hegel sort of works like this: person X says A, person Y says B, there's a disagreement, they both fight to the death and person X enslaves person Y, then person Y goes crazy, turns to religion (I'm not bullshitting here either, he introduces the priest at this point in the master slave dialectic [0]), then person Y affirms their own slavery both physically and mentally. This is the basic process on which "history" happens
Think about this for a second, all of those people who died in the 20th century because of this guy's bullshit. I read his garbage cover to cover, lesson learned: bullshit is dangerous. There's a reason why Hegel doesn't like math. After I read this guy, it made me realize something: non-technical non-fiction is fiction
[0] "As a separate, independent extreme, it rejects the essence of its will, and casts upon the mediator or minister [priest] its own freedom of decision, and herewith the responsibility for its own action. This mediator, having a direct relationship with the unchangeable Being, ministers by giving advice on what is right." (para 228)
lots of great recommendations already, but this is a relatively quick read and a great story.
How To Build A Car
If you're into F1 -- or precision engineering -- it's a cool book that gives you insight into a fantastic designer and his approach to producing machines
I could go on but those are two books I thought about while going about my day today
- Factfulness or
- Sapiens or
- Richard Feynman’s various writings
…but the most measurable impact was probably from something like
- “Strunk and white The Elements of Style” or
- “How to win friends and influence people” or
- “Oh! Pascal!” Or
- “the dictionary” or
- some specific bus timetable that enabled a pivotal moment in my life
I see your literality, and raise:
enabled a pivotal moment in my life
Like that time you beat Archimedes to the punch and moved the world with a cantilever?
To not just 'standup philosopher'-post: Gödel, Escher, Bach (already mentioned by another I see); Euclid's Elements; Polya's How To Solve It; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats - clearly non-fiction, if you know cats. :)
Story time? Don't leave us hanging :)