So with a lot of time on my hands recently I've been catching up on some reading. Recently though it's become kind of silly. Let me elaborate. The first book I started to chew into in this last month is The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker.
A very good book. It's a well-written way of condensing a lot of the basic thrusts of linguistics and language acquisition. It's very insightful, and it can change the way you think about language and its use. A very good book; but from here, it started to go downhill. Next I read:
The first thing I have to say is that I have some admiration for how incredibly ambitious this book is. He first spend a good 100 pages making a very well-thought and solid argument for the existence of human nature. But then the rest of the book just starts to falter. He makes an attempt to recast every social science, the realm of art, and all of humanities in light of the existence of human nature (which has been denied over the last century). And every single part of it just feels incomplete.
To give a more clear example, he talks a lot about how genetics influence personality. But he doesn't take the time to define what means by "personality". When cognitive scientists talk about it, they mean the OCEAN model of personality, which is what all the studies he cites are about. While I think it's a very good way of defining and measuring personality, it's very different from what most people think about when they hear the word. There's no gene for liking blue more than green; there are genes for a person's OCEAN characteristics.
From there I read I Am Legend.
It's good, but it's so short, and it's quite dissatisfying. It's very different from the movie. At the end of the book, the main character is held in prison by the society, awaiting his punishment for his crime of mass murder against them. This is a perfect stage for so many interesting things to happen -- a discussion of justice, of alienation, of the purpose of punishment and the hope of cultural redefinition/adaptation, etc. But none of that happens. I won't say how the book ends, but it leaves off a chance to say something really meaningful about humanity.
Next I read Guns, Germs and Steel.
This has got to be the most dissatisfying book I've read in a while. It's an interesting idea, to be sure. But at the end of the book, that's really all it is. In simplified form, it should be banal: environment (and the resources it brings) cause cultural change, including an influence on the technology present in a society. This explains, for example, why air conditioners sell better in Tampa than in Juneau. The book expands this idea to try and make it more meaningful.
His claim is that the geography, flora, and fauna of the ancient world heavily influenced the rise of societies in different areas. For example, the fertile crescent is hypothesized to have the animals and plants that were most easily domesticated, leading to the earliest farmers there, and thus the earliest form of the modern powers that exist now. So they spread from there, into Europe and then across to the Americas. And when we landed in the Americas, we had the greater head-start and the greater technology, therefore could displace the natives and dominate the land. Thus, the great movements of history are explained.
While this is interesting to some extent, it lacks a lot of evidence, and it feels like a just-so story rather than a real scientific principle being discovered. Also, he repeats himself a lot, does a terrible job of citing sources, and fails to lay out solid arguments for examination. I think he's on to something, since I can't think of a bigger factor to explain what he seeks to explain, but there's a lot of research to be done before we can try and verify it.
Next I took on the second book in the Dune series, which I'm probably going to finish today:
It's a good story. There's no other point to it, except to tell a story, which is okay every once in a while.
So to make a point to this thread, I'm now looking for a new book to read next. Pretty much anything with a real point to it would be good. Novels and nonfiction are both welcome.
A very good book. It's a well-written way of condensing a lot of the basic thrusts of linguistics and language acquisition. It's very insightful, and it can change the way you think about language and its use. A very good book; but from here, it started to go downhill. Next I read:
The first thing I have to say is that I have some admiration for how incredibly ambitious this book is. He first spend a good 100 pages making a very well-thought and solid argument for the existence of human nature. But then the rest of the book just starts to falter. He makes an attempt to recast every social science, the realm of art, and all of humanities in light of the existence of human nature (which has been denied over the last century). And every single part of it just feels incomplete.
To give a more clear example, he talks a lot about how genetics influence personality. But he doesn't take the time to define what means by "personality". When cognitive scientists talk about it, they mean the OCEAN model of personality, which is what all the studies he cites are about. While I think it's a very good way of defining and measuring personality, it's very different from what most people think about when they hear the word. There's no gene for liking blue more than green; there are genes for a person's OCEAN characteristics.
From there I read I Am Legend.
It's good, but it's so short, and it's quite dissatisfying. It's very different from the movie. At the end of the book, the main character is held in prison by the society, awaiting his punishment for his crime of mass murder against them. This is a perfect stage for so many interesting things to happen -- a discussion of justice, of alienation, of the purpose of punishment and the hope of cultural redefinition/adaptation, etc. But none of that happens. I won't say how the book ends, but it leaves off a chance to say something really meaningful about humanity.
Next I read Guns, Germs and Steel.
This has got to be the most dissatisfying book I've read in a while. It's an interesting idea, to be sure. But at the end of the book, that's really all it is. In simplified form, it should be banal: environment (and the resources it brings) cause cultural change, including an influence on the technology present in a society. This explains, for example, why air conditioners sell better in Tampa than in Juneau. The book expands this idea to try and make it more meaningful.
His claim is that the geography, flora, and fauna of the ancient world heavily influenced the rise of societies in different areas. For example, the fertile crescent is hypothesized to have the animals and plants that were most easily domesticated, leading to the earliest farmers there, and thus the earliest form of the modern powers that exist now. So they spread from there, into Europe and then across to the Americas. And when we landed in the Americas, we had the greater head-start and the greater technology, therefore could displace the natives and dominate the land. Thus, the great movements of history are explained.
While this is interesting to some extent, it lacks a lot of evidence, and it feels like a just-so story rather than a real scientific principle being discovered. Also, he repeats himself a lot, does a terrible job of citing sources, and fails to lay out solid arguments for examination. I think he's on to something, since I can't think of a bigger factor to explain what he seeks to explain, but there's a lot of research to be done before we can try and verify it.
Next I took on the second book in the Dune series, which I'm probably going to finish today:
It's a good story. There's no other point to it, except to tell a story, which is okay every once in a while.
So to make a point to this thread, I'm now looking for a new book to read next. Pretty much anything with a real point to it would be good. Novels and nonfiction are both welcome.