You are here: Home > Recommended Reading

Tag Archives | Recommended Reading

The Most Important Books I Read Last Year in 2012 (MIBIRLY 2012)

By on January 8, 2013 in Recommended Reading, Ruminations

It’s that time of year again!  My 2nd Annual (hopefully) down and dirty reviews of the Most Important Books I Read Last Year in 2012. Like last year, I spent most of the summer biking to lovely places to sit and read, and yet again, I usually found myself reading non-fiction. Although I did manage to get in the first and second installments of Robert Kirkman’s The Walking Dead novels, [easyazon-link asin=”B004VMV49Y” locale=”us”]The Walking Dead: Rise of the Governor[/easyazon-link] and [easyazon-link asin=”B007RMYDMK” locale=”us”]The Walking Dead: The Road to Woodbury[/easyazon-link]. While I loved both of those (I’m a pretty big TWD fan), my annual review of the Most Important Books I Read has a different purpose (see the MIBIRLY 2011 for last year’s reviews). Best, favorite, most important… all very different meanings. I wouldn’t claim that novels about zombies are important (though there is much to be learned and discussed from a philosophical perspective about survival and the evolution and then breakdown of culture/society), but the books that made my list this year are books I think should be read by every student of the world. These books expanded my understanding of how the world and how humans work in some way. They dispel conventional wisdom, and use science as their foundations to build a more complete or changed view of human nature. My reviews won’t be lengthy because I’d rather you see this list and then go and read these fabulous books for yourself! I realize that most of these choices are not new releases. That they were not all published last year makes them no less important.  I hope you enjoy and more importantly, that you check one out!

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”0374275637″ locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41OYtkxKAoL._SL110_.jpg” width=”74″][easyazon-link asin=”B00555X8OA” locale=”us”]Thinking, Fast and Slow[/easyazon-link] by Daniel Kahneman

This book should be a standard among anyone in any analytical profession. Kahneman is a psychologist who earned the Nobel Prize in Economics. His brilliance shines through in the density of the book which illustrates the two basic ways that all human beings, regardless of intelligence level, think: Fast and Slow. Our “Fast” thinking can be best explained by thinking of our intuition, or muscle memory types of thinking. We make quick analytical judgments that take little effort. This type of thinking kept us alive while being chased by the myriad of predators on the African plains. In many ways this thinking is astonishing, but it fails us when we use it to make conclusions that require our Slow thinking drive. Slow thinking is the kind of thinking we use to solve complex mathematical equations. Its hard. It takes energy. We can only do it for short periods of time before it drains us. Kahneman illustrates the dangerous outcomes that can occur when we substitute our Fast Thinking for tasks that require Slow Thinking. And he highlights that we do this far more often than we should, even when (or especially when) we consider ourselves expert in an area. Making decisions based on intuition isn’t always bad. If you’re driving on the highway and a car swerves into your lane, it’s best if you allow your Fast Thinking brain to kick in and swerve out of the way. But if you’re drafting economic, scientific, military, intelligence, financial, etc etc etc… policies that have wide impacts, using your Fast Brain is about as useful as allowing a monkey to conduct analysis. As an analyst myself, I see lazy thinking all the time. Until we understand the strengths and weaknesses in how our brains work, we’ll continue making analytical errors that have grave impacts on how we live together in society.

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000QCTNIM” locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/416%2BaMQs3tL._SL110_.jpg” width=”71″][easyazon-link asin=”B000QCTNIM” locale=”us”]The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature[/easyazon-link] by Steven Pinker

One think I love about Steven Pinker… he is not afraid to stare conventional wisdom in the face and tell it to go away. And he has the evidence to prove it. The Blank Slate aims to shove aside decades, if not centuries, of conventional wisdom that has told us we all begin as a blank slate with no preconceived biases, ways of thinking and behaviors. Our environment alone shapes who we are. It is society that is the evil influence, and must be fixed. Through his understanding of psychology, linguistics, history, and other sciences, Pinker shows how simplistic that view is and how much it can harm progress in understanding human nature. He commonly cites twin studies to show how much evidence there is that genetics shapes us the most, then shared environment, then unique environment. If you want a more nuanced look at why we behave the way we behave, what the gaps in our understanding are, and why it matters to know the truth, this is a great read. If you want to continue to blame all our ills on the nebulous, evil “society” or “bad parenting” or even 100% on genetics, then don’t. You’ll be disappointed to learn the truth shaded in grays, that we have much more to learn, but that we know more than what we’ve been taught in anecdotal life lessons.

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516CtJiKwwL._SL110_.jpg” width=”82″][easyazon-link asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us”]Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies[/easyazon-link] by Jared Diamond

I don’t like to list any book on my list above the others. This is why I don’t put them into any particular order, however, if I had a gun to my head and were forced to choose one book to read the entire year, this would be it. It’s dense. Filled with details from just about every niche in science, all to prove (convincingly) how all humans from all societies are fundamentally able to achieve great things, but that the balance of power from the domestication of plants and animals to the present is shaped almost entirely by environment. Some cultures rolled the dice and ended up in the fertile crescent while others ended up in mostly infertile, barren Australia. His well told story amazingly and clearly proves that through science, the humanities can be better understood and tested. All humans have essentially the same genetic tools and capabilities (our differences are fewer than those of different breeds of dogs). Race is officially an antiquated concept that needs to stay forever on the bottom of the rubbish pile of ideas. That doesn’t mean some societies haven’t adapted better than others. Some have, but often those adaptions were shaped by environment rather than some inherent superiority of the people.

Other lessons I took away from this amazing book filled with too many lessons to list in a short review are that free markets and more bottom up (instead of strict top down) control and planning are the best way to improve the lives of large societies. It’s not necessity that is the mother of invention. It is sheer numbers allowing greater specialization and freedom for curious minds to wander and then share their ideas with the masses. Closed societies never learn as much as open ones. And the federal system is better than a one size fits all strong central government. It’s not in any way Diamond’s central theme, but through his ridiculous quantities of evidence and his amazing ability to synthesize disparate data, that conclusion rings loud and clear. Don’t believe me? Read this book!

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B006IDG2T6″ locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41mPcj7zKCL._SL110_.jpg” width=”78″][easyazon-link asin=”B006IDG2T6″ locale=”us”]Free Will[/easyazon-link] by Sam Harris

I wish I could write as clearly, eloquently, and intelligently as Sam Harris. Last year, his brilliant The Moral Landscape made my “Most Important” list. While Free Will doesn’t quite live up to that standard, it is an important compendium or follow-up to the ideas brought forth in it. Harris’ background as neuroscientist is on full display in Free Will. The question “Do humans have free will or are we shaped by destiny” is as old as philosophy itself. In America, a country dominated by Judeo-Christian/Western ideals, it is almost a foregone conclusion that humans have free will and the ability to 100% shape their own future. The influence is seen in our work ethic and in our judicial system. Should we always be held responsible for our actions? If we have free will, then the answer is a resounding yes. If we don’t, its more complicated. In a surprisingly short book, Harris is able to prove through recent breakthroughs in neuroscience how people will act before they consciously think about acting. He doesn’t go so far as to say that we are not responsible for our actions. His analysis and conclusions are far more nuanced than his critics will likely give him credit for being, but he does raise groundbreaking and serious questions about the way we view crime and punishment and whether or not people deserve second chances. Why do we choose to act the way we act? And can we do anything about it? Harris will make you re-think what you’ve always believed the answers to those questions are without claiming he has the answers himself.

 

Caveat:  I wrote some of these reviews many months after I read the book because I did not have my act together at the time I finished it. Apologies for any minor errors, but please let me know if you find any!

Comments { 0 }

Better Angels, Triumphant

By on December 17, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, Ruminations, US & International Affairs

What can anyone say after a tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that is remotely adequate?  For me, there was almost so much to say that I had nothing at all to say.  Simply no words were sufficient.  Horrific might be the single best word, but even that grossly pales.  Last Friday, the nation glimpsed the worst of humanity, and we wept.

Inevitably following such an event, social and mainstream media, and everyone around the water cooler has been a-buzz with discussions about gun control (for and against), mental illness, the degradation of society, the loss of god in our culture/schools, and countless other proposed reasons to what’s “wrong with our society” and how to fix it, how to prevent such a terrible act from ever happening again. 

Instead, I find myself thinking over and over again about something else entirely.  I keep thinking that I feel lucky to be alive, in this country, in this point in time of human existence.  I keep thinking about how good life actually is right now, right here.

Our justified condemnation and outrage over an atrocity like children and teachers being murdered in the classroom tells me how far we have come as a species, a culture, and as a nation.  Our reflexive response tells us how rare an event this truly is, and how much we value the lives of children and the adults who want to protect them.  I’m sure as a result of what happened, our political leaders will rush to create new laws and limits on our freedom, and generally the people will support that reaction.  How could we not?  It’s to protect children, right?  Anyone speaking out against it risks being labeled insensitive, or stupid.   I do not intend for this to be a political discussion.  I think there are plenty of valid points on all sides of many of these debates.  From my perspective, creating new laws – at least immediately – is completely unnecessary, and is another nail in the coffin of liberty, and the reason for America’s existence.  Each one risks pushing our society backwards towards eventual despotism.   Knee-jerk responses to create more laws are unnecessary because by any reasonable standard, the world is getting better, partly as a result of increased liberty.  Often our emotional rush to action creates many more unintended consequences that are problematic (Department of Homeland Security, anyone??).  What I wish is before any decision is made about what actions to take is for us to take a collective breath and reflect on how wonderful our lives and society actually are.  

Recently I started reading the brilliant Steven Pinker’s “[easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined[/easyazon-link]”  The title is a nod to Abraham Lincoln’s beautiful sentiments in his First Inaugural Address in 1861.  Pinker’s book is thus far so extraordinary, that I recommend you stop reading this blog right now, and go read his book for yourself.  Pinker more eloquently states, with gobs (that’s the scientific term) of data, what I (and countless others before Pinker) have observed and believed about humanity for years: 

By almost every measurable standard, life is better now than it was in our past (recent and distant) for almost every human society, even the poorest among us.  And violence is undoubtedly on the decline. 

It’s sometimes difficult to believe those truths.  Some people willfully deny them despite there being ample evidence to the contrary.  Human society is more peaceful than it has ever been.  

Compared to the age of the earth and even compared to the time modern humans have walked on earth, our life spans are short (though getting longer all the time).  A generous one hundred years next to 200,000 is miniscule.  The blink of an eye.  We have an extremely difficult time comprehending times longer than a few decades, much less those on the scales such as these.  So, we get wrapped up in the here and now and compare something like what happened in Connecticut on Friday against our typical daily existence (which is usually quite peaceful, and relatively easy, especially in the west).  We are barraged daily by the media about the threat of terrorism, America’s homicide rate, and this atrocity and that one.  The news is littered with stories about murders, rapes, kidnappings, wars, and we think, what have humans descended to?  When will the violence end?  Surely, it wasn’t like this in the good ole’ days!  The truth is that more than ever before, humans are showing an ascendance of virtue.  We just have a natural tendency to remember the irregularities over the far more prolific prosaic experiences.

And the good ole’ days weren’t really that good after all.

Humans most certainly have a dark side.  Violence has always been a part of our species’ existence.  The capacity to commit violence has been evolving in us for millions of years along with other traits like competitiveness, ambition, empathy, compassion, and love. But consider this:  Only 2000 years ago, the greatest civilization in the world – the Roman Empire – regularly entertained themselves in great arenas by watching animals and humans rip other animals and humans to shreds in regular bloodbaths. This was their sport of choice. Gladiators were the Champions and heroes, the rock stars of their day.  People would spend an entire day eating, laughing, drinking while unbelievable carnage happened in front of them.  Today, in America, our bloodlust is channeled into the “violence” of football on Sunday afternoons, and into violent, but fictional, video games and movies. 

The Romans would have thought we are a weak society with those notions of violence.  They are welcome to that opinion.  But it is notable to consider how far we’ve come.  The Romans – the epitome of advanced and civilized society for their day – would have thought nothing of a game of football that resulted in mass homicide for one or both sides.  Simply for entertainment.

We have progressed.  We continue to do so.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe violence will evolve out of us anytime soon, (millions of years from now, perhaps) if ever. I’m often frustrated when people talk about the decline of our “culture.”  What this usually means is the loss of morality defined by religion.  Or the loss of some sort of repressed “Leave it to Beaver” style existence of post World War II America.  The fact is the murder of children, adults, sacrificial animals, is repeated over and over again within the bible (particularly the old Testament), and other holy books.  Violence was a far more acceptable and expected in everyday life for our ancestors than it is for us today.  Thankfully, we are moral in spite of some of the lessons taken from our holy books.  We are able to rationalize away, modify, or outright ignore those terrible stories of our religions’ (while retaining our religious beliefs) because we know that human suffering – especially the suffering of children — is bad.  

Through our intellect, capacity for reason, and the power of civilization (which despite popular belief to the contrary is the driving force of our mundane, peaceful lives), most of us are able to suppress the violent tendencies of our nature, ignore the casual and prolific violence of most of our history and our myths, and even decry with outrage when those tendencies are expressed in a rare event like Sandy Hook.  The better angels of our nature are far more prevalent today than they ever have been in our history as a species.  The atrocity of Friday, December 14, 2012 should not propel us to take emotional, and unnecessary actions that could be a step backwards from the progress of freedom and liberty that have helped bring those angels out to play far more than ever before.  At least not right now.  Not in the immediate wake of destruction when emotions are running high, and our rational sides are suppressed.  

We should mourn the loss of life.  We should remember them and cry over the lives shortened by the unspeakable evil that struck down so many before their lives had even really begun.  We should honor the heroic efforts of the protectors who died trying to save them.  We should support the families and friends of those lost.  We should try to figure out if anything reasonable can prevent another terrible day like that one, and talk about it without demonizing each other.  We should continue to progress and strive to eradicate violence from our nature, despite it being a fool’s errand.

But most of all, we should remember that life is precious.  Life is short.  Life is beautiful.  And this kind of evil is not who most of us are.  Not anymore.

 

Peace,

PersephoneK

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51De3EFfS1L._SL160_.jpg” width=”105″]
Comments { 2 }

My Plea to Anyone Voting “Yes”: A Libertarian Marriage Amendment Perspective

By on October 9, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RZVN56TAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”100″]On Election Day this year, Minnesotans – like myself — will vote on whether or not to add a ban of gay marriage to the state’s constitution.  This is an open letter to anyone planning on, or considering, voting “Yes”, as in, planning on voting to add the amendment to the constitution and thus ban gay marriage by law.  Even if you’ve made up your mind, I implore you to let me bend your ear (or eyes), and I promise in return to respect your choice, whatever it may be.  It can never hurt to have another perspective.  

Let me say upfront, I understand where you’re coming from.  Fifteen years ago or so, I would have absolutely voted “yes.”  My position at that time was largely informed by my religious values.  I’m not here to argue those views (if you share them) because they are unarguable.  If you hold certain religious beliefs, you hold those beliefs.   Nothing I can say here would change that, nor do I wish to try.  The debate on the merits of religion is not relevant to this issue, despite it being entwined with the issue in the media.

What is relevant is how you regard freedom, and the covenant We the People have with our government as expressed in the US Constitution.

You may say this amendment merely impacts a state constitution, but all state constitutions must adhere to the US Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.  If you read the US Constitution, you’ll note that all of the Amendments, except for the 19th (Prohibition of Alcohol), preserve the rights of the people, not limit them.  That one amendment limiting freedoms was repealed soon after it was enacted.  It didn’t work.

This is a powerful concept:  Laws limit freedoms; Constitutions preserve them. 

The US Constitution was designed so that no law could be created that limits freedoms (of the majority and the minority alike) preserved within it.  I am not going to argue that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution.  It’s not.  Not directly.  But the Founders very carefully crafted the original Bill of Rights with the intent of enabling individuals to pursue their own individual happiness without stepping on the rights of others to do the same.  That is the primary purpose of the Constitution.  

I’ll say it again in another way.  The Constitution is there to ensure you can do anything you want – anything – so long as you do not infringe on another person’s right to do the same.  

This new amendment if enacted, clearly limits the rights of certain individuals to pursue their own happiness.  This amendment if not enacted, does no such thing to any individual.  I take it as a very serious matter any law that restricts freedom for any reason.  You can disagree with a behavior and not require that it be set into law.  The creation of any law – much less one set in a constitution – should be undertaken with extreme caution, and thoughtful reason, and not merely on the basis of trying to mold the world into a single group or individual’s ideal.  We are all doomed to having our freedoms limited if we misunderstand that truth.

True freedom is messy.  True freedom requires that we live among people who do not hold our values.  True freedom requires that we work together, if not to live in harmony, then to at least leave each other alone.  Each law we add to the books tears down the fabric of true, voluntary (free) society a little more.  Would you rather your neighbor adopted your beliefs because they are beliefs worth having or because they are required by law to do so?

Another argument for voting “no” is more esoteric.  The discussion always turns to the idea that those who are pro-gay marriage want to “redefine” marriage.  The problem is that marriage has had vastly different definitions during our relatively short time as a country, much less throughout all our existence as social creatures.  If you have the time, I’d encourage you to read a fascinating book called [easyazon-link asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us”]Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage[/easyazon-link] by Stephanie Coontz.  It is quite dense, but it is immensely thorough in its study of the history of marriage throughout human history, from ancient cultures, to our own.  One thing is certain: Marriage has never had a consistent definition.  

Marriage has been through many upheavals and re-definitions throughout its existence.  For example, marriage licenses required by states and other governments are a recent phenomenon.   Until very recently, the state had no business in “defining” marriage.  That was done by religious institutions and local custom.   In some cultures, a couple merely had to say “we’re married” for it to be binding.  Just as easily, they could say “I divorce you.”  The point being that marriage was a contract between individuals.  Some hold it as a religious sacrament, and that is fine.  Nothing prohibits you from getting married in a church, and having that recognized by God without getting a “legal” marriage certificate.  True, there are many “benefits” bestowed upon married couples in today’s law crazy world.  The stakes are high for deciding who is married.  I would solve that by saying the state should have nothing to do with deciding anything about marriage.  Leave that to We the People.  Leave that to your churches, mosques, and synagogues.  Leave that to you and your partner (gay or straight) to decide what commitment you want to have to each other and how you want that defined.   

Laws never succeed in changing behaviors as much as social pressure and good ideas do.  True democracy comes from the bottom up – from us – not from the top down via mandate.  Prohibiting alcohol did not eradicate its use, and alcohol abuse has arguably done much more to destroy the fabric of society and family than gay marriage could ever dream of doing.  I am not asking you to give up your beliefs about gay marriage.  As I said when I began this essay, I once believed as you do.  I understand why you hold those beliefs and do not wish to demonize them despite having significantly changed my own beliefs on the topic.  But I implore you to not be part of setting something in near stone because it does not conform to how you believe your life should be lived. 

The beautiful thing about this country and the ideals upon which it was founded is that people with vastly differing opinions and beliefs about how life should be rightly lived can literally live side by side in peace.  Thomas Jefferson was speaking of religious tolerance when he said the following, but I think it equally applies to the idea of marriage:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  

The only way to ensure that one day your own ideals won’t be made illegal is to preserve the rights of others to be different — even if you don’t agree with their lifestyle — as long as they do not hurt you, take your property, or infringe upon your own rights to purse Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Voting “Yes” on this Amendment is about far more than gay marriage or marriage in general.  Voting “yes” sets us down the path to giving up on this Great American Experiment and deeming it a failure.  

That is the ultimate tragedy. 

I doubt I have convinced you to change your vote, but I hope I have at least given you something to consider.  Thanks for reading.  Vote “No!”

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 4 }

The Five Most Important Books I Read in 2011

By on February 29, 2012 in Recommended Reading, Ruminations

Before getting too deep into 2012 (ok, we’re a little deep, but I started drafting this a month ago), I wanted to make sure I tell you about some of the most important books I read during 2011, the same year I got a Kindle!

I read many great books as a result of that simple piece of technology and a commitment I made to myself to devote time reading each week.  Reading became more of a therapeutic meditation time for me last year than ever before, especially on beautiful summer weekends where I would bike ride and read by the several small lakes near my house.   I hope to make book reviews a regular part of this blog, since they’re an important part of my path of life.

So, while many books I read last year were fantastic, there were a handful that stuck out as not only enjoyable, but important.  Important, as in, every human should read them, without exception.  Not all of them were written last year, but last year is when I got the chance to read them.  Here are the five books (not in order of importance, but more in order of suggested reading), and some of my brief thoughts about each one:

1)     [easyazon-link asin=”0805091254″ locale=”us”]The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer[/easyazon-link]

2)     [easyazon-link asin=”1846942721″ locale=”us”]The Religion Virus, by Craig A. James[/easyazon-link]

3)     [easyazon-link asin=”0060859512″ locale=”us”]Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman[/easyazon-link]

4)     [easyazon-link asin=”B006W3YQTK” locale=”us”]The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris[/easyazon-link]

5)     [easyazon-link asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us”]Lying, by Sam Harris[/easyazon-link]

 

The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer simply and clearly explains how humans’ propensity for believing in superstition is driven by an evolutionary need to make quick decisions or end up as food, and how not believing in superstition was probably weeded out of our ancestors.  His story of an early primate who hears a rustling in the high grass having to make a decision about whether he hears a predator or just the wind is a pure genius, yet its a simple way of explaining why we see shadow monsters in the night.  Understanding this evolutionary ingrained intuition is the first step for humanity in moving past basing our decisions and societal structures on that false “patternicty,” as Shermer defines it. People believe their own brains far more than they should, and that has gotten us into a lot of trouble over the millennia.  Shermer nicely sets the foundation to understanding how all man-made myth and superstitions came to be.

[easyazon-image align=”undefined” asin=”B004GHN26W” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FL9CmjpLL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]

 

The Religion Virus, by Craig A. James is the next step beyond The Believing Brain, taking why we’re prone to superstition into the reason why religion continues to this day, despite our development of the scientific method, and virtual disproof of most religions that exist today.  Beginning with the history of Yahweh, the God of the Israelites who would develop into the “all powerful” god Jews, Christians and Muslims know today, and then explaining how the meme’s — or stories — of religion stuck with each generation and evolved just as a virus, (or a good joke), does.  James also explains how animism turned into pantheism then to monotheism.  This book erased any doubt I may have had about the historical evolution of the idea of gods and god and did so with personal reflections, historical fact, wonderful metaphors, and brutal clarity.  With my own religious background being that of a Christian, now more than ever I am confounded by my former believing self for not seeing how the god of the old testament is clearly not the god of Christianity.  And if that is true, what among the Abrahamic religions is there to believe in?  Thank goodness, my answer is “nothing supernatural.”

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0046A9JMA” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dstvLqHAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”103″]

 

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman, dives into the specifics of one of those religious meme’s — the spread of Christianity, and specifically, how the books of the New Testament were written, and altered by regular humans, each with their very human agenda’s, biases, and flaws.  Ehrman explains that there are more mistakes — whether by intention or inattention — than there are words in the New Testament!  Most people know that the books of the new testament were written starting around 30 years after the death of Jesus Christ, and none of the books were written by people who ever had met Jesus, but what’s more astonishing is the idea that the earliest known texts contain more errors and discrepancies than the later versions, primarily because earlier scribes who would hand copy texts were untrained laymen, members of their congregations copying texts in their spare time, while later as Christianity spread, scribes were professional and devoted to accuracy.  Mis-quoting Jesus puts into plain words how the new testament contradicts itself in profound and important ways, and how biblical scholars, including clergy, have known this for at least a couple of centuries, but do not teach these well accepted understandings to the masses.  Beyond the errors, Ehrman outlines the different variations of early Christianity, and how each sect’s disputes with each other and their pursuit of converts impacted what eventually became the winning doctrine, and that the winner may not have been close to what Jesus’ mission actually was about. He proves that this is not some conspiracy theory from modern scientists, but historically supported concepts. The bible does contain significant flaws, and anyone believing current Christian doctrine does so while ignoring truths that in virtually every other area of human study would cause most people to dismiss their devotion to flawed thinking and ideas.

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512kDCXRwJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]

 

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is by far the most important book I’ve ever read in my life.  As a former Christian, one of the things that pained and concerned me as I gravitated towards atheism was how to justify morality without God. I knew there were right and wrong answers, and that misery should be avoided and happiness should be increased, but I couldn’t articulate for myself or my Christian friends how to convey that morality can exist without a higher power dictating what the rules are.  Enter Sam Harris and BAM!  Everything was clear.  Harris doesn’t spend time detailing what behaviors are good or bad, but his main thesis is that there are one or more right ways to live and one or more wrong ways to live.  The right ways are those that maximize human well-being, and the wrong ways are those leading to human misery.  He likens these ways to peaks and valleys on a landscape.  There could be multiple high peaks and multiple routes to take to get to them, just as there are for the valleys.  There doesn’t have to be one right way to live, but Harris takes it a step further to say that morality can be scientifically understood and studied, at least to a point.  Right and wrong can be objective, even if studied through subjective data gathering methods.  There are wrong and right answers to our questions of well-being, whether or not we can ever know them.  It is on this point that I believe he loses many people, but why that is is a mystery to me.  He likens the concept to birds in flight.  Right now, there are a specific, finite number of birds in flight on earth.  There is a right answer to that question.  Whether or not we can know the answer (we can’t), does not change the fact that a specific, correct answer exists.  So it goes with morality, maybe.  Whether we can definitively know the answer does not mean we cannot study the question scientifically.  Everyone knows there is human happiness and there is human suffering. Sometimes it’s difficult to maximize happiness, without causing some suffering.  That is the difficulty of these questions, but that doesn’t mean we should forfeit that responsibility to a deity that makes it his business to watch us suffer rather than clarify such important questions for us.  If Harris left me with one idea, it’s that the single most important goal of our species should be to maximize (all) human well-being and minimize (all) human suffering.  And that responsibility rests within each of us, not with “god.”

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″]

 

Lying, by Sam Harris and Anika Harris is a lovely conceptual footnote to The Moral Landscape, though not at all a sequel.  It is a short essay more than a book, so you have no excuse to not read it.  It will take you an hour max.  While I’m not sure I completely agree with the thesis, no book has stirred my thinking on a deeply personal level like this one did.  I previously believed that there are times when lying is ok (like not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings).  After reading “Lying” I’m not so sure anymore.  Harris makes a compelling argument for why lying is never good because every single lie erodes the fabric of trust between those involved. Eventually that trust leads to less deep relationships, and eventually all kinds of societal ills.  While not lying may be hard, and even uncomfortable (“no, I never wear that sweater you got me for Christmas, grandma, because its hiddeous.”), it is nonetheless pivotal to human growth and a better society, and better world to try.

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31BX0aEcV%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”130″]

 

So, there you have it… My list of the most important books I read during 2011.  They took me on a journey of human historical, psychological, and ethical understanding that I wanted to share with you in the hopes that you might have a similar experience and chance to grow as a result.  These authors and their ideas certainly helped me take a few steps closer to being the person I want to be, and part of a society I want to live in.  Since I cannot come close to doing their books justice, I suggest you let them tell you in their own words what they have to say.  Check them out!

[easyazon-image align=”undefined” asin=”B004GHN26W” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FL9CmjpLL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0046A9JMA” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dstvLqHAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”103″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512kDCXRwJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31BX0aEcV%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”130″]

 

Comments { 1 }

The Antisocial Myth

By on January 25, 2012 in Introvert vs Extrovert, Recommended Reading

[This post was originally published on my old blog site, underworldgoddess.com.  I hope you find it well here.  The published date here reflects the original publication date].

In an interesting article I read today at ScientificAmerican.com, Susan Cain, promoting her new book “The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brilliance”, responds to questions about introversion.  I’m looking forward to reading the book itself, since as in an introvert, I’ve always found the topic compelling, especially in the past couple of years.  I’ve read several books about the difference between introverts and extroverts, but it wasn’t until reading “Introvert Power” by Dr. Laurie Helgoe last year that I finally embraced introversion as a significant part of who I am, and even understood that it can actually be a strength.

As discussed in both the Q&A with Cain, and in Helgoe’s book, introversion is a personality trait, but it is not the same thing as shyness – a common misconception.  One can be both introverted and shy, or extroverted and shy, or introverted and not shy.  Cain touches on it in the article, but Helgoe goes into detail on how the brain chemistry is actually different in introverts and extroverts.  Introverts are naturally more stimulated and therefore tend to prefer solitude to recharge; whereas extroverts are naturally under stimulated and so to make up the difference, they tend to like lots of social interactions, busy settings.  Introverts think before they speak; extroverts think as they speak.

This was a Eureka! moment for me.  Learning that my brain chemistry is actually different than my hyper extroverted friend made so much sense.  I wasn’t defective.  I was exactly who I was supposed to be.

The misconception is that introverts are antisocial.  For years, I used this stereotype as a shield of self-deprecation.  I would openly say “I’m antisocial” to people when the last thing I wanted to do was go out for happy hour after work.  I started to buy into it myself. But it’s not true.  I love people.  One of my favorite things to do in the world is sit with a couple of close friends for hours and talk about life, debate religion or politics, dish about a favorite book or TV show – the good stuff.

I’ve always hated small talk at parties. I find it mind numbingly boring.  Who cares about the weather when you can talk about the things that actually enrich our lives?  It doesn’t always have to be serious subject matter.  I could have a pretty intense conversation about zombies or Smurfs, but that’s no chit chat.  Those conversations involve creativity and problem-solving.  Juicy “what-if” scenarios.  I love talking about that stuff with people I care about.  I just don’t like doing it 100% of the time.  I need time to think about what my friends tell me on my own.  I need a chance to ponder the meaning of life in peaceful bliss – at home, a cozy coffee shop, by the lake on a beautiful summer day.  I like to soak in my surroundings.  Absorb.  Regenerate my thoughts so I can devote attention to another friend on another day.

After reading Helgoe’s book, I realized calling myself anti-social was a disservice to myself.  I misled my extroverted friends, and made it harder for my introverted friends to be themselves.  After that revelation, I vowed to stop.  I began being more open about what I actually wanted to do, and why.

“Are you coming to happy hour tonight?”

“No thank you.  I feel like throwing on my jammies, opening the book I’m halfway through, and snuggling with my cat.”

Occasionally, this honesty causes a few off guard dazed blinks.  I just say “have fun” and be on my way.  It’s so much easier than making up some socially acceptable excuse.  People don’t believe them anyway, and I feel disgusting having used a line.

There are still times when I have to appear more extroverted than I would prefer too.  As Cain points out, we live in an extroverted culture (at least if you live in the US).  There are even times when I embrace a little extroversion and feel perfectly happy in doing so.  But more often than not, I’d rather stay home and get lost in a solitary endeavor, like writing, reading, playing guitar, video games, or taking a long walk in the park.  I refuse to let people make me feel guilty for wanting this time to myself.  If you’re one of the 50% of the total population that is introverted, I hope you’ll make an effort to do the same.  If you’re one of the other 50%, I promise to come to your parties as much as I can cope with it as long as you respect that I’m making the effort because I care about you.  And I expect a quiet cup of hot chocolate and a long conversation in return.

Deal?

-PersephoneK

 

 

Comments { 2 }