Review of 'Degrowth, Postwachstum zur Einführung' on 'Goodreads'
3 stars
Before all, I need to say that I did not read the book, but only went to a book presentation with the authors a few weeks ago and skimmed through some pages there.
The book is intented as an introduction. But I somehow lost interest when this reduces to definitions, common grounds of the definitions. I would rather want to read a book which poses (a lot more) questions: What do we not know yet, what do we need to know about degrowth?
I read the book because Robert Seethaler was recommended to me, and in the book store this book had the most appealing blurb. Wien, Freud, the time just before the Nazis came to power in Austria.
Sometimes I wonder what I would do if I would have lived in the pre-Nazi time. Would I be a conformist? Would I close my eyes? Would I stand up? It is really hard to say, and the book did not bring me on a mental journey to figure that out. Or did I simply not get the main character? Why does he lie to his mother about Trnskie? Why does Franz suddenly decide to place Trnskie's trousers on the flagpole in the center of the city? This comes completely out of the blue, I mean, he does exactly what his "friend" Freud says to do. There is no explanation, no inner dialog (about …
I read the book because Robert Seethaler was recommended to me, and in the book store this book had the most appealing blurb. Wien, Freud, the time just before the Nazis came to power in Austria.
Sometimes I wonder what I would do if I would have lived in the pre-Nazi time. Would I be a conformist? Would I close my eyes? Would I stand up? It is really hard to say, and the book did not bring me on a mental journey to figure that out. Or did I simply not get the main character? Why does he lie to his mother about Trnskie? Why does Franz suddenly decide to place Trnskie's trousers on the flagpole in the center of the city? This comes completely out of the blue, I mean, he does exactly what his "friend" Freud says to do. There is no explanation, no inner dialog (about this), nothing.
Also I was interested in learning something new about Sigmund Freud. Little of his work is well-received nowadays. But the book gives almost nothing on Freuds work, Seethaler uses him just as a prominent example. I think it is missleading to believe that Freud was in any way similar to the person Seethaler describes.
All in all, nothing new, nothing challenging, nothing out of the ordinary. It is well written though, has reoccurring elements like the doves or the associations with the rural life as a child. It has some wit. It is not monotone. But all that craft does not help since Seethaler has nothing to say.
To be frank, this book feels like a commissioned work: the Nazi theme, antisemitism, love, coming of age -- all nicely packaged and easy to read. An engineered smash hit.
The first few chapters were intriguing. I believe big ideas do not need to be complicated, so I read on. However, the later chapters were basically empty and not insightful for me. I do not recommend this book.
1) Childrens cooperate, even when they cra or when they are aggressive. 2) There is an inner quality "self-esteem", which is nutured by being seen and by being experienced/witnessed as precious the way we are, and there is an outer, acquired quality "self-confidence", which is nutured by praise and critique. The difference between both is the difference between existence and performance. 3) Successfully setting limits typically requires a passive part, where we describe the situation and our feelings, and an active part, where we take responsibility for us and our well-being. This active part can start with "I want that you..."
The are three ideas I took from the book. They help me rethink my interaction with my partner's kids. And I could not stop thinking what all this means when dealing with my inner child as well.
The detailled descriptions and interpretation of small moments in life show that …
1) Childrens cooperate, even when they cra or when they are aggressive. 2) There is an inner quality "self-esteem", which is nutured by being seen and by being experienced/witnessed as precious the way we are, and there is an outer, acquired quality "self-confidence", which is nutured by praise and critique. The difference between both is the difference between existence and performance. 3) Successfully setting limits typically requires a passive part, where we describe the situation and our feelings, and an active part, where we take responsibility for us and our well-being. This active part can start with "I want that you..."
The are three ideas I took from the book. They help me rethink my interaction with my partner's kids. And I could not stop thinking what all this means when dealing with my inner child as well.
The detailled descriptions and interpretation of small moments in life show that Juul is really an expert in his field.
Review of 'What kind of creatures are we?' on 'Goodreads'
5 stars
It was a long and challenging read, partly because I am new to most topics of the book (linguistics, mind-body-problem), partly because it is not self-contained. For me, it was a book to work with -- googling, reading the footnotes, googling again, making notes -- and so on.
Here are some highlights of what I learned. First, what is the difference between humans and (other) animals? Our language. It allows to generate "unbounded arrays of [...] expressions" of what happens in our head. Animals may have languages, too, but are limited in what they can express, mainly because the elements of their language have a direct link to what happens outside them. The "atomic concepts" of human language, on the other hand, can be seen as linked to mental activities, "though there are of course actions of refering and denoting." To me, this distinction is quite sophisticated and makes a …
It was a long and challenging read, partly because I am new to most topics of the book (linguistics, mind-body-problem), partly because it is not self-contained. For me, it was a book to work with -- googling, reading the footnotes, googling again, making notes -- and so on.
Here are some highlights of what I learned. First, what is the difference between humans and (other) animals? Our language. It allows to generate "unbounded arrays of [...] expressions" of what happens in our head. Animals may have languages, too, but are limited in what they can express, mainly because the elements of their language have a direct link to what happens outside them. The "atomic concepts" of human language, on the other hand, can be seen as linked to mental activities, "though there are of course actions of refering and denoting." To me, this distinction is quite sophisticated and makes a lot of sense to me.
Second, while equipped with an infinite variety of what we can express with our language, our "human mind is [still] a biological system with a limited array of admissible hypotheses." Noone would doubt that our gut brain has limited capacity to understand the world, everyone would agree that rats can never solve prime number mazes; as Donald Hoffman puts it in his TED talk, evolution seems to favour fitness, not understanding reality. So once we agree that our cognitive capacities are limited, it makes sense to separate between problems (that lie within our cognitive capacities) and mysteries (outside our understanding, including questions we can not ask, or topics we can not provide evidence for). It also means that if the reality outside our understanding/ experience is entangled with the world as we understand it, we do simply (cannot help but) ignore this.
Third, the anarchist Chomsky challenges the concept of "physical" or "material". This concept, he argues, steems from a mechanical philosophy view point of the 16th century, according to which physical objects are persistent in time and space and causality is explained through contact. This world view comes soon to its limits: Gallilei could not accept any theory that explains the tides, Decartes realized that the creativity of language can not explained in these terms and hence proclaimed a spiritual world apart from the physical, Newton discovered gravity as "action at a distance" -- without contact -- that finally proved the mechanical world view as wrong. Until today, so I understand Chomsky, noone brought new meaning to the concept of "physical" or "material". I think that is what the principle of complementarity is about, slowly moving away from the notion of a particle that acts through contact.
This great book has deserved a place in my bookshelve to be read again in a year or so when the first impressions have sunk in.
Review of 'Unconventional Success : A Fundamental Approach to Personal Investment' on 'Goodreads'
3 stars
Swensen argues that there are basically three sources of returns: asset allocation (which market(s) do you choose? Bonds, stocks, real estate?), market timing (when to sell and when to buy) and security selection (after you chose your market(s), which stocks, bonds, etc. do you pick?). The book is structured by this argument.
I skipped large portions of the book as I realized that I want to look at different markets as Swensen. I am more interested in the token economy than the "core asset classes" he suggests, also his critique on mutual funds was not interesting to me because I do not plan to invest there.
However, I liked the way Swensen substantiates his claims. His book has some careful selected and compiled tables that actually show that his points are not some sort of gut feeling. That is something I did not see that often in Personal Finance literature. …
Swensen argues that there are basically three sources of returns: asset allocation (which market(s) do you choose? Bonds, stocks, real estate?), market timing (when to sell and when to buy) and security selection (after you chose your market(s), which stocks, bonds, etc. do you pick?). The book is structured by this argument.
I skipped large portions of the book as I realized that I want to look at different markets as Swensen. I am more interested in the token economy than the "core asset classes" he suggests, also his critique on mutual funds was not interesting to me because I do not plan to invest there.
However, I liked the way Swensen substantiates his claims. His book has some careful selected and compiled tables that actually show that his points are not some sort of gut feeling. That is something I did not see that often in Personal Finance literature.
What I remember from this book is: Market Timing is hard. Portfolio Rebalancing (for example, pick ten stocks with the highest estimated Sharpe ratio on regular intervals) may work, performance chasing most likely not. At least my investment strategy should benchmark against a strategy that does very little market timing.
Gruen elaborates on the concept of blind obedience. He explains how we identify and sympathize with, and rationalize ourselves as loyal to, the persons who have power over us (or we think they have).
What I learned from the reading was that submission to an authority is often unconscious to us. The obedient tends to sympathize with the powerful instead of opposing him. Hence the structure is self-enforcing.
Many examples Gruen draws from are from the Third Reich. Current political events are only mentioned: Fukushima, refugee crisis, income inequality.
I seem to have a reluctance against psychoanalysis (I did not know Gruen's profession before reading), I currently prefer arguments from evolutionary psychology. That is why I believe that, while on one hand self-alienation might be an important factor and self-reflection might be a way to overcome blind obedience, on the other hand there might be other even more important factors …
Gruen elaborates on the concept of blind obedience. He explains how we identify and sympathize with, and rationalize ourselves as loyal to, the persons who have power over us (or we think they have).
What I learned from the reading was that submission to an authority is often unconscious to us. The obedient tends to sympathize with the powerful instead of opposing him. Hence the structure is self-enforcing.
Many examples Gruen draws from are from the Third Reich. Current political events are only mentioned: Fukushima, refugee crisis, income inequality.
I seem to have a reluctance against psychoanalysis (I did not know Gruen's profession before reading), I currently prefer arguments from evolutionary psychology. That is why I believe that, while on one hand self-alienation might be an important factor and self-reflection might be a way to overcome blind obedience, on the other hand there might be other even more important factors such as group conformity that this book fails to explore.
The concepts are presented in an informal, personal way almost without displaying any formula. At the same time, the author makes a point to find an exact number for his very own life. During his research, the authors identifies and explains ethical and methodological problems. For instance, some aspects of the human life such as its dignity can not be measured in money.
Personally, I liked most the approach of the priest in chapter 39, who says (my translation):
You discover your value when you enter into relationships with other people.
At the end of the book, the author averages the values determined by the different concepts. This is not the best estimate …
The concepts are presented in an informal, personal way almost without displaying any formula. At the same time, the author makes a point to find an exact number for his very own life. During his research, the authors identifies and explains ethical and methodological problems. For instance, some aspects of the human life such as its dignity can not be measured in money.
Personally, I liked most the approach of the priest in chapter 39, who says (my translation):
You discover your value when you enter into relationships with other people.
At the end of the book, the author averages the values determined by the different concepts. This is not the best estimate in my opinion. A better way would be to sum up the different values.
All in all, a thought-provoking, easy-to-read book which I really enjoyed.
