Marcus

I first read this waaaaay back in my first semester of college in English Lit 101. The theme of the class was “Apocalyptic Literature.” I think what I got from it at the time was something like “river...natives...crazy guy...movie made about book.” I probably wrote a five paragraph essay about it. I've been sort of curious about it since then and picked up again, it's a quick read.

It's hard not to wonder what you'd do if you were in Kurtz's situation. Up a river in the Congo, suddenly finding yourself free of any social mores and among a primitive people who alternate between worshiping you and wanting to kill you. The Thames couldn't feel further away and the allure of the jungle is strong. I don't know. I can see myself going native.

These are some of my favorite quotes:

Supernatural fear in the darkness of the Congo:

...then the usual sense of commonplace, deadly danger, the possibility of a sudden onslaught and massacre, or something of the kind, which I saw impending, was positively welcome and composing. It pacified me, in fact, so much that I did not raise an alarm.

But both the diabolic love and the unearthly hate of the mysteries it had penetrated fought for the possession of that soul satiated with primitive emotions, avid of lying fame, of sham distinction, of all the appearances of success and power.

I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable greyness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamour, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid scepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be.

Tim Cahill's writing and humor really make this tale of his trip from Ushuaia to Prudhoe Bay a great story. His sense of humor is great–I found myself laughing out loud over and over though the book. The writing is clever and insightful. In a book that is composed almost entirely of descriptions, it never feels forced or boring. Cahill masterfully weaves in insightful and compelling mini-tours through the socio-political situation in the various countries that really add to the story. They were some of my favorite parts of the book.

There were a few times where the collision of world events and their arrival on the scene seem to happen, very improbably, at just the right moment. They were probably exaggerated for the sake of the story, but it was fine. It worked. Their trip wasn't extremely eventful but it had enough excitement to be really enjoyable.

The only downer for me was that while there were a few very real human moments in the story, Tim and his professional driving companion Garry Sowerby seemed to be at odds with each other more than not. Garry is, or at least is portrayed as, a very good driver, but moody, stressed out and generally not someone that you'd want to spend every hour of 24 days with socially. They lacked ‘chemistry.' Even so, the story was wonderful and makes me want to hop in a new FJ Cruiser (not the GMC Sierra they drove) and give it a go myself.

—
Page 127 - The drive begins. The first 126 pages describe preparations for the trip.
Page 261 - They cross the Mexican border into the US.
Page 267 - They cross into Canada.
Page 277 - End of book.

Like everyone else in the known universe, I read this first in High School. At the time, my impression of it was that it was a bunch of fashionable, old, rich alcoholics leading completely incomprehensible lives. Reading it again 15 years later, now that I'm older than Nick (the narrator) and probably older than Gatsby himself, wasn't a lot different. The only change is that now the characters seem like a bunch of young rich superficial people living foreign and incomprehensible lives. I enjoyed the story but it's short and overrated and I can think of about 100 books that'd be better at getting high school kids interested in literature (how about the The Count of Montecristo for a mysterious rich guy?).

James Baldwin was one of those rare people that, upon finding himself in the middle of a storm, could see clearly through the darkness. He could understand the cause of the storm, the direction it was headed in, and what it would take to escape it. Fifty seven years ago Baldwin looked and saw that America was morally and spiritually sick.

His description of the inequality experienced by blacks in America and the culpability of whites in their suffering is sharp and lucid. He implicates both overt racists as well as the white liberals who called themselves allies of blacks but whose “profound desire [is] not to be judged by those who are not white.”

Today we are faced with a choice when we read Baldwin. The easy interpretation is to read The Fire Next Time, become even more angry at America and its institutions and conclude that since racism continues to exist today, that nothing has changed—the situation today is just as bad ever. On the other hand, the more difficult, but I believe necessary, way of reading Baldwin is use him as a reference of what America was 57 years ago, then to compare that to America now to determine the actual trajectory we are on.

Baldwin foresaw two possible futures, the first is the one that awaits us If we decide that nothing has changed in the last six decades. In that case his prophetic voice warned us that: “the intransigence and ignorance of the white world might make that vengeance [as described by Malcolm X] inevitable—a vengeance that does not really depend on, and cannot really be executed by, any person or organization, and that cannot be prevented by any police force or army: historical vengeance, a cosmic vengeance, based on the law that we recognize when we say, ‘Whatever goes up must come down.'”

This is not what Baldwin wanted for America. Instead, his vision was that:

“If we—and now I mean the relatively conscious whites and the relatively conscious blacks, who must, like lovers, insist on, or create, the consciousness of the others—do not falter in our duty now, we may be able, handful that we are, to end the racial nightmare, and achieve our country, and change the history of the world.”

Baldwin demanded that we “accept ourselves as we are, [so that] we might bring new life to the Western achievements, and transform them. The price of this transformation is the unconditional freedom of the Negro; it is not too much to say that he, who has been so long rejected, must now be embraced, and at no matter what psychic or social risk.” Baldwin accurately saw that “The price of the liberation of the white people is the liberation of the blacks—the total liberation, in the cities, in the towns, before the law, and in the mind.”

It is impossible to ignore that progress on the path to radical racial freedom over the last 57 years has been slow, and has not been without major setbacks. What we must ask ourselves now is, have we exhausted all options for moving forward? If all hope is not lost, it's our obligation to keep trying, to do better, to change and improve. The alternative is to abandon hope and leave our fate to the cosmic vengeance Baldwin warned of.

It's not like the Nabokov I know to write a Russian book, but despite its Berlin setting, this is a very Russian book. There's a Dostoyevsky-like dinner scene, mentions of revolutions and Cossacks, stealing money from drawers and of course plenty of drunkenness. It's strange to get so much of it from an author that despite his origins, feels so American. Still, amidst all the uncharacteristic Russianness, there is a definite hint of what was to come in later Nabokov novels.

There's some of the cynicism:

“Vulgar little man,” thought Ganin as he watched Alfyorov's twitching beard. “I bet his wife's frisky. It's a positive sin not to be unfaithful to a man like him.”

Back in his room he tried to read, but he found the contents of the book so alien and inappropriate that he abandoned it in the middle of a subordinate clause. He was in the kind of mood that he called ‘dispersion of the will.'

And in those streets, now as wide as shiny black seas, at that late hour when the last beer-hall has closed, and a native of Russia, abandoning sleep, hatless and coatless under an old mackintosh, walks in a clairvoyant trance; at that late hour down those wide streets passed worlds utterly alien to each other: no longer a reveler, a woman, or simply a passer-by, but each one a wholly isolated world, each a totality of marvels and evil.

Surprisingly readable given my previous perception of Snowden.

Robert Jordan, the protagonist of For Whom the Bell Tolls epitomizes manliness. His character is my favorite part of the book. Everything about him makes me just a little envious. For example, he is decisive but human. He doesn't always act on what he knows best but he quickly recognizes his mistakes and self-corrects, wasting little time on pity or punishment.

“I am going to keep away out of it, he thought. I made a fool of myself with him once tonight and I am perfectly willing to liquidate him. But I am not going to fool with him beforehand. And there are not going to be any shooting matches or monkey business in here with that dynamite around either. Pablo thought of that, of course. And did you think of it, he said to himself? No, you did not and neither did Agustín. You deserve whatever happens to you, he thought.”

He smelled the odor of the pine boughs under him, the piney smell of the crushed needles and the sharper odor of the resinous sap from the cut limbs... This is the smell I love. This and fresh-cut clover, the crushed sage as you ride after cattle, wood-smoke and the burning leaves of autumn. That must be the odor of nostalgia, the smell of the smoke from the piles of raked leaves burning in the streets in the fall in Missoula. Which would you rather smell? Sweet grass the Indians used in their baskets? Smoked leather? The odor of the ground in the spring after rain? The smell of the sea as you walk through the gorse on a headland in Galicia? Or the wind from the land as you come in toward Cuba in the dark? That was the odor of the cactus flowers, mimosa and the sea-grape shrubs. Or would you rather smell frying bacon in the morning when you are hungry? Or coffee in the morning? Or a Jonathan apple as you bit into it? Or a cider mill in the grinding, or bread fresh from the oven? You must be hungry, he thought, and he lay on his side and watched the entrance of the cave in the light that the stars reflected from the snow.

For him it was a dark passage which led to nowhere, then to nowhere, then again to nowhere, once again to nowhere, always and forever to nowhere, heavy on the elbows in the earth to nowhere, dark, never any end to nowhere, hung on all time always to unknowing nowhere, this time and again for always to nowhere, now not to be borne once again always and to nowhere, now beyond all bearing up, up, up and into nowhere, suddenly, scaldingly, holdingly all nowhere gone and time absolutely still and they were both there, time having stopped and he felt the earth move out and away from under them.

Well, I don't want to be a soldier, he thought. I know that. So that's out. I just want us to win this war. I guess really good soldiers are really good at very little else, he thought. That's obviously untrue. Look at Napoleon and Wellington. You're very stupid this evening, he thought.

Usually his mind was very good company and tonight it had been when he thought about his grandfather. Then thinking of his father had thrown him off. He understood his father and he forgave him everything and he pitied him but he was ashamed of him.

“You see,” Sordo said. “In that there is no problem. But to leave afterward and get out of this country in daylight presents a grave problem”
“Clearly,” said Robert Jordan. “I have thought of it. It is daylight for me also.”
“But you are one,” El Sordo said. “We are various.”

“My name is Roberto.”
“Nay. But I call thee Inglés as Pilar does.”
“Still it is Roberto.”
“No,” she told him. “Now for a whole day it is Inglés. And Inglés, can I help thee with thy work?”
“No. What I do now I do alone and very coldly in my head.” “Good,” she said. “And when will it be finished?” “Tonight, with luck.” “Good,” she said.

I listened to the audio version. It was interesting and definitely worth the read. I think at times that Ambrose could have done better making the exciting parts of the trip more exciting. Otherwise, a great introduction to Lewis and Clark's journey.

The Driver is political and free-market capitalism historical fiction book. Its explanation of the Panic of 1893 is fascinating. I also enjoyed the descriptions of Coxey's Army and the general business climate at the turn of the century. The rugged individualist main character, Harry Galt, is glorified but isn't without his faults. He's a stock market speculator who seems remarkably prescient but who has a history of market failures. The tone and writing style is direct and matter-of-fact, tell don't show. This works pretty well in matters of business, but in the occasional matters of the heart I found it pretty jarring.In a sense, it feels like an Ayn Rand book, but the focus is even more centered on the mechanics of creating wealth and running a business than any of Rand's novels. As to whether it “inspired” [b:Atlas Shrugged 662 Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1157143422s/662.jpg 817219] or not, I'd say it's pretty likely. It has in common:-The last name and to some degree, the personality of the main characters. Both are called Galt.-The railroad industry as the major theme.-The use of the novel as a medium for expressing a political philosophy. I'm not sure how common this was at the time. I know [a:William Godwin 113910 William Godwin http://www.goodreads.com/images/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg] was probably the first with [b:Caleb Williams 195548 Caleb Williams (Penguin Classics) William Godwin http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172594480s/195548.jpg 189118] and he came much before, but I'm not sure how prevalent it had become by Garrett's time.- The atypical romantic relationship in The Driver, between Galt/Lord Porteous and Vera in Atlas Shrugged between John Galt/Francisco d'Anconia/Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart. Atlas Shrugged was a little more complicated and weird, but in both the female has a very unorthodox view of romance.-The central line “Who is John Galt” in Atlas and “Who is Harry Galt” in The Driver.I'd say that's enough to at least indicate a very strong possibility that Rand had read and was influenced by Garrett. However I don't think the stories are close enough to merit any accusations of plagiarism on Rand's part.This probably isn't a book that will be on many “favorite books of all time” lists, but it's fast paced and interesting nonetheless.

This, along with Washington's Crossing, is one of my favorite war books. I found the politics of MacArthur and Almond fascinating, but that aside, I feel like this book gave me an incredible sense of what it might have been like to ‘be there'–or it at least came as close as possible for something as remote and foreign to me as war. It flowed extremely well, switching between historical context and explanations of what the soldiers may have been thinking almost imperceptibly.

As anyone who has had a conversation with me over the last week can attest to, I think this book, and especially the parts about the culture of the Piraha tribe in the Amazon rainforest is fascinating. The Piraha have frequent contact with neighboring tribes and Brazilians, traders, anthropologists, linguists on a regular basis, yet they are isolationists and somehow seem to avoid being contaminated by any hint of consumerism, ambition or outside culture in any sense. They are content with their way of life and actively resist any attempt to change it.

The defining value of their culture is that the Piraha rarely, if ever speak of, think about, or make plans beyond a couple days out, and they don't reference the past outside of the living memory of their tribe, usually preferring to speak of much more immediate events. They have embraced the idea of mindfulness and living in the moment without the need for gurus, meditation or any type of conscious effort, other than their active distaste for outside culture.

How's it working out for them? Well they're not exactly growing in size and they basically only survive because the Brazilian government protects their land, but apart from those minor concerns, they are quite happy. So much that, based on the frequency of smiling and laughter among the Piraha, some psychologists believe they are among the happiest people in the world.

The Piraha's focus on the present has other interesting effects on their culture and language. They don't have a counting system, they don't have creation myths since they aren't interested in stories of things that happened more than two eyewitnesses removed from themselves, they maintain only a bare minimum of physical possessions and they seem to eschew the idea of accumulating even items such as tools and food they'll inevitably need to use later.

Another of their unusual traits is that, because of their focus on immediacy, the Piraha do not use recursion in their sentences. To me this observation is compelling, but hardly the most gripping aspect of their culture. For linguists like Everett, this disputed fact could cause the next Kuhn-eque scientific revolution in the field of linguistics. Noam Chomsky and his adherents especially have a lot at stake since Chomsky's entire theory of human language rests on the idea of recursion.

I'm not going to comment on the linguistic debate other than to say that the more controversial and polemical it is, the more entertaining it is. At the time this book was written, it was at the conflict level of reality TV. Everett repeatedly takes stabs at Chomsky and Steven Pinker and their theories and calls them out on their attempts to rebuff him. Everett is calling for a full rewrite of the rules of linguistics and in doing so, threatening a lot of careers and legacies. At the center of this massive wrangle is a small group of people for whom the ‘crooked heads,' as they call foreigners, and their petty bickering are the furthest thing possible from their world of enjoying themselves and whatever they happen to be doing at any given time.

The writing is decent, but stylistically it sometimes feels too casual, and the organization could stand a bit of improvement (much like this review!) but Don't Sleep, There are Snakes sure is a fun and profound read.

Unlike other difficult conversations books that cover things like how to give bad news or ask for a promotion, this one is specifically about how to have political, moral, or religious conversations. Despite what some of other reviewers assert, and despite the author's opinions elsewhere, it does not take any specific viewpoint on what the outcomes of the conversations should be. It's a pragmatic, slightly repetitive, guide on how to talk to people that you don't agree with.

Here's a dump of my rather comprehensive notes. Unfortunately the indenting in the outline didn't translate when I pasted it in, maybe I'll work on that later or if you'd like a copy, I'm happy to email it:

Focus first on instilling doubt rather than changing beliefs
Basics
1. Goals - why are you having the conversation?
2. Partnerships - be a partner, not an adversary
3. Rapport - build the relationship
4. Listen - talk less, listen more.
5. Delivering messages does not work. Conversations are exchanges, not debates. Deliver a message only on explicit request.
6. Intentions - Socrates Meno dialog. People don't knowingly desire bad things.
7. Walk Away. If your primary emotion is frustration, it's time to quit. Breathe.

Beginner Level
1. Model the behavior you want to see in others
1. “Should women be stoned to death for adultery” - the person he was debating waffled on giving a direct answer. He then said “ask me that question.” The guy did, then the questioner gave a straight answer—“No, now do you believe women should be stoned?” “Yes.”
2. The unread library effect or “the illusion of explanatory depth”. Do you know how a toilet works? “Yes.” “Explain it.” Modeling ignorance-being willing to admit the limits of your own knowledge allows your conversation partner to lead themselves into doubt rather than feeling pressured. It also exposes the gaps in your own knowledge.
3. Model other traits—listening, honesty, admitting ignorance, sincerity, curiosity, openness, fairness, charity, humility, humor, willingness to change your mind.
2. Define terms up front. Go with their definitions. Does the word have moral implications?
3. Focus on a specific question. Ask open, authentic questions that invite long answers.
1. “Just so I'm clear, the question is...” “Let's get back to...”
2. Don't ask leading questions that carry agendas
4. Point out bad things extremists on your side do. Find areas of moral agreement by pointing out where people on your side go too far. Pointing out extremists can help this happen. Check yourself for extremist views.
5. Don't vent on social media
6. Shift from blame to contribution. “What factors contributed to.”
1. Avoid causal statements.
2. Don't say “both sides do it,” it's defensive.
3. If your side is accused acknowledge and don't deflect. “Yeah, it's true they (we) sometimes do that.”
4. If you can't avoid blame, say “I feel tempted to blame X for Y, can you explain the logic X uses to justify their actions?”
7. Focus on epistemology - figure out how people know what they claim to know. This avoids “talking points” and gets to how they know what they know.
1. Types of epistemologies
1. Personal experience and feelings
2. Culture (everyone believes it)
3. Definition (too much X is bad because too much anything is bad)
4. Religion (appeal to a holy book)
5. Reason
6. Evidence (sufficient evidence to warrant belief)
2. How to engage on an epistemological level
1. What leads you to conclude that?
2. Ask outsider questions. “Why are there so many divergent opinions?” “Would every reasonable person draw the same conclusion?”
3. Start your conversation with genuine wonder as to how your partner arrived at the conclusion they have.
4. “If someone's reasoning makes no sense, there's a good chance they reason that way to justify a (moral) belief that cannot otherwise be justified.” Find examples of using this type of reasoning in other situations and see if it applies. Or, try to derive other conclusions from their reasoning process. E.g. We shouldn't blow up anti-aircraft guns in a civilian area because of collateral damage. Wouldn't this lead to more civilian deaths because the enemy repeats the pattern?
8. Learn. Is it actually me who's the ideologue?
9. Things to avoid
1. Don't display anger
2. Don't punish people for asking help, information, or feedback
3. Don't focus on the belief, focus on how they know it. The epistemology.

Intermediate Level
1. Let friends be wrong. Offer a listening ear “I hear you.” If you don't understand, say it.
2. Build golden bridges. Be graceful when people change their minds. “All good.” “No worries.” “It's a complicated issue.”
1. Build a golden bridge when you feel attacked. “The way my position is stated might lead someone to believe I want X (bad thing) but I really want Y” (good thing).
2. Build a golden bridge to escape anger. “These issues are really frustrating. I know. They get to me too.”
3. Build Golden Bridges by explicitly agreeing.
4. To alleviate pressure to know/understand everything. “No one is expected to know everything, that's why there are experts.”
5. Reference your own ignorance and reasons for doubt. “I used to believe X, when I learned Y, I changed my mind.”
3. Avoid “you” use “we” and “us.”
1. Use the hostage negotiator tactic of “We're all in this together.”
2. Say “that belief” or “that statement” rather than “Your..”
3. Switch from “I disagree” to “I'm skeptical.”
4. Reframe the conversation to keep it going smoothly
1. Focus on commonalities - “ultimately we're both interested in...”
2. Reframe to be less contentious, especially if it becomes contentious. “Maybe we can look at it another way”
3. Figure out how to get someone to say “that's right.” (Not “you're right”)
5. Change your mind on the spot
6. Introduce scales - “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true”
1. Use this to introduce perspective. “If X is a 9 on a scale of 10 for ‘-ism', where is Y?”
2. “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true?” At the beginning & end.
3. “How does X compare to Y?” (Now/Then, Here/There, For Him/Her, etc.) E.g. racism today vs in the 1950's
4. How important is X compared to Y? E.g. racism vs. climate change
5. “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you” then “Why not 6?” “Why not 10?” “What would it take to get to 10?”
7. Turn to outside information to answer the question “how o you know that?”
1. “I'm not sure about that. If I could be shown reliable data, I'm open to changing my mind.”
2. Ask who the strongest experts on both sides of an opinion are.
3. Ask for specific evidence that could persuade “an independent observer” or “every reasonable person.”
4. If someone says no evidence could be provided, there's no point.
5. Don't attempt to use outsourcing on moral questions, it only works for empirical.

Advanced Skills
1. Keep Rapoport's rules. Re-express. List points of agreement. Mention what you learned, only then rebut.
1. Express their opinion so clearly & fairly that they say “thanks, wish I'd put it that way.”
2. Avoid facts
1. Instead ask questions that pose problems and contradictions
2. Focus on epistemology
3. Ask disconfirming questions: “If X couldn't be replicated, would Y be true?”
3. Seek disconfirmation. “How could that belief be incorrect?” This is the best way to instill doubt.
1. There are 3 categories of disconfirmable beliefs:
1. Not disconfirmable. Usually tied to what someone thinks it means to be “a good person.” “Belief in Belief” as Dennett says.
2. Disconfirmable, but only under wildly implausible conditions. (“Aliens” in the beer truck).
3. ‘Ask why those are the conditions and why not something simpler?
4. If that doesn't work, ask about morals, values, or identity concerns under the surface. The goal is to get the person to reflect more deeply on the conditions that anchor the beliefs.
5. Disconfirmable. Don't become the messenger, let the person reflect on their beliefs themselves.
2. Ask on a scale of 1-10 how confident they are.
1. 10-disconfirmable,
2. 9-ask “why didn't you say 10, what would make it 8?”.
3. Middle range-why isn't your confidence higher? Altercasting gets them to focus on their doubt rather than belief.
3. Ask questions:
1. Epistemological questions:
1. “The belief isn't held on the basis of evidence, right?”
2. “Are you as closed to revising other beliefs as this one? What makes this particular belief unique?”
3. “What are examples of beliefs you're not willing to change?”
2. Moral questions:
1. “How it it a virtue not to revise this belief?”
2. “Would you be a good person if you didn't hold this belief?”
3. “Who are examples of good people who don't hold this belief?”
3. Think back 10/20 years ago, have any of your beliefs changed?
1. Y? “How do you know this belief won't change too?”
2. N? Prob time to end the conversation.
4. Yes, and... (no “but”)
1. “Interesting, and what about...” or “ok, I hear you, and” if you'd don't agree.
2. “If you don't mind” rather than “however”
5. Anger.
1. Blinds and derails.
2. Seeks its own justification.
3. Carries a refractory period where information processing is slowed by the nervous system.
4. When you feel anger, pause, reframe, change the subject, listen, acknowledge and apologize.
5. Respect the refractory period
6. Identify your triggers like words that are likely to upset you.

Expert Skills
1. Synthesis—recruit your partner to help refine and synthesize your positions. The goal is to get closer to true beliefs, not produce agreement. It can be a form of collaborative steel-manning. Constructive, controlled disagreement.
1. Five steps
1. Present an idea. Moral beliefs are harder but can reveal epistemological blind spots.
2. Invite and listen to counterarguments. This is difficult because you might feel out matched or your identity may be challenged. The goal is to get your partner to expose at least one clear flaw in your thinking. Don't move on until she confirms your understanding of her criticisms.
3. Employ the counter-argments to generate ways to disconfirm your belief
4. Use these to refine your original position
5. Repeat-start with your refined position and do another round
2. Help vent steam—Talk through emotional roadblocks. Keep listening until they've stated everything. It's impossible to listen too much. Then use Rapoport's rules (re-express, listen, list agreement, but don't rebut). Don't force a conversation.
3. Altercasting-casting your partner in a role that helps her think and behave differently. Can be ethically ambiguous; manipulative. Introduced by Eugene Weinstein and Paul Deutschberger.
1. “You seem like a person that would X...”
2. To avoid ethical concerns, limit altercasting to:
1. taking their favorite solution off the table. E.g. present a hypothetical where their solution wouldn't be an option.
2. encouraging civility, fairness, open-mindedness. “You strike me as a person who is...”
4. Hostage negitations
1. Use “minimal encouragers.” “Yeah.” “I see.” “Okay.”
2. Mirroring - repeat their last few words, possibly as a question. “For their safety?” The goal is to keep them talking and providing info that may be useful in the conversation.
3. Emotional labeling - recognize feelings w/o judging them. Make sure you actually understand before you label.
4. Allow the person to save face. (Golden bridge).
5. Deal with small issues first to create a “climate of success.” Break down big problems to smaller ones.
6. Use specific cases rather than statistical information. It's more vivid and influential than facts.
5. Probe the limits.
1. Use the Unmasking Formula
1. Apply Rapopport's First rule (re-express)
2. Confirm you've understand their belief (giving them an opportunity to back down). “How long have you held this belief?”
3. Try to understand the limits of their belief in practice. “If your surgeon was a straight white male...” “If you were in a dark room and wanted to see would you ask about the race of the electrician..”
4. Ask “is there any circumstance that might lead you to act inconsistently with that belief?”
1. No? Continue with examples like in step 3
2. Yes? Ask for examples
5. At this point you know if the belief is possible to sincerely hold or not
1. No? Ask when to act on the belief and when to make an exception
2. Yes? Either they live in accordance w/ the belief or they're lying.
6. Counter-intervention strategies. (Someone using these techniques on you)
1. Go with it, you'll probably learn something.
2. Refuse to play. If you don't say anything or respond with closed-ended questions, nothing can happen.
3. Use counter-interventions
1. State your confidence level as lower than it is on the 1-10 scale
2. Offer the illusion of success
3. Doubt your doubts. Reverse altercast to get them to help you strengthen your position
4. State that you believe it strongly, but would rather not.
5. Respond to rapid fire questions slowly. “Uh (wait 5 seconds)”
6. Use questions to reverse the intervention. “Why are you asking?”

Master Level
1. How to converse with an ideologue: understand how their “sense of morality relates to their personal identity.” It's about being a good or bad person. It's about emotion. All disagreement will mean you misunderstand or you have a moral failure. Extreme patience is needed. Focus on how they know (epistemology) rather than what they know. Be self-aware enough to know if you're the ideologue.
1. Acknowledge their intention & identity as a good person
2. Change the subject to underlying values
1. “These beliefs seem important to you, how did you derive them?”
2. What values would have to change for your belief to no longer be true? This shifts the conversation away from rehearsed defenses.
3. Invite conversation about values
1. “What makes someone a good person?” “How does someone know that what they're doing is good?” “Do good people think about things in a certain way?” “How would you interpret an example of someone who doesn't believe that but who is good?”
4. Induce doubt about how they derived beliefs by asking sincere questions. Almost everyone has a brittle moral epistemology. This is the gateway to facilitating doubt and humility.
1. “Does a strong feeling that something is true make it more likely to be true?”
2. Potentially switch from to a superordinate identity if a conversation centers on divisive identity politics. “We're both Americans/humans”
5. Allow the tether between the belief and the moral epistemology to sever on its own, later. It's dangerous and difficult to do. It can cause “identity quakes” that can sever trust. It's a slow process. Build golden bridges. Use the five values above.
2. Moral reframing. Recast an idea in moral terms that re less likely to evoke defense and more likely to resonate.
1. Jonathan Haidt's six “moral foundations.” Conservatives respond to all 6, liberals to care, fairness, then liberty. Libertarians (Lt) focus on liberty. Conversations need to be recast to focus on your partner's moral terms.
1. Care vs. harm (C, L)
2. Fairness vs. cheating (C, L)
3. Loyalty vs. betrayal (C)
4. Authority vs. subversion (C)
5. Sanctity vs. degradation (C)
6. Liberty vs. oppression (C, L, Lt)
2. Reframing - learn to speak their language using their terms. Expose yourself to their ideas. Practice with friends.
1. Home in on certain words or terms (ie. equity, faith)
2. Identify your own moral dialect (ie. race, violence). Take opportunities to learn to speak different moral languages.

I think I've read enough now to realize that I prefer my books with the philosophy laid bare. I like the proverbs of Sancho Panza, the long speeches of Dmitri and Ivan in The Brothers Karamzov, the spectral prophecies of the Judge in Blood Meridian and even the blunt, thinly masked idealism of Ayn Rand.

East of Eden is perfect in that sense. Steinbeck makes no attempt to mask the things that are true and important to him through hidden symbolism or difficult characters. Sometimes that can make for a naive novel, but East of Eden is not that. It's not that there is no metaphor in the book. You could probably write dissertations on just that, and I'm sure people have, but if you were to ignore it all and decide to live the rest of your life relying solely on the wisdom found in Eden's earthy dialog, I imagine you'd do alright.

Even so, philosophy is just a fraction of what makes East of Eden great. Apart from that, it is a beautifully written book with enough depth that I'm already looking forward to reading again.

Masterful storytelling. The audiobook narration and production is excellent. The stories are pretty grizzly... lots of rape, pedophilia, crime, drugs, murder.

Fahrenheit 451 speaks for itself:

“The Book of Ecclesiastes would be fine. Where was it?”
“Here,” Montag touched his head.
“Ah,” Granger smiled and nodded.
“What's wrong? Isn't that all right?” said Montag.
“Better than all right; perfect!” Granger turned to the Reverend. “Do we have a Book of Ecclesiastes?”
“One. A man named Harris of Youngstown.”
“Montag.” Granger took Montag's shoulder firmly. “Walk carefully. Guard your health. If anything should happen to Harris, you are the Book of Ecclesiastes. See how important you've become in the last minute!”
“But I've forgotten!”
“No, nothing's ever lost. We have ways to shake down your clinkers for you.”
“But I've tried to remember!”
“Don't try. It'll come when we need it. All of us have photographic memories, but spend a lifetime learning how to block off the things that are really in there. Simmons here has worked on it for twenty years and now we've got the method down to where we can recall anything that's been read once. Would you like, some day, Montag, to read Plato's Republic?”
“Of course!”
“I am Plato's Republic. Like to read Marcus Aurelius? Mr. Simmons is Marcus.”
“How do you do?” said Mr. Simmons.
“Hello,” said Montag.
“I want you to meet Jonathan Swift, the author of that evil political book, Gulliver's Travels! And this other fellow is Charles Darwin, and this one is Schopenhauer, and this one is Einstein, and this one here at my elbow is Mr. Albert Schweitzer, a very kind philosopher indeed. Here we all are, Montag. Aristophanes and Mahatma Gandhi and Gautama Buddha and Confucius and Thomas Love Peacock and Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Lincoln, if you please. We are also Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”
Everyone laughed quietly.
“It can't be,” said Montag.,

I read about the first 100 pages. It rotates between boring, profane and vulgar. Bleh.

The fact that I'm starting this review after having only read 55 pages of the book. The fact that most people who started reading this review stopped before reaching the second sentence. The fact that I don't blame them. The fact that this book has been compared to Ulysses and Moby Dick. Molly Bloom. Starbuck. Starbucks. The fact that I can't help but want to write like this after reading like this. The fact that I started the book not knowing anything about it but that it was thick, and long, and that it had a good title and catchy cover. The fact that I have probably missed thousands of good books because they did not have good covers. Cover me. This whole world. The fact that it's raining outside and sitting alone reading is what I wish I was doing but instead I'm working and halfheartedly attempting to look like I'm working while actually reviewing, prematurely. Premie. Premise. Perimeter. The fact that millions of other people are doing the same thing. The fact that I don't know if this book is as good as Joyce or Melville but I know it's good. The fact that everyone expects you to have an opinion about everything but sometimes it's nice to not have an opinion. The fact that five stars are both not enough and too many. Constellations. Free consultations. Console. Consider.

I saw Neal Stephenson when he came to Seattle to do a reading for Fall and, based on his Q&A session, was pretty excited for it. Turns out, it's is just not for me. Much of the book takes place in a virtual realm that comes complete with an extended pseudo-biblical creation story.

Personally, I was unable to get the point of caring about the virtual world or its inhabitants. The story of how that world was built was unconvincing and the restraining parameters seemed arbitrary and inconsistent.

As other reviews have mentioned, the “meatspace” characters are great. Had the ratio of the book been something like 80% real world, 20% virtual world, I would have loved it. As it is... I bailed about 700 pages in.

Just over 800 pages in and I'm calling it read. I am done with Against the Day, done with Pynchon.

I really enjoyed the first two thirds of the book, there is never a dull moment, if it's not the plot (yes, there is plenty of plot) it's the characters and references to hundreds of historical and literary events that keep the pages turning.

My problem with it came towards the end. Apparently Pynchon got hornier and kinkier as he wrote the book because after 500 or 600 pages every other chapter is peppered with sexual encounters. That, in and of itself, isn't enough to turn me away, I've got nothing against sex, quite the contrary, but the way Pynchon writes about it I found to be repulsive. There is no love, no romance, it's porn. Not my thing.

So, I'm done with Pynchon, The Crying Lot of 49 notwithstanding. The man is brilliant, the writing is fascinating but there are only so many hours in the day and so many days in a life and my “to read” list is long enough for me to forget about him and this book forever.

The real title is “Everything Wrong With Coders.”

A pragmatic and engaging look at the causes, effects, state of scientific research, and potential solutions to drug addition.

Max and I read this one. He was a little spooked by the kid-hurling teacher and I was a little spooked by the imagination that thought of it. We both thought it was funny and we loved the Quentin Blake illustrations that are peppered throughout.

Not nearly as good as The Fabric of the Cosmos, but still a good overview of time, space and the thinkers who've begun to untangled them.

Near the beginning of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill states the over-arching idea of the book:

...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. [...:] The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Republic

Seth Godin is the man. How one guy comes up with so many inspirational and absolutely practical ideas is a mystery to me, but I'm glad he does.

This book is a book on leadership. It's not a book on management or team-building or anything related, it's a book on leadership–bringing people together for a cause that they feel passionate about. If that's not the real stuff of life, what is?