A Great Source of "Gimmies," But Logic-Impaired
357757
Like so many White Wolf expansion books, this one pulls the rug out from under the Storyteller by reversing many of the earlier sourcebooks' assumptions and by loading down player-characters with previously  unavailable goodies.  Nothing new so far, but this time the changed  premises are really silly.  Rattus norvegicus, the Norway rat (which the  book keeps pointing out is THE rat we're talking about) is a parasite on  Homo sapiens.  It couldn't survive in anything like its present numbers  without man and his works, such as apartment buildings and grain silos.  So  the Norway rat would necessarily be a great friend of the Weaver, no?  NO!  Also, remember that Rat is the Totem Spirit of the Bone Gnawer tribe.  So  Rat must be pretty confused, or pretty disgusted, by the Ratkins'  determination to exterminate all Garou without regard to tribe.  And then  you have the ability of some Ratkin to enter a cartoon realm and/or use  cartoon abilities just because rats often feature in Saturday morning  cartoons (e.g. Pinky and the Brain).  In sum, the Ratkins presented in this  sourcebook are slavering cartoonified lunatics dedicated to bringing  civilization crashing down around their own ears for - no reason in  particular.  If that sounds like fun to you, hey, knock yourself out.
2751545
There are good things in this book, but my goodness, the author presents himself as an authority on other belief system and religions that he obviously knows very little about, and therefore should not state as fact that which is only an uneducated opinion.  This made me wonder if what he reported regarding religions or thought processes that I was not familiar with could be trusted at all. I heard that he said in an interview that if people got hung up on these inaccuracies that  they were "missing the point."  Woah!  Blame the reader, and carry on!  Really??  Seems cocky and like there is an agenda that I cannot be okay with here. At times I felt he tried to make things more complicated than they needed to be as to seem super intelligent or deep.  I found this somewhat comical.  He loves run-on sentences where simplicity could easily make the point.  So, in spite of some  good thoughts that I gleaned from this book, in my opinion, it was not worth the price.
1914196
Stanford mathematician D. E. Knuth, in his slim volume Surreal Numbers, attempts to impart to the reader the notion of surreal numbers by way of a very unusual tactic: the dialogue. The book has two characters-a man and a woman-that, as a couple, have left Western society to find peace and their inner selves on a beach in India. After several months of swimming and picking berries, their intellectual needs begin to weigh heavy on them. In other words, they become bored. As luck would have it, their boredom is halted by the discovery of a stone tablet on the beach near their camp. The tablet reads, in Hebrew, "In the beginning, everything was void, and J. H. W. H. Conway began to create numbers." The tablet continues, giving the basic axioms that serve as basis for the creation of surreal numbers. The rest of the dialogue consists of our lovely couple discovering theorems and properties of surreal numbers using the axioms from the stone tablet. We see them take many wrong paths in their journey, only to realize and correct their errors in moments of sudden and poorly explained revelation. ....
To the math buff, I recommend studying up on these magnificent numbers. However, I do not recommend you use the present text to do so. It does little justice to the beauty of surreal numbers, and does even less in its explanation of their properties. The intention of the author, as he states in the postscript, is to present a math text in such a way that the reader not only learns of the topic discussed, but participates in its development. He sees the common math text as a dry conveyer of theorems and proofs that hides the intriguing and moving path of discovery that resulted in these theorems and proofs. He seeks, in Surreal Numbers, to write a sort of antithesis to this type of book. A grand goal, and one he does not achieve. In order to allow, or force, discovery by the reader, he avoids giving the details of many of the proofs. Often, his two characters just intuit the proofs in some moment of great inspiration. By the end, the characters seem like math prot&eacute;g&eacute;s, whipping theorems out right and left without caution. True, the lack of proof does urge the reader to find the reasoning himself, but it is too tempting to just accept their theories in passing so you can get through that particular chapter. I really like math, but I was left utterly uninspired to fill in the gaps. In the author's defense, he does recommend this text be used as a supplement to another text or class. As such, you might find reason to attempt to complete the ideas, but most of the motivation would have to come from the instructor, as the book just does not make you care. Essentially, his goal would have been more easily reached-and probably bettered-if he forsake this confused dialogue for simply the following: "Here are the axioms for the surreal numbers:... Have fun!"
I do not wish to bash the use of dialogue to convey ideas. This form is not unprecedented in the world of mathematical literature ....  To those who don't love math, nothing is going to work. He fell into a hole that many others who analyze different pedagogies of math fall into; he believes that everyone can see the beauty of math. ....
The dialogue itself was contrived and boring, occasionally alluding to food and sex in the midst of their mathematical orgy. Why even bother? Without further exploration, these side comments are just annoying and obviously just tacked on. In his postscript, the author states that an interesting topic to consider would be the differences of the personalities of his two characters. I don't see much to discuss here. Certainly, you can vaguely make out different approaches to math problems between the man and the woman, but there is not enough development to have more than about a five-minute discussion. He could have asked me to describe the conflicting ambitions of a triangle and a square, and I would have had more to say.
Though I admire Dr. Knuth's efforts, I just cannot recommend the present text. ....
694846
Instead of writing an original review, I decided to quote excerpts from a review by Prof. James Van Evra, a noted authority on Boole and on the history of logic since 1800. The entire review can be found in the journal PHILOSOPHY IN REVIEW; Volume 24 (2004) pages 167-169. The words below are all by Prof. Van Evra.

The body of this book is a replica of the 1854 edition of George Boole's great work in logic. While it has been widely available in this form for over a century, what sets this edition apart is the inclusion of John Corcoran's extensive and penetrating introduction both to the text and to Boole's logical thought more generally. The result is a valuable addition to Boole scholarship conveniently bound with Boole's major work.

Corcoran's commentary is valuable to those already familiar with Boole's work, but is especially helpful to those approaching it for the first time. Many existing commentaries approach Boole from a present day perspective, i.e. as anticipating, however imperfectly, things to come (W. V. O. Quine's review of Desmond MacHale's biography of Boole ("In the Logical Vestibule") is an excellent example of this approach). There is some justification for doing this--Boole, after all, tended to be forward looking and had little positive to say about the tradition which preceded him. The effect of such an approach, however, is a tendency to stress what is lacking in Boole, rather than his positive contribution. Corcoran, by contrast, uses Aristotle's theory of logic as a baseline for his analysis. Starting with simple sentences and immediate inference, Corcoran clearly and accurately shows how Boole's logic covers the same ground. As he puts it, `Boole was one of the last logicians to take [the subject-connector-predicate view of simple propositions] seriously' (xiii). The result of Corcoran's approach is a view in which Boole's logic is seen to be simpler than Aristotle's in one respect (i.e. as a unified system), and more complicated in another (extending the range of propositions covered within it). By beginning with Aristotle, Corcoran's analysis provides an exceptionally clear account of Boole's positive contributions to logic.

At the same time, Corcoran also describes things that Boole's system lacks. Thus he points out that Boole never recognized indirect inference, and he notes problems that arise when Boole attempts to use algebraic devices (such as solving equations) as a warrant for logical inference (not all algebraic operations result in logically valid inferences). By detailing both the strengths and weaknesses in Boole's theory, Corcoran provides a balanced and accurate account Boole's proper place in the modern development of logic.

Another welcome feature of Corcoran's introduction is the inclusion of references, often to recent encyclopedia articles, at just those points at which readers with relatively little technical background encounter concepts that require some further explanation. Such an addition makes it easier for those with modest backgrounds in logic and algebra to work through Laws of Thought.

This year is the sesquicentennial anniversary of the publication of Laws of Thought. So much of what has happened in the meantime bears the mark of Boole's influence that it is appropriate to mark the occasion with a fresh look at the work. Corcoran's excellent introduction does this with clarity and rigor.
3366208
Bierce has composed a useful guide for writers, and it it remains a good resource.

However, you need to take a good deal of this with a grain of salt. Many of the decisions Bierce makes about certain words are rather questionable. The book is old, and Bierce was very much a traditionalist and a pedantic. He was resisting many trends in English that now have become defacto standards.  He makes a lot of good points, but sometimes we need to go with the flow, even if certain word choices, as Bierce points out, are quite silly.

This review itself is probably evidence that I haven't assimilated all of the lessons from Bierce, but I hope it causes me to think more about the words I use in the future and maybe integrate some of his advice.
3798730
There are many books available on the kinds, procedures, and formalism of logic. This book asks the questions 'What is logic?', 'What is logical truth?', 'How do we know the truth of logical truths?', and 'What is the relation of logic to logical truth--and knowledge to truth in general?'

Anyone who has thought on such questions must have wondered about the source of logical truth. It seems to not be empirical truth about the world in the way that science is empirically true. But the source of its truth is unclear. So we tend to think that the truth of logic is a priori to experience; or to think that logical truth is an artifact of language--particularly of grammar. These common responses still leave the origin of logic and the source of its truth a mystery.

The value of this book, in my opinion, is that it gives us answers to these questions and it does so precisely and concisely. It says, roughly, that grammar (including the lexicon) is what gives language the ability to refer to reality but that the actual and truthful reference to the real requires something more. In science such truth starts in experience but its conceptual systems must be confirmed by all relevant data. The Logical truths apply in all sciences--they must be true in all possible worlds. Therefore Logical truth can be invalidated and improved; in this sense logic is empirical. But where does logical truth come from? Practically, the logical truths are so general in application that they are given common assent as expressions in language of common behavioral experience. Therefore Logical truth is empirical; therefore it is revisable as is science; but therefore its revision will be (far) less frequent than revision in science.

The book is useful because while it gives a general background to grammar and language, it focuses on first order predicate logic which is sufficient to most of mathematics. To have focused on the propositional calculus would have robbed the development of its potency. To have considered higher order logics or to have focused on variant logics--which it does consider briefly--would likely have rendered the project impossible. Therefore the use of first order logic is wise. This takes the value of the book into the realm of the 'very significant' if not the 'great'.

By the way, the book contains an account of Quine's philosophies of meaning and of science. Given that he thinks of meaning as some kind of abstract object standing behind a sentence, his argument that there is no such thing makes sense but I don't find his arguments entirely convincing (this point does not adversely affect his philosophy of logic). His philosophy of science is roughly the farily standard view that science can be disconfirmed by disagreement with data but is never fully confirmed; and that scientific theories are underdetermined by the data; which is not so standard but Quine's argument is a good one. As explained above, Quine shows how science and logic mesh as a continuum and are not essentially distinct activities.

Quine's reasoning is sound: I mean that I did not find vitiating errors even though I had quibbles; and he has given answers to deep questions that are often considered un-answerable or that are given mystical answers (for example, 'logic is a priori to experience') or unclear ones (such as 'logic is built into language').
1418293
This book seems like a mixed bag of occasionally contradictory advice...

Some parts seem to espouse adopting a certain level of pretentiousness (always carry intellectual books with you; be able to spout Romantic era poetry on cue, tell jokes only 0.05% of the people will understand, learn and [occasionally] use truly enormous words) while other seem to decry pretentiousness (don't drop Latin into casual conversation, don't quote Shakespeare [or only quote him sparingly], don't use your brain as a club [hypocritical much?]). Other bits seem a bit contradictory: "enjoy popular culture" vs "hide your love of action movies" & "Don't quote from bestsellers." Which is it to be, my dear sir? Thou hast verily confused me!

It's not always clear why some pretentiousness is encouraged while other pretentiousness is discouraged... A lot of it seems to be the author's personal preference? Maybe I'm wrong.

And, to me at least, a number of the entries seem to be more "how to APPEAR to be an intellectual" rather than how to actually "BE an intellectual." "Arrange your desk area to SUGGEST pure brilliance?" What, even if you're NOT brilliant? Again, a bit of aesthetics over actual talent. God forbid that in your apparent "brilliant-looking" desk space, someone should ever see you playing Angry Birds. Suddenly, the illusion will be lost forever. Looks fade; stupid is forever. ;) (Mostly kidding.)

It just feels like in a few instances there is less emphasis on actually becoming the intellectual and more emphasis on just presenting yourself as one. And while "perception is everything" in some circumstances, if the intent of the book is the "BECOME an intellectual," mere window dressing is insufficient. "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," as they say.

Gripes aside, there is some mildly amusing content and there are some good suggestions for expanding one's mind into intellectual or pseudo-intellectual realms that may just help you grow as a person or become a more well-rounded individual. More of a coffee table book than a "guide to life," though. Albeit, that was probably its intended purpose. Another one of those window dressings, a little eye candy to toss out and appear intelligent. Anything with "Intellectual" on the cover, in big bold letters, sitting on your coffee table, must make you simply brilliant! (Else, why would you have a book about BECOMING intellectual on your; ohh wait, you mean you're not quite there yet?)

Not a necessity, but a reasonably fun read. I'll give it a 4 of five. Overall I 'liked' it, though I didn't 'love' it, but I also wasn't ambivalent about it either (does that count as an 'enormous' word? No, I suppose not...).

As an aside, if you need to enormous [and obscure] words (of the bombastic and high-flown variety), I highly recommend&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Weird-Words-A-Lovecraftian-Lexicon/dp/0982429649/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon</a>,<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Thinker-s-Thesaurus-Sophisticated-Alternatives-to-Common-Words/dp/0393337944/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Thinker's Thesaurus: Sophisticated Alternatives to Common Words</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Describer-s-Dictionary-A-Treasury-of-Terms-Literary-Quotations/dp/0393312658/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Describer's Dictionary: A Treasury of Terms & Literary Quotations</a>, several of my favorite big, obscure word resources! Let the intellectualism begin!
730512
This is an excellent popular summary of the research on cognitive biases that won Kahneman a well-deserved Nobel.  Yes, it rambles on a bit too long, but I suspect that if we compared notes, we'd find that different people skimmed different bits, so maybe it's better for us to do the skimming based on our own interests than to have the author or editor try to guess which bits to cut and which hypothetical people to please.

Kahneman does sometimes make it sound like everyone always makes the same mistakes.  Well, no.  For example, I took a college level probability course in my early teens, and my intuition on probability is usually pretty good, certainly much better than most.

And I was amused by one of his examples of when we have to slow down and solve problems the slow brain way.  He gives a multiplication problem that can be solved at two glances, if not one, and then in the next paragraph he says it can't be solved by inspection and has to be solved using the old, slow multiplication algorithm.  (24 x 17 = ?  Well, 23 x 17 is 400 - 9, by the difference of squares rule, so 24 x 17 = 400 - 9 + 17 = 408.)  Yes, it's two steps, but it's still very simple mental arithmetic and it took all of about three seconds.  In spite of that, it IS an example of trained, "slow brain" reasoning, but Kahneman would have made the point much better if he had picked an example that was actually hard to do in your head.

Even in the research results that he cites, there are always some people who don't make the typical error, and I would have liked more information about those people and how they differed from the rest.  It would be interesting to know, for example, if some formative experiences help make people better at resisting subtle influences and avoiding sloppy reasoning.  I mentioned one that happened to me, and I do think it would be worthwhile to see if a good intuitive introduction to probability early in life - say, 8th grade - would improve people's guesswork, or at least make them aware of how far wrong casual intuition can be.

Excellent book, highly recommended!
1996970
As clearly asserted by others, this text is full of errors including explanations that employ flawed reasoning which leads them to provide/justify incorrect answers. The most frequent errors of this kind were related to "could (not) be true"/conditional questions where the writer(s) confuses this condition. This is highly problematic if you rely solely on the book to determine whether you arrive at the correct answer. HOWEVER, if you have time, it is marvelous for refining your higher level logic game skills. When the book indicates that you have selected a wrong answer, the fun is only beginning. You can then work to determine who TRULY made the error... It's like a book full of trick questions!!! Enjoy!
3388200
This is a really excellent and detailed guide that drills down deeply into the nitty-gritty, and is loaded with dozens (maybe hundreds) of useful examples and critiques of web sites...but I have a few quibbles. First, although Redish pays obeisance to the need for copy editing, style guides and use of dictionaries and grammar references (which, by and large, the web tends to regard as non-existent; in the bold new world of the 21st century Intertubes, good grammar and punctuation are sooooooooooooo 19th century), the book is itself poorly copy edited. Redish strongly advocates lists and bullet lists (which is fine), but some of them are punctuated and some are not, and though she talks about consistency, there is no consistency to how they are punctuated. Yes, some are simple lists and are not written in sentence form; they don't require punctuation. But many other bulleted lists begin as proper sentences, and Redish has forgotten what every blessed one of us learned in first grade: A sentence must end in a piece of punctuation, which 99% of the time is a period. Redish doesn't like periods, and she has never heard of the semicolon, which ought to be used between sentence-structured bullet items. Yeah, yeah, so 19th century.

Second quibble: In the subtitle to the book, the word "That" needs to be capitalized. It isn't a "minor word" (article, conjunction or preposition; see also Garner, page 129, on always capitalizing "That" whether it is a pronoun or an adverb in up-style heads).

A third point, but not exactly a quibble. Redish makes many, many (dozens, even hundreds) of good points about writing, editing, displaying information, and would lead you to believe these ideas are somehow "new" or "web-related," or apply "only" to the web, or whatever. In fact, many of them predate the Internet, often by decades, and have sprung from the newspaper, advertising, and marketing (etc.) worlds, and even apply to things like PowerPoint presentations (pace, Edward Tufte). In the modern world, Millenials and Gen-X-ers, Y-ers and Z-ers, etc., hate to be reminded of things like this, so perhaps that's why Redish leaves it out. So if you need to believe a lot of this stuff is "new," go right ahead. Redish's great achievement is that she brings all this stuff together so well, and makes her points crisply and succinctly. She could easily "re-purpose" this book by making the subtitle, "Writing That Works" and leave out the web part.
4261330
I have mixed feelings about this book. It asks many of the right questions and suggests ways to think about the issues. Therein lies the most value in the book. Philosophically, the arguments presented feel strong, but there's a lack of real rigor to them: ill-defined terms and ambiguous graphs that look like quantified results but are actually just guesses at what shape the graph might have. A good example is the discussion of capability vs. risk on p. 247. The vertical axis is labeled AI Risk Level, but the value is actually interpreted as its inverse, "safety investment", and the numbers on both axes are arbitrary with no data to back them up. The book is full of this kind of "science-like" analysis that amounts to little more than, "here's what I think." Given the lack of supporting data, the book's overall pessimistic tone makes it seem manipulative in order to support an alarmist agenda.
3062397
William Bernstein is a very smart, knowledgeable and entertaining writer on individual investment topics.
His thesis is that one's goal should be to accumulate enough assets to purchase a liability-matching portfolio (LMP) consisting of risk free assets that match one's expected inflation-adjusted expenses during retirement.
This is a wonderful principle in theory, but Mr. Bernstein's attempts to turn this into real world examples or guidelines fall short and his reasoning is marred by careless assertions.
For example, Mr. Bernstein's support for the LMP relies on his assertion that it is too risky for a retiree to rely on a traditional stock/bond mix, offering as evidence the example of someone retiring in the 1960s who would experience the very bad next 10-20 years for stocks and bonds. He notes that withdrawing 5%/year or more would have led to ruin fairly quickly and that even a 4%/year withdrawal only leaves  the inflation-adjusted value of assets after 30 years.  However 4% is often cited as the model withdrawal rate and this is a decent end result for a supposedly very bad period. It certainly beats the result of investing solely in a 30-year LMP portfolio which by construction would leave a balance of $0 after 30 years.
Another weak point is Bernstein's sketchy discussion of implementing an LMP strategy. After (correctly) concluding that TIPs are the only perfect risk -free inflation proof asset, he also (correctly) observes that in today's negative yield environment TIPs are very expensive and probably one should wait before buying them. Since the only other assets Bernstein endorses for LMPs are safe assets like CDS, cash, short-term T-bonds etc., this means a retiree would essentially put the entire LMP investment into cash-like assets.  Time will tell whether this would be a wise thing to do as of October 2013, but I am willing to bet that very few would be willing to try it (except perhaps some wealthy individuals: see the next paragraph). In fairness to Mr. Bernstein he has been writing about something like the LMP idea for a long time and certainly immunizing with TIPs back when they yielded 2, 3 and even 4% plus inflation in the halcyon pre-financial repression days made a lot more sense.
My last objection has to do with practicality. The idea that one can predict one's retirement expenses with great precision is illusory. Any reasonable person will demand a margin of safety in their expense forecast as well as a fair amount of liquid assets to supplement their LMP. A 60-something retiree who has done all that would need something like 50 times her annual expense in assets, i.e., this is someone for whom any reasonable "adult" investment strategy will work anyway (someone who's "bulletproof" in Bernstein's words). To put it another way, the individual who is most likely to be able to implement an LMP strategy is the person who least needs it. Of course this melancholy truth applies to a lot of real world financial issues.
In summary, Mr. Bernstein offers some interesting theoretical food for thought without really providing practical ways to implement (other than working more in "retirement").
4424663
Scott Kelby is a prolific author, but his output is often little more than collections of recycled hints and tips. And all too often it is delivered in a style that Kelby obviously considers as humorous - and I find grating and annoying.

  In the 7-Point System, however, Kelby is a reformed man. (Reshaped as well, it seems, since he mentions that he lost 100 pounds in a year and trekked 3 miles in 112 degree heat to capture what becomes a spectacular photograph.)

  The 7-Points actually refers to seven very broad capabilities of Photoshop CS3 that permit an infinite range of adjustment, manipulation and alteration. In 21 lessons, using downloadable images, Kelby walks the user through many of the adjustments. Kelby provides only moderate explanation of the "why" of what reader is doing, but focuses on the "how" and "what". It is a quite acceptable approach: the reader gains insight and familiarity with the 7 broad capabilities.

  It is, in the final analysis, a "learn by doing" approach and a good one.

  All in all, this is an excellent book for the Photoshop beginning through mid-level user.

Jerry
1390026
Here is a book aimed squarely at the masses. Its target demographic appears to be the man (or woman) who watches too much TV, and occasionally feels bad about it, and then goes looking for something to read instead.

You can tell by parsing the title: As a lead-in, `Freakonomics' is needlessly over the top, like a vintage dot-com commercial. `Rogue' is similarly goofy, more professional wrestler than economist. `Hidden' promises arcane secrets, and `Everything' (As in, "Really? They explore EVERYthing?") is such a ridiculous exaggeration, it's as if the authors intentionally sought to razz their precision-minded colleagues.

For those expecting erudition, how did you miss the flashing neon sign?

Scholarship requirements aside, Freakonomics has some great moments. There are real insights here. Far and away the best chapter, in my opinion, is "Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms," explaining why the organizational chart of a crack syndicate bears striking resemblance to that of McDonald's Corporation. The book's discussion of `tournament structure'--an essential element in many competitive fields, if not life itself--is also brilliant.

Furthermore, in the book-as-phenomenon department, Freakonomics is more than just amusing. It is useful and potentially important to boot.

Between scary trade deficits, rampant globalization fears, $60 crude and $500 gold (at the time of this writing), we are living in shaky economic times. (You would have to be living under a rock to think otherwise.) It's times like these when dubious political rhetoric becomes the most dangerous. And demagogues depend on general economic illiteracy to get away with their buffoonery.

So what does this have to do with Freakonomics? Simple. Politicians make hay from arguments that appeal to emotion rather than logic. The Levitt treatment strips emotion from the equation--encouraging people to think logically, rather than emotionally, about economic problems. In helping folks see the nuts and bolts of economic issues more clearly, and getting them to realize there is more to the equation than pundits and politicians let on, Freakonomics does a public service.

I only wish Thomas Sowell's excellent work, Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy, could win half the attention this book has received. Perhaps Sowell should publish a new edition, spiffed up with a splashy graphic and zany title.
3751818
The book is...amusing, to say the least. I certainly don't have any faith, either that God exists or doesn't exist. I do, however, believe in clear, logical thinking--which this book is certainly not an example of. Scientific theories are oversimplified and twisted into "straw men"--a type of logical pitfall even high-school level english courses warn against! "I don't know"s are turned into "you must be wrong!"s. Moreover, the authors use pseudo-scientific techniques that result in hilarity for the undeceived--in particular, Giesler and Turek's understanding of mathematics and the concept of infinity is quite hilarious. I would quote, but that would probably violate some sort of copyright...just to point people in the right direction, it's the chapter entitled "In the Beginning there was a great SURGE", below a picture of a timeline. The tragedy is that the authors of the book may possibly sound convincing to the general public--people are warned against straw-men, not because they are ridiculous, but because they conceal hogwash under a convincing veil of "truth."
1974283
As a voyueristic peek into the minds and lives of the ethically challenged throughout history, the 48 Laws of Power is as entertaining as it gets. However, beyond that, it's only real value, is as a means of categorizing,  recognizing, and hopefully thwarting, the tactics of the sleazebags among  us. It seems to me that what the authors have given us is an updated and  expanded Baltasar Gracian (The Art of Worldly Wisdom), without the charm.  It's still a fun read, but one senses a certain shallowness that is not  entirely compensated for by the wealth of historical allusions. Enjoy it  for what it's worth, but certainly, take it with a (large) grain of salt!
255007
This is a treasure trove of tidbits about how the development of the laws of probabilities have, or should have, informed the way we lead our daily lives.

In the first part of the book, the author tackles such puzzlers of probability as the Monty Hall Dilemma and the chance of having at least one girl if you have two children. In some ways, the counter-intuitive answers to these questions have been better explained by any number of other authors such as Marilyn vos Savant in her collection of articles entitled The Power of Logical Thinking.

But theres still a great deal of new, arresting information here, including a lot of the history of mathematics. Its fascinating to be reminded how the ancient Greeks pursued truth without a consistent way of representing numbers  without a decimal system, without the concept of zero. Its also interesting to learn how the laws of chance were eventually developed, not as a purely scientific endeavor, but more often by gamblers interested in finding winning strategies.

You might encounter a few little stumbling blocks along the way. Theres a bit of sexism, as when the author uses Oprahs fluctuating weight to demonstrate the principle of sample space. Then, since the author is British, he might occasionally be using terms in somewhat different ways than youd find in a typical American classroom. For example, he doesnt make clear the same distinction between the average and the mean that I learned in school.

However, this book really swings into delivering useful information in its last third. It helps rationalize the seeming portents and patterns behind Ouija boards, sances, and a host of what many persist in interpreting as signs. Youll garner sound advice on topics such as the efficacy of hiring a financial manager with a winning track record. Youll learn whether or not you get your moneys worth by buying the most expensive vodka and wine  whether or not you need to be wary of moving into an area that has been labeled as having a cancer cluster  whether you should judge team coaches or corporate executives (or anyone) by the last four or five years of results that their institutions realized during their leadership.

All-in-all, this book is fun, informative, and provides valuable tips on how to rationally judge whether or not the odds are really in your favor.