Scan barcode
beeeenerys's review against another edition
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
I was recommended this book via a tiktok video talking about how it benefitted the OP as an autistic person and I GET IT! There's so much i don't understand about neurotypical communication and this book has helped me get to the root of it using some very helpful diagrams and analogies. The analogies also discuss some serious social issues at times to understand where they come from and the different types of reactions that occur.
I had an understanding of grey areas in logic and social issues before but definitely not to the extent Cheng takes it to.
I had an understanding of grey areas in logic and social issues before but definitely not to the extent Cheng takes it to.
calyxconcision's review against another edition
5.0
This book intimidated me with its mathematical structures at first, but is actually easily followable. I love this book. It has helped me to make clearer, more concise arguments in life - and in my coursework, where argument is essential.
rory11's review
5.0
Once again, Eugenia Cheng manages to write a math book that is so much more than a math book. If we were able to share ideas like these in math classrooms, there would be far fewer students claiming that "they just aren't math people."
ranahabib's review
4.0
Rating: 7.5/10, maybe an 8 (might re-read it before giving a final rating)
Cheng approaches logic from a mathematical standpoint, showing readers that with a balance of logic and emotion, we can strengthen critical thinking, communication, and relationships.
The book is split into three parts:
P1: The foundations of logic
P2: The limits of logic
P3: Beyond logic
I agree with Cheng's notion that there should be a healthy balance between logic and emotion when dealing with situations in the real world; too much of either can only limit thinking.
I really liked the use of relevant examples and diagrams to help readers understand the material better.
I found part 3 the most interesting, which explores beyond logic by analyzing concepts like intuition, emotion, equivalence, axioms, and grey areas.
Although I found most chapters interesting, at times I found Cheng's writing to be a little difficult to follow and very me-centric.
Maybe this is the fault of my own comprehension but for some chapters in part 1, I was constantly searching on Google for easier ways to explain what was being taught. Although she was teaching very basic level concepts, her explanations were really longwinded. It was almost like she took really simple concepts and made them more difficult than they had to be (ex. negations, contrapositives, converses: all really simple ideas that were made complex)
I also wasn't a fan of how me-centric Cheng's writing is. The entire book was built on her politics, ideologies, and beliefs, which is fine to a certain extent. In this case, Cheng really overdid it, which took away from the book.
Cheng approaches logic from a mathematical standpoint, showing readers that with a balance of logic and emotion, we can strengthen critical thinking, communication, and relationships.
The book is split into three parts:
P1: The foundations of logic
P2: The limits of logic
P3: Beyond logic
I agree with Cheng's notion that there should be a healthy balance between logic and emotion when dealing with situations in the real world; too much of either can only limit thinking.
I really liked the use of relevant examples and diagrams to help readers understand the material better.
I found part 3 the most interesting, which explores beyond logic by analyzing concepts like intuition, emotion, equivalence, axioms, and grey areas.
Although I found most chapters interesting, at times I found Cheng's writing to be a little difficult to follow and very me-centric.
Maybe this is the fault of my own comprehension but for some chapters in part 1, I was constantly searching on Google for easier ways to explain what was being taught. Although she was teaching very basic level concepts, her explanations were really longwinded. It was almost like she took really simple concepts and made them more difficult than they had to be (ex. negations, contrapositives, converses: all really simple ideas that were made complex)
I also wasn't a fan of how me-centric Cheng's writing is. The entire book was built on her politics, ideologies, and beliefs, which is fine to a certain extent. In this case, Cheng really overdid it, which took away from the book.
rachelbret13's review
4.0
overall i really loved this book! i found it humorous, illuminating, and precise. not at all pedantic. which is not the same as precise. (the girls that get it, get it). it was a really fun read and got me thinking a little out of my comfort zone! it's always good to take inventory of the way you think, and this book really helped me get tools i think i'll be able to use in the future to investigate the logical flow of my own arguments and those of others.
i unfortunately had to knock it down a point bc i did not vibe with her seemingly endless commentary about how she didn't want to gain weight. it's like we get it. but it's still worth a read just kinda skim over those parts.
i unfortunately had to knock it down a point bc i did not vibe with her seemingly endless commentary about how she didn't want to gain weight. it's like we get it. but it's still worth a read just kinda skim over those parts.
mystifiedbulb22's review against another edition
2.0
Hm. When picking this book up from Oxfam, I was quite sceptical of the promise emblazoned on the back cover: "Politicians and companies master rhetoric to mislead us. What if one book could help us make sense of it all?" And unfortunately, this question still goes unanswered.
I did really want to like this book, especially as I resonate with the politics it espouses. However, the connections between abstract logical principles and their applications to socio-political issues felt flat and unnuanced. That lack of nuance combined with a slightly muddied collection of mathematical principles ultimately made this quite dissatisfying.
I think there is real potential in this kind of work. But, perhaps, trying to do it all within one book without allowing room for nuanced discussions about the various issues it tries to solve is a logical mis-step.
I did really want to like this book, especially as I resonate with the politics it espouses. However, the connections between abstract logical principles and their applications to socio-political issues felt flat and unnuanced. That lack of nuance combined with a slightly muddied collection of mathematical principles ultimately made this quite dissatisfying.
I think there is real potential in this kind of work. But, perhaps, trying to do it all within one book without allowing room for nuanced discussions about the various issues it tries to solve is a logical mis-step.