Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.18 AVERAGE
4.18 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Keep your politics out of my science!
I will not make a case for or against the author’s exposition - You don’t ask a chimp for feedback on your poetry. I am not an engineer, nor did I ever care to be. It would be dishonest of me to speak as if my opinions were worth considering without the practical and theoretical expertise to judge her claims. The scientific account made reasonable sense to me, and the book a decently entertaining read - that’s as much as your layman can claim.
What I will say however - I have nothing against an opinionated statement; I actually sympathize with people who can speak with the courage of their convictions, but that only goes when they’re stated as such - opinions.
But when you come to me with a sciency title, a few words of jargon, a bunch of flow charts, and a couple of formulas only to push for your unsupported and arbitrary political prescriptions - as if they were the result of an honest scientific inquiry - you’re not pursuing a scientific agenda, quite the opposite. You’re shoehorning facts to fit a set of a priori conclusions, and someone who does that does not get to call themselves a scientist.
I could mention a few specific examples to illustrate my point, but doing so would likely reveal my own political stance and have me fall into the same sort of hypocrisy that I’m critiquing. The argument I’m making for the integrity of scientific discourse should transcends such distinctions. Right or left, at least no one will accuse me of cherry-picking.
This is not to denigrate the value of a subjectivity as such, but there is a proper place for everything. If you want to spread your political views, sell your work as a manifesto, not as a primer; because whatever this book does, it serves as neither.
I will not make a case for or against the author’s exposition - You don’t ask a chimp for feedback on your poetry. I am not an engineer, nor did I ever care to be. It would be dishonest of me to speak as if my opinions were worth considering without the practical and theoretical expertise to judge her claims. The scientific account made reasonable sense to me, and the book a decently entertaining read - that’s as much as your layman can claim.
What I will say however - I have nothing against an opinionated statement; I actually sympathize with people who can speak with the courage of their convictions, but that only goes when they’re stated as such - opinions.
But when you come to me with a sciency title, a few words of jargon, a bunch of flow charts, and a couple of formulas only to push for your unsupported and arbitrary political prescriptions - as if they were the result of an honest scientific inquiry - you’re not pursuing a scientific agenda, quite the opposite. You’re shoehorning facts to fit a set of a priori conclusions, and someone who does that does not get to call themselves a scientist.
I could mention a few specific examples to illustrate my point, but doing so would likely reveal my own political stance and have me fall into the same sort of hypocrisy that I’m critiquing. The argument I’m making for the integrity of scientific discourse should transcends such distinctions. Right or left, at least no one will accuse me of cherry-picking.
This is not to denigrate the value of a subjectivity as such, but there is a proper place for everything. If you want to spread your political views, sell your work as a manifesto, not as a primer; because whatever this book does, it serves as neither.
informative
medium-paced
Awesome book. Explains systems thinking at a basic level in clear, concise language. This is a good introductory read to systems thinking and a useful, short reminder of the basic principles.
if social science majors discovered control theory (non derogatory)
informative
medium-paced
I actually spent a lot of time on this book, having to repeat chapters multiple times, and taking an extra step to watch an hour long breakdown of the book by an economist on Youtube.
I like the way the book is structured, from introducing system components and formation, to its trap, intervention, and ended up with daily tips (which is my least favorite part lol).
I also had some good discussion with my friend who recommended it to me. The book was mind-blowing to him, but just so-so for me since I am quite familiar with the concepts in the book (most of which are chemical engineering and economics related).
Hope to use the knowledge more in daily life.
I like the way the book is structured, from introducing system components and formation, to its trap, intervention, and ended up with daily tips (which is my least favorite part lol).
I also had some good discussion with my friend who recommended it to me. The book was mind-blowing to him, but just so-so for me since I am quite familiar with the concepts in the book (most of which are chemical engineering and economics related).
Hope to use the knowledge more in daily life.
Devoured the audiobook, which rarely happens to me. It was so intriguing to hear examples from articles and books that felt to current, and then notice "The Herald, 1972". The original manuscript and the complete book are more than 15 years old, but they are more relevant than ever, and I really feel changed in my way of thinking.
Thoroughly recommend it to everyone.
Thoroughly recommend it to everyone.
informative
medium-paced