Scan barcode
suzukabunny's review against another edition
4.0
This is more a book about measuring Dunning-Kruger effect via statistics, and what attitude/knowledge should we develop in an internet era
eelsmac's review against another edition
1.0
One star because I was really hyped up for this book (I thought the premise was interesting) and I'm angry that it fell far short of my expectations. If I wasn't coming from a place of anger and underwhelm, I'd probably give this 2 or 3 stars. That would be generous, and this is proof positive that you can have an interesting concept and totally f*** the execution with insufferable, and quite frankly undeserved, superiority.
Let me summarize the book in one sentance: Poundstone is up in his feelings that the educational system and national culture no long only serves to replicate white, male, upper class culture.
In showing that physicists have no business moonlighting in statistics, Poundstone spends roughly 1/4 of the book speaking about correlations as if they are causations. Additionally, I'd like to see the data set, surveys, and some tests of significance on some of the correlations that he throws out there because quite frankly I'm skeptical of his findings and the representedness of his sample.
Another 1/4 of the content is complaining about the shift in emphasis from knowledge (factoid memorization) to skill in the US educational system. Here Poundstone's utter lack of understanding concerning education becomes painful. Rote memorization is considered the lowest level of understanding/engagement throught the discipline of education. Despite the fact that every contemporary theory regarding educational psychology places memorization as the lowest common denominator for depth of knowledge, Poundstone argues that we need to revert to memorization in education because it hurts his sensibilities that the younger generation is less likely to identify the authors of "good" literature. Heaven forbid anyone engage with popular literature, yet another 1/4 argues for the supremacy of high brow culture.
The final 1/4 of the book is an utter tone deaf lack of understanding as to the role of socioeconomic class with correlations between familiarity with white, high class culture signifiers (such as knowing that Piacsso painted Guernica, or that Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice) and income. A lack of appreciation for art (read: inability to do slide ID's ad nauseam) is correlated with lower income? No s*** Sherlock, poor people usually can't afford to go to the art museum, opera, or symphony with any degree of frequency if at all. They also don't have extra money to piss away on an education in art history (I write this as someone who minored in art history, which I totally loved, but the only reason I was able to have such a fluffy minor that wasn't terribly practical was my middle class status and the fact that I had a parent helping me with tuition).
Let me summarize the book in one sentance: Poundstone is up in his feelings that the educational system and national culture no long only serves to replicate white, male, upper class culture.
In showing that physicists have no business moonlighting in statistics, Poundstone spends roughly 1/4 of the book speaking about correlations as if they are causations. Additionally, I'd like to see the data set, surveys, and some tests of significance on some of the correlations that he throws out there because quite frankly I'm skeptical of his findings and the representedness of his sample.
Another 1/4 of the content is complaining about the shift in emphasis from knowledge (factoid memorization) to skill in the US educational system. Here Poundstone's utter lack of understanding concerning education becomes painful. Rote memorization is considered the lowest level of understanding/engagement throught the discipline of education. Despite the fact that every contemporary theory regarding educational psychology places memorization as the lowest common denominator for depth of knowledge, Poundstone argues that we need to revert to memorization in education because it hurts his sensibilities that the younger generation is less likely to identify the authors of "good" literature. Heaven forbid anyone engage with popular literature, yet another 1/4 argues for the supremacy of high brow culture.
The final 1/4 of the book is an utter tone deaf lack of understanding as to the role of socioeconomic class with correlations between familiarity with white, high class culture signifiers (such as knowing that Piacsso painted Guernica, or that Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice) and income. A lack of appreciation for art (read: inability to do slide ID's ad nauseam) is correlated with lower income? No s*** Sherlock, poor people usually can't afford to go to the art museum, opera, or symphony with any degree of frequency if at all. They also don't have extra money to piss away on an education in art history (I write this as someone who minored in art history, which I totally loved, but the only reason I was able to have such a fluffy minor that wasn't terribly practical was my middle class status and the fact that I had a parent helping me with tuition).
shayneh's review against another edition
medium-paced
1.0
Full of studies showing that many people are ignorant of basic facts, but no care taken to document that this state is caused by the Internet (or that it is even of recent origin). There is also next to no discussion of the mechanisms that drive it. Disappointed.
juliepjones's review against another edition
4.0
Many many facts and survey results.
Many many correlations with discussion of related factors.
Some good takeaways, but my favorite is “When the public doesn’t have enough facts to think about something, the public is less wise.”
In the end, we need both facts and skills regardless of how easy it is to look up the facts. You can’t Google what it is you ought to be looking up.
Many many correlations with discussion of related factors.
Some good takeaways, but my favorite is “When the public doesn’t have enough facts to think about something, the public is less wise.”
In the end, we need both facts and skills regardless of how easy it is to look up the facts. You can’t Google what it is you ought to be looking up.
junethebookworm's review against another edition
2.0
If you're smart enough to be reading this book, then it's almost certainly not a surprise to you that "general knowledge" might not be as "general" as the name implies. You can feel smug when you know the answers to the "general knowledge" questions the author poses -- "Haha, what kind of dumb-dumb can't locate Nebraska on a map?" -- and then feel humbled again when you don't know one ("Wait, who did invent the phonograph?") and immediately look up the answer on your phone ("Oh damn, it was Edison? I mean, that makes sense, but mostly I associate him with light bulbs"). In this manner, I picked up a few factoids along the way, which made the read more interesting.
As a librarian, I'm totally on board with Poundstone's main idea: that is, "Known facts are the shared points of reference that connect individuals, cultures, and ideologies. They are the basis of small talk, opinions, and dreams; they make us wiser as citizens and supply the underrated gift of humility -- for only the knowledgeable can appreciate how much they don't know." This idea is at the very heart of why libraries exist, and I enjoyed the book for attempting to make the case for that. I'm only giving it two stars because I think it would've worked better as perhaps a long article, and it does come off a little preachy and/or self-satisfied at times. Nonetheless, an interesting little book on a topic well worth considering.
As a librarian, I'm totally on board with Poundstone's main idea: that is, "Known facts are the shared points of reference that connect individuals, cultures, and ideologies. They are the basis of small talk, opinions, and dreams; they make us wiser as citizens and supply the underrated gift of humility -- for only the knowledgeable can appreciate how much they don't know." This idea is at the very heart of why libraries exist, and I enjoyed the book for attempting to make the case for that. I'm only giving it two stars because I think it would've worked better as perhaps a long article, and it does come off a little preachy and/or self-satisfied at times. Nonetheless, an interesting little book on a topic well worth considering.
henryhaney's review against another edition
3.0
This is an interesting and eye-opening read. Many of the shared statistics are quite alarming. Overall I found the book effective in challenging me to learn beyond superficial knowledge and grow past reliance on Google for information. However, I believe it could have been done in a much less condensing way.
cashmama1's review against another edition
3.0
I really liked this book, but, man, it revealed to me how little I know! Can you name 6 of your elected state representatives? Can you identify Turkey on a map? Do you know who Ted Williams was? It talks about how general knowledge has little to do with what you learned in schools, something to do with your curiosity about life, and lots to do with average income correlating to that knowledge. The bulk of the book is about the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is basically that the people who have the least knowledge think they have the most. The most interesting statistic I read, though, was that happiness maxes out around the $75000 salary--people who made more were not more happy than those who made that much. It also reveals that grammar and spelling aren't too important a determining factor in income levels, but pronunciation is. Also, the more sports trivia you know, the wealthier you tend to be. Lots of interesting little tidbits. I wish it had a larger section devoted to how to become more culturally literate (the main advice was to stop using Facebook as your main news source and stop wasting time on the internet), but it was still a good read.
bill1955's review against another edition
3.0
Just noticed that I've read 7 books in a row with a colon in the title. Hmmm. I guess it's time for some fiction.
nickertz's review
3.0
Lots and lots of facts. Did you know...? Poundstone is making an argument for knowing things even though you can look them up. He takes a long time to do it with lots of interesting anecdotes along the way. The point is still the same - Hurray for a classical education. The benefits are several among them are the facts we know provide the cultural linkage that enable conversation. E.g., if I say he's "tilting at windmills" who will understand me? Of course, there is another side to this - I can't talk with anyone who watches "reality" TV as I don't and therefore won't get the reference. Somehow I don't feel deprived.
ederwin's review
3.0
Fun to read, but short and a little repetitive.
Divided into three sections: (1) The Dunning-Kruger Effect: people who are the least informed are often the most confident in their wrong ideas; (2) The knowledge premium: knowing things, even apparently trivial things, correlates with success (measured mostly by income); (3) Strategies for a Culturally Illiterate World: the authors advice.
The three sections are all based on surveys of general knowledge and trivia, most conducted on behalf of the author himself. It is interesting, but sadly not surprising, to see how much ordinary people do not know. It is frightening, but sadly not surprising, to see how people who know the least are often very confident in their beliefs.
Even though we can look-up anything online, having a well-stocked storehouse of facts helps you know what you don't know, so that you know when you do need to look something up. And helps you critically evaluate the information you have looked up.
Knowing random facts correlates with success. It isn't clear what to do with that fact, because it isn't clear what the order of causation is. A pessimistic possibility is that if you are born with the right abilities you will easily learn lots of facts and also achieve success. A more optimistic possibility is that having an attitude of wanting to learn can lead to success.
Luckily for me, the big exception is that knowing random facts about sports does not correlate with success. So I don't need to worry about that!
The last section, with the authors advice, is the least interesting. The most useful bit is that you should try to get your news from sources that give you exposure to a wide variety of things that you wouldn't have individually sought yourself. Avoid clicking on links in your Facebook feed based on their popularity or sensationalism. Instead, listen to a full news program or read a full magazine.
Divided into three sections: (1) The Dunning-Kruger Effect: people who are the least informed are often the most confident in their wrong ideas; (2) The knowledge premium: knowing things, even apparently trivial things, correlates with success (measured mostly by income); (3) Strategies for a Culturally Illiterate World: the authors advice.
The three sections are all based on surveys of general knowledge and trivia, most conducted on behalf of the author himself. It is interesting, but sadly not surprising, to see how much ordinary people do not know. It is frightening, but sadly not surprising, to see how people who know the least are often very confident in their beliefs.
Even though we can look-up anything online, having a well-stocked storehouse of facts helps you know what you don't know, so that you know when you do need to look something up. And helps you critically evaluate the information you have looked up.
Knowing random facts correlates with success. It isn't clear what to do with that fact, because it isn't clear what the order of causation is. A pessimistic possibility is that if you are born with the right abilities you will easily learn lots of facts and also achieve success. A more optimistic possibility is that having an attitude of wanting to learn can lead to success.
Luckily for me, the big exception is that knowing random facts about sports does not correlate with success. So I don't need to worry about that!
The last section, with the authors advice, is the least interesting. The most useful bit is that you should try to get your news from sources that give you exposure to a wide variety of things that you wouldn't have individually sought yourself. Avoid clicking on links in your Facebook feed based on their popularity or sensationalism. Instead, listen to a full news program or read a full magazine.