Scan barcode
dyslexnick's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
funny
informative
medium-paced
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs and Racism
Moderate: Islamophobia
Minor: Child abuse
ltrowbarr's review against another edition
Pretty surface level insights/studies, biased and not properly science backed studies. There are plenty of better researched and presented books on data out there and this one wasn't worth my time/worth the read.
sholmstedt's review against another edition
3.0
I chose to purchase this book because I wanted to know what the Internet could tell us about lies. Intro and first chapter: so far, so good, interesting stuff. Then, inexplicably, we were taken into a chapter about whether athletes who come from poverty perform better than athletes who come from the middle class. And therein is the problem with this book: It's trying to be Freakonomics (or The Signal and The Noise) and not sticking to the really juicy thing we want to know more about: lying, shame, Americans leading secret lives. It wavers back and forth between search/social data, and big data questions in general. This is really on the editor (the conclusion also meanders and contains a lot of self-aggrandizing fluff that could have been chopped.) If you're a Freakonomics fan hungry to hear about horse heart ventricles, knock yourself out. If you want information on what Americans lie about, you might be doing a lot of skipping around.
april_does_feral_sometimes's review against another edition
3.0
I was annoyed by the author’s writing style in ‘Everybody Lies’. I have no doubts author Seth Stephens-Davidowitz was trying to write to a large general audience, including that assumed class of American non-science reader who hates math and binge watches ‘Keeping Up with the Kardashians’. Good for him, and maybe you, right? But I became more and more annoyed as I read. Ah, well. It is an interesting and informative read, in spite of trying too hard to be fun, imho.
What is the book about? I am glad to report it has genuine information about the science of statistics and ‘big data’ collecting, and how the erroneous selection of study parameters or assumptions about what is relevant data to study affects conclusions (as far as I know - I am a dunce at scientific math, despite that I passed a statistics class). The author used what seemed to me genuinely interesting new methods to formulate statistical studies, primarily using Google’s forensic tools, along with other sources.
I was shocked by what people type into Google Search (which Google compiles into anonymous data). For example, President Obama’s race appears to have truly ignited racists into coming out of their closets. Comparing survey interviews with people who state they are racist (a low percentage) with the percentage of those who Googled “n***** jokes” state by state turns out to show some truly hidden pockets of unexpected racism - and the total percentage of racist searches on Google was WAY higher than the racism that typical surveys show. In addition, those places who adore Trump also searched most for “n***** jokes”. Correlation? Idk, no one does know for the record, but I think yes.
Also of interest to me (please don’t bust my balls because of my prurient interests - and maybe there is a pun in this sentence, hehheh - read on) men really truly do Google a lot about penis sizes. Come on, fellas, give it a rest! (Yes, I am trying to be snarky since the too much ‘at rest’ position is part of what men appear to be most anxious about!) Men prowl porn sites in humongous numbers - shocking, right? - which is good for statisticians looking for Truth about sexuality for their inputs into their mathematical equations. Based on Google porn searches, the author estimates 5% of the population is gay. (Btw, conservatives mostly use the word ‘homosexual’ while liberals use the phrase ‘same-sex’, statistically, in Google searches.)
Not to neglect what Google says about what the ladies’ biggest sexual worry is, all I can say is, Oh. My. God. Vagina odor. Really? Really!!
All statisticians should take note - interrogative surveys often show different results from those statistics revealed in Google searches about the percentages of who is thinking/feeling what where and when, especially in those morally-weighted or personally embarrassing areas of society. Of course, interpretation is always fraught with possible erroneous judgements whatever the source of sampling.
I have always trusted those insurance actuarial tables FAR more than political or media spins or even university data studies - so now I am adding Google statistics to my ‘trusted info’ list. Of course, gentle reader, I know any compilations of data can be erroneously or purposely manipulated or massaged. ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ still applies...which is the case ‘Everybody Lies’ makes as well. The book seemed on top of the science, as far as I know. I am not a science-brain, but an amateur wannabe.
My one irritation with this book is all about the manner in which the information is explained. Gentle reader, my complaint is subjective as hell. Honestly, I can’t put my finger on it, though. The writer seemed to be trying to fill out his actual 200-page book to 300 pages by having personal emotional filler similar to the gaspy asides many shows use to increase the viewers’ emotional high about what is being discussed. Are you familiar with those TV shows that, after each commercial break, recap the entire show in the preceding minutes before the commercial break in a breathless montage manner? And they often had a shocked-gasp teaser of what will be shown before the commercial break? Anyway, I felt there was a lot of that style of emotional manipulation (and extending of the material) going on in this book, somehow. I simply did not appreciate the personal ‘fun’ filler so much. Maybe there wasn’t enough snark. I prefer snarky humor, if there is humor. Bite me. Maybe a more tightly edited book would have worked better for me to enjoy reading it. Anyway, I realize I am floundering about here. None of this may be true at all for you.
Ultimately, this is a book worthy of reading for the general reader (for the record, I definitely have a lit/history brain, so yes, I am a general science reader!) and the explanatory information about how statistical studies are done (the only math-involved college class which engaged me) and what people are really feeling and thinking (if Google searches are to be believed, and I think they are).
Included are extensive Notes and Index sections.
What is the book about? I am glad to report it has genuine information about the science of statistics and ‘big data’ collecting, and how the erroneous selection of study parameters or assumptions about what is relevant data to study affects conclusions (as far as I know - I am a dunce at scientific math, despite that I passed a statistics class). The author used what seemed to me genuinely interesting new methods to formulate statistical studies, primarily using Google’s forensic tools, along with other sources.
I was shocked by what people type into Google Search (which Google compiles into anonymous data). For example, President Obama’s race appears to have truly ignited racists into coming out of their closets. Comparing survey interviews with people who state they are racist (a low percentage) with the percentage of those who Googled “n***** jokes” state by state turns out to show some truly hidden pockets of unexpected racism - and the total percentage of racist searches on Google was WAY higher than the racism that typical surveys show. In addition, those places who adore Trump also searched most for “n***** jokes”. Correlation? Idk, no one does know for the record, but I think yes.
Also of interest to me (please don’t bust my balls because of my prurient interests - and maybe there is a pun in this sentence, hehheh - read on) men really truly do Google a lot about penis sizes. Come on, fellas, give it a rest! (Yes, I am trying to be snarky since the too much ‘at rest’ position is part of what men appear to be most anxious about!) Men prowl porn sites in humongous numbers - shocking, right? - which is good for statisticians looking for Truth about sexuality for their inputs into their mathematical equations. Based on Google porn searches, the author estimates 5% of the population is gay. (Btw, conservatives mostly use the word ‘homosexual’ while liberals use the phrase ‘same-sex’, statistically, in Google searches.)
Not to neglect what Google says about what the ladies’ biggest sexual worry is, all I can say is, Oh. My. God. Vagina odor. Really? Really!!
All statisticians should take note - interrogative surveys often show different results from those statistics revealed in Google searches about the percentages of who is thinking/feeling what where and when, especially in those morally-weighted or personally embarrassing areas of society. Of course, interpretation is always fraught with possible erroneous judgements whatever the source of sampling.
I have always trusted those insurance actuarial tables FAR more than political or media spins or even university data studies - so now I am adding Google statistics to my ‘trusted info’ list. Of course, gentle reader, I know any compilations of data can be erroneously or purposely manipulated or massaged. ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ still applies...which is the case ‘Everybody Lies’ makes as well. The book seemed on top of the science, as far as I know. I am not a science-brain, but an amateur wannabe.
My one irritation with this book is all about the manner in which the information is explained. Gentle reader, my complaint is subjective as hell. Honestly, I can’t put my finger on it, though. The writer seemed to be trying to fill out his actual 200-page book to 300 pages by having personal emotional filler similar to the gaspy asides many shows use to increase the viewers’ emotional high about what is being discussed. Are you familiar with those TV shows that, after each commercial break, recap the entire show in the preceding minutes before the commercial break in a breathless montage manner? And they often had a shocked-gasp teaser of what will be shown before the commercial break? Anyway, I felt there was a lot of that style of emotional manipulation (and extending of the material) going on in this book, somehow. I simply did not appreciate the personal ‘fun’ filler so much. Maybe there wasn’t enough snark. I prefer snarky humor, if there is humor. Bite me. Maybe a more tightly edited book would have worked better for me to enjoy reading it. Anyway, I realize I am floundering about here. None of this may be true at all for you.
Ultimately, this is a book worthy of reading for the general reader (for the record, I definitely have a lit/history brain, so yes, I am a general science reader!) and the explanatory information about how statistical studies are done (the only math-involved college class which engaged me) and what people are really feeling and thinking (if Google searches are to be believed, and I think they are).
Included are extensive Notes and Index sections.
cjaybrady's review against another edition
4.0
While I enjoyed most of it, there were some areas where I felt he was coming to conclusions that seemed kind of like a stretch. Overall, great recommended read.
readersofrohaan's review against another edition
3.0
Good book detailing the power of Big Data, but much like Freakonomics, the book seems to occasionally confuse the plural of anecdote for data to prove a larger, seemingly unrelated point.
jackfletch's review against another edition
2.0
Disappointed and would not recommend.
I think I get the intention but the text did not deliver. The author did a disservice to the public by not better explaining the limits and biases inherent in big, anonymous and limited data sets. I also think he's asking a lot of the wrong questions. This is his work/profession and the topic of his doctoral dissertation but it reads like it just serves his personal curiosity and not a larger audience.
I think I get the intention but the text did not deliver. The author did a disservice to the public by not better explaining the limits and biases inherent in big, anonymous and limited data sets. I also think he's asking a lot of the wrong questions. This is his work/profession and the topic of his doctoral dissertation but it reads like it just serves his personal curiosity and not a larger audience.
alitteminnesotan's review against another edition
4.0
Five stars for the writing, especially considering it is a nonfiction. Four stars for questionable data/research ethics
strike1st's review against another edition
4.0
Cartea nu prea te învață multe lucruri practice, în schimb afli multe fun facts despre ce caută lumea pe internet și insecuritățile pe care acestia le au. Cred că este o carte ce nu prea rezonează cu momentul actual datorită complexității si multitudinilor de variabile, însă un lucru cu care te poate ajuta big data este crearea unui mic procent de control asupra mediului