Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
I might have read the abridged version to this. Interested to know what the longer version is like. Surprised by how political it was and found the chapters about Native American life not completely fleshed out and maybe idealized a bit. More interested on his perspective of War and PTSD. The concept that war makes for stronger, unifying communities was new to me as well as the idea that we need a better place in US culture for veterans. I want another chapter(s) on ideas for future culture shift of US and less political/moralizing about left/right virtues because I think that limits the audience a bit.
"Self-determination theory holds that human beings need three basic things in order to be content: they need to feel competent at what they do; they need to feel authentic in their lives, and they need to feel connected to others. These values are considered “intrinsic” to human happiness and far outweigh “extrinsic” values such as beauty, money, and status."
Listened to this on Audible. 3.5 stars... rounding up. Short book with lots to ponder, but some of the stories are pretty weak (I’m looking at you Viking helmet). It’s worth the time invested I think.
informative
reflective
fast-paced
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
This book was very interesting, but I hated how it was arranged and how many topics were talked about. It was incoherent and did not seem to have any reason for the directions it went in. Everything felt very random and out of place.
Also, it felt like the author was romanticizing horrible things like war, PTSD, natural disasters, etc.. He kept making disclaimers for that, probably because he knew it sounded like it, but I just couldn't get past it. If you have to make a disclaimer SO MANY TIMES, maybe make your points better.
The book itself was a poor experience, but I was very interested by the cultural, historical, and psychological ideas of community explored in the book, so it wasn't a total waste of my time.
Also, it felt like the author was romanticizing horrible things like war, PTSD, natural disasters, etc.. He kept making disclaimers for that, probably because he knew it sounded like it, but I just couldn't get past it. If you have to make a disclaimer SO MANY TIMES, maybe make your points better.
The book itself was a poor experience, but I was very interested by the cultural, historical, and psychological ideas of community explored in the book, so it wasn't a total waste of my time.
challenging
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
READ THIS BOOK. Or, at least, these excerpts:
"We live in a society that is basically at war with itself. People speak with incredible contempt about--depending on their views--the rich, the poor, the educated, the foreign-born, the president, or the entire US government. It's a level of contempt that is usually reserved for enemies in wartime, except that now it's applied to our fellow citizens. Unlike criticism, contempt is particularly toxic because it assumes a moral superiority in the speaker. Contempt is often directed at people who have been excluded from a group or declared unworthy of its benefits. [...] People who speak with contempt for one another will probably not remain united for long."
"The United States is so powerful that the only country capable of destroying her might be the United States herself, which means that the ultimate terrorist strategy would be to just leave the country alone. That way, America's ugliest partisan tendencies could emerge unimpeded by the unifying effects of war. The ultimate betrayal of tribe isn't acting competitively--that should be encouraged--but predicating your power on the excommunication of others from the group. That is exactly what politicians of both parties try to do when they spew venomous rhetoric about their rivals. That is exactly what media figures do when they go beyond criticism of their fellow citizens and openly revile them."
"We live in a society that is basically at war with itself. People speak with incredible contempt about--depending on their views--the rich, the poor, the educated, the foreign-born, the president, or the entire US government. It's a level of contempt that is usually reserved for enemies in wartime, except that now it's applied to our fellow citizens. Unlike criticism, contempt is particularly toxic because it assumes a moral superiority in the speaker. Contempt is often directed at people who have been excluded from a group or declared unworthy of its benefits. [...] People who speak with contempt for one another will probably not remain united for long."
"The United States is so powerful that the only country capable of destroying her might be the United States herself, which means that the ultimate terrorist strategy would be to just leave the country alone. That way, America's ugliest partisan tendencies could emerge unimpeded by the unifying effects of war. The ultimate betrayal of tribe isn't acting competitively--that should be encouraged--but predicating your power on the excommunication of others from the group. That is exactly what politicians of both parties try to do when they spew venomous rhetoric about their rivals. That is exactly what media figures do when they go beyond criticism of their fellow citizens and openly revile them."
Received this as part of the "chain letter" Facebook thing from last week. Started slow, but by the final chapter I really enjoyed it. Worth the read.