Scan barcode
chukg's review against another edition
4.0
Good explanation of the peer progressive political movement and how it will solve all the problems of modern society.
bracky's review against another edition
3.0
Very optimistic book, and while I agreed with many of the points made, no counterarguments were made to any of his points.
mirasapphira7's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting — offers a lot of quotable examples of how flexible peer networks ("Baran Webs") can be more effective than centralized control structures ("Legrand Stars", and incentives better than mandates. I love the idea of "liquid democracy," where you can allow trusted friends or experts to cast your votes for particular issues or offices. The account of radical grassroots democracy in a Brazil city was fascinating, too.
I appreciated his clear, pithy outline of the basic dichotomy of the Legrand Star vs. the Baran Web. And it's great to read his takes on Occupy Wall Street, Kickstarter, NYC's 411 program, and the fight against SOPA. I wasn't that interested in his articulation of the "peer progressive" political viewpoint, and his blithe dismissal of predictions of impending environmental doom frustrated me. But perhaps I should seriously consider adopting the new category, and it's certainly nice to hear a positive perspective! It was also awesome to see that he's based in Marin. I hope I bump into him one day :)
I appreciated his clear, pithy outline of the basic dichotomy of the Legrand Star vs. the Baran Web. And it's great to read his takes on Occupy Wall Street, Kickstarter, NYC's 411 program, and the fight against SOPA. I wasn't that interested in his articulation of the "peer progressive" political viewpoint, and his blithe dismissal of predictions of impending environmental doom frustrated me. But perhaps I should seriously consider adopting the new category, and it's certainly nice to hear a positive perspective! It was also awesome to see that he's based in Marin. I hope I bump into him one day :)
aloyokon's review against another edition
4.0
Tired of the old left-right debate? Curious as to how world-changing phenomena from Wikipedia to OWS and the Arab Spring came about? In the dark about terms like "Legrand Star" and "peer progressivism"? Well you've come to the right place. Read this book and have these questions (and more!) answered in short order.
munro77's review against another edition
4.0
Some nice ideas and laid out very well. Appreciate how SJ takes stories that are in some ways totally unrelated and uses them to construct his argument and not purely academically.
Would love to see some of these ideas in action, but I don't believe the power base would allow it in many cases.
Would love to see some of these ideas in action, but I don't believe the power base would allow it in many cases.
mhanlon's review against another edition
1.0
I wanted to like this. I enjoy Steven Johnson -- his Mind Wide Open was a great read, as was FEED, back in the day, and he usually has some interesting ideas. But this was not one of those books. He seems obsessed with coining the phrase and movement and politically minded group "peer progressives," and if I ever read the words 'Legrand Star' again it'll just be far too soon. The literary equivalent of banging in a nail with your hand. Over and over and over again.
Yes, networks are cool. Using tools in ways the creators never intended them is cool. But this could have been an article, rather than a book.
I don't not finish many books, but this is one I just put down, two thirds of the way through.
Yes, networks are cool. Using tools in ways the creators never intended them is cool. But this could have been an article, rather than a book.
I don't not finish many books, but this is one I just put down, two thirds of the way through.
mhanlon's review
1.0
I wanted to like this. I enjoy Steven Johnson -- his Mind Wide Open was a great read, as was FEED, back in the day, and he usually has some interesting ideas. But this was not one of those books. He seems obsessed with coining the phrase and movement and politically minded group "peer progressives," and if I ever read the words 'Legrand Star' again it'll just be far too soon. The literary equivalent of banging in a nail with your hand. Over and over and over again.
Yes, networks are cool. Using tools in ways the creators never intended them is cool. But this could have been an article, rather than a book.
I don't not finish many books, but this is one I just put down, two thirds of the way through.
Yes, networks are cool. Using tools in ways the creators never intended them is cool. But this could have been an article, rather than a book.
I don't not finish many books, but this is one I just put down, two thirds of the way through.
jgn's review
2.0
This is not a good book.
The fundamental claim is that the world is "progressing," in large part because of new or emergent technological and social arrangements that are about distributed networks, or what the author beggingly wants us to accept under the slogan "peer progressivism." There is a crude and loose analogy here between distributed and non-centrally controlled social behavior and packet networking as on the Internet (which is itself a tendentious reading of what the Internet is all about). He will frequently describe things that he thinks are good as the expressions of the opinions of the "peer progressive," a subject position that, of course, he has made up completely (let me know if you know even one person who describes herself as a "peer progressive"; thanks, I didn't think so). There might not be one other person besides the author who holds such views, but dang it, Johnson is going to push it as far as he can.
I'm not going to belabor the detail here, but the book has problems on three basic grounds that, taken together, mean that I can't recommend this book to any intelligent person.
(1) Rhetorical. The big is littered with words and phrases such as "of course," "literally," "ultimately," "to be sure," and so forth, coaching the reader into accepting highly tendentious arguments that are based on very little evidence. Johnson will refer to the "true genius" of certain ideas, or grant that slogans emitted by others are "astute." But they are only because Johnson says they are. The book rarely slows down to build an argument. This is the kind of argument that would get a D back when I was grading undergraduate writing assignments.
(2) The celebration of ideas that will never work. For example, he discusses proxy voting. It's a great idea, but it doesn't exist (he doesn't cite any significant cases) and it will never exist for realsies. This is just the tip of the iceberg. A chapter that is particular obtuse is the one on the media, entitled "The Pothole Paradox." The chapter is attempting to make a claim about how distributed networks and an emphasis on personal intersts will produce better / cheaper / more appropriate news. In 1992, the author tells us, he was a political junkie during the coverage of the Presidential race between Bush and Clinton (pp. 83ff). The news channels then were heavily mediated -- and there just wasn't much news. He tells us that there "is no question in my mind that the political news ecosystem of 2008 was far superior to that of 1992," because "I had more information" (p. 85). To which I say: So what? How much "more" news did it take in either 1992 or 2008 to make a choice between Bush v. Clinton or McCain v. Obama? It is patently obvious that the author was for Clinton and Obama. You know how much news it took for an intelligent person to make such an electoral decision? Very little. So I would ask: To what end was this extra information that was so valuable? Perhaps it was useful as entertainment, but for making an informed choice? Not so much, I would say.
(3) The fundamental ethical position of this book is profoundly flawed. The book opens with a defense of recent progress. Johnson correctly tells us across so many fundamental statistics - high school drop out rates; SAT scores; juvenile crime; etc., the numbers have been positive in recent decades (contradicting what people thing). But then he writes: "Of course, not all the arrows point in a positive direction . . . The number of Americans living in povery has increased over the last decade . . . Wealth inequality has returned to levels last seen in the Roaring Twenties. As I write these words in early 2012, the US unemployment rate is still more than 8 percent" (p. xxvii). So I ask you: Really? We want to talk about "progress" against the backdrop of that reality? This is such a profound disconnect that the rest of the book reads like the private notebook of Candide.
The fundamental claim is that the world is "progressing," in large part because of new or emergent technological and social arrangements that are about distributed networks, or what the author beggingly wants us to accept under the slogan "peer progressivism." There is a crude and loose analogy here between distributed and non-centrally controlled social behavior and packet networking as on the Internet (which is itself a tendentious reading of what the Internet is all about). He will frequently describe things that he thinks are good as the expressions of the opinions of the "peer progressive," a subject position that, of course, he has made up completely (let me know if you know even one person who describes herself as a "peer progressive"; thanks, I didn't think so). There might not be one other person besides the author who holds such views, but dang it, Johnson is going to push it as far as he can.
I'm not going to belabor the detail here, but the book has problems on three basic grounds that, taken together, mean that I can't recommend this book to any intelligent person.
(1) Rhetorical. The big is littered with words and phrases such as "of course," "literally," "ultimately," "to be sure," and so forth, coaching the reader into accepting highly tendentious arguments that are based on very little evidence. Johnson will refer to the "true genius" of certain ideas, or grant that slogans emitted by others are "astute." But they are only because Johnson says they are. The book rarely slows down to build an argument. This is the kind of argument that would get a D back when I was grading undergraduate writing assignments.
(2) The celebration of ideas that will never work. For example, he discusses proxy voting. It's a great idea, but it doesn't exist (he doesn't cite any significant cases) and it will never exist for realsies. This is just the tip of the iceberg. A chapter that is particular obtuse is the one on the media, entitled "The Pothole Paradox." The chapter is attempting to make a claim about how distributed networks and an emphasis on personal intersts will produce better / cheaper / more appropriate news. In 1992, the author tells us, he was a political junkie during the coverage of the Presidential race between Bush and Clinton (pp. 83ff). The news channels then were heavily mediated -- and there just wasn't much news. He tells us that there "is no question in my mind that the political news ecosystem of 2008 was far superior to that of 1992," because "I had more information" (p. 85). To which I say: So what? How much "more" news did it take in either 1992 or 2008 to make a choice between Bush v. Clinton or McCain v. Obama? It is patently obvious that the author was for Clinton and Obama. You know how much news it took for an intelligent person to make such an electoral decision? Very little. So I would ask: To what end was this extra information that was so valuable? Perhaps it was useful as entertainment, but for making an informed choice? Not so much, I would say.
(3) The fundamental ethical position of this book is profoundly flawed. The book opens with a defense of recent progress. Johnson correctly tells us across so many fundamental statistics - high school drop out rates; SAT scores; juvenile crime; etc., the numbers have been positive in recent decades (contradicting what people thing). But then he writes: "Of course, not all the arrows point in a positive direction . . . The number of Americans living in povery has increased over the last decade . . . Wealth inequality has returned to levels last seen in the Roaring Twenties. As I write these words in early 2012, the US unemployment rate is still more than 8 percent" (p. xxvii). So I ask you: Really? We want to talk about "progress" against the backdrop of that reality? This is such a profound disconnect that the rest of the book reads like the private notebook of Candide.
kapsar's review
5.0
Extremely interesting. It will likely resonate with a large number of 20-30 year olds that do not feel that current political system represents them well or at all.
The name of the book isn't the best at explaining that, but overall it was a great read and much more even in tone than many books in the same vein.
The name of the book isn't the best at explaining that, but overall it was a great read and much more even in tone than many books in the same vein.