Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.39 AVERAGE
3.39 AVERAGE
I got 30% through this book and had to give up. I read his previous book ‘The Subtle Art Of Not Giving A Fuck’ and enjoyed it, but I just can’t get through this one. It seems like every second sentence has a reference in it, so you’re reading a paragraph and you have to keep flipping to the back of the book to read an extra bit of text. It reads like an article from a science journal (of which I have a lot of experience after doing a psychology degree!) and it really takes you out of the flow of the book. I’m sure it has some good points in it but it almost feels like the author has just read a lot of other people’s work and has merged it into one book, rather than having his own ideas.
Maybe I just 100% missed the point of this book but it fucking sucked
I was between one and two stars, but it would be a 2/10 for me, so yeah.
First of all, I do not want to shame anyone who felt like this book helped them. I read his other book (The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck) a couple years ago and back then I had the impression it helped me.
If you really feel lost or would like to read one of his books for some reason, just go and read the other one, though. Because this one basically says the same and it is longer.
In retrospect and after researching his other works a bit, I think his other book only works if
A. You don't know a lot of history and philosophy yet
Or
B. If you have the belief that you are not responsible for any problem you are facing.
In this case, his work makes sense to read but then, please, read at least his other book and not this one.
At some point I took a pen and just started to correct all the incomplete points and misinformation included. For example, he talks about Nietzsche's sister and what of a feminist and girl boss she was while not mentioning once that she was an antisemite and largely at fault that Nietzsche's work got later adopted by the Nazis in WW2. I don't think Manson hid it on purpose, but it felt like he took 20 minutes in total to research for this book. Like in his other book, this leads to some reactionary thinking and false balancing.
I feel like he knows some stuff about philosophy (it might be a solid entry point for Kant and Nietzsche, for example) and Psychology. However, first (and this comes from a Psychology student) he oversimplifies ideas and bends e.g. results of research so it fits his idea. Everyone in my field would honestly throw up what broad statements he makes about how "weak" we got as a society through technological evolution based on the BlueDot Effect. That's one of the first things you learn not to do.
Also, he makes political statements about the left and right that are highly questionable to me. I had the impression that he grinded extremely hard to keep a centrist position all the time and couldn't criticise one without immediately mentioning the other. Moreover, in the first chapter, he describes Auschwitz, but I would liked to see way more criticism of the Nazis who are responsible for it than spending most of the chapter talking about Soviets. Like, do that if you will, but maybe not if it results in cutting the autrocities of the Nazi regime too short. I showed this book to acquaintances who study in the field of sociology, political science and social work and they found his approaches to social issues highly questionable. I am not an expert, but I had the impression that he sees himself as a politics expert just because he knows the basics of Psychology and Philosophy.
Moreover, his definition of "religion" is incredibly broad and while he criticised the concept of ideology, he is branding himself and telling millions of people how to live.
He also said that Psychologists "at some point" started looking into happiness more (like it just happened as a switcheroo) which is another time he oversimplifies an explanation. And after that he says that's why these ugly self-help books came on the market and makes fun of them. Like, dude.... Doing that is what YOU do, YOU published an incredibly successful self-help book, that was marketed as "finally a different self-help book" while in essence saying exactly the same. It just sounds edgier and uses the word "fuck" a few more times.
In the end of the book, he says that we just should not hope and instead try to be a better person. However, in the beginning he describes how hope is necessary for us to be motivated to achieve anything (and that we should just be better people). If hope is not necessary then 1. why do your name your book like this? and 2. describe HOW to be a better person or what options there are. I thought this would be what this book is about but it amounts to "hope bad and ideology bad".
Some of my favourite parts of the book were how he explained deontology in a relatively understandable way which will help me explain this abstract concept to people who are not in touch with philosophy. Otherwise, except for the fact it is easy to read, I do not see any good qualities.
He also feels like a guy who loves to hear himself talk (which immediately becomes clear in the first part of the Acknowledgements) and does not grasp his own privilege. There are many ways in which his arguments contradict themselves and I think he really does not notice that through the entire book.
I could go on and describe all the notes I made but I think you get the essence. If you would really like a self-help book which is easier to read and less full of misinformation, read his other one. Again, no disrespect if it helps you on some way, but for me this is definitely a no. If he helps lonely men who would rather watch Andrew Tate though, I guess could be worse.
First of all, I do not want to shame anyone who felt like this book helped them. I read his other book (The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck) a couple years ago and back then I had the impression it helped me.
If you really feel lost or would like to read one of his books for some reason, just go and read the other one, though. Because this one basically says the same and it is longer.
In retrospect and after researching his other works a bit, I think his other book only works if
A. You don't know a lot of history and philosophy yet
Or
B. If you have the belief that you are not responsible for any problem you are facing.
In this case, his work makes sense to read but then, please, read at least his other book and not this one.
At some point I took a pen and just started to correct all the incomplete points and misinformation included. For example, he talks about Nietzsche's sister and what of a feminist and girl boss she was while not mentioning once that she was an antisemite and largely at fault that Nietzsche's work got later adopted by the Nazis in WW2. I don't think Manson hid it on purpose, but it felt like he took 20 minutes in total to research for this book. Like in his other book, this leads to some reactionary thinking and false balancing.
I feel like he knows some stuff about philosophy (it might be a solid entry point for Kant and Nietzsche, for example) and Psychology. However, first (and this comes from a Psychology student) he oversimplifies ideas and bends e.g. results of research so it fits his idea. Everyone in my field would honestly throw up what broad statements he makes about how "weak" we got as a society through technological evolution based on the BlueDot Effect. That's one of the first things you learn not to do.
Also, he makes political statements about the left and right that are highly questionable to me. I had the impression that he grinded extremely hard to keep a centrist position all the time and couldn't criticise one without immediately mentioning the other. Moreover, in the first chapter, he describes Auschwitz, but I would liked to see way more criticism of the Nazis who are responsible for it than spending most of the chapter talking about Soviets. Like, do that if you will, but maybe not if it results in cutting the autrocities of the Nazi regime too short. I showed this book to acquaintances who study in the field of sociology, political science and social work and they found his approaches to social issues highly questionable. I am not an expert, but I had the impression that he sees himself as a politics expert just because he knows the basics of Psychology and Philosophy.
Moreover, his definition of "religion" is incredibly broad and while he criticised the concept of ideology, he is branding himself and telling millions of people how to live.
He also said that Psychologists "at some point" started looking into happiness more (like it just happened as a switcheroo) which is another time he oversimplifies an explanation. And after that he says that's why these ugly self-help books came on the market and makes fun of them. Like, dude.... Doing that is what YOU do, YOU published an incredibly successful self-help book, that was marketed as "finally a different self-help book" while in essence saying exactly the same. It just sounds edgier and uses the word "fuck" a few more times.
In the end of the book, he says that we just should not hope and instead try to be a better person. However, in the beginning he describes how hope is necessary for us to be motivated to achieve anything (and that we should just be better people). If hope is not necessary then 1. why do your name your book like this? and 2. describe HOW to be a better person or what options there are. I thought this would be what this book is about but it amounts to "hope bad and ideology bad".
Some of my favourite parts of the book were how he explained deontology in a relatively understandable way which will help me explain this abstract concept to people who are not in touch with philosophy. Otherwise, except for the fact it is easy to read, I do not see any good qualities.
He also feels like a guy who loves to hear himself talk (which immediately becomes clear in the first part of the Acknowledgements) and does not grasp his own privilege. There are many ways in which his arguments contradict themselves and I think he really does not notice that through the entire book.
I could go on and describe all the notes I made but I think you get the essence. If you would really like a self-help book which is easier to read and less full of misinformation, read his other one. Again, no disrespect if it helps you on some way, but for me this is definitely a no. If he helps lonely men who would rather watch Andrew Tate though, I guess could be worse.
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
I’m not sure what to rate this book, because this was almost a DNF. However, I’ll give the book the benefit of the doubt and blame this on my own procrastination. That being said, part of why i almost DNF’d is that some chapters in the first half, were very repetitive about creating your own religion. The second half was a much better read although you could critique the fact that the chapters throughout the whole book do not really seem well connected together. While it took me way longer to finish this book than it should have, I would still recommend it if you find human psychology interesting. It might not be as positive or as good of a book as The Subtle Art of Not Giving A Fuck, but this book still managed to give an interesting perspective on how the mind works, and how our own minds are, perhaps, the reason for our shortcomings.
informative
medium-paced
Three initial thoughts:
1. Did I really just listen to this whole book only to have this man conclude that AI takeover to the point that we deify them is inevitable AND the most likely outcome for our society?
2. I need to stop reading/listening to things written by relatively well-off and privileged men.
3. This is only my "first" read of the year because it took me so long to finish it and I am lowkey bitter about it.
I picked this read because I don't remember The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck being as laughably bad as this book was. There are a few morsels of interesting thought in the book, I will give him that, but overall it is a ham-fisted approach to analyzing humanity that lacks nuance or self-awareness. This specific brand of affluent male nihilism always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Probably because it is just them telling on themselves about how little they understand anyone else's lived experience and how those experiences might differ from their own. This read really wasn't it for me. I expected to find it at the very least an interesting thing to read during the pandemic since it came out pre-pandemic. Instead, I was subjected to thoughts such as (all paraphrases) "centrism is the mature approach to existence" and "the pursuit of pain is something we should revere" and "most crises are statistically insignificant". Gag.
1. Did I really just listen to this whole book only to have this man conclude that AI takeover to the point that we deify them is inevitable AND the most likely outcome for our society?
2. I need to stop reading/listening to things written by relatively well-off and privileged men.
3. This is only my "first" read of the year because it took me so long to finish it and I am lowkey bitter about it.
I picked this read because I don't remember The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck being as laughably bad as this book was. There are a few morsels of interesting thought in the book, I will give him that, but overall it is a ham-fisted approach to analyzing humanity that lacks nuance or self-awareness. This specific brand of affluent male nihilism always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Probably because it is just them telling on themselves about how little they understand anyone else's lived experience and how those experiences might differ from their own. This read really wasn't it for me. I expected to find it at the very least an interesting thing to read during the pandemic since it came out pre-pandemic. Instead, I was subjected to thoughts such as (all paraphrases) "centrism is the mature approach to existence" and "the pursuit of pain is something we should revere" and "most crises are statistically insignificant". Gag.
Parts of this were excellent - providing plenty of food for thought. Other parts didn’t sit well with me at all. I had this feeling that the author was in my head at times screaming, “I swear - this is the ultimate truth even though I have been speaking against that very idea for a while. Just believe ME!” Then, at the end of the book, the whole thing went off the rails. I agree that AI has all sorts of potential and is where we are headed, but I don’t fancy giving up my humanity for this new religion. I don’t think all of the answers are in some cyber cloud Scythe style (Neil Schusterman).
I think this would be worth going through again and comparing with the counter arguments and reviews that are already out there.
I am glad I read it, but I am not converted. I will continue praying to the god of independent thought and healthy doubt.
I think this would be worth going through again and comparing with the counter arguments and reviews that are already out there.
I am glad I read it, but I am not converted. I will continue praying to the god of independent thought and healthy doubt.
When I started this book I nearly didn't finish the first page because the writing style was so "bro"-y it was hard to take seriously. (Also- why is it that any writer described as whip-smart and/or funny is really just an over-reliance on footnotes to appear witty?!) However, I want to read things that I don't necessarily agree with so I carried on. I would say the first third of the book was rehashing fairly elementary psychology concepts and, like many have said, very simplistically. Manson seems to question the shit out of some concepts and then take others completely for granted when it suits his argument.
The reason I gave it 3/5 stars, though, is because the second third of the book had some genuinely fascinating tidbits that stuck with me for days. However, the last third of the book devolved into some weird AI manifesto shit that seemed to come out of nowhere?! Most of the book's sections seem entirely unrelated to each other and it was a disorienting read. If you read the first, middle, and last chapter, I genuinely don't know if you would guess that it's all the same book. Generously giving it three stars for some noteworthy bits. It loses points for me because of the disconnection between sections and a writing style I do not jive with. Wouldn't recommend it to a friend unless they were a bit simple and in a mid-life crisis.
The reason I gave it 3/5 stars, though, is because the second third of the book had some genuinely fascinating tidbits that stuck with me for days. However, the last third of the book devolved into some weird AI manifesto shit that seemed to come out of nowhere?! Most of the book's sections seem entirely unrelated to each other and it was a disorienting read. If you read the first, middle, and last chapter, I genuinely don't know if you would guess that it's all the same book. Generously giving it three stars for some noteworthy bits. It loses points for me because of the disconnection between sections and a writing style I do not jive with. Wouldn't recommend it to a friend unless they were a bit simple and in a mid-life crisis.
I don't think I can finish this book. I am about 20% in, and I am stuck on his earlier comment that we aren't at Holocaust levels of bad. I was like, "I dunno... I think we are pretty much right back there." I looked and saw that this book was published in 2019, though, so I guess it makes sense that Mark Manson still had some hope left. Between the world-wide pandemic, the insurrection, and the ongoing g3noc1des, I am not feeling much hope for humanity. I think I need a book that will distract me from my hopelessness instead of trying to logic me out of it.