Scan barcode
A review by twocents
Hope for Cynics by Jamil Zaki
2.0
As a book about sociology, psychology, and economics, it's just okay. I can't think of any study or any concept (e.g. prisoner's dilemma) that was new to me. It's very introductory. It was kind of disappointing in the sense that it feels like the field has not advanced very much, given how many books retread the same topics.
As a book that is memorializing the author's deceased friend, it was quite good. Emile had a really fascinating life, from treating his mother with schizophrenia with compassion to helping bridge the gap between the guerilla fighters in Colombia, from trying to help Ireland during "The Troubles" to surviving a bombing in Sri Lanka, his story of seeing conflict up close and realizing the "science" was mostly "this seems plausible" and wanting to better the field was fascinating. Emile's exploits are sprinkled throughout the book and were a joy to come across.
Going back to the core of the book: I feel like "yes, but things were worse 200 years ago! Can't you see how things have improved!" is not really an argument for how best to connect with people with very different morals from you now. I do believe that being a peasant in the 1800s sucks more than being the average American now, but that doesn't make me think "just have a civilized conversation with people who want you dead" is actually a solution either. If anything, this core messaging in the book is what Emile was criticizing that the "science" is just "this seems like something to try." Hell, he tried it himself, and it failed! That is literally what his story about The Troubles was about. Because individually being able to go "okay, so all [insert group of people] suck, but I guess I will give a special exception to you" is literally "but I have a black friend." That's not a path forward.
So IDK, a biography for Emile would have been a better book is my punchline.
As a book that is memorializing the author's deceased friend, it was quite good. Emile had a really fascinating life, from treating his mother with schizophrenia with compassion to helping bridge the gap between the guerilla fighters in Colombia, from trying to help Ireland during "The Troubles" to surviving a bombing in Sri Lanka, his story of seeing conflict up close and realizing the "science" was mostly "this seems plausible" and wanting to better the field was fascinating. Emile's exploits are sprinkled throughout the book and were a joy to come across.
Going back to the core of the book: I feel like "yes, but things were worse 200 years ago! Can't you see how things have improved!" is not really an argument for how best to connect with people with very different morals from you now. I do believe that being a peasant in the 1800s sucks more than being the average American now, but that doesn't make me think "just have a civilized conversation with people who want you dead" is actually a solution either. If anything, this core messaging in the book is what Emile was criticizing that the "science" is just "this seems like something to try." Hell, he tried it himself, and it failed! That is literally what his story about The Troubles was about. Because individually being able to go "okay, so all [insert group of people] suck, but I guess I will give a special exception to you" is literally "but I have a black friend." That's not a path forward.
So IDK, a biography for Emile would have been a better book is my punchline.