Scan barcode
A review by eelsmac
Head in the Cloud: Why Knowing Things Still Matters When Facts Are So Easy to Look Up by William Poundstone
1.0
One star because I was really hyped up for this book (I thought the premise was interesting) and I'm angry that it fell far short of my expectations. If I wasn't coming from a place of anger and underwhelm, I'd probably give this 2 or 3 stars. That would be generous, and this is proof positive that you can have an interesting concept and totally f*** the execution with insufferable, and quite frankly undeserved, superiority.
Let me summarize the book in one sentance: Poundstone is up in his feelings that the educational system and national culture no long only serves to replicate white, male, upper class culture.
In showing that physicists have no business moonlighting in statistics, Poundstone spends roughly 1/4 of the book speaking about correlations as if they are causations. Additionally, I'd like to see the data set, surveys, and some tests of significance on some of the correlations that he throws out there because quite frankly I'm skeptical of his findings and the representedness of his sample.
Another 1/4 of the content is complaining about the shift in emphasis from knowledge (factoid memorization) to skill in the US educational system. Here Poundstone's utter lack of understanding concerning education becomes painful. Rote memorization is considered the lowest level of understanding/engagement throught the discipline of education. Despite the fact that every contemporary theory regarding educational psychology places memorization as the lowest common denominator for depth of knowledge, Poundstone argues that we need to revert to memorization in education because it hurts his sensibilities that the younger generation is less likely to identify the authors of "good" literature. Heaven forbid anyone engage with popular literature, yet another 1/4 argues for the supremacy of high brow culture.
The final 1/4 of the book is an utter tone deaf lack of understanding as to the role of socioeconomic class with correlations between familiarity with white, high class culture signifiers (such as knowing that Piacsso painted Guernica, or that Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice) and income. A lack of appreciation for art (read: inability to do slide ID's ad nauseam) is correlated with lower income? No s*** Sherlock, poor people usually can't afford to go to the art museum, opera, or symphony with any degree of frequency if at all. They also don't have extra money to piss away on an education in art history (I write this as someone who minored in art history, which I totally loved, but the only reason I was able to have such a fluffy minor that wasn't terribly practical was my middle class status and the fact that I had a parent helping me with tuition).
Let me summarize the book in one sentance: Poundstone is up in his feelings that the educational system and national culture no long only serves to replicate white, male, upper class culture.
In showing that physicists have no business moonlighting in statistics, Poundstone spends roughly 1/4 of the book speaking about correlations as if they are causations. Additionally, I'd like to see the data set, surveys, and some tests of significance on some of the correlations that he throws out there because quite frankly I'm skeptical of his findings and the representedness of his sample.
Another 1/4 of the content is complaining about the shift in emphasis from knowledge (factoid memorization) to skill in the US educational system. Here Poundstone's utter lack of understanding concerning education becomes painful. Rote memorization is considered the lowest level of understanding/engagement throught the discipline of education. Despite the fact that every contemporary theory regarding educational psychology places memorization as the lowest common denominator for depth of knowledge, Poundstone argues that we need to revert to memorization in education because it hurts his sensibilities that the younger generation is less likely to identify the authors of "good" literature. Heaven forbid anyone engage with popular literature, yet another 1/4 argues for the supremacy of high brow culture.
The final 1/4 of the book is an utter tone deaf lack of understanding as to the role of socioeconomic class with correlations between familiarity with white, high class culture signifiers (such as knowing that Piacsso painted Guernica, or that Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice) and income. A lack of appreciation for art (read: inability to do slide ID's ad nauseam) is correlated with lower income? No s*** Sherlock, poor people usually can't afford to go to the art museum, opera, or symphony with any degree of frequency if at all. They also don't have extra money to piss away on an education in art history (I write this as someone who minored in art history, which I totally loved, but the only reason I was able to have such a fluffy minor that wasn't terribly practical was my middle class status and the fact that I had a parent helping me with tuition).