Steeped in Science, Submersed in Story

A sweet story with beautiful language. Some characters that are hard to spend time with, but a good experience in the end.

Holmes' Nonsense should be titled Ambiguity, or perhaps Uncertainty, and I can only guess that those titles do not poll as well, since the word "nonsense" is used only in the introduction and never again, whereas ambiguity and uncertainty dominate the text. That might seem a trivial distinction, but it's actually pretty important to me. Nonsense is information of little value -- data without meaning. Ambiguity is data with meaning but without a clear conclusion. And it is ambiguity that Holmes' really tackles, with sparkling results.

About 2/3 of the way through the book, Holmes provided a moment of clarity on the structure of the book, which I appreciate and I'm going to quote it here:

"We've looked at the dangers of a high need for closure, whether spurred on by trauma or unrelated anxiety, a high-stakes negotiation, inconclusive medical results, or a changing business environment. In Part 2, we focused on avoiding mistakes under pressure -- those situations in which we're forced to react to ambiguity -- and often feel compelled to avoid uncertainty. Part 3 will spotlight moments where uncertainty can be useful. Rather than explore how to minimize the harm that can come from dismissing ambiguity, we're going to look at how to maximize the benefits of harnessing ambiguity."

That would make an excellent back-of-the book blurb, but perhaps, again, it wouldn't poll well. But it definitely works for me. This book is full of anecdotes that support bigger points, and so is in the style of Gladwell and other pop-psychology books, but I actually think it's better written (I like Gladwell -- he's just a little too repetitive for me). Holmes has many stories to make his points, but he acknowledges the nuance in each one, which allows him to advance and evolve his argument, rather than just saying the same thing over and over. And since he's writing about the importance of nuance and shades of grey (no, not those shades of grey... just living in a world that isn't black and white), that's a fantastic and effective approach.

I felt the last part, in which he focuses on the benefits of recognizing and using ambiguity, was the most intriguing. He focused on people who, for various reasons, grow up dealing with different worldviews held simultaneously. These people are healthier mentally and more creative in general. He makes a good argument for multiculturalism from the brain's point of view. It's very convincing.

The first two parts work together to warn us about how desperately our brains want to avoid ambiguity and the mistakes we feel pressured to make in the face of uncertainty. While he focuses on anecdotes outside the world of politics, the applications to our current political culture are clear and pressing. Hopefully as this book spreads through the market, we can get shaken out of our internet-accommodated tribalism and recognize good arguments on both sides of the political divide, which make working together seem like a good idea rather than traitorous. Here's hoping.

I got a free copy of this book through the First to Read program.

Forsyth's story is not just about adventure and intrigue, although they are significant. He is still angry about the British role (the government and the BBC) in the Nigerian civil war of the late 60s, a conflict I knew little about before starting the book. He has something to tell us about the individuals involved, the suffering, the lies and coverups. Forsyth's autobiography is refreshing in that it is not all about him, somehow. It is also about the U.K., Europe, and Nigeria in the mid 20th century. It is a primer on British intelligence and the media's relationship with the government.

I must admit I had trouble getting into the book. I made a couple attempts that didn't get past page 30 or so. He was incredibly lucky in his background, his parents, his situation in life. The weakest parts of the book are at the beginning and end, when it is mostly about him, and he complains about the disadvantages of being rich in a very British way (applied for scholarship, but darn it all if he father wasn't too rich for him to be selected...). But give it a chance and push through -- once he got rolling, I couldn't put it down. And I learned a great deal, since I've mostly learned about the history of the 1950s-70s through an American lens... once WWII was over, our history focus turns to ourselves and, of course, Vietnam. It turns out that while we were focused on Vietnam, or trying very hard not to be, depending on individual preferences, Britain was trying very hard not to be focused on Nigeria. But Forsyth was in the thick of that conflict by choice, over and over again. It's the core of the book and a fascinating read.

I strongly recommend the book on its own merits, regardless of whether you've come to know Forsyth through his novels or not. He's built a life out of saying yes to opportunities, grasping at the slightest straw of acquaintances to get what he wanted most, and has a story worth listening to as a result.

I got a free copy of this through First to Read.

A light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek sketch up of a bible for dogtology adherents. Lots of fun for those who love dogs. Lots of humor.

I'm a nerd and had hoped for information, and there isn't in here -- there's a lot of fascinating stuff that's true of dogs that science is just discovering. In fact there's quite a bit of misinformation. But this is straight-up humor book. Great for gifts. Great for laughs. Don't take it too seriously.

I got a free copy of this from Net Galley.

An easy, breezy tour through philosophers telling us how and why to live. From the ancient Greeks to philosophers still taking in breath, this is a lighthearted yet earnest exploration of their different takes on life. There are hedonists and those concerned with living the best life morally, and pessimists and those willing to point out that it's all pointless. One was so bad that I groaned aloud, but then Klein saved me by pointing out that no one sure whether that guy was joking or not.

No too heavy, but not without substance, this is a great little primer on the wherefore of living.

I got a free copy of this from First to Read.

In "Moonstruck", Naylor delivers a tutorial on separating myth from reality. Myths, fables, and tales featuring the moon's influence on life on Earth about in just about every culture. The scientific community as a whole is deeply skeptical. Naylor sets out to determine what some of the very real influences of the Moon on life are and carefully describes how we know what we know about them. Okay, there's a behavior that correlates with the tides, but is this animal just responding to when it gets wet, or does it have an internal clock? How do we determine that, and what does it mean for our understanding of that organism?

Most of the effects he describes are tidally-linked and have to do with marine life. He does cover some other effects, and then in the last chapter addresses some myths about human lives being affected by lunar cycles. The only evidence that seemed up for interpretations one way or another has to do with our sleep cycles. The moon doesn't cause people to go crazy or commit crimes. It's traditional beliefs like these that make scientists cringe. But Naylor expertly aims his arguments at those who appreciate true scientific arguments. Most of those myths are nothing more. But some of them are based on a seed of truth. And in the stories that he tells, there are some unlikely characters. I rolled my eyes at the lengthy section on the sea louse (yes, that's a thing) only to be later intrigued by the lowly dung beetle navigating by the polarization of light from the full moon. Okay, he got me. That's pretty cool.

It's not exactly a chatty book, but I recommend it for fans and/or students of science who want to learn about the process of science. He handles the presence of truth mired in myth expertly.

I got a free copy of this from Net Galley.

In "Moonstruck", Naylor delivers a tutorial on separating myth from reality. Myths, fables, and tales featuring the moon's influence on life on Earth about in just about every culture. The scientific community as a whole is deeply skeptical. Naylor sets out to determine what some of the very real influences of the Moon on life are and carefully describes how we know what we know about them. Okay, there's a behavior that correlates with the tides, but is this animal just responding to when it gets wet, or does it have an internal clock? How do we determine that, and what does it mean for our understanding of that organism?

Most of the effects he describes are tidally-linked and have to do with marine life. He does cover some other effects, and then in the last chapter addresses some myths about human lives being affected by lunar cycles. The only evidence that seemed up for interpretations one way or another has to do with our sleep cycles. The moon doesn't cause people to go crazy or commit crimes. It's traditional beliefs like these that make scientists cringe. But Naylor expertly aims his arguments at those who appreciate true scientific arguments. Most of those myths are nothing more. But some of them are based on a seed of truth. And in the stories that he tells, there are some unlikely characters. I rolled my eyes at the lengthy section on the sea louse (yes, that's a thing) only to be later intrigued by the lowly dung beetle navigating by the polarization of light from the full moon. Okay, he got me. That's pretty cool.

It's not exactly a chatty book, but I recommend it for fans and/or students of science who want to learn about the process of science. He handles the presence of truth mired in myth expertly.

I got a free copy of this from Net Galley.

In "Moonstruck", Naylor delivers a tutorial on separating myth from reality. Myths, fables, and tales featuring the moon's influence on life on Earth about in just about every culture. The scientific community as a whole is deeply skeptical. Naylor sets out to determine what some of the very real influences of the Moon on life are and carefully describes how we know what we know about them. Okay, there's a behavior that correlates with the tides, but is this animal just responding to when it gets wet, or does it have an internal clock? How do we determine that, and what does it mean for our understanding of that organism?

Most of the effects he describes are tidally-linked and have to do with marine life. He does cover some other effects, and then in the last chapter addresses some myths about human lives being affected by lunar cycles. The only evidence that seemed up for interpretations one way or another has to do with our sleep cycles. The moon doesn't cause people to go crazy or commit crimes. It's traditional beliefs like these that make scientists cringe. But Naylor expertly aims his arguments at those who appreciate true scientific arguments. Most of those myths are nothing more. But some of them are based on a seed of truth. And in the stories that he tells, there are some unlikely characters. I rolled my eyes at the lengthy section on the sea louse (yes, that's a thing) only to be later intrigued by the lowly dung beetle navigating by the polarization of light from the full moon. Okay, he got me. That's pretty cool.

It's not exactly a chatty book, but I recommend it for fans and/or students of science who want to learn about the process of science. He handles the presence of truth mired in myth expertly.

I got a free copy of this from Net Galley.

This book is full of crazy people. For the most part, I enjoyed spending time with them. The collection is all over the place, with letters and dialogues and jokes and, well, some of these I didn't know what to call them. I think the word for that is essay -- something to say when you don't know what to say.

Several of these were funny, some funny and poignant, and yes, there were a few misses for me (true of almost any comedy collection). It was a fun, entertaining, and a quick read. One piece of advice, though: don't start to read it in front of a classroom of students who are earnestly taking the exam you got up way too early to write because you just can't face doing work yet and whose idea was it to have this class so early anyway. Laughing while your students are taking your exam is definitely not professional behavior.

I got a copy of this from Net Galley.

MacFarquhar approaches the subject of extremely ethical people (do-gooders) with the eye of a sociologist. What makes these people tick? How do they question themselves and others? How do they stay sane? These are the folks who question every dollar they spend because it could otherwise pay for medicine for a sick child somewhere in Africa. Who live in dangerous settings for the opportunity to help people, to do some good, to relieve suffering (of people, mostly, but also some chickens).

The title comes from the hypothetical question of whether, when given the chance to save a drowning person who we love (say, your mother) or two strangers, which would you choose? I hate these hypotheticals. If I have time to save two people, one of them should be my mother, and then she can help save the other stranger. Let's work together here. I object to these hypothetical black and white questions. But getting past my issues... The point is that MacFarquhar summarizes the ethics of do-gooders by those who would save the drowning strangers, those who value a life unconnected to them just as much as a loved one, who can detach and see one life vs two and choose the two. This has very real consequences in their personal lives. They do great work, but often don't have great personal lives, since most of us would like to think that someone who loves us would save our lives over those of strangers.

Another characterization that runs throughout the book is that we think these people are crazy in peacetime, but in wartime (the kind of war that actually affects the personal lives of citizens), we all expect personal sacrifice. It's a special case. For do-gooders, MacFarquhar says, it's always wartime. Personal sacrifice is always called for. It is selfish and cowardly to live otherwise.

The book runs back and forth between extended descriptions of the lives of individual do-gooders and chapters discussing the philosophy and ethics involved in do-gooders in general. The pacing is good, the stories readable. I just don't know what to make of all this. It's a "huh. that's interesting" book for me, but I don't know what I'm going to do with that knowledge now. As MacFarquhar concludes, we can't all live like the extreme do-gooders she describes, but the world is a better place with them. I think I can agree with her on that. But it doesn't make me want to be a do-gooder, nor to encourage others to be. There's a lot of pain in here. As a whole, these do-gooders are not happy. But they do do good.

I got a free copy of this from First to Read.

MacFarquhar approaches the subject of extremely ethical people (do-gooders) with the eye of a sociologist. What makes these people tick? How do they question themselves and others? How do they stay sane? These are the folks who question every dollar they spend because it could otherwise pay for medicine for a sick child somewhere in Africa. Who live in dangerous settings for the opportunity to help people, to do some good, to relieve suffering (of people, mostly, but also some chickens).

The title comes from the hypothetical question of whether, when given the chance to save a drowning person who we love (say, your mother) or two strangers, which would you choose? I hate these hypotheticals. If I have time to save two people, one of them should be my mother, and then she can help save the other stranger. Let's work together here. I object to these hypothetical black and white questions. But getting past my issues... The point is that MacFarquhar summarizes the ethics of do-gooders by those who would save the drowning strangers, those who value a life unconnected to them just as much as a loved one, who can detach and see one life vs two and choose the two. This has very real consequences in their personal lives. They do great work, but often don't have great personal lives, since most of us would like to think that someone who loves us would save our lives over those of strangers.

Another characterization that runs throughout the book is that we think these people are crazy in peacetime, but in wartime (the kind of war that actually affects the personal lives of citizens), we all expect personal sacrifice. It's a special case. For do-gooders, MacFarquhar says, it's always wartime. Personal sacrifice is always called for. It is selfish and cowardly to live otherwise.

The book runs back and forth between extended descriptions of the lives of individual do-gooders and chapters discussing the philosophy and ethics involved in do-gooders in general. The pacing is good, the stories readable. I just don't know what to make of all this. It's a "huh. that's interesting" book for me, but I don't know what I'm going to do with that knowledge now. As MacFarquhar concludes, we can't all live like the extreme do-gooders she describes, but the world is a better place with them. I think I can agree with her on that. But it doesn't make me want to be a do-gooder, nor to encourage others to be. There's a lot of pain in here. As a whole, these do-gooders are not happy. But they do do good.

I got a free copy of this from First to Read.

MacFarquhar approaches the subject of extremely ethical people (do-gooders) with the eye of a sociologist. What makes these people tick? How do they question themselves and others? How do they stay sane? These are the folks who question every dollar they spend because it could otherwise pay for medicine for a sick child somewhere in Africa. Who live in dangerous settings for the opportunity to help people, to do some good, to relieve suffering (of people, mostly, but also some chickens).

The title comes from the hypothetical question of whether, when given the chance to save a drowning person who we love (say, your mother) or two strangers, which would you choose? I hate these hypotheticals. If I have time to save two people, one of them should be my mother, and then she can help save the other stranger. Let's work together here. I object to these hypothetical black and white questions. But getting past my issues... The point is that MacFarquhar summarizes the ethics of do-gooders by those who would save the drowning strangers, those who value a life unconnected to them just as much as a loved one, who can detach and see one life vs two and choose the two. This has very real consequences in their personal lives. They do great work, but often don't have great personal lives, since most of us would like to think that someone who loves us would save our lives over those of strangers.

Another characterization that runs throughout the book is that we think these people are crazy in peacetime, but in wartime (the kind of war that actually affects the personal lives of citizens), we all expect personal sacrifice. It's a special case. For do-gooders, MacFarquhar says, it's always wartime. Personal sacrifice is always called for. It is selfish and cowardly to live otherwise.

The book runs back and forth between extended descriptions of the lives of individual do-gooders and chapters discussing the philosophy and ethics involved in do-gooders in general. The pacing is good, the stories readable. I just don't know what to make of all this. It's a "huh. that's interesting" book for me, but I don't know what I'm going to do with that knowledge now. As MacFarquhar concludes, we can't all live like the extreme do-gooders she describes, but the world is a better place with them. I think I can agree with her on that. But it doesn't make me want to be a do-gooder, nor to encourage others to be. There's a lot of pain in here. As a whole, these do-gooders are not happy. But they do do good.

I got a free copy of this from First to Read.

I'll never see my electronic gadgets the same way again! In this amazing book, David Abraham surveyed our current uses of rare metals, where they come from, how dependent on them we are, and what those consequences are. There was a great balance of science and tech and international politics and policy. As we work to make our lives better, more convenient, and greener (think batteries!), we're using more and more elements most people have never heard of. And since we don't mine those elements here in America, we lack both the awareness and the expertise to grasp the effects. Abraham bemoans the lack of American study and oversight of the technological changes we've made: is it okay to rely on China to mine these resources for us, outsourcing our pollution? Japan recently learned the hard way that rare elements are the foundation of their tech economy -- when China withheld them, Japan capitulated to China's policy demands. A small fraction of American's recycle their gadgets, but even when they do, only a small fraction of the metals are recovered; can we make recycling more green?

The stat that really got my attention early on in the book was the fact that, though an Intel chip in the 1990s was built with only 15 elements, today Intel chips are manufactured with nearly 60 different elements. The supply chain is not secure; in fact, most companies don't really know where this stuff is coming from. Our own military has only recently realized that the security of this supply chain is a new vulnerability and set out to study it. As a 21st-century nation, we don't really train people in mining anymore. Colorado School of Mines is pretty much the only institution doing it, and they're rather isolated and short on funds.

Abraham calls for some action as well as awareness. These rare elements are already major international policy players. We should be organizing to ensure that we can influence how they are harvested, how much is supplied and how they are used. Before I read the book, that would have been a yawner for me. Not so anymore, which means that Abraham has a good chance of accomplishing what he set out to do. Now we just need to get enough folks to read it.

I got a free copy of this from Net Galley.

I found The Last Season an enjoyable, easy read, full of football, family, and Mississippi history. There isn't a whole lot of Stuart Stevens' character in here -- he doesn't dominate his own narrative. But his parents do, and I really enjoyed spending time with his parents and hearing their thoughts. They seemed very consistent, the same people in their advanced retirement as they were in when Stuart was young, and sure of who they are and what their roles in the community are.

There were several things that kept this from being a 5-star "amazing" read for me, though. Everything here is a before and after shot, from Stuart's childhood to 2013, with little in-between. That works because of the football theme. They haven't been to an Ole Miss season since he was a kid, so his thoughts are running in a before-and-after mode. But because the last 40 years of his life is missing, it feels like he's resisting doing much personal reflection, which is kinda weird in a memoir like this. And he doesn't reflect on the football itself and how it affects the players, the SEC/college football culture, etc. He's set out to do one particular kind of reflection, and that's all that gets through. So it's somewhat unsatisfying if you're used to thoughtful memoirs. But...like I said, it's an easy, enjoyable read. Just don't expect any epiphanies...

I got a free copy of this through First to Read.

This series is just pure fun from beginning to end, and I think this is my favorite installment. The collection of characters is eccentric and lovable. The story is told with a wink and a smile. There's drama, but the good guys aren't in any real danger. None of the dark stuff like the popular Scandinavian mysteries. Lots of interesting location info. But mostly character, character, character.

I snapped up a free copy of this from Net Galley.

This is a beautiful book. I started reading it on my black-and-white ereader and quickly realized I was missing out, so I read it in full color, large image size on my computer. The pictures are breathtaking. A large fraction of bioluminescent creatures are deep-sea creatures -- hence the nasty ugly picture on the cover. Yes, fireflies would've been cooler. But there's some wicked cool creatures down deep, and they do weird things.

There are some good little stories in here about the process of science and how we know what we know about creatures that glow naturally. It's brief but very informative.

But only the first half or so is about creatures that bioluminesce (okay, maybe a little more than half). The last couple chapters are on how we use bioluminescence in research and what it has helped us learn. There's a section of quarum-sensing in bacteria, which is fascinating and I had never heard of it. We can also trace just about any gene through an organism by making it glow. Really intriguing stuff.

So even though you've probably not thought a lot about glowing animals, there's some really neat things to learn in here. The publisher calls it a junior science book, and it's certainly accessible to junior high school students. Things are explained well and there are great pictures. But it isn't dumbed down or oversimplified. I would say something like 6th grade and up. All the way to adulthood. I bet you'll learn something from it.

I got a free copy of this from Net Galley.