Ridiculous. It’s a cross between a puff piece for Scott Adams and a political ad for Trump. ( )

Wow. This book is a fascinating example of what happens when a moderately smart person succumbs to their own hubris. The irony is that the focus of the book is escaping your own mental prisons, and the entire, or nearly entire book is a exhibit #1 of his own failure to escape from his own mental prisons. Examples are innumerable, but a striking one is the assertion that we cannot judge President Trump’s (for whom SA is the supreme worshiper and explainer-in-chief) performance since we have no way to judge how someone else would have reacted or responded in the same circumstances given the overall complexity, etc. Mr. Adams is quite adroit at making it sound plausible, but this is on its face absurd. So we can’t judge CEOs, athletes, or anyone else’s job performance since it is impossible to know how someone else would’ve performed in the same circumstances at the same time? Of course we can: Trump is an objectively awful president in a multitude of ways (Number of sexual assault allegations, impeached more than any other president, treasonous attempt to overthrow the government, etc. ad nauseam). ( )

Some good observations from a not particularly modest person! You learn many times over that the author is trained in various fields. Once or twice would have been enough. ( )

My review of this book can be found on my YouTube Vlog at:

https://youtu.be/AIfhuGk695c

Enjoy!

This book is about already known, and much written about, logical fallacies. It is good material, but not a new concept. I don't appreciate books that take known material and give the topic a new name (loserthink).

The examples of "loserthink" themselves are not helpful. Climate change is not an opinion. The climate change skeptics are not scientists. I'm a scientist who studied climate change. Admittedly, it isn't the area where I specialized, but even so, I learned enough to know that this isn't a topic for debate.

What is true, as he claims, is that climate change models are estimates based on known facts, and yes, it is true that we can't really know what will happen in the future until it happens, because Earth is a complicated living planet. Why choose this as an example of "loserthink" when there ARE facts, as well as lots of money behind the science skeptics? Why not instead either show how this factual area of study has been misrepresented, or talk about how the scientists could do a better job communicating with the public, or even better, choose another topic to use as an example. The two sides in this debate are science vs those in denial of the facts.

And who cares what all the annoying politicians on both sides are saying. I'd rather hear about actual conversations that the rest of us are having.

He claims that life is better than it ever has been for humans, and this is not a fact. Perhaps it is a fact if we are talking about the comforts and conveniences that a typical white man has, but please don't assume that the rest of us have those ever-expanding privileges. For some of us, we struggle for much of our lives for safety, a home, and food to eat. And the world is getting worse for the non-privileged. It is a fact that ninety-something percent of the worlds intact ecosystems are gone. Most of the world's ocean-fish are overfished. We are in the middle of the next great extinction event and he goes on to claim that life is better than ever? Perhaps the author needs to review a few facts, or perhaps the readers might consider that this is a rich white man who wants the rest of us to think that life on a planet with shrinking ecosystems is a good life. I for one appreciate clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, and grieve for the creatures going extinct as ecosystems are being turned into resources to support the comforts of rich white guys like the author.

I don't like this book. I do agree that there are many fallacies that should not be used in place of good facts and good conversational methods, but these examples are not appropriate. When hard facts are known about a topic, why would I pretend those facts are not known. I can go for a walk and see that the land is degraded compared to when I was younger, if it is even still there at all, instead of being turned into an open pit mine or a subdivision.

We didn't need a new book about logical fallacies, and certainly not one that is biased on the side of rich white men. Maybe he should take his own advice when it comes to topics in which he has no experience and no knowledge of the facts.

One of the most depressing section of this book is when he lists things that are supposed to make us feel positive. He lists all the technological advances that will make human existence easier for the upper classes, while ignoring the fate of non-humans, indigenous peoples, and the living planet. Does he really think that better and cheaper air conditioners will fix climate change?

While there is some good material in this book, over all I felt as this book was an attempt to persuade me that climate change isn't real, that technological advances will save humanity, and that nothing other than human comfort matters. I for one care about the living community around me, and can't agree on his unspoken premise that human comfort and the economic system of capitalism is primary. ( )