Orwell, George (1948): 1984

What is it about?

It feels a little unnecessary to introduce such a widely known and appreciated book as 1984, but here goes. It is a dystopian novel which describes an authoritarian society Oceania. In this one-party society, surveillance is everywhere - i.e. the 'Big Brother' is always watching - and public opinion is heavily regulated and manipulated.

While the description of such a society is a significant merit in and of itself to capture our imagination concerning what it would be like to live in a society like or even closely resembling it, in my opinion the vastly greatest merit of Orwell in this book is in describing the means with which such a state of affairs is created and maintained.

Was it good?

Without doubt yes - and the word 'good' can't even begin to do justice to the book. In my list of the best or most important books I have read, this one would easily be in the top three, perhaps even number one. The embedded political commentary is just stunning and the literary elegance with which it is put forth is second to none. I seem to keep coming back to this book every other year or so.

The main take-away for me?

The main take-away for me was - once again - the means with which the dystopian society was put and is held together. The reason for this is that this allows one to reflect back to one's real-life societal context and see whether there are emerging or ongoing initiatives or trajectories that could point to Oceania.

For example, the notion of 'newspeak' (a language from which 'politically dangerous' words are being consciously removed in order to remove the possibility to speak and eventually even think about subversive ideas) is a very powerful reminder for us about the way words (concepts) are used to construct reality. While the 'strength' of this mechanism is subject to debate in academic linguistics and related disciplines (see e.g. here), I'm quite ready to subscribe to its basic reality. Here, consider for example the concepts 'racism' and 'immigration criticism' and their current usage.

Similarly, the notion of a 'thought crime' - a real crime in Oceania - is quite a powerful notion and can quite readily be reflect against current discourse about 'incorrect' socio-political opinions or mindsets. I emphasize here the notions 'thought', 'opinion' and 'mindset' - it's a different story altogether as to how or whether one acts upon one's thoughts.

Who should read the book?

Everyone, absolutely everyone. Moreover, this is a book everyone should read one every few years.

Indeed, in my opinion, this book should be part and parcel of core reading curriculum in every school system everywhere.

The book on Amazon.com: 1984

Siegel, Daniel J. (2011): The Neurobiology of 'We': How Relationships, the Mind, and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are

What is it about?

The audio course (i.e. not a proper book) aims to explain how we - or, to be more precise, our minds - interact to create social relationships between us, that is, to construct 'us'.

I chose the  based on the main title and expected it to be 'hard science' (c.f. neurobiology), but it turned out to be a little bit softer. That is, the book is more 'lifestyle-persuading' than just 'here is the science'.

Was it good?

Well, the course was nice listening, but the author's take on the subject matter made me hesitate every now and then as to what's the scientific backing to what is being claimed. I certainly don't have the credentials or neurobiological expertise to challenge anything in the course, but the still I could not escape the feeling.

Thus, I would say that the course is more like 'why not, can't hurt really' than 'must to know'.

The main take-away for me?

Actually, the main take-away for me did not really relate to the subject matter of the course but rather operates at the meta level. Namely, throughout the book I was thinking along the lines 'how and why we 'know' (or believe) anything we know'? This relates to the nagging feeling that I had throughout the course about whether I should believe what the author states or not while not having any relevant expertise to judge it myself. This applies to all kinds of knowledge about, say, fundamental physics or cosmology. In such cases we really have to use some contextual cues to judge the credibility of the information being assessed rather than the information itself - for example, the 'market share' of the idea among people who appear experts (like scientists with credentials in the field).

Who should read the book?

I think that the course 'wouldn't really hurt anyone' but I have hard time of thinking about who would be particularly fascinated by it.

The course on Amazon.com: The neurobiology of 'we'

Ries, Eric (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses

What is it about?

In the book, the author describes an agile approach to managing (and thinking about) new business ventures, i.e. start-ups. At the heart of the approach is learning: basically launching a "minimally viable product", exposing it to customers, observing their reactions (i.e. learning), translating those observations into a revised product and so on. (This may be an overly simplified take on the process, though.)

The two main goals of this approach are, consistently with 'lean' approaches in general, speed and elimination of waste. For example, with a "minimally viable product" no possibly unwanted features are developed, hence saving time and avoiding potential unnecessary work.

Was it good?

The book was quite intriguing - the main message is loud and clear, and the several case vignettes illustrate the principles in practice. In this sense, the book was rather compelling. However, throughout the book, I kept thinking whether the principles and practices are universally generalisable (though it is debatable whether this is possible with any principle or practice). For example, it may be that there may be contexts where minimally viable products have to include quite an extensive set of features to make it viable at all. Think of smartphones for example: in contemporary smartphone markets it may be quite infeasible for new entrants such as Oppo some years ago to enter the (consumer9 market with a stripped-down product as a minimally viable product - or alternatively the product concept should be quite radically different from mainstream offerings.

The main take-away for me?

The main take-away for me was the application of the scientific method in this kind of a domain, management of new business ventures. That is, the lean approach is based on formulating plausible hypotheses (what the customers would likely appreciate), conducting controlled experiments (exposing customers to the product hypothesised to be compelling), gathering data (observing customers' behaviour) and drawing conclusions (confirming or revising hypotheses, i.e. learning). In addition, the notion of waste and its many manifestations if a welcome reminder to be applied in various domains of professional - and personal - life.

Who should read the book?

Well, of course the prime audience for the book are entrepreneurs and start-up employees, especially in consumer-oriented software companies where the lean approach probably is most readily applicable. However, as the author suggests, all practicing managers or other management thinkers surely get food for thought from the book.

The book on Amazon.com: The Lean Startup

Dennett, Daniel C. (2015). Intuition Pumps and Other Tools of Thinking

What is it about?

The book is, in a way, about two things. First, Dennett discusses (or, at times, introduces) quite generic 'tools of thinking' such as the familiar Occam's razor, and some litmus tests for detecting shabby arguments such as the 'surely test'. And second, Dennett discusses about some substantive domains of thought such as computers, consciousness and biological evolution.

Was it good?

Characteristically for Dennett, the book is enjoyable to read. Especially the relaxed and, at times, 'in your face' style of expression make the reading experience quite pleasant - and argumentation very accessible. To my taste, the first section - about the generic tools of thinking - remains somewhat disconnected from the rest of the book. Moreover, Dennett is in his element in discussing substantive matters such as consciousness and artificial intelligence, and therefore the book would have been just fine - and perhaps a bit more consistent as well - without the first section. Nonetheless, it is an absolute pleasure to follow argumentation of such a deep and no-nonsense-ish thinker as as Dennett.

The main take-away for me?

It's difficult to single out any particular take-away. Perhaps the main take-away is on a more abstract level. Namely, very clear thinking without the need of overly complex mental and rhetorical constructions can take one quite far (though only so far - the powers of 'mere' philosophy often run out when 'serious' science has still plenty of ammunition left). In particular, works like this makes one appreciate the method of the thought experiment as an often indispensable aid to clear thinking.

Who should read the book?

Well, anyone interested in philosophical (i.e. currently poorly understood) issues or the philosophical method is pretty much guaranteed to enjoy the book even if one would not fully subscribe to all Dennett's views and conclusions. For others, it may be that the subjects covered as well as the way they are covered may appear either overly fuzzy (e.g. the nature and origins of consciousness) or even a bit ridiculous (e.g. making a point with an example in which one is inside a robot having to control it by pressing unlabelled buttons while observing a wall of unlabelled lights as guidance).

Still, I very much would recommend this book - like any by Dennett - for anyone with a philosophical bent.

The book on Amazon.com: Intuition Pumps and Other Tools of Thinking

Bynum, William (2013): A Little History of Science

What is it about?

The book is basically an intellectual history of the mankind; it proceeds more or less chronologically from some millennia BCE until the modern day. However, the bulk of the book is devoted to the past two or three centuries, which is entirely appropriate for a modern-day reader.

Was it good?

Extremely good. The proceeding is not strictly linear over time, because the book is nicely organized into thematic chapters (e.g. "airs and gases", "coughs, sneezes and diseases") each of which present a "mini-history" of that theme, spanning a few decades or a century or so. This is a very appealing choice, as in this manner the reader can absorb the contents in thematic modules of sort. In addition, the narrative is very fluent and even entertaining, in many cases following a central character within a focal "mini-history". 

The main take-away for me?

Well, perhaps the main take-away from a book like this has to be the 'great arch' of developments - how the human kind has proceeded in acquiring knowledge and understanding its surroundings. However, while reading books like this, I tend to wonder more strongly as usual about in what respects we, today, are more or less in the dark concerning this or that - like people some centuries ago concerning how diseases spread, for example.

Who should read the book?

This - or equivalent contents - should be be read (or known in outline) by every well-read person, for sure. Moreover, as the book is very fluently written, it should be quite accessible to anyone.

The book on Amazon.com: A Little History of Science

Diamond, Jared (2012): The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?

What is it about?

The book discusses the diversity of human culture (and consequently social practices) around the world - particularly in 'traditional' societies (i.e. societies which have not 'westernized' or have done so only recently).

The basic setup of the book is that there are some aspects of those cultures that we in 'western' 'modern' societies would benefit from (e.g. with regard dietary habits or conflict resolution) and some which in turn would be downright harmful (e.g. widow strangling or infanticide).

Was it good?

Absolutely. The book is such and written in such a manner that it undoubtedly takes a very seasoned and experienced (and practically oriented) scholar to write it. In other words, modern narrowly focused scholarship is not generally geared towards producing such "this is the variety of human experience down to enjoying early morning bird songs and this is how you could lead a happier life" treatises. Moreover, the ample personal anecdotes backing up and illustrating the arguments make the book extremely enjoyable to read.

The main take-away for me?

There probably are two. The first and more immediate one is constituted by the actual 'life-enhancing' observations, like those related to dietary, social and exercise habits. And the other is the reinforced understanding that the human condition is very, very variable around the world and that there really is something to cultural relativism even though it is, of course, still somewhat troublesome as an universal norm (something that the author does not problematize, though).

Who should read the book?

Basically everyone. The book is very accessible and vividly written - no scholarly excesses here. Moreover, both the above-mentioned take-aways should resonate quite universally given a sufficiently open mind.

The book on Amazon.com: The World Until Yesterday

Anderson, Benedict (2006): Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised Edition

What is it about?

The book discusses the nature and emergence of nationalism, and then proceeds to discuss several empirical cases around the world. The basic argument of the book - put forth quite early on, is that nations are socially constructed entities where vernacular language and mass communication have a significant role. The argument is well developed and compelling.

Was it good?

Yes and no. The first - more conceptual - part of the book where the basic argument is developed is very interesting, reads quite fluently and exhibits clarity of thinking. However, there onwards the author proceeds to discuss empirical cases of nationalism and nation-building, which appears to jump from case to case in no particular order. Therefore at least for me the empirical discussion was quite laborious to follow; there seemed to be no clear read thread to organize the empirical discussion. Thus, if I were to read the book again, I would only read the conceptual part.

The main take-away for me?

Clearly, the notion of a nation as being socially constructed - 'imagined' - was the main take-away, and lead me to constantly apply this notion to my national context, Finland, where it undoubtedly makes sense. However, perhaps the more important take-away for me was that it lead me to more explicitly consider also other social phenomena as 'imagined', or socially considered. They are, once you look at them in this manner, everywhere.

Who should read the book?

If one considers the whole book, perhaps it would be of most interest to 'hard core' social scientists. However, the first conceptual part would be interesting to, I believe, nearly everyone if the scholarly writing style does not bother too much.

The book on Amazon.com: Imagined Communities