About the best book i have listened to on particle physics. Despite being branded as a course, the lectures make a better book on particle physics forAbout the best book i have listened to on particle physics. Despite being branded as a course, the lectures make a better book on particle physics for normal readers than almost any popular books. This is possibly one of the best early courses for anyone studying the standard model.
The author has a knack of keeping extremely complicated things extremely simple. He covers many grounds in a relatively short time but while rarely appearing superficial. His description on various particles, their discoveries and concepts like spin, colour etc is one of the best I have read. For example, the lucidity with which he explains how these concepts are nothing but quantum states is quite remarkable.
The same holds true when he introduces various types of quarks and neutrinos. He manages to keep the framework simple and understandable despite adding particles by dozens. The author successfully shows why the standard model, despite its lack of deterministic construction and other oddities is remarkable and a great representation of the universe around us.
As the book is written before the Higg's discovery, it may appear a bit dated. The sections on dark energy in particular could have been more detailed. Yet, all in all a remarkable book.
IF I am allowed to suggest only one book to my son on his 15th birthday, most likely this will be the one. And the book should not be for the teenagerIF I am allowed to suggest only one book to my son on his 15th birthday, most likely this will be the one. And the book should not be for the teenagers trying to learn their first lessons on various strands of philosophy. On my second reading of the book, I sure would want to read again in another 15-20 years to re-learn the same thoughts with a different perspective.
The book has myriads of faults for the fault-finders. The philosophical views are rendered extremely simplistic for them to be understandable by the uninitiated. Its pop-philosohpy suffers from a bigger fault: lack of critical analysis in most cases. Omission of details are often jarring when beyond a point the summaries of various views sound quite similar to many others. Sophie's own story too is relatively weak despite a dramatic twist (literal) in the middle.
All that said, this is a classic of its unique kind. The author's reviews should prove no more difficult and no less wondrous than they are to Sophie. Few readers are likely to end the book with less or same curiosity levels than at the beginning. The book is particularly useful to anyone at an impressionable age - about the best gift one can give to any budding youth....more
Trying to discover what happened just before or just after the farther most time point for which we just discovered what might have happened (past) orTrying to discover what happened just before or just after the farther most time point for which we just discovered what might have happened (past) or is going to happen (future) is an endless and increasingly speculative game. There are good theories on what may have happened at the Big Bang or even before; the author covered the events of the past in the book titled How It Began. Out here, he tries to sketch the future.
What makes the book particularly interesting is its non-cosmological first part. The first section on the decay of any living being and individual mortality is fascinating. The book could have devoted some more space speculating whether/how in a 1000 or so years there could be human beings living hundreds of years (the topic of elongation of our lives and our existence in other forms - like digital data - is covered but rather too briefly).
The sections that follow on the near future (by the cosmic standards) involve myriads of ways how our specie, the animal life on the planet and even the earth itself could go extinct. The biosphere discussions provide a more comprehensive makeover to the book before the author slips into his own area of expertise: cosmology.
While the explanations/summaries are lucid and the flow is engaging, the discussions on the demise of the sun, stars, galaxies and even the universe are unlikely to add anything new to anyone who has read a handful of books on the cosmic theories. For the readers coming across the topics for the first time, the discussions of the multitudes of highly involved and complex topics could appear too perfunctory and rapid.
As the author tries to describe the current scientific conjectures of the unknowable eventuality, the reader could be pardoned to feel that the lines between the theological and scientific beliefs are getting blurred. In fact, the beginning and the end increasingly look almost identical. It is a wonder that the author still mostly skips the guesses on the biggest question "why all the fuss" after unconsciously highlighting the futility of it all throughout!
After a long while, there is a popular science book that tries to make sense of new discoveries rather than just detail their findings. One may or mayAfter a long while, there is a popular science book that tries to make sense of new discoveries rather than just detail their findings. One may or may not agree with the philosophical and metaphysical leanings and conclusions of the author but the book would make even the most uninitiated in modern physics or cosmology to think, which is its huge achievement.
Post the arrival of quantum mechanics, and particularly in the last few decades, experimental scientists have taken over the increasingly complex sciences where new equations, particles and mathematics describing the world we live in are plentiful but few that make any rational sense. While many of the new discoveries may still help us manipulate the nature more to further our interests, most of them have caused us to regress in our desire to explore the meaning of the existence - something that was about the biggest objective of great theoretical scientists for centuries.
Leo Smolin makes a brave attempt to infuse a meaning to all this. His quick description of the relevant innovations and discoveries since the 16th century provides a good basis for what is to come later. The author has a great habit of repetitively explaining the same complex points/claims using different analogies and examples. In the end, most people should find the book well-balanced - neither too esoteric nor simplistic.
All that said, the main theory is not only extremely speculative (which is needed for anything that tries to provide an answer to some of the deepest cosmological issues) but not unfalsifiable as the author claims and certainly not as obviously credible as the author makes it out to be.
Let's describe the author's world somewhat differently: say, the evolution of universes happens in meta-time (this reviewer's phrase to explain the author's absolute time different from the time within various universes). The author never considers the possibility of population of universes - which would make his theory somewhat similar to multiverses (although not universes that encompass all quantum states). Even under the author's world view, there is no reason why there are not gazillions of universes existing today giving rise to the gazillion more all the time to eternity.
Even if the universes evolve in such a way that they can give rise to as many of their clones as possible, what are the scarce resources even if we do not ponder the purpose And why do the universes that can give rise to the similar others have to still have life structures like ours to be deemed more fit? In other words, there could always be other worlds with other laws and cosmological constants/matter/energy etc with more ability to nurture baby universes even without any life forms. Why is the probability of a universe that is fit to evolve also having complex life not almost zero?
This makes the falsifiability claims that the author asserts for his theories are not really valid. The author rejects - for instance - multiverse theory on the basis of extremely low probability of the world that we have. Really? Even in the 10^500 different worlds, if only one can have the cosmological constant so low as to support life, we have to be just be that. Plus, just because we are here to observe in a universe that is expanding - or whatever else it is - is neither the proof that this is an evolutionary fit universe nor remotely a proof of evolution.
The theory eventually needs too many departures from the scientific laws as we have learnt them. The meta-system with the meta-laws and absolute time (meta-time) does not truly reconcile with the Einstein's relative laws. This is explained away by making relativity an approximate description of a sub-system. The same treatment is given to the non-locality and probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics, the second law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy and everything else that is inconvenient. Essentially, all the laws of our system as we know them are deemed transient, approximate and broadly invalid, which is fine, but all this makes the overall claims on the description of reality a matter of faith and hardly verifiable from our system and by us.
Despite the shortcomings, a great book and a great theory. No way to prove or disprove in our generations but worth reading and thinking nonetheless. ...more
There are many good popular books where larger than life theoretical scientists are the focus but few where experimental science/scientists are given There are many good popular books where larger than life theoretical scientists are the focus but few where experimental science/scientists are given the centre stage. This book is clearly in the latter category and is a result refreshing and also tremendously difficult. The book is possibly a great reminder of the post 1970-era where it is less and less about individual scientists and their grand theories and more about statistical evidences, giant machines built by multiple governments and equations that even fastest computers take days/years to process just partially.
Both quantum physics and modern cosmology have taken science to a point where observations of new particles and new correlations are as fascinating as Columbus sighting America. This makes the observation/discovery science bewildering, almost meaningless, statistically speculative, apparently irrational as we define rationality and detail-oriented. The classical understanding - of the kind we learn in school/college science classes that provide a structure to what is going on - is just not feasible.
This book starts where the conventional understanding ends - ie, post relativistic/early quantum mechanics days of theoretical science. It directly dives into the exotic era of completely new particles, energy, fields, interactions and their discoveries. It takes it for granted that the readers here are familiar with the basic concepts of quantum mechanics of Schrodinger, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli etc. As a result, the book is often difficult to fathom. However, the author's repetitive explanations and simple analogies do provide at least some method to the madness.
The most important topic, the unidentified boson, its discovery and the discoverer CERN, are all adequately covered. Some of the parts are likely to disappoint almost any reader as the author skips between funding politics, short discussions on competitions between scientists, statistics behind the discovery and various diverse topics all the time while still maintaining the thread on sub-atomic particles.
This is a book about where the sciences are now as against the dozens of books that love to talk about the fairy-tale like pre-WW 2 leaps in theoretical sciences. Difficult but different. Makes the world much less meaningful while shattering the child-like fantasies of some GUT that could be understood by anyone while providing an end to science/religion/philosophy in some distant future but such is life!...more
A real life story that had to be told and must be read.
Google changed the world multiple times in the last fifteen years. For any tech buff or a buddiA real life story that had to be told and must be read.
Google changed the world multiple times in the last fifteen years. For any tech buff or a budding scientist/engineer, the Google story is inspirational for a variety of reasons. Unlike Apple, the Google's success is not just about the genius of the two pioneers. This book introduces tens of other individuals who brick-by-brick (or app by app) made what Google is today.
The evolution from the Search to the AdWord to Gmail and Android through numerous other successful and failed products is fascinating by itself. The author does a great job explaining how these individual Google facets came into existence along with some of the more understandable and highly interesting technical issues.
The book turns more lively as it explains the unique (and changing) culture of Google. The fights with China and Apple along with the discussions of the causes not only makes the story exciting but also explains what makes the company truly likeable. The elitist hiring culture, the egalitarian pantry practices, the gym-ball seats and many other small details perhaps explain why the world loves Google.
It's a story told in real-time. While there is a lot of information available on Google on the Web, the author still brings a great amount of new, valuable insight through the structure, lucidity and because of the access to the people working at the highly secretive organization. ...more
A must read book simply for the subject matter. In fact, a must repeat read every decade or so.
One can find numerous faults in the book: starting fromA must read book simply for the subject matter. In fact, a must repeat read every decade or so.
One can find numerous faults in the book: starting from the style to the author's own biases affecting nearly every topic/selection to the lesser focus on ideas compared to the personalities. Yet, few books would make readers better start on this most important topic.
In a way, the ideas discussed are already dated. A book focussed more on coherently addressing the philosophical issues may no longer choose more than one or two of the personalities discussed given the advancements of recent decades. However, learning the history of philosophy briefly is perhaps as critical as knowing the origins of religions or evolution of science. As one should not stop learning the theories propounded by Newton in the post Einstenian world, the same goes for the Plato and the likes. And this book is perhaps the best in this league.
All of us will benefit immensely if there are many, many more such books....more
I have not come across good books on the development of medicinal science in the first half of the 20th century. This book beautifully fills the void I have not come across good books on the development of medicinal science in the first half of the 20th century. This book beautifully fills the void for people interested in the amazing leaps (and dives) taken by humanity in that immensely important period.
There are countless number of books on the historic discoveries in relativity and quantum physics between 1905-1945. The personal stories of the famous scientists as well as the role played by them/their right and wrong innovations plus discourses and arguments are some of the most inspiring and fascinating involving science that any reader is likely to ever come across.
Yet, many have claimed for decades that the most far-reaching discoveries of the 20th century were not in physical or computer sciences but in the medicinal field. The enormity of the claim that few of us understand as there are not many well-recounted evidences of what drugs did compared to computers or space travel in the popular books. This book describes one of the laboratory revolutions of the field and beautifully proves how the course of humanity was changed by them.
The author focuses on the stories of the personalities involved and serendiptous nature of the progress. The effort spent on describing the pre-sulfa world makes for an apt backdrop as it is more difficult for the people of our generation to conceive how different the doctors, prescriptions and treatments used to be in the nineteenth century than perhaps the world without automobiles or mobile phones. We were a society where people were frequently succumbing to complications arising from things as simple as cuts and colds or real life events as usual as child births.
The author covers discoveries that directly and indirectly raised human life expectancies by decades, changed course of wars and made a real science out of the doctor's work. Like any real life stories, there are bound to be more interpretations of the roles played by various discoveries and scientists, but the author does a good job of presenting his view. The real strength of the book is in the way it flows and the simplicity of the tale which makes it completely accessible to readers who know nothing about the diseases or medicines. ...more
There is a huge industry that has sprung up in recent decades and Kahneman is one of its founding fathers: no I am not talking about the field of behaThere is a huge industry that has sprung up in recent decades and Kahneman is one of its founding fathers: no I am not talking about the field of behavioral science, but an industry of writing interesting, instant best sellers mocking at either
A> the scientific linearity assumed in explaining the real world facts or B> the orthodox statistical formulas employed in estimating the real life events or C> the bland, Aristotelian rationality assumed for the human decision making process or all!
To be honest, there are few real life practitioners of any hard sciences or investment industries who possibly believe in the complete infallibility of the formulas they may have learned from the high-school or university textbooks. The practitioners deploy the archaic-appearing tools mostly because they have little else that is equally usable for even that much utility (which is considerable for most purposes). Rather than using words, impressions and biases alone to draw whatever conclusions, some sort of objectivity obtained with the assumptions that appear ridiculous on close scrutiny is extremely useful. That's what makes planes fly or beam live TVs or help markets channel savings where needed. These things do fail every now and then but the alternatives are worse.
Back to the book (finally), Kahneman's almost repetitive books should be read (along with those of Taleb, Gladwell and so many others) as they shed light on so many irrationalities that most of us are blind to despite being fully aware of the shortcomings of traditional analytical and decision tools. The author is far less useful when he is trying to categorize various thinking patterns through an unlimited toolbox of fancy names, as these categories not only overlap but have no genuine solutions except in the form of beware signs.
But, the real life examples mentioned in the book are absolutely brilliant and in great quantity. If one finds a lot of repetition with other books by the same author or others, it is not counterproductive as coming across the same studies one still finds the aha moments and new details missed in the past or completely forgotten. And there are so many more completely new studies and surveys and explanations.
In conclusion, a must read book not in isolation but as a good book in a type of book one must read once every year or so, There is nothing new in the message but our inherent irrationalities are so many and so stubborn that books like these will always help us introspect our own actions differntly and change some of our ways at least for a while. ...more
This is the most fluent, starting from scratch book on the subject of evolution I have read. There is no presupposition of prior knowledge. And the auThis is the most fluent, starting from scratch book on the subject of evolution I have read. There is no presupposition of prior knowledge. And the author makes good use of popular notions of the Darwinian theory to throw light on understandings that are wrong, answer those common questions most of us have in mind and explain the real meaning of evolution.
Unlike Dawkins' books which are turgid at times because of too many examples from the behaviours of species of various kind (most of those species that non-experts have never heard of) , Wright mostly uses the life of Darwin himself to make many points. This appears odd for a theory that explicitly warns against the use of specifics, the approach works. It also helps that evolution is explained more from the viewpoint of where humanity has reached today than any other notions.
Some of the conclusions are outrageous, particularly when they give genetic inevitability to morally/socially reprehensible behaviour. Equally, many conclusions - like in Freudian theories that the author so vehemently criticises - seem to be derived from highly glib, flimsily proven verbal/logical "must be/could be" rationales. Perhaps these things are inevitable without the quantified edifices of physical sciences, but they also prove to be the reasons behind relatively less acceptance of almost all the finer points of evolutionary theories.
The Hidden Reality is a brilliantly written book that does not impart as much proven knowledge as Fabric of Cosmos or The Elegant Universe but takes tThe Hidden Reality is a brilliantly written book that does not impart as much proven knowledge as Fabric of Cosmos or The Elegant Universe but takes the readers to the highly speculative, part-philosophical ride on the nature of reality.
In the nine different multiverse theories discussed here, the underlying theme - as discussed towards the end - is that the only thing that does not make sense is why our universe can not be unique and special, the way our galaxy, sun or earth are not. The theories are often complex and always speculative, but lucidly explained. While one may not understand all the finer points, the author has a great ability to return to the main messages which are always crystal clear.
That said, the theories discussed here often appear like new, scientific religions. The infinite regress problem that used to trouble anyone logically analysing religion (if God created us, who created God etc) are now afflicting the universe and whatever latest elementary particles/fields. As per science, their has to be something behind their finely balanced structure - like practically infinite number of universes of which we just happen to be one. Lest this is ever proven, chances are that someone will then need to come out with multi-multiverse theories to justify why our multiverse can not be unique.
At some point, science has to grapple the issue of the beginning or a singularity or uniqueness of our reality. There is one whole which may not be a single universe, as it is not a single star or atom, but still it must exist. Science and philosophy are not complete until we reach there. If multiverse theories' main foundation (in the absence of provable assertions) is that our universe can not be unique, it is on a massively wrong footing. And this is where this book has its shortcomings, in the eventual conclusion.
That said, a must read for anyone who likes to get to the deeper issues of existence or learn more about the latest scientific theories. ...more
Here is a truly scholarly work. Whether one agrees with its basic conclusions or not, and whether these conclusions are proven right in the coming decHere is a truly scholarly work. Whether one agrees with its basic conclusions or not, and whether these conclusions are proven right in the coming decades or not, the work is comprehensive, reasonably unbiased and extremely well presented.
Even as the book turns repetitive in its basic message, the sheer variety of descriptions is breath-taking. From historic to sociological, genealogical to anecdotal, the book spans various eras, cultures, aspects of violence as well as reasons. The book's message is highly positive but it is rarely without the treatment of possible downfalls.
While the work is likely to be used as a reference by many future researchers on both sides of the argument, the author too could expand the scope by discussing today's non-Western societies more - not just trends but in what makes them different on the violence scale. Such case studies could make the book more useful as not just a description of what is happening but a prescription of how we actually become better....more
There is an innate tendency in all of us to extrapolate from history, and often quite ridiculously. With the maxims like "those who do not know historThere is an innate tendency in all of us to extrapolate from history, and often quite ridiculously. With the maxims like "those who do not know history, are condemned to repeat it", so many times these days, people overuse historical analysis. This book is a great recount of what happened before, but falls prey to heeding to history too closely.
"So many experts have this time is different written on their tombstone" is another proverb found everywhere. One should certainly believe in long cycles of history but one must also realize that everything in human life has also had a first. There is no point in abandoning logic in the name of historical analysis. Particularly when cycles are spotted based on three or four major events and for things and era as dissimilar as one talked here.
The book is extremely interesting and full of new things when it talks about the evolution of the US media/telecom/network (broadly telecommunication) industry since the first days of the telephony. The early monopolies, their abuse of power, the invention of radio/TV/cable TV, the birth of hollywood studios and media companies etc are all beautifully lined up in a nice story with a handful of interesting characters.
The book fails as it reaches the Internet era and tries to draw a conclusion. Google is good and Apple is bad appears a preconceived bias. Apple as a new AT&T almost ignores what has happened to almost every giant in the space in the last four decades starting from IBM to Microsoft to Intel and with dozens of others like Motorola, HP, Dell, Oracle, Sony, Nokia, Cisco, AOL etc. All of them appeared mightily powerful for a while but unlike what happened previously with other transformative technologies, this era has been different.
This does not mean there won't be control. There will surely be. But, it just can not be as heavy as AT&T era. And we are still in the second decade of Internet, more like telephones before the end of the nineteenth century. There is a lot more to go. Who knows, even Apple and/or Google may not appear more powerful than Yahoo or Microsoft of today by the time the decade is over. If there is anyone to worry about, they are not exactly corporate monopolies.
All that said, the book by itself is informative and interesting. ...more
Positively, this book tries to explain the world with what we know today rather than based on expanding on the celebrated theories supported by great Positively, this book tries to explain the world with what we know today rather than based on expanding on the celebrated theories supported by great thinkers of other era. As a result, it is modern, novel and rational for readers with latest knowledge. The book contains many interesting scientific and mathematical explanations. Some of the messages are strong and driven home effectively. The criticism’s of some of the past theories are also strong with desired results.
That said, the book contains enormous flaws as one starts thinking more.
The author falls in the same trap of falling for his own pet explanations as the right ones that it criticizes others for. For example, the multiverse epistemology behind quantum mechanics appears nothing but a leap of faith that the author strongly abhors in – let’s say – all explanation theories involving God. Even if in the long run, this theory is provable, the fact that it is not today (except in mild form in some equations) should not have been a reason enough to discard other explanations.
There are many other criticisms one can draw when author summarily reject many theories in favour of his own views. But the biggest problem in the book is when author begins to stray away from explaining theories of existence to theories of how one should live. With the pre-decided conclusion that one must stay optimistic, the author turns more anthropomorphic and irrational without logic than most theories out there.
The author begins to miss the basic point: the world does not have to have humans surviving, if his own non-anthropomorphic bias for the world view is right. In this case, why should one waste nearly a third of the book in random ramblings trying to justify the reason why pessimistic Malthusian-type theories must be wrong. The author also turns too dogmatic in his own views and conclusions to provide any rational basis for rejecting these theories except anecdotal evidences of how such theories have so far not proven right.
In all, a book where one learns a lot about how to think but the book falls repeatedly flat while drawing its own conclusions. The conclusions may or may not be right but not the rigor of arguments presented here, which would jar most serious readers. ...more
The book is breathtaking in scope and has great nuggets of totally new information everywhere. Philosophically, it is not easy to answer how a human bThe book is breathtaking in scope and has great nuggets of totally new information everywhere. Philosophically, it is not easy to answer how a human being is different from the nearest primate. The answer is attempted on dimensions as diverse as genes, human promiscuity, genocide or ability to speak. At every stage, the author throws light upon interesting new everyday questions that few may have ever thought of. And as a result, the disjointed book provides a fascinating tale of what makes us. ...more
The book tries to answer why various political economies are what they are based on their evolution. And it fails. And succeeds.
Certain questions are The book tries to answer why various political economies are what they are based on their evolution. And it fails. And succeeds.
Certain questions are so broad in scope that they can never be answered in any book length material. If answers are totally subjective based on interpretation of history or culture or any similar characteristics, the enterprise is bound to lead to a large number of disconcerting disagreements and disapprovals from any discerning reader. Yet, this does not necessarily reduce a book's utility to the slightest.
The Origin works because it adopts a novel approach boldly and tiptoes through the three millenias of world history in a highly imaginative fashion. It avoids personality based discussions and consciously stays away from mere recital of facts. The objective is clear: to explain why current global systems are what they are in places as different from each other as the US, UK, France, China, India, Japan, Middle East are.
The book attempts neat categorization of historic events, current systems as well as various evolution processes. The sections explaining early China, India or even Middle East are rich in new information as well as conclusions. The sections on Europe lack as much depth, but this is just as well as these are not the topics with any lack of information.
It is given that even the author would disagree with at least some of the views, or even supposed information on a second reading or after a passage of time. It would be easy to find logical faults in arguments or historic facts but the book should be read for a novel viewpoint and a great amount of information.
Evolution is not for everyone. In a way, it is also faith and Dawkins is an ardent preacher.
He makes excellent arguments on how evolution works on weEvolution is not for everyone. In a way, it is also faith and Dawkins is an ardent preacher.
He makes excellent arguments on how evolution works on well-hidden axioms. Some of the concepts described in the book are astounding - like the concepts of cumulative selection or the vastness of time. The lucidity with which the basic message is hammered repeatedly, along with diversity of examples and interspersing of tales from other fields make the book a truly magnificent read. Even the ardent evolution non-believers are likely to walk away with many questions if they read the book dispassionately.
Yet, the book suffers from two faults: most of the book appears like an attack on the arguments of god- or religion-believers rather than a good science by itself. Texts describing any good theories should spend most of the time elaborating itself rather than creating supposed critiques' strawmen and shooting them down. The book also tends to attack the most average religious arguments rather than those more evolved.
The bigger problem is the book's inability to recognize the axioms that lie at the heart of evolution theory. Whether Euclidean or Big Bang, every theory starts perforce starts with hypotheses that can not be proven. If there is any god, a believer can argue, he is the one setting those axioms. The rest may simply build on itself, in the most fanatic case with a minor bit of divine intervention here and there. While the presence or absence of axioms of a certain kind can never prove or disprove any creator, a good rationalist like Dawkins should have spelled the axioms of the evolutionary theory better.
All that said, this is a great book for anyone who is not a specialist in the field....more
Priceless opened a whole new world to me, a world that was always right in front of my eyes. Behavioral study fields always have fascinating tales. TaPriceless opened a whole new world to me, a world that was always right in front of my eyes. Behavioral study fields always have fascinating tales. Tales about our own behaviour that defy logic and tell us something weird about ourselves. But most books on the subject fail to go past the tagging of these phenomenon and mocking at our own irrationality. They spend inordinate time going after the classical theories. This is where Priceless has something different to offer.
To be sure, the well-written book has the usual things one gets in other books: the name-dropping, jargonizing, experiments that reveal the counter-intuitive aspects of our behaviour etc. This all is interesting, important and entertaining. But, where the book really adds value is in connecting them with real life situation, and offering some unambiguous advises in dealing with real life situations.
For instance, the author makes a remarkable point when he discusses the importance of stating the first number in a negotiation situation - quite opposite of what most of us like to do. The revelations on the display items in a luxury store (that are never intended for actual sale but to create the illusion of value for other items) are useful for any compulsive shoppers. Even the usual topics like anchoring and prospect theory are attached to practical examples.
A book to be read multiple times over time to really imbibe all its important messages. ...more
This book reflects my views and style more than anything I have read that's not my own. Hence the rating could not have been any different!
Economic thThis book reflects my views and style more than anything I have read that's not my own. Hence the rating could not have been any different!
Economic theories need to be de-jargonized every now and then to understand the stupidity of some of the things that policymakers do or are recommended to do. Extremely few people, with many experts excluded, tend to understand the basic meaning of some their pet economic solutions or policies. Complex theories effectively lead to equivocation, obfuscation of who bears the real costs (often future generations, or disconnected people) of things that appear like free lunches or financial/economic progress. More often than not gains our of economic decisions come at extreme costs and only jargon-less observance could lead to a discussion of true cost-benefits.This is what the book tries to do for the way at least one type of economic cycle is generated in this book. One may or may not agree with the theories or conclusion, but one is unlikely to walk away without new understandings.
The book, in all its simplicity, is witty and hits home some basic truths not told in economic textbooks these days. Its scope is broad and brush too narrow as a result its simplicity becomes a hindrance. The conclusions are too sweeping and most-tellingly ignore the "time" element. This is a book more for people who want to think about the implications of economic theories on real life, for decision makers in policy but not for most financial market investors. ...more
It all begins with the most overwhelming fact that Montier is a great writer. On top, he is a great thinker and has experience to boot. The subject isIt all begins with the most overwhelming fact that Montier is a great writer. On top, he is a great thinker and has experience to boot. The subject is not only immensely interesting but easy to understand and lends itself to humorous story-telling at the expense of many mighties' follies. The book is short, sweet and has many extremely good messages for any investor - all told in fairly hard-hitting ways.
All that said, behavioral science believers keep assuming that its concepts are novel and untold despite popularity for over a decade. Almost all the follies cited in the book are known for a while. May be the experiments described to explain them are new.
Even that's not the main problem. The problem with the ever critical behavioral finance is that it has name attached to every irrationality and an irrationality attached to every action. If you stick to your position too long, you could be accused of conformatory bias and if you switch, you could be a trader without conviction. If you cut your losses soon, you are a victim of your loss aversion and if not, it could be because you don't know how to cut your losses.
Despite implicitly assuming that only a handful of successful investors (isn't that endresult bias exhibited by the author) have been able to overcome most pitfalls, and of course all in the aIdvisory businesses (that the author himself was for decades) are lampoons, lemmings if not downright cheats, the book offers almost no useable suggestions. Almost everything is criticized. Even suggestions like belief in "value" and "analysis" is surrounded by highly contradictory suggestions like loss limits, not observing prices daily, not forecasting, not quantifying, not relying on stories, not looking for much information, analyzing only sporadically, investing for multiple years etc etc
Every suggestion makes sense in isolation and every criticism appears valid. But, if they remove their end-result biases, it is almost like behavioral finance proponents will never have any investment processes beyond reproach. Somebody should test them with lesser known tales of successful investors like Buffett etc along with those of unsuccessful ones and I am sure most BF practitioners will not be able to separate the best methods based on their own theories that tie in with other BF specialists or real-life success stories. ...more
Loading...
