I love this post. There’s so much honesty in it, and I feel like what you’re saying too often goes unsaid in the name of politeness (because—as you went to great lengths to point out—these aren't people who really *deserve* our ire, but that doesn't make anyone's inanity less inane). You could’ve written an almost identical piece about TED talks and all their spawn. My pet peeve in this aisle of the bookstore are all those tomes that herald a single *amazing* insight or conclusion (which can be gleaned from the book jacket) but is primarily a series of long, real-life narratives that are meant to demonstrate this insight in a fascinating way, each followed by a long set of statistics that support the idea, and then some vaguely different restatement of the insight gleaned from the book jacket. I won’t name names, but they know who they are.
I will, however, name the name of my favorite science writer—one who I think is, in a way, a combination of the expert and the amateur in his work: Oliver Sacks. I don’t think there’s a more well-written, fascinating, empathetic, insightful & enlightening pop science book than “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.” Obviously, Sacks is an expert writing about his field of expertise (the brain), but his case studies veer from the strictly medical path into areas in which doctors might be considered amateurs: exploring the concepts of self & identify, or what it really means to be a human in those variously altered mental circumstances. I feel like Sacks was able to show how neuroscience and its insights can actually bring us closer to understanding who we really are.
"Why most popular science books suck?" is explained by Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) and my just-invented corollary (90% of the rest is barely better than crap).
That said, your list of books includes many of my favorites. The only one not on the list that comes to mind is "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.
Amateurs are the ones "allowed" to speculate wildly and try relate subjects to each other in ways that professionals dare not. I feel similarly re blogs as well fwiw as juxtaposed against, say, academic articles. If I had to be as rigorous writing Strange Loop as my dissertation it wouldn't be worth it. It is a high variance activity, which naturally makes the effort only worth it for dilettantes who have less to lose.
Perhaps fittingly therefore, these might be the equivalent of sexual selection mechanics to select amongst those highly considered, peer reviewed, iron clad ideas.
I think Gladwellian asides work poorly even if your name is Malcolm Gladwell. He’s the master of spinning speculation about spurious correlations into some “brilliant” “aha” moment for his readers. His books are what is terrible about TED talks, in written form.
“Amateur” means one who loves what s/he does. And therefore wants to communicate it to others in a way that is accessible, simple, and fun, without hiding its real wonders behind too many qualifications and big and mostly meaningless words. And without letting the mandatory political correctness of academy stand in the way. Top scientists can also write amateurish books of course (think of Kip Thorne) but only after they have tenure and a very solid reputation that makes them too big to cancel.
Before reading this I thought pop science was a disappointing genre but for a lot of different reasons, many articulated here: https://youtu.be/AZ2aSCH3zjY
I think it would be interesting to see if there are many books that break this rule, where academic experts write deep, engaging, entertaining books about their own field. Oliver Sacks comes to mind.
I am arriving late to this, but the extent to which I agree could not be exaggerated by a state-of-the-art, military grade Exaggeration Machine cranked to eleven.
Interesting take! I really appreciate your humility & self-awareness, something that is notably absent in most of these kinds of blog-based screeds.
One thing I would disagree with is your use of the term "amateurish". It just seems unnecessarily derogatory (even though you explain that it's not meant that way). I think something like " highly speculative, but upfront about it" might have been a better choice. IMVHO.
Can't wait to find out more about your upcoming book! Here's hoping that it's highly speculative and upfront about it, but not amateurish!
Great article Eric! I experience a similar state when reading. Whether non-fiction, sci-fi, fantasy, normal fiction, or insightful concepts. I get super excited by new mind opening perspectives, however harebrained. Today science is directly exposed to the general population for interpretation and attack by opponents, the game is on once published. Egos will attack that which they fear or feel is undermining their ego or professional position. Good old human nature. But. Strong beliefs loosely held. That's the magic for me. Convince me, amaze me. But. Fool me once, fool me twice. The End. Any kind of ABSOLUTIST stance is very dangerous. For all. All data and knowledge is in constant flux. Mixed in with reality is how we make sense and survive. But, all things change, and it's dangerous to be overly invested in any surety. Tomorrow a new tech comes along that allows better measurement or access to new inference. Theory kaput. We have to be much less ego invested and judgmental, much more curious and open. Thanks for a great newsletter!
Seen from outside both the scientific and the academic frame this is such a weird concept. You can’t just step into the described mindset as a sort of excursion. Well, you can and it is done a lot, resulting in bystander books to put under the legs of a couch because they’re so thick.
It speaks of the world from within the tight frame, where it has fantasies of what could be out there. Get the F, out of the normative circles, is my sentiment, if you want to contribute something authentic. Wrong, yes, most likely, but sweet and loving, and real, and sensual, and honest. And of course choose the best possible means that fit you and are available. You call McGilchrist’s work a fairy tale and I believe you are very ‘right’. The only big shame is that writers like him don’t yet have the guts to call it what it is. A story. And I agree a good story.
But I want to extend that. Non-fiction doesn’t exist. Raw data is not fiction until it translated to some narrative. Then it becomes fiction. Why are we fooling each other with claiming to tell true stories? From a storyteller’s perspective that is ridiculous. Sad even, if one really believes what they tell is the full truth.
And still some books seem to come so close. And especially then the alertness should kick in. Watch the wax. It is high time we start bringing a little clarity into the broth.
I have send you the first chapter of my book responding to your call. Fiction of course, what else? Nowhere near the high-flyers of your list, but at least it cuts through the bs. Not a payed subscription though….scribes like me can’t afford them.
One small question: how is this tied to the conceptualization of the Midwit (gentry, idealist, "clueless")? People do know that Pop-Sci is toxic, but the partially educated will prefer pedestrian reads over understanding papers and literature (for some reason). https://dwarkeshpatel.com/barbell-strategieshttps://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/well-read
"So is the idea of memes true? Well, it is true-ish, a perfect thing for a nonfiction book. It’s a good frame of understanding, even if it’s not precisely accurate, even if you never get a scientific journal or subfield devoted to it."
can you elaborate on this? what do you mean that the notion of memes is not "precisely accurate"? I also didn't understand your point about "what’s the unit of cultural selection". if you or others have written more about this elsewhere, would love a recommendation.
Very disappointed with: "Why do most science books suck?" Any useful wisdom is overshadowed by the display of the author's well-read background. Still looking for
I love this post. There’s so much honesty in it, and I feel like what you’re saying too often goes unsaid in the name of politeness (because—as you went to great lengths to point out—these aren't people who really *deserve* our ire, but that doesn't make anyone's inanity less inane). You could’ve written an almost identical piece about TED talks and all their spawn. My pet peeve in this aisle of the bookstore are all those tomes that herald a single *amazing* insight or conclusion (which can be gleaned from the book jacket) but is primarily a series of long, real-life narratives that are meant to demonstrate this insight in a fascinating way, each followed by a long set of statistics that support the idea, and then some vaguely different restatement of the insight gleaned from the book jacket. I won’t name names, but they know who they are.
I will, however, name the name of my favorite science writer—one who I think is, in a way, a combination of the expert and the amateur in his work: Oliver Sacks. I don’t think there’s a more well-written, fascinating, empathetic, insightful & enlightening pop science book than “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.” Obviously, Sacks is an expert writing about his field of expertise (the brain), but his case studies veer from the strictly medical path into areas in which doctors might be considered amateurs: exploring the concepts of self & identify, or what it really means to be a human in those variously altered mental circumstances. I feel like Sacks was able to show how neuroscience and its insights can actually bring us closer to understanding who we really are.
"Why most popular science books suck?" is explained by Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) and my just-invented corollary (90% of the rest is barely better than crap).
That said, your list of books includes many of my favorites. The only one not on the list that comes to mind is "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch.
Amateurs are the ones "allowed" to speculate wildly and try relate subjects to each other in ways that professionals dare not. I feel similarly re blogs as well fwiw as juxtaposed against, say, academic articles. If I had to be as rigorous writing Strange Loop as my dissertation it wouldn't be worth it. It is a high variance activity, which naturally makes the effort only worth it for dilettantes who have less to lose.
Perhaps fittingly therefore, these might be the equivalent of sexual selection mechanics to select amongst those highly considered, peer reviewed, iron clad ideas.
I think Gladwellian asides work poorly even if your name is Malcolm Gladwell. He’s the master of spinning speculation about spurious correlations into some “brilliant” “aha” moment for his readers. His books are what is terrible about TED talks, in written form.
“Amateur” means one who loves what s/he does. And therefore wants to communicate it to others in a way that is accessible, simple, and fun, without hiding its real wonders behind too many qualifications and big and mostly meaningless words. And without letting the mandatory political correctness of academy stand in the way. Top scientists can also write amateurish books of course (think of Kip Thorne) but only after they have tenure and a very solid reputation that makes them too big to cancel.
Before reading this I thought pop science was a disappointing genre but for a lot of different reasons, many articulated here: https://youtu.be/AZ2aSCH3zjY
I think it would be interesting to see if there are many books that break this rule, where academic experts write deep, engaging, entertaining books about their own field. Oliver Sacks comes to mind.
"the Iron Law of Reciprocal Publicity, which is essentially you are required to hype all other books endlessly in the hope someone hypes yours."
Hahaha! True! It's true!
I am arriving late to this, but the extent to which I agree could not be exaggerated by a state-of-the-art, military grade Exaggeration Machine cranked to eleven.
Interesting take! I really appreciate your humility & self-awareness, something that is notably absent in most of these kinds of blog-based screeds.
One thing I would disagree with is your use of the term "amateurish". It just seems unnecessarily derogatory (even though you explain that it's not meant that way). I think something like " highly speculative, but upfront about it" might have been a better choice. IMVHO.
Can't wait to find out more about your upcoming book! Here's hoping that it's highly speculative and upfront about it, but not amateurish!
Great article Eric! I experience a similar state when reading. Whether non-fiction, sci-fi, fantasy, normal fiction, or insightful concepts. I get super excited by new mind opening perspectives, however harebrained. Today science is directly exposed to the general population for interpretation and attack by opponents, the game is on once published. Egos will attack that which they fear or feel is undermining their ego or professional position. Good old human nature. But. Strong beliefs loosely held. That's the magic for me. Convince me, amaze me. But. Fool me once, fool me twice. The End. Any kind of ABSOLUTIST stance is very dangerous. For all. All data and knowledge is in constant flux. Mixed in with reality is how we make sense and survive. But, all things change, and it's dangerous to be overly invested in any surety. Tomorrow a new tech comes along that allows better measurement or access to new inference. Theory kaput. We have to be much less ego invested and judgmental, much more curious and open. Thanks for a great newsletter!
Seen from outside both the scientific and the academic frame this is such a weird concept. You can’t just step into the described mindset as a sort of excursion. Well, you can and it is done a lot, resulting in bystander books to put under the legs of a couch because they’re so thick.
It speaks of the world from within the tight frame, where it has fantasies of what could be out there. Get the F, out of the normative circles, is my sentiment, if you want to contribute something authentic. Wrong, yes, most likely, but sweet and loving, and real, and sensual, and honest. And of course choose the best possible means that fit you and are available. You call McGilchrist’s work a fairy tale and I believe you are very ‘right’. The only big shame is that writers like him don’t yet have the guts to call it what it is. A story. And I agree a good story.
But I want to extend that. Non-fiction doesn’t exist. Raw data is not fiction until it translated to some narrative. Then it becomes fiction. Why are we fooling each other with claiming to tell true stories? From a storyteller’s perspective that is ridiculous. Sad even, if one really believes what they tell is the full truth.
And still some books seem to come so close. And especially then the alertness should kick in. Watch the wax. It is high time we start bringing a little clarity into the broth.
I have send you the first chapter of my book responding to your call. Fiction of course, what else? Nowhere near the high-flyers of your list, but at least it cuts through the bs. Not a payed subscription though….scribes like me can’t afford them.
One small question: how is this tied to the conceptualization of the Midwit (gentry, idealist, "clueless")? People do know that Pop-Sci is toxic, but the partially educated will prefer pedestrian reads over understanding papers and literature (for some reason). https://dwarkeshpatel.com/barbell-strategies https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/well-read
thanks Erik!
"So is the idea of memes true? Well, it is true-ish, a perfect thing for a nonfiction book. It’s a good frame of understanding, even if it’s not precisely accurate, even if you never get a scientific journal or subfield devoted to it."
can you elaborate on this? what do you mean that the notion of memes is not "precisely accurate"? I also didn't understand your point about "what’s the unit of cultural selection". if you or others have written more about this elsewhere, would love a recommendation.
Very disappointed with: "Why do most science books suck?" Any useful wisdom is overshadowed by the display of the author's well-read background. Still looking for
something to take away from the article.