Must-read psychology books(durmonski.com)
durmonski.com
Must-read psychology books
https://durmonski.com/reading-lists/must-read-psychology-books/
147 comments
Is "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman really worth reading the whole book? I feel like I understand the phenomenon it describes (and I believe a page or two is more than enough to explain it), I'm glad somebody described it popularly and attracted attention of wide audience raising their awareness. But reading a 500 pages book is a huge investment of time and mental energy. What's there one might find worth it?
I have often read books on topics I was already well-informed on. My philosophy is "think of it like a meditation". You might know very well about a psychological mechanism like the one described in Paradox of Choice (by Barry Schwartz) - you may have seen a TED talk and you already "get it". But it's rather different if you spent 10 hours of your life reading a variety of examples on the topic, and think about it (as you are reading it). The lesson sinks in far better - it is much more likely you will actually benefit from it.
This comment may be one of the best arguments I've ever heard for reading the vast majority of business/big-idea books. That it's about the repetition of the ideas, reading them over and over and ingraining them. I love this idea and it may actually encourage me to read these books or even re-read them.
I greatly appreciate this comment. Thank you.
I greatly appreciate this comment. Thank you.
Agreed
Indeed.
For me, I'd say reading the Summary is a good start to know if you want to read a book, but just because the basic idea is in that, I don't think it's all you need. I often find myself taking notes on different things than others have and linking it to other things in different ways.
You need to fully understand the Why and although there is an argument that most books are only a few ideas, the stories in the book help argue why these are important an help you see how those ideas fit into the world and how they fit, something that is truly important if you are going to start implementing that idea or thought into your way of thinking, else it's just another article you read on wikipedia that you nod your head too.
The human brain is all about patterns and connections and that is missed on a single article that is making a big point, a summary is exactly that, a good way to explain things in a simple and quick way, but you have to understand everything else behind it for you to truly understand it and for that you really need the whole book, unless you have a badly written book that fails to do this. I think this is vastly missed by those that just read summaries or dismiss the power of the whole book, just reading something doesn't really ingrain it into you, you have to wrestle and think about it in your own mind and being exposed to that idea from all different directions for a few hours really helps cement it.
It's also why I am considering rereading books I liked, even though I still remember the basic ideas and due to what I mentioned earlier, I think you can take different things from the same book if you read it at different points in your life, different connections will happen and different points will make more sense than they did before.
For me, I'd say reading the Summary is a good start to know if you want to read a book, but just because the basic idea is in that, I don't think it's all you need. I often find myself taking notes on different things than others have and linking it to other things in different ways.
You need to fully understand the Why and although there is an argument that most books are only a few ideas, the stories in the book help argue why these are important an help you see how those ideas fit into the world and how they fit, something that is truly important if you are going to start implementing that idea or thought into your way of thinking, else it's just another article you read on wikipedia that you nod your head too.
The human brain is all about patterns and connections and that is missed on a single article that is making a big point, a summary is exactly that, a good way to explain things in a simple and quick way, but you have to understand everything else behind it for you to truly understand it and for that you really need the whole book, unless you have a badly written book that fails to do this. I think this is vastly missed by those that just read summaries or dismiss the power of the whole book, just reading something doesn't really ingrain it into you, you have to wrestle and think about it in your own mind and being exposed to that idea from all different directions for a few hours really helps cement it.
It's also why I am considering rereading books I liked, even though I still remember the basic ideas and due to what I mentioned earlier, I think you can take different things from the same book if you read it at different points in your life, different connections will happen and different points will make more sense than they did before.
You're increasing the spave out takes up in your mind and therefore the weight/importance of it.
I started that book long before the controversy around the reproducibility of some of the sections was widely discussed in public.
I got to the section on priming and immediately thought "what ridiculous bullshit", looked up the original paper and saw that my suspicions we absolutely justified. The statistical analysis of the results is garbage and the experiment design doesn't pass some basic sanity checks.
If this were some sort of purely pop-psych book I would have just brushed it off. Journalists often have to write to a deadline and don't have to time to dive into the details of everything, especially if it makes a good story otherwise.
However I was completely put off by the fact that this was written by someone who made understanding how we reason his life's work. In the book he even says something along the lines of "this sounds unbelievable but you have to accept it!"
I felt somewhat validated that years later this became a more widely accepted criticism but the popularity of both that book and the unquestioned esteem that Kahneman commands really repulsed me. The biggest value of that book is as an object lesson on why we have a reproducibility crisis in the first place. If even prize winning economists/psychologists won't ask the most basic questions about what they're being told there's no hope for the field.
I got to the section on priming and immediately thought "what ridiculous bullshit", looked up the original paper and saw that my suspicions we absolutely justified. The statistical analysis of the results is garbage and the experiment design doesn't pass some basic sanity checks.
If this were some sort of purely pop-psych book I would have just brushed it off. Journalists often have to write to a deadline and don't have to time to dive into the details of everything, especially if it makes a good story otherwise.
However I was completely put off by the fact that this was written by someone who made understanding how we reason his life's work. In the book he even says something along the lines of "this sounds unbelievable but you have to accept it!"
I felt somewhat validated that years later this became a more widely accepted criticism but the popularity of both that book and the unquestioned esteem that Kahneman commands really repulsed me. The biggest value of that book is as an object lesson on why we have a reproducibility crisis in the first place. If even prize winning economists/psychologists won't ask the most basic questions about what they're being told there's no hope for the field.
This! The book really should have been subtitled The Ludic Fallacy Run Amok. Even putting the priming disaster aside, it's filled with grand generalisations based on dubious conclusions from small under-powered behavioural experiments. I find it mind boggling that so many otherwise intelligent people don't find anything wrong with it.
I have not read the book yet - would you please explain what about that priming section you did not like? Is it something specific that Kahneman says or the whole concept of priming? If it is the later, I would like to know what you critique, because I have always considered priming something obvious that I use to explain common life experiences without questioning it.
Note: I have neither read the book, nor knew about this issue before.
The following articles look relevant:
https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...
Per the following, not all types of priming are under controversy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Replicabi...
The following articles look relevant:
https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...
Per the following, not all types of priming are under controversy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Replicabi...
I think the book "think fast and slow" is overrated. is the work worthy of Nobel Prize? I was amazed, amazed so far nobody has raised this Issue.
I feel exactly the same for many books. If a book summary on Wikipedia, etc., neither surprises me nor teaches me anything new, I have little motivation to read the book.
There's an 'Ask HN' thread on "high signal to noise ratio" books: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10027102 I note that "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is also listed here.
Wikipedia itself is of course lovely for high information density and is my go-to resource.
There's an 'Ask HN' thread on "high signal to noise ratio" books: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10027102 I note that "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is also listed here.
Wikipedia itself is of course lovely for high information density and is my go-to resource.
It's been years since I read it (and I didn't actually finish, but that's another story), so I might not remember things very well.
I think some of the examples of bias or other cognitive misgivings that he gives throughout the book could be insightful by themselves. It might be easy to express a general idea in a couple of pages, but concrete examples of the phenomena help bridge it to real life. It could also be interesting as a quick peek at how some of the studies were designed and conducted.
The problem for me is that, since at least some (perhaps many?) of the results Kahneman presents haven't actually been replicable, and I'm not an expert in the field, I have trouble figuring out which of them to believe and which, despite his convincing tone, might not be true after all.
The blog post of the title doesn't actually seem to even mention the problems with replication at all even though they're moderately well known, which kind of makes me want to question whether the "must-read" list has been really considered that critically at all.
I think some of the examples of bias or other cognitive misgivings that he gives throughout the book could be insightful by themselves. It might be easy to express a general idea in a couple of pages, but concrete examples of the phenomena help bridge it to real life. It could also be interesting as a quick peek at how some of the studies were designed and conducted.
The problem for me is that, since at least some (perhaps many?) of the results Kahneman presents haven't actually been replicable, and I'm not an expert in the field, I have trouble figuring out which of them to believe and which, despite his convincing tone, might not be true after all.
The blog post of the title doesn't actually seem to even mention the problems with replication at all even though they're moderately well known, which kind of makes me want to question whether the "must-read" list has been really considered that critically at all.
On "Thinking, Fast and Slow" you might want to
run through this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27261501
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27261501
I highly recommend "The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making" by Scott Plous. It's a concise, 260-page survey of all the research into cognitive biases. It cites a lot of other research than Kahneman/Tversky and gets right to the heart of the topic without being dry.
I note that it was published in 1993. Do you think it remains largely relevant given further research since then?
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Judgment-Decision-Making-M...
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Judgment-Decision-Making-M...
I'm sorry if this goes against etiquette, but I would like to discuss with you a topic from one of your other comments here. My email is username at protonmail. Thank you and apologies for the disturbance.
I read the whole thing and you're basically right. I enjoyed it still, but it's a book where you get 80% of the insghts in the first chapter. I also heard some of the expiriemtns mentioned in the book fell afoul of the replication crisis.
If, like me, you're interested in the subject matter of this book, I recommend reading The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis instead.
I read it before the stuff about the replicability issues surfaced and got around 75% through it. There’s useful stuff in it but it’s too long and I quit because it started to feel like he was repeating himself. He needed a better editor. As I read it I wondered if his editor was too intimidated by his Nobel Prize to do their job well.
Yes, it is. On the other hand, I thought his most recent book, Noise, could have been a quarter of the size. Ended up skimming the last half and googling for cliff notes. I have no criticism on the topic - it's both useful and insightful. But way too verbose.
I thought it was great. You might want to try the audiobook.
I have no doubt it is great. And my life is not enough to read all the great books I want to, even if I were not ADHD, slow reader and generally overwhelmed. Why should I pick this one if I know what it is about already (and have in fact already started reading it once)? What will I find there that will make me feel glad I've actually read it? Can you come up with a curious quote from there perhaps? I mean a quote which a person understanding the concept can still find interesting.
I also have ADD. (it took me 16 years to graduate college medicated.) This book is profoundly interesting and will give you many fun thought experiments and examples. This book sunk its teeth into me and I could not put it down. It's so much more than the basic concept You may already understand.
I read about a quarter of it and regret the time I wasted.
It's interesting to look at the Amazon reviews: most of the reviews give 5 stars, but if you look at the 1-star reviews you'll see that there is a significant minority of reviewers with opinions like this one, for example: "It's an overrated book that is unnecessarily long. It will suffice to read the book blurb as the rest is repetitive explanation of the same topic with endless examples."
To me it is an interesting psychological phenomenon that people find the book worth reading. Perhaps someone should write a book about that ...
It's interesting to look at the Amazon reviews: most of the reviews give 5 stars, but if you look at the 1-star reviews you'll see that there is a significant minority of reviewers with opinions like this one, for example: "It's an overrated book that is unnecessarily long. It will suffice to read the book blurb as the rest is repetitive explanation of the same topic with endless examples."
To me it is an interesting psychological phenomenon that people find the book worth reading. Perhaps someone should write a book about that ...
> unnecessarily long... repetitive explanation of the same topic with endless examples.
This is what I actually find most of even the best books to be. This is why I am asking (also because I believe most of the people here know what this book is about and many of them have actually read it).
This is what I actually find most of even the best books to be. This is why I am asking (also because I believe most of the people here know what this book is about and many of them have actually read it).
Personally I think that at least one book is missing:
"Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes" by Paul Watzlawick (1)
On the other hand it could very well be the case that the two main points of the book(2) are discussed also in one or more of the 10 listed in the OP.
1) https://www.goodreads.com/it/book/show/89200.Pragmatics_of_H...
2) The two points being: - What Communication and Meta-communication are, what purpose they serve and how these are a uniquely human trait. - The role of the therapist in treating dysfunctional families.
"Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes" by Paul Watzlawick (1)
On the other hand it could very well be the case that the two main points of the book(2) are discussed also in one or more of the 10 listed in the OP.
1) https://www.goodreads.com/it/book/show/89200.Pragmatics_of_H...
2) The two points being: - What Communication and Meta-communication are, what purpose they serve and how these are a uniquely human trait. - The role of the therapist in treating dysfunctional families.
TIL Meta-communication:
> It is based on the idea that the same message accompanied by different meta-communication can mean something entirely different, including its opposite, as in irony.
It's the real message, communication via a false message rather than about it.
> It is based on the idea that the same message accompanied by different meta-communication can mean something entirely different, including its opposite, as in irony.
It's the real message, communication via a false message rather than about it.
Watzlawick's take on meta-communication is this, basically:
Your cat can communicate to you that he wants some more milk. This is communication.
Your cat CANNOT communicate about its own communication, i.e. cannot "say" something like: "hey, you bastard, I meowed for milk 4 times already, are you deaf or just too lazy to pour some for me?".
This would be meta-communication, and no animal species can do it. It is like adding a whole extra dimension to it.
(The cat example is straight out of the book, as much as I can recall it, at least).
Your cat can communicate to you that he wants some more milk. This is communication.
Your cat CANNOT communicate about its own communication, i.e. cannot "say" something like: "hey, you bastard, I meowed for milk 4 times already, are you deaf or just too lazy to pour some for me?".
This would be meta-communication, and no animal species can do it. It is like adding a whole extra dimension to it.
(The cat example is straight out of the book, as much as I can recall it, at least).
Not literally, but is that really true? Your cat could meow in a very different way, gesturing to the milk, then looking at you and scratching. It's not referencing the past communication but obviously the communication has escalated, and this could be due to the first dismissal and not that the cat is that much more hungry. It's not about the milk anymore--what's the difference?
What I wanted to say is that according to the author, Humans are unique in the way they can "communicate about communication", while any other living being on Earth uses communication just to transfer information: "I am hungry", "I am in heat", "Danger", "I am poisonous, go eat someone else"...
Adding the metacommunication layer we can do much much more than just saying "give me the milk".
W. says that the meta-communication layer, for humans, is mostly a way to broadcast your own self-image and see how the others react to it.
How many different way to ask for milk you can manage? Polite, obsequious, commanding, rude... what are you trying to say to the guy handling the milk, besides the simple fact that you want some? Are you in a position of power? or are you appealing to his kindness?
So the reason the cat does not need this extra layer is because he only wants his milk, and it is not trying to impress you about his own coolness, or how erudite he is, and so on.
Adding the metacommunication layer we can do much much more than just saying "give me the milk".
W. says that the meta-communication layer, for humans, is mostly a way to broadcast your own self-image and see how the others react to it.
How many different way to ask for milk you can manage? Polite, obsequious, commanding, rude... what are you trying to say to the guy handling the milk, besides the simple fact that you want some? Are you in a position of power? or are you appealing to his kindness?
So the reason the cat does not need this extra layer is because he only wants his milk, and it is not trying to impress you about his own coolness, or how erudite he is, and so on.
I’ve raised both dogs and cats. They most definitely have multiple ways to ask for food, or to go for a walk, or to say they are sick.
They can do it patiently, timidly, demandingly, angrily, etc. and there’s a progression: they might not say “I’ve asked nicely, you idiot, and you didn’t respond, so now I’m no longer asking nicely” - with words, but they do act it out.
They can do it patiently, timidly, demandingly, angrily, etc. and there’s a progression: they might not say “I’ve asked nicely, you idiot, and you didn’t respond, so now I’m no longer asking nicely” - with words, but they do act it out.
Please read the book if you want to really argue this and the other points: I am not the author, I have to titles pertaining to psychology (or ethology/animal behaviour) so I might misrepresent the topic.
You, on the other hand, may very well be a workd-renowned expert on canine/feline communication but in this specific case are barking up the wrong tree: the cat example is not the main topic but more of an example/metaphor.
You, on the other hand, may very well be a workd-renowned expert on canine/feline communication but in this specific case are barking up the wrong tree: the cat example is not the main topic but more of an example/metaphor.
I was only responding to the comment, which may or may not represent the book.
I don’t care enough either way, except to say I find the example/metaphor not convincing enough to consider reading the book.
I don’t care enough either way, except to say I find the example/metaphor not convincing enough to consider reading the book.
According to the book theories, your real intent in commenting (as revealed by the way you framed your remarks) is that you wanted to validate your self image of being an expert on animal behaviour, having raised plenty of dogs/cats.
How does the book explain this comment of yours?
One of the main thesis of the book is that metacommunication is an automatic mechanisms which is used by humans as a sort of sonar signal: every time we communicate with other we are sending out an image of what our self image is, hoping that their reactions will validate it (e.g. "I am trying to look cool, or learned, or authoritative or whatever, and I hope that the way you react to it confirms that my signal was received)".
In a discussion about a Pscyhology book (by a quite influential and respected researcher) you felt you really had to make known to everyone that your superior experience as breeder of innumerable dogs and cats made amply clear that the guy was a charlatan, due to a half-page example from a 304 pages book. A book you have not read, and you probably did not even know it existed before another random guy mentioned it.
From this I infer that what you really wanted to say is "Hey, look at me: I know lots about cats and dogs."
I am not blaming you. This is exactly what Watzlawick considers to be one of the primary "uses" of metacommunication by humans: a way to project our own self image on others.
And I am surely doing the same, just like everyone else. Maybe I am a bit more conscious about this phenomenon, thanks to having read the book. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In a discussion about a Pscyhology book (by a quite influential and respected researcher) you felt you really had to make known to everyone that your superior experience as breeder of innumerable dogs and cats made amply clear that the guy was a charlatan, due to a half-page example from a 304 pages book. A book you have not read, and you probably did not even know it existed before another random guy mentioned it.
From this I infer that what you really wanted to say is "Hey, look at me: I know lots about cats and dogs."
I am not blaming you. This is exactly what Watzlawick considers to be one of the primary "uses" of metacommunication by humans: a way to project our own self image on others.
And I am surely doing the same, just like everyone else. Maybe I am a bit more conscious about this phenomenon, thanks to having read the book. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This isn't a good pitch for getting me to read the book. Seems like too much psychology being applied where it's not warranted, possibly leading to misunderstandings of sitcom proportions.
I knew someone who couldn't smoke weed because any time she did, everything seemed loaded with intent and backstory that seemed all too true.
Communication doesn't happen in a vacuum. I hope the book at least acknowledges that metacommunication received is subjective to the receiver.
I knew someone who couldn't smoke weed because any time she did, everything seemed loaded with intent and backstory that seemed all too true.
Communication doesn't happen in a vacuum. I hope the book at least acknowledges that metacommunication received is subjective to the receiver.
Wow. So much reading into so little text. Color me impressed, even though I file this in the fiction department.
[deleted]
The Body Keeps Score is one of the most impactful books I’ve read in the last few years. The thesis is that trauma resides not only in the brain as an experience, but in the body (the central nervous system) as a reaction to that experience, and so resolution of trauma must be more than “talk therapy”, and indeed the research shows that all manner of physical action helps to resolve trauma. There are many components that are needed, and I can confirm with my own n=1 study of the effectiveness of many of the techniques. I hope to continue with the things I am doing and try more of the things he talks about. Highly recommended!
Also, pair with “Widen the Window”
Also, pair with “Widen the Window”
Same! I was so glad to see it’s inclusion in the list. It’s had a huge impact on me. Will check out Widen the Window.
The list seems very pop-psychology heavy to me. I would put William James, Principles of Psychology in the top spot.
In general William James writing seems full of profound ideas.
In general William James writing seems full of profound ideas.
I'm surprised none of Robert Greene's books are on this list. Maybe they wouldn't be strictly categorized as psychology. The Laws of Human Nature delves into some psychology and personality types though, and is worth reading.
Relevant: "Reversals in Psychology" [1] [2]
[1] https://www.gleech.org/psych
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27709266
[1] https://www.gleech.org/psych
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27709266
I disagree, that's not relevant at all.
These are books that synthesize huge amounts of data. They're incredibly valuable and have plenty of third-party reviews you can read to further learn what their strengths and weaknesses are. They're not perfect, but nothing in science is.
On the other hand, the post you're linking to is a bunch of tiny hand-picked studies that haven't had replication succeed -- as would be trivial to assemble such a list in any field. Those studies don't form the main underpinning of any of these books, so they don't have anything to do with it.
These are books that synthesize huge amounts of data. They're incredibly valuable and have plenty of third-party reviews you can read to further learn what their strengths and weaknesses are. They're not perfect, but nothing in science is.
On the other hand, the post you're linking to is a bunch of tiny hand-picked studies that haven't had replication succeed -- as would be trivial to assemble such a list in any field. Those studies don't form the main underpinning of any of these books, so they don't have anything to do with it.
The little I understood about Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart was really interesting. It's about the effectiveness of simple heuristics sometimes outshining sophisticated methods and really thriving in the unknown. Also, it's a bit weird that Gerd Gigerenzer doesn't usually appear in the same circles as Kahnemann does. His Wikipedia page alone would tell you this and his research really adds a nice counter-weight to the argument of irrationality of human minds.
"How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain" by Lisa Feldman Barrett should be considered for this list.
The very first review I see at Amazon (Kimberly) is saying "Book's main premise is an erratic, non-peer reviewed assertion". The said review is detailed and has cited multiple references. I don't know what to conclude. Advice would help.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Emotions-Are-Made-Secret/dp/15098...
https://www.amazon.com/How-Emotions-Are-Made-Secret/dp/15098...
You should not let one review stop you from reading Barrett's book. The subject is highly fascinating and important since much of our lives are ruled by emotions and feelings. I note that the review is from one "emotion researcher" who might be focusing on finer nuances which might not be relevant for a initial broad understanding of the topic for a general audience. Also the reviewer quotes Paul Ekman (i got introduced to this subject through his book Emotions Revealed) who has had his own research questioned - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman#Criticisms. Nothing is set in stone here; marrying Social Psychology to concrete Neuroscience is a very difficult endeavour so an exposure to all viewpoints should be sought out.
Thanks for a detailed response. I'll add the book to my reading list.
I'm still tempted to read Emotional Intelligence. It's hard to believe it was published over 25 years ago. It's topic has been integrated a lot into work and home culture (including me), though there's still a ways to go (including for me).
Is it still a good read? Is there another book like it that hackers recommend?
Is it still a good read? Is there another book like it that hackers recommend?
I think it's still worthwhile. I first read it as a teenager, not long after it was published. It had a big impact, and I feel that since I read it, I've seen a lot in the culture that has referred to it, taken it for granted, regurgitated it, addressed individual topics from it, etc., but I'm not aware of anything that has replaced it as an overall introduction to the concept, which I think is due to quality of the writing. Even as a teenager I found easy and engaging.
The book Emotional Intelligence 2.0 is a different book by a different author. Read the Daniel Goleman book instead, or at least first.
The book Emotional Intelligence 2.0 is a different book by a different author. Read the Daniel Goleman book instead, or at least first.
It wasn't a bad book but it could have been an essay. I really liked another book also by Goleman called The Meditative Mind.
I don’t think it’s necessarily the best book ever. But for me it was useful for thinking deeper about how I and other people perceive things.
Yep, still a good read. Great in cultivating some empathy and social acuity.
Never Split The Difference by Chris Voss is also worth checking out.
Never Split The Difference by Chris Voss is also worth checking out.
Thinking fast and slow has profoundly changed how I view the world and continually provides me with tools I use to better myself and the organizations I'm a part of. I now regularly revisit my prior assumptions and attempt to reason from first principles and I am better at recognizing when to encourage it in others.
I've also read influence. It's Great but it didn't have near as much impact on me. but it does really drive home how people rationalize prior assumptions rather than logically arriving at conclusions.
I've also read influence. It's Great but it didn't have near as much impact on me. but it does really drive home how people rationalize prior assumptions rather than logically arriving at conclusions.
When I was in undergrad, my psychology professor gave me a list of books[0] to read; “if you read these books, you’ll be one of the smartest people in the world.” I actually noticed one of the books on that list!
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100527123450/http://www.gbc.ed...
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100527123450/http://www.gbc.ed...
Come as you are. It is sold as a book about sex but it’s a (pop-) psychology book. Compassionate, practical, empowering.
Punished by rewards by Alfie Kohn. The amount of research showing that incentivizing people kills internal motivation is… staggering.
Punished by rewards by Alfie Kohn. The amount of research showing that incentivizing people kills internal motivation is… staggering.
I'd recommend Three Essays on Sexuality over Interpretation of Dreams.
Has anybody here read Watson and Tharp's Self-Directed Behavior: Self-Modification for Personal Adjustment ? Any review/insight/recommendation would be much appreciated.
Interesting, I never considered "Thinking Fast and Slow" and " "Persuasion" to be psychology books or I would not have read them
The irony is that at least half of these books has almost nothing to do with psychology (as a theoretical or practical science).
"Everyone should read". Debatable.
Can you explain or are you just doing a drive-by post to show your disdain?
The author literally gives an individual reason why about half the books should be read by everyone and the other half by many based on their interests. What are your objections?
Because a lot of those books are complete shit. Fuck Freud.
edit: Why? An example: Goodbye Sigmund Freud: The case for exorcising the ghost of Freud from the field of psychology https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10911359.2019.1...
Have any of the books in this list hit problems with replication, or later finding out the science isn't so good?
Yes. The Sigmund Freud book.
Flagged. Freud? Are you kidding me? Pop Psychology books? -signed, A disgruntled psychologist scientist who is tired of having his field maligned with bullshit.
I would love to get a list of even say 3 or 5 books then that you think are "real". Im genuinely curious about this, i dont mean to come of as standoffish :)
Example? Sure:
1. The Wiley Handbook on the Development of Children's Memory by Patricia J. Bauer & Robyn Fivush. (A really excellent book, even if somewhat dated, a lot of it has withstood re-examination).
2. Memory Reconsolidation, edited by CM Alberini
3. The Nature of Emotion, Fundamental Questions 2nd Edition Edited by Andrew Fox.
I mean just go on google scholar, look for chapters on a topic you find interesting. You will more likely get the real stuff that way than pop psychology books, or by reading frauds like Freud.
1. The Wiley Handbook on the Development of Children's Memory by Patricia J. Bauer & Robyn Fivush. (A really excellent book, even if somewhat dated, a lot of it has withstood re-examination).
2. Memory Reconsolidation, edited by CM Alberini
3. The Nature of Emotion, Fundamental Questions 2nd Edition Edited by Andrew Fox.
I mean just go on google scholar, look for chapters on a topic you find interesting. You will more likely get the real stuff that way than pop psychology books, or by reading frauds like Freud.
But why are these books everyone should read? or can read, for that matter. You just pointed to books meant to be read by people in the field. Like, I possess a book on the neurochemistry of memory formation, but I can't make heads or tails of it, frankly, because I don't have the background.
So, the books are going to be popular psychology almost by definition (and we really shouldn't continue the academic tradition of sneering at academics who write for the popular market. We need them).
I get your irritation about Freud. Dan Ariely and Daniel Kahneman are pretty relevant today, actually. I'd add these books:
* Decisions, Uncertainty and the Brain by Paul Glimcher
* Why Choose This Book: how we make decisions by Read Montague
So Subiculum, can you recommend books on memory that aren't intended to be read by academics in the field?
Update: Subiculum indicates that they read their first suggestion, the Wiley Handbook as an undergraduate, so I'm guessing that it is accessible enough for a general audience.
So, the books are going to be popular psychology almost by definition (and we really shouldn't continue the academic tradition of sneering at academics who write for the popular market. We need them).
I get your irritation about Freud. Dan Ariely and Daniel Kahneman are pretty relevant today, actually. I'd add these books:
* Decisions, Uncertainty and the Brain by Paul Glimcher
* Why Choose This Book: how we make decisions by Read Montague
So Subiculum, can you recommend books on memory that aren't intended to be read by academics in the field?
Update: Subiculum indicates that they read their first suggestion, the Wiley Handbook as an undergraduate, so I'm guessing that it is accessible enough for a general audience.
> I get your irritation about Freud.
I think it is still useful to read Freud, assuming you don't take it as gospel and consider when he wrote it and how little was known at the time. In my opinion, Freud was a brilliant man. The fact that some of his ideas are so obviously false today might serve as immunization against hubris, with which some of us do not realize that many of our ideas will seem absurd in a hundred years.
I think it is still useful to read Freud, assuming you don't take it as gospel and consider when he wrote it and how little was known at the time. In my opinion, Freud was a brilliant man. The fact that some of his ideas are so obviously false today might serve as immunization against hubris, with which some of us do not realize that many of our ideas will seem absurd in a hundred years.
I think it is useful to read Freud primarily so that you can appreciate his influence on the history of ideas. The ideas themselves are not really of any contemporary interest, imo.
And if, after reading Montague and Glimcher, people are interested, they can follow up with deeper dives into some relevant topics, like:
* Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction by Sutton and Barto
(required reading in our lab, but its computer science book)
* Decision Neuroscience: An Integrative Perspective by Jean-Claude Dreher and Leon Tremblay
* Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction by Sutton and Barto
(required reading in our lab, but its computer science book)
* Decision Neuroscience: An Integrative Perspective by Jean-Claude Dreher and Leon Tremblay
Thank you for these examples I will look into them :)
Here is how you could be more persuasive: use your expertise to explain why modern psychological science has moved on from Freud, how it's different from pop psychology, and to give some examples of solid, reproducible, insightful work in the field.
[deleted]
Goodbye Sigmund Freud: The case for exorcising the ghost of Freud from the field of psychology
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10911359.2019.1...
Nice, thanks for this, I've no papers on the matter of course but this was always my issue with his drivel on an instinctive level before I was able to elucidate it - namely the lack of even vague attempts at grounding his Uber-mystic theories with empirical foundations, tests.
What may be more amazing is that scrolling through these threads treating K*hneman or others seriously. Invariably if cognitive psych or physiology make the rounds here I feel a serious case of guilty Gell-Mann Amnesia. I mean, is it too much to ask the constituents of this forum to keep the pace ahead of "Ah, Thinking Fast and Slow was really intellectually stimulating" in 2021, or... ever?.
What may be more amazing is that scrolling through these threads treating K*hneman or others seriously. Invariably if cognitive psych or physiology make the rounds here I feel a serious case of guilty Gell-Mann Amnesia. I mean, is it too much to ask the constituents of this forum to keep the pace ahead of "Ah, Thinking Fast and Slow was really intellectually stimulating" in 2021, or... ever?.
Provide an alternative list then for us who are interested.
It's a bad list
luffapi(9)