words words words

2021 Q1 Reading Roundup

One quarter of 2021 has passed and it’s time to review my reading habits. In December I set the following goals for the first half of the year:

In the first half of 2021, I’d like to read more books on theory and history of thought. Specifically, I’d like to read about the founding of different Protestant denominations, a history (or histories) of mathematical thinking (generally or in specific veins), and philosophy of technology.

Overall, I’d rate myself an B+ on my overall reading habits for the quarter. Although I am not on track to satisfy my goals within specific topic areas, I read diligently and covered a variety of genres.

Here is my, non-exhaustive list, of what I read in the first quarter of this year with a one or two sentence review:

I’ve attempted various readings in mathematics; however, none has captured my attention. Instead, I am taking an online course on geometry (and plan to work through calculus) to satisfy my desire to learn more about the history and underpinnings of mathematics.

In the second quarter, I plan to forward my goals set in December by reading more about Church history, one or two books about food, and something that is philosophically challenging.

words words words

2020 Reading Roundup pt. 2

2020 is over and it’s time to review my reading habits from the second half of the year. In July, I set the following goals:

I plan to re-read more books directed toward adolescents, finish a culinary book, read two or three light novels, and work through a French or coding book.

Overall, I rate myself a B. I read a lot of young adult, finished a culinary book, and read from a book almost every day. I did not read anything in French, although I’m not sure that I would be able to if I tried. I practiced some coding exercises.

Here is my, non-exhaustive list, of what I read in the second half of this year with a one or two sentence review:

Of the books I read this year, I am sure to reread three in the next few years, Shogun, Being Mortal, and In Defense of Food. I’ve recommended all three frequently and each helped clarify my views or change positions I’ve previously held.

In the first half of 2021, I’d like to read more books on theory and history of thought. Specifically, I’d like to read about the founding of different Protestant denominations, a history (or histories) of mathematical thinking (generally or in specific veins), and philosophy of technology.

words words words

A Few Dream Interviews

In my last post, I described the desire to watch (or listen to) an interview between Dick Cavett and Dr. Atul Gawande. As an exercise, I wanted to see if it would make my list of interviews that will never happen but I would love to hear.

To set some parameters for list design:

  • Each interview must have, at least, one person who generally interviews others and have no more than 2 parties.
    • The conversation does not need to be strictly host and guest format, but having an interviewer and interviewee helps set structure.
    • Bands, groups, and teams could comprise a single party.
  • I must be reasonably sure that both parties are interesting in conversation, not just interesting people.
    • Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, are examples that fall into this category for me.
  • The interview should not be political in nature.
    • e.g. the Trumps, Obamas, Bidens, Clintons, and Condoleezza Rice are excluded.
  • I must be reasonably sure that the interview will never happen.
    • Joe Rogan and Oprah are excluded from being interviewers because they are likely willing and able to interview anyone.
  • All parties must be living, physically capable of conversation, and speak the same language.

With the constraints in mind, the proposed conversation between Atul Gawande and Dick Cavett certainly makes my list. Here are a few others that did as well:

Tyler Cowen interviewing John Green:

  • Who are they?
  • Why would it be interesting?
    • Tyler Cowen’s signature interview segment is “overrated or underrated,” where he asks his interviewees wither a series of concepts or items are over- or underrated. John Green’s podcast, the Anthropocene Reviewed, rates aspects of the human experience.
    • Tyler Cowen has an incredibly adversarial interview style, John Green is very sentimental. Both are well versed in a wide range of subjects. I imagine that the conversation will center on reviews of their shared experiences, from opposite vantage points and approaches.
  • Why wont it happen?
    • Tyler Cowen tends to interview titans with strongly held beliefs in the technology, economics, progress-studies fields. John Green is not in any of them, and I am not sure that the interview would benefit either professionally.

Pardon My Take interviewing Sheryl Sandberg:

  • Who are they?
    • Sheryl Sandberg is the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook and founder of LeanIn.org.
    • Pardon My Take (PMT) is the team, of Dan Katz and PFT Commenter, that produces an eponymous sports/satire podcast for Barstool Sports.
  • Why would it be interesting?
    • Sheryl Sandberg is an inspiration for young leaders, specifically women, and for those grieving. She frequently speaks to women’s forums, elite institutions of higher learning, and writes for educated audiences. Pardon My Take has the most popular sports podcast and, almost exclusively, engages with the 18-35 male demographic. In order to confront toxic masculinity in the workplace, Sandberg’s message needs to meet that audience where it is comfortable.
    • Pardon My Take tends to make comedy for young men that are interested in sports. The hosts generally keep the conversation light, but are capable of serious topics (they had Dr. Fauci on to stress the importance of safe practices during COVID) and understand when to joke and when to let a guest speak. More than other platforms that target young men, these hosts are willing expand the horizon of their show (they did a series on Dungeons and Dragons) beyond what their audience thinks will be “cool.”
  • Why wont it happen?
    • I could not find a video where Sandberg engaged with popular culture and cannot imagine her sitting for jokes at Barstool sports.

Ross Douthat interviews Christopher Moore:

  • Who are they?
    • Christopher Moore is a comedic author.
    • Ross Douthat is a blogger, author, columnist, and conservative political analyst with a strong focus on religion.
  • Why would it be interesting?
    • I imagine the conversation would start with Moore’s Lamb and how to think about Christ’s story. From that launching point, the conversation may meander to colors, progress studies, the need for religion, or the human condition. I would love to hear the conversation progress. Douthat’s most recent book The Decadent Society argues that the West is now in a decadent phase, the phase that commonly precedes catastrophe. Would Moore agree?
  • Why wont it happen?
    • Neither Moore nor Douthat appear to seek popular interview channels. I don’t know that most Moore readers also read Douthat and vice versa.

Other notable proposed interviews:

Melissa Murray interviewing Tom Scott, Mike Duncan interviewing Jeffrey Morgenthaler, Tim Ferris interviewing James May (too likely?), and Malcolm Gladwell interviewing Dan Harmon (too likely?).

Observations, words words words

A law: tag, and u. Catch it, rare VD.

Dr. Atul Gawande‘s Being Mortal is not a book that should be absorbed and placed back on the shelf. The book should be wrestled with, discussed, and lessons should be teased out. The novel calls its reader to action. Being Mortal addresses the the toughest aspect of human life. It pleads with readers to know when to act counter to their personal hopes in order to create the best outcomes for loved ones. In the novel, which addresses how to improve end of life care, Dr. Gawande admits that he was, at times, uncertain of when to change course, from treatments that maximize longevity of life, to treatments aimed at maximizing quality of life for his own father.

After reading the book, I searched for interviews with Dr. Gawande. I was hoping to hear him confront an interviewer’s questions in real time and express the emotional vulnerabilities associated with planning end of life care. Dr. Gawande does more speaking than conversing in public (although his Talks at Google performance is worth watching). I couldn’t find an interview that met my desire.

Dick Cavett is 83. From ’68-’74, he led the best late night interview show on tv. I’ll occasionally watch his interviews as reruns or on YouTube. Cavett’s interviews are a window into personal thoughts of the titans of the era. I will never experience the culture the brought Woodstock, the Beatles, or the Vietnam protests. I can watch recordings of Hendrix, but I’ll learn more about the moment by watching Cavett than watching the concert. He has a relaxed conversational style that allows his guests to control the subject matter, but a wit and persistence that brings most conversations to a vulnerable place (with the obvious exception of Peter Falk).

Dick Cavett remains active. Early this year, he had an interview with Stephen Colbert. At 83, he appears to be in good shape both mentally, and physically. Over the last 30 years, Cavett has publicly addressed depression and his personal struggles. He is an advocate for seeking help and willing to be vulnerable about his experiences. In a 2014 Psychology Today interview Cavett describes his first experiences with depression:

Serani: So your first intervention for depression didn’t really go very well.

Cavett: (Laughs) I guess that was my first intervention. Yeah, I think I didn’t get what was really happening to me then and the woman there certainly didn’t either. There were two major episodes of depression that came later in my life. And, oh, it was so baffling. You know when you have the flu and you can’t remember when you felt well? And then when you feel better, you can barely remember feeling sick? The authority of depression is horrifying. I felt like my brain was busted and that I could never feel good again. I really thought that I was never gonna heal.

Deborah Serani Psy.D. interviewing Dick Cavett

When looking for an interview with Dr. Gawande, I was looking for an interview between someone like Cavett and Dr. Gawande. I was hoping to find Dr. Gawande speaking to a vulnerable, but brilliant, elderly person in an unstructured environment. I was hoping to find an interview that works for all ages and doesn’t feel like a lecture. Cavett, I’m sure, would openly discuss his personal experiences and challenge Dr. Gawande’s directives where one might expect that an elderly loved one would. Although, I’ll never see it, Dick Cavett interviewing Dr. Atul Gawande is what I was searching for.

Dick Cavett has a terrible hobby of anagramming other people’s names. The title was an homage to that practice.

Observations, words words words

Article Review: The Truth is Paywalled But The Lies Are Free

Good headline, no? I saw the headline scrolling Reddit and had to read the article (albeit a week or two later). The headline was so good, I found myself referencing the article before I read the content. “The Truth is Paywalled, But the Lies Are Free.”

Let it sink in.

The truth is paywalled, but the lies are free. It’s intuitively true and validated daily. Too often, I see a Google news alert with an urgent headline such as “Tokyo Now Has Transparent Public Toilets. Let Us Explain” but when I try to learn more and become an informed citizen, I’m blocked by a paywall.

The article didn’t live up to the title. At the beginning of the article, the author makes a few excellent points related to online articles:

  • Journalism and research are expensive to do well
  • Fabrication and plagiarism cost very little to produce
  • The compensation structure of production benefits those that can produce quickly and spur engagement

Unfortunately the author uses those points, which merit discussion, as a springboard to propose a world with perfect information through a free-to-access online Utopia:

In fact, to see just how much human potential is being squandered by having knowledge dispensed by the “free market,” let us briefly picture what “totally democratic and accessible knowledge” would look like. Let’s imagine that instead of having to use privatized research services like Google Scholar and EBSCO, there was a single public search database containing every newspaper article, every magazine article, every academic journal article, every court record, every government document, every website, every piece of software, every film, song, photograph, television show, and video clip, and every book in existence.

I’ll save my analysis of this utopia, it isn’t relevant to my post. In the pivot from an analysis of why it is hard for citizens to remain informed to a takedown of US copyright law and research funding, the author lost the second half of the title: The lies are free.

What a waste of a headline. The author spends one short paragraph on the impact of pervasive inaccurate news. US politics have been shaped over the last four years over which news sources are trustworthy. The President’s use of the term “fake news” has been so frequent and effective that exposure to the phrase dampens the public’s ability to discern real from fraudulent news. The author of the article that inspired this post used only conservative sources when highlighting the prevalence of lies in internet reporting.

“The truth is paywalled, but the lies are free.” In this climate, the author should use this title to help readers navigate a politicized news landscape. It’s clear to me that the Financial Times would be an excellent source of news, but I don’t have FT money. Instead I’m stuck with Financial Buzz and Forbes. Every few hours Google pushes me toward an article from an unknown guy in a van, and I’m stuck trying to determine what I can consider fact and what deserves additional scrutiny. A few tips to help readers determine which news is real after an analysis of the publishing landscape would be a perfect use of a perfect title.

I have a few tips that I’ve found to help me determine if I can trust what I am reading:

  • Biased news is not necessarily inaccurate news
  • If the story comes from a reputable news source, it is probably factually correct to a large extent.
    • A story from an unknown news source is not necessarily less trustworthy, but should be validated with other sources.
  • If the site does not differentiate news and editorial/opinion pieces, I should verify the facts with a different, credible source.
  • If the article does not include a byline, and the source is not traditionally respected (e.g. The Economist) I should verify the facts with a different, credible source.
  • The harder a story is to find, the more I should doubt its accuracy
    • This point is relatively controversial due to the politicized environment. The premise is that if the facts can’t be verified or if the story has not been circulated.
  • If I only have access to the headline and nut graf, I have not read enough context to judge the story in full.

I will continue to be tricked or misread articles in future. And when I am gated from a compelling story, I’m sure I will continue to use the phase “The truth is paywalled, but the lies are free.” But like a great single on a bad album, I’ll forget where I originally heard it and never recommend the rest of the work to anyone.