Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Which books do you wish you'd read earlier in life?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 144 posts

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you wish you'd read earlier in life?

#53

Post by monksy »

slip_shoe wrote: post #10

It's funny how western (probably American) HNers are mentioning the "how to succeed everywhere" books all over this thread. This is silly, methinks. I would mildly suggest those people to take a bit wider look at where they live and why they consider those books important to be read as early as possible. For me, I don't regret about not having read anything, I'd rather regret about having read too much and nothing su…

Western civilization is based on merit and it is based on being very competitive. (It's true in your mates, your social standing, your financial situation, etc) That's the reason for the improvement books.

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you wish you'd read earlier in life?

#54

Post by clarkmoody »

defen wrote: post #40

Moby Dick I'm halfway through it. I'd held off on reading it for years just due to its reputation but I'm finding it incredibly enjoyable, humorous, and in many ways not at all what I was expecting.

I read it earlier in life, and I don't think I got as much out of it as if I'd read it later.

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you wish you'd read earlier in life?

#56

Post by schizoidboy »

adjkant wrote: post #22
schizoidboy wrote: post #17

The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. Debatable but opened up a new perspective for me.

Could you elaborate on the new perspective for you? What was the previous one? I was intrigued by the title and looked up the book and found this review, and it seems to bring up some good points. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/102880724?book_show_ac...

I just read that review, and it's been years since I've read the book, but here are my thoughts on what I see as the substantive points in the critique:

1. Climate change: Ridley calls himself a "luke-warmer". He doesn't deny that a doubling of carbon dioxide causes a 1 degree celsius increase in temperature, but he accumulates various evidence in the book suggesting that estimated feedback effects (water vapor, etc.) are in excess of what's likely. This claim certainly falls into one of the debatable aspects of the book and I'm not an expert to really evaluate it. I think it's a valid criticism that Ridley is excessively optimistic on existential risks. My guess is that he has a Bayesian prior that dooms-dayers are more likely to be wrong than not. He has many examples in the book of experts predicting existential risks in history and being wrong, and I think this colors his view of all experts. I think those historical examples of wrong doomsdayers is an interesting and important perspective.

2. Societal Collapse: I believe Ridley wrote about how the black plague may have been an important catalyst in igniting the renaissaince, so I don't remember him making teleological arguments. I don't think Ridley ever claimed that there won't be problems or collapse, but simply that if you look at the aggregate statistics, humans have been improving dramatically in the last few thousand years, largely driven by new forms of energy in the last few hundred years.

3. Materialism: I don't understand this critique. I already see evidence of movements forming to help people find more meaningful lives: the scientific field of Positive Psychology and Meaning-in-life research by professors such as Dr. Steger, The School of Life, etc.

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you wish you'd read earlier in life?

#58

Post by schizoidboy »

adjkant wrote: post #47
schizoidboy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt drowned in pessimism from media, culture, and family for most of my life up to that point, and this book opened up an optimistic perspective on global prosperity, health, violence, education, work, inequality, environment, etc. It makes rational arguments for this general optimism rather than hand-wavey optimism. I think it can be summarized as: "Things aren't so bad for the average human and are improving in…

Thanks, appreciate the detail :) I very much agree with that philosophy and would consider myself a rational optimist if I had to label, hence the intrigue. While optimism is good, I think it needs to be paired with equally important perspective. As that review points out, the general trend doesn't mean we can't go backward for long periods of time in multiple areas. That optimism needs to be paired with a push for i…

Just responded with a separate reply on the critique. I agree we have to be careful with excessive optimism.
Post reply on HN