Jennifer isn't the only code breaker. There, that's my review. All else is pure science I'm too exhausted to explain. Maybe I will. Someday. Jennifer isn't the only code breaker. There, that's my review. All else is pure science I'm too exhausted to explain. Maybe I will. Someday. ...more
I don't remember when I read it. All I remember is it was crazy! And I liked the craziness. I don't remember when I read it. All I remember is it was crazy! And I liked the craziness. ...more
I was kind of expecting Elizabeth Warren's 'I have a plan' approach by the author, but Rutger is more into evaluating radical-sounding theoretical plaI was kind of expecting Elizabeth Warren's 'I have a plan' approach by the author, but Rutger is more into evaluating radical-sounding theoretical plans—universal basic income, open borders, and a 15-hour workweek—with real-time short-scale experiments and their results.
Rutger is Rutger, and I was just too much in my head with my great and irrational expectations from him. He didn't disappoint.
Julia picks interesting cases to support her claim, so in a way, she satisfied my selfish want to find stories in the non-fiction. Thanks, Julia.
HowevJulia picks interesting cases to support her claim, so in a way, she satisfied my selfish want to find stories in the non-fiction. Thanks, Julia.
However (there's always that however), what I did not like was the same-old-same-old tradition among modern-day non-fiction writers who think it's the best strategy to make it to that 200+ pages by adding as many evidences as they can to validate their precious insights. It's annoying. I don't want to get used to this stupid tradition just because Julia is good with choosing her page adders.
Anyway. I'm sharing one of the cases to show you what Julia's precious insights are all about.
So, back in the 70s, when Susan Blackmore was a freshman at Oxford University studying psychology, just like her other college mates, she decided to use drugs to experience her newly-gotten freedom. She eventually found her spirit being lifted up towards the ceiling (reminds me of Jessie from Breaking Bad). But the thing was, she could see her body lying on the bed. That first experience with drugs changed her mindset about the paranormal. After that experience, she would wear stupid costumes, perform cute rituals, and read tarot cards to listen to her spirit guides and all. She also changed her academic focus to parapsychology. Did her Ph.D., and eventually found that all the evidence she had that proved the existence of the paranormal was only chance-based.
She couldn't easily go back to being that annoying skeptic in the family especially when she had been ghost-hunting for a living to save people from their supposed demons (I still have to look it up). She became that annoying skeptic anyway, because truth, you know.
Seeking truth, by all means, that's the thesis. Julia uses billions of cases and case studies to make her point that you should always reach conclusions based on accuracy-motivated reasoning (the Scout mindset) and not directionally-motivated reasoning (the Soldier mindset aka half-truth, biases-based rationalizing). She made her point well.
But the thing is how do you objectively separate the truth from the crap when there is so much crap we feed on on the daily basis? Reminds me of that Netflix documentary called Surviving Death. In the first episode, people narrate their near-death/full-death experiences. Most of them witnessed their spirits being lifted from their bodies (mostly during an operation), saw the doctors struggling to keep the body alive, then suddenly, felt like dissolving into all colorful things like the intermediary phase where the spirits go, and still made back to this world because "it just wasn't their time."
For me, consistency of evidence doesn't always mean truth. But, but, but another parapsychologist as shown in the same episode showed that in most of these cases, the survived lot mentioned the specific details like the position of a particular doctor standing in whatever direction, performing whatever specific thing that the patient could not have possibly mentioned had he/she not seen it from a distance with eyes fully open and in a state of consciousness.
And yet again, see, all the patients were drugged as per the regular operating procedures. So, yeah.
The book left me with this final thought: What the hell is clarity?
Note: I have updated my review system as I get to read more these days. Now, the books I feel conflicted about (most of them) get 3 stars. It's just easy....more
Made me rethink a lot. Thank you very much. But I think I'm done with my dose of pseudo-sciences for this year. And it's March only.Made me rethink a lot. Thank you very much. But I think I'm done with my dose of pseudo-sciences for this year. And it's March only....more
Good enough writing. Occasionally witty. Made me think actively. So, yeah.
Before reading the book I wasn't sure if I had any opinion on the legality oGood enough writing. Occasionally witty. Made me think actively. So, yeah.
Before reading the book I wasn't sure if I had any opinion on the legality of drugs. And now, well, I don't know if it's strong, but it's lurking somewhere there in the air. And I was listening to what Carl had to say. I'm still unsure because it doesn't affect me. Selfish? Maybe. But sometimes, you have to be there before saying, "Yeah, I understand." No, I haven't been there. No, I don't understand.
So, I tried to pretend like a rational individual without any irrational instincts while reading this one.
Carl reminded me of my university days, late teens, naive idealism (still stuck with this one) when a friend of mine and I thought that we saw two random university guys exchanging what seemed like white powder. Scandalous. Super-worried about their future (what were we thinking?), we exchanged views whether we should inform someone who can stop them. Future, right? Our random act of uncalled-for idealism would also have destroyed their future. What a dilemma. We happened to be thoughtful enough to understand that dilemma. So, we decided not to say anything out of sheer laziness and doubt that stopped us to reach an ethical conclusion.
So, what is the right thing to do?
I do think Carl is super concerned about this question. I wasn't in context to this issue while I was reading it. Because I was pretending, remember? He seemed to be too much concerned about the freedom to use drugs just like every other American teenager seems to be on American TV shows. I find this particular argument almost irrelevant.
Irrelevant, because it almost sounded like "government can't force us to wear masks." Moreover, he supports his claim that it's our right to enjoy recreational drugs with the evidence that if we can use alcohol responsibly, so can we use drugs. Alcohol, drugs. Potato, potato.
Almost, because, well he talks about using drugs responsibly. Responsibly in the sense that people should do their homework before enjoying their right to ecstasy. He argues that people who are more likely to become addicted are ignorant teens/grown-ups, already depressed adults, financially unstable folks, or a combination of all of these. I agree. So, instead of just pointing all guns at soulless drugs, using drug trade to racially discriminate against Black people, and throw labels at people finding momentary bliss in drugs, governments and non-government folks should try for once to sincerely launch an operation enduring financial-and mental-health-freedom instead of launching a war on drugs. Yes, sir. He also proposes that the same powerful folks with more than enough resources should spread awareness about responsible drug use. But these awareness campaigns can only work if drugs are legal. Why? Because when people are too concerned about getting caught, they spend all the time doing their maths homework that they forget that science can help them too. I do agree that some "immoralities" shouldn't be codified. I mean it's too much bureaucracy that is bound to fail.
Sure, but what's 'responsible' use here exactly? If our freedom is restricted by the freedom of other humans, animals, and aliens, then shouldn't we be concerned as much about losing control for the sake of our 'right' to ecstasy? If losing control was freedom, I would have agreed with Carl. But I don't think it is.
In short, I agree with most of his proposals, but I don't agree with his thinking process. For many, the thinking process can be irrelevant. For me, that's why I read....more
Loading...
