No. It's thought provoking non-sense.
It doesn't need a follow up it needs a rewrite. The initial ideas and theories are quite intriguing but the author wastes the potential by pushing a faulty story. He clearly had a conclusion in mind and wrapped and twists facts and ideas in support of the conclusion. A real scientist would let the evidence lead to the conclusion not the other way around.
Being a collection of supporting evidence and stories it's a difficult question to answer withing singling out those stories, which in my mind takes away from the question and the book as a whole.
I think it's well put together though sometimes I'm unsure of the logic in the sequence of the stories, I'm not a writer so I would assume there is a purpose for the progression.
The idea of deep practice and the practice of absorbing information, then consciously recalling it at my own will to solidify that pathway. I found I've done intuitively a lot of the ideas put forth in this book, which gives me greater appreciation for having read it because it brings structure now to what was once instinct.
If even as fiction or anecdotal evidence only the book still is worth a read on interest alone, it's a worthy practice to try and put aside preconceived ideas and opening the mind up to new ones without bias.
The only redeeming aspect of the book is when Bill cites true events and real knowledge he had nothing to do with. Where it goes wrong is his blatantly wrong interpretation of them to support his
I would suggest Bill go back and write something less insulting to the people he cites.
The reader need only to read the preface to catch the setup to what results into a recount of historical events, reinterpreted and often blatantly wrong or subjective exactly before Bill makes a bold claim and relation to his theories.
It's easy to be right when you redefine the elements challenging your ideas, BEFORE you explain those ideas. It's call framing in negotiations. Get the opposing party to agree with you on a broad and general direction appearing to be reasonable, but in actuality you preconceived using backward induction to control decisions and opinions.
Napoleon according to Bill is the greatest military strategist in history, what's worth discussion is not Napoleon's merits for that title, but rather Bill's selective use of Napoleon and butchering history to fit his points. Likewise with Buddha, he begins by saying the area he sites to support his theory can not be confirmed and is gathered from legend. Incredibly insulting to the reader if you use legend as fact as an appeal to authority when the writer's credibility is in question.
To say Microsoft and Google are 1st tier companies in the
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.