It is rather engagingly written and it is fun revisiting all these sciencey things.
It is put together in a fun way
What you really were supposed to learn in High School
I am only on my first half so maybe it will get better, but so far I did not learn anything amazingly new. Well, maybe little extra details here and there, and maybe refreshed my memory on things that I forgot since high school, but honestly, if you read your science textbooks you know most of this already. Some things I will never remember no matter how many times I see/hear them, so I guess it's fun to hear them one more time - like how many years separate different species, etc.
It is still fun to hear all this stuff, like revisiting an old friend, and the book is extremely well written.
I was snickering every time the narrator intoned "The Hebrew God" - yeah we got it, you are against.
I was expecting something more. Something deeper. This is my first Dawkins book and I heard the name so many times. This was probably not the book to start with.
The most enjoyable was perhaps the expectation of - at some point - for the soppy super sentimental overdrawn story to actually turn to sci fi. I really did not care to listen to a super lengthy story about adoption of a difficult child and how it made the author feel.
It was not what I thought it was. I thought it was a sci fi story! How did it win the Nebula award, no more stories written that year???
Scott Brick was fine.
This is not a sci fi story. This is a story of a single gay man adopting a child and talking about his feelings about this adoption at length. A very great length. If you want a sci fi story, skip. If you want a sentimental story about adopting a difficult child, listen.
This book is so wonderfully detailed, and nothing happens without some logic behind it. The world is so wonderfully cohesive, and so strange and different.
YES! This is a very exciting book.
I am not sure. I might, just for some of the particular examples of preparedness
The simple and powerful idea that typically, we provide weak responses to weak signals of trouble, and in many situations that's inadequate. Weak signs of trouble require strong responses. That idea stunned me.
I hate to sound mean, but I would prefer somebody else.
NO. It is not a book for fun. It is a book for work.
Karl Weick is one of the most influential scientists studying how firms operate. His theory of sensemaking was extremely influential. In this book, there are some pretty interesting ideas on how to manage things in a way that terrible things do not happen.
What bothered me in this book is I could not necessarily see WHY would organizations go through all that trouble and the unpleasantness of executing the things needed, some sort of cost-benefit analysis if you will. In the examples that were provided it was pretty clear - sure, a terrible fire that could not be stopped is a horrible consequence. But let's face it, most of us work in far less critical environments and the worst that would happen - well maybe there'd be a scandal and the place would close. Is the added trouble worth it? I would like to see that addressed a bit more.
Report Inappropriate Content