Yes, for the first half or so. The second half of the book rather deceptively and rapidly deteriorated into anecdotal, political and non-scientific conjecture that would be more suited to a book of another title and genre. For those interested in the real science of fear, start elsewhere. For those interested in the political and marketing exploitation of fear - this is a reasonably good book. But beware: for those not keenly interested in US politics (i am Australian and care only moderately about US politics); this book will bore you and even frustrate you in the second half.
I would recommend this only to those not interested in the science behind fear but more in fear as a general topic. Because only a small portion of the book is devoted to real science. Much of it is political, speculative, and anecdotal while very lightly sprinkled with empirical research findings. By calling it the science of fear it borrows credibility from the scientific community to bolster and sustain its arguements. Although much of it was interesting, unfortunately the author de-railed his main thesis by letting his political and intuitive ideas dilute the little amount of science that was offered on the subject. If i was more interested in book heavily imbued with hyperbole and conjecture i would have purchased from the fictional shelf or at least had my eyes-wide-open about the source of the content coming more from the author than from the scientific community.
Personality, continuity, intonation and emphasis where appropriate.
No, at least not from this author. Perhaps a more credible scientist who will not let gutt-feelings, intuition and personal bias interfere with his or her work would be more interesting and true to the title.
Report Inappropriate Content