What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies
- Downloads：9314
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2023-02-26 00:19:37
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Tim Urban
- ISBN：B0BTJCTR58
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
Reviews
Sebastian
，
Timely and important book， with a clear message and powerful framework （the ladder）。You can discuss difference of opinions in 2 ways。1） High rung: Open， scientific mindset。 You challenge the idea in the search for better explanations （Civil）2） Low rung: Emotional defence of your opinion as you have bound it as core truth to your ego。 You don’t care about conflicting evidence and prefer to attack the person instead of the idea （Viscous）Much of scientific progress in liberal societies have come fr Timely and important book， with a clear message and powerful framework （the ladder）。You can discuss difference of opinions in 2 ways。1） High rung: Open， scientific mindset。 You challenge the idea in the search for better explanations （Civil）2） Low rung: Emotional defence of your opinion as you have bound it as core truth to your ego。 You don’t care about conflicting evidence and prefer to attack the person instead of the idea （Viscous）Much of scientific progress in liberal societies have come from embracing the High Rung notion。 As David Deutsch put’s it， this scientific approach of Conjectures， Hypotheses and Testing is what brings us on a path to the beginning of Infinity （Progress on all dimensions）The problem is that the meaning crisis & social media has partly pushed society down the ladder to the low-rung world。 And it is everywhere。。 Worst is that those hateful Woke and Populist ideologies feed each-other。 They amplify the in-group， out-group rivalries。 Moreover， the more vicious the attacks， the deeper the notion of evil outsiders and heroic activist ingroup gets stimulated。。 Giving either side of the low-rung isle a "raison d'être" As Betrand Russel highlighted in his book “history of western philosophy”， no ideology is worth dying for， because you might very well be wrong。 He wrote this just after WWII in the hope to avoid another WWIIIUsually， these low-rung fights happen at the fringes in a liberal society。 Unfortunately， especially the SJF view has bullied its way through society and is imposing limits to free speech。 How？ By discovering the tool of mob-lynching through cancel culture。 As Nietzsche would say， feeling the thrill of their will to power， sense of righteousness and hiding within their herd。 Why is it so dangerous？ Because Free speech is THE core tool that allows for High-Rungness to exist， and hence our ability to walk the path of truth and beginning of infinity。 We inch way too close to Orwellian societies。 This book makes the same observations as Douglas Murray's "War on the West" but in a more neutral manner。My hope is that this book breaks the implicit curbing of free speech by our western low-rung ideological discourse。 Make the silent centre realise， that the loud bullying cries， while being the most noticeable beliefs， are not the widest held across the populationLet's not self-destruct。。 We have enough other problems in a post-globalisation era plagued by population collapses。 Be kind to all， challenge the ideas， not the people saying them 。。。more
Bernard O'Leary
，
There is a dril tweet for everything， and you can summarize this 800-page porridge of trite rationalist nonsense with the dril classic: the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things。 you imbecile。 you fucking moron" There is a dril tweet for everything， and you can summarize this 800-page porridge of trite rationalist nonsense with the dril classic: the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things。 you imbecile。 you fucking moron" 。。。more
Julie B Gannon
，
thoughtfulSold on idea labs。 Tim seems to have a good heart and care about good outcomes for all people， and uses this book this book as a tool to actionalize those intentions。
Xander Toftness
，
If you're going to read it， read the whole thing。I wrestled internally with how to rate this book。 What wins me over is that the book calls itself out on the things about the book that piss me off， which I appreciate。 It makes it feel more like a conversation than a presentation， which is nice。Specifically， there were moments that I hated the book， but the book encourages the reader to think about those thoughts and why they are being thought。 This is so rare in writing that it earns itself 5 st If you're going to read it， read the whole thing。I wrestled internally with how to rate this book。 What wins me over is that the book calls itself out on the things about the book that piss me off， which I appreciate。 It makes it feel more like a conversation than a presentation， which is nice。Specifically， there were moments that I hated the book， but the book encourages the reader to think about those thoughts and why they are being thought。 This is so rare in writing that it earns itself 5 stars for encouraging that metacognitive introspection。That said， I highlighted the heck out of certain sections that I feel could be improved， and even a couple of minor typos and oversights。 There are also a lot of things to like， but in the interest of strengthening the argument through critique， here are some possible places for improvement:There's a tiny typo in a quote from a historical figure that drove me disproportionately nuts （The quote from Peggy McIntosh）。 It should be "status" and not "statues。"In places， the book is guilty of the same sex/gender conflation that the book itself tries to point out in the footnotes （such as in a figure that uses Male/Female when the correct terms for that context are Man/Woman; also， the sudden switch between Men/Women and Male/Female on page 430）。 A cited study， "Goldberg & Kaufmann， 2022，" also egregiously conflated the terms Male/Female and the word gender。 Tim isolates "Gender is an identity choice， regardless of the biological sex you were born into" as a SJF-y concept at one point， when in fact， that is the true scientific/biological understanding。 Sex is the biological part， and gender is the sociocultural part。 Tim even has a footnote that gets much closer to the science on this， so it's weird that the main text would try to paint this as a SJF-y concept， when it isn't。 He puts too much stake in "peer review" working in academia when that's also subject to egregious human error and bias。 Needs more skepticism here， should probably talk to some professors。He could have used one or more callbacks to Trumpism in the middle of the SJF section， such as when the Trojan Horse figure was introduced， in order to avoid readers rage-quitting from writing about one side of the horizontal spectrum for so long--for example， the Trump Trojan Horse could have made a cameo earlier on。Some charts/graphs appeared to need clearer attributions （were they used with permission？ who originally made them？）。The book tries to be about REASON。 However， instead of embracing its role as a PHILOSOPHY book， it tries to dabble in SCIENCE as well -- which feels disingenuous to me， a scientist， when certain things such as statistics are claimed to be "true" without the nuance necessary for on-the-page scientific analysis。 That is， reading the book was slowed down by me having to click links and look stuff up。 That is， I wanted more information about sub-sample sizes， error of measurement， and funding sources whenever polls and surveys were discussed。 This limitation won't bother most readers， I would bet。 The copious footnotes are， in general， a strength。The book glosses over an ivermectin-peddler （Weinstein） and a （partially） Koch-funded institute （FIRE） and hopes that readers don't notice。 The anecdotes/data from those sources may still be valid， but from the reader's perspective it feels dishonest to not hang a lampshade on the anti-science/conservative bias that immediately comes to mind。It felt like more of the conservative shenanigans of recent years needed addressing， like the threats of secession。 The section that did exist about the conservative race to the bottom seemed pretty well done， if not as exhaustive as I would have liked。I was left with the impression that Tim needed to talk to more professors。 Maybe he did， but they wanted to be anonymous。 Still， parts of the section about diversity statements and other pieces of academia read extremely like an outsider looking in towards a campus。 As such， they come across more like rants than they objectively are。 For example， that section seems to miss the idea that professors need to be able to teach a variety of different students， and a diversity statement is supposed to be a way to gauge that。 Whether the diversity statement works for that purpose or not is debatable， but the way it is written about feels very myopic。 Maybe he should have sat down with some professors and discussed their diversity statements and why they were useful？ The points about diversity statements being used first in the hiring process and the deep dive into how they are scored/used is appreciated， but the "pro" of the statement isn't addressed。There are typos in figures。 "Femal" and "More new immigrant" are two examples。Anyway， the book was worth reading and brings up good discussion points and some new terminology for phenomena that people will hopefully find useful。 The book is challenging， but in a good way。 。。。more
Andrew Berkowitz
，
A must-read。
Ian Hayes
，
A Trip Down the LadderUrban starts this piece with a fascinating framework for understanding current political discourse， analyzing the national conversation from a refreshing vertical lens that situates high-minded， rational thinking in opposition to low-minded， reactionary impulsivity， rather than the tired horizontal lens of left- and right-wing politics。While Urban expertly highlights the benefits of collaborative high-minded conversation and the pitfalls of groupthink echo chambers， his ear A Trip Down the LadderUrban starts this piece with a fascinating framework for understanding current political discourse， analyzing the national conversation from a refreshing vertical lens that situates high-minded， rational thinking in opposition to low-minded， reactionary impulsivity， rather than the tired horizontal lens of left- and right-wing politics。While Urban expertly highlights the benefits of collaborative high-minded conversation and the pitfalls of groupthink echo chambers， his early explanations of common cognitive biases is almost too effective， providing all the necessary tools to interpret his eventual descent into what he， himself， would call， “lower-rung thinking。” While he claims to be simply concerned with the “hypercharged tribalism” that has grown to dominate the discourse as both sides of the political spectrum duke it out in “Political Disney World，” he devotes a pointedly oversized portion of the latter half of the book to his grievances with only one of the “golems，” leaving the other “golem，” and the conflicts between them， relatively unaddressed。Having read the book in its entirety， I can empathize with his position， but I wish the piece had continued the trend of the original blog series （which I also read in its entirety） of analyzing the interplay of these two “golems” rather than belaboring the point of how a single side engages in problematic behavior。While Urban has the courtesy to name the “straw man” he battles throughout most of this latter half， it would have been nice to see him either “steel man” the ideology with which he has such grievances or focus more on resisting the allure of the “Political Disney World” into which these “golems” have plunged us than exposing the “Trojan Horse” of the one without applying a similarly meticulous analysis to the other。As it stands， the totality of the piece reads as rather lopsided， like it should have either been half the length or twice as long。Edited to change Markdown formatting to HTML for Goodreads 。。。more
Ross Cohen
，
Don’t let the length intimidate you！ Urban has a knack for taking difficult concepts and writing about them with thoughtfulness， clarity， and humanity。 The illustrations are helpful and endearing too。 Thinking of adopting many of his ideas for my classroom to support students as they navigate thinking about their own thinking， as I’ll reflect on mine。 Brilliant！
Andrew Dirgo
，
full disclosure: i’m not completely finished yet。 buuuut i don’t care; this book was 6 years in the making and worth every second of that wait， worth sacrificing every other blog topic he couldn’t write about while creating this。 Tim Urban is an interesting thinker who has this strange talent for taking incredibly complex ideas and just…wandering around in them with you。 he zooms way in and way out and explores the peripheries and tangents， and makes them a） funny， b） digestible， and c） meaningf full disclosure: i’m not completely finished yet。 buuuut i don’t care; this book was 6 years in the making and worth every second of that wait， worth sacrificing every other blog topic he couldn’t write about while creating this。 Tim Urban is an interesting thinker who has this strange talent for taking incredibly complex ideas and just…wandering around in them with you。 he zooms way in and way out and explores the peripheries and tangents， and makes them a） funny， b） digestible， and c） meaningful。 he balances it accessibility with complex ideas better than maybe anyone else i’ve ever read。 the writing is irreverent and conversational， not stuffy at all despite heavy subject matter， complete with random fun footnotes and juvenile drawings that provide surprisingly useful visual aids to what he’s talking about。 he takes huge topics and makes them really easy to understand because he’s taken the time to break them down piece by piece， complete with adorably bad stick figure illustrations。 he builds the foundation carefully and systematically， which makes it remarkably easy to follow along through increasingly complex layers of thought。but more important he includes you， the reader， and forces you to challenge assumptions and reflect on why you think what you think。 of his work that i’ve read， sometimes he changes my mind and sometimes he doesn’t， but i always come away with a better understanding of the topic and how i came to believe what i do。 reading tim urban will make you a better human being。 。。。more
Kristian Bonitz
，
What's Our Problem with Society Today？ Wokeness。This is a really strange book， the fact that it exists at all is wild。 Tim Urban does something very interesting by taking a incredibly big picture approach for political theory， starting with tribes and societies， then focusing down into politics and ideologies before spending the other half of the book complaining about Social Justice Warriors Social Justice Fundamentalism， Cancel Culture and the degradation of free speech。The starting point for What's Our Problem with Society Today？ Wokeness。This is a really strange book， the fact that it exists at all is wild。 Tim Urban does something very interesting by taking a incredibly big picture approach for political theory， starting with tribes and societies， then focusing down into politics and ideologies before spending the other half of the book complaining about Social Justice Warriors Social Justice Fundamentalism， Cancel Culture and the degradation of free speech。The starting point for this book was pretty promising， and while I wasn't expecting academic literature， using tribalism as a lens for understanding Trump and the shift toward extremism in the Republican Party was great， a good historical lens to view the shifts of tribalism and political distortion。 By all means look at the Democrats and their distortion and factions over time。 But instead we get a bunch of complaining about university students？I suppose if Tim Urban wanted to complain about the Left Activists for ~200 pages， that is entirely his right。 But given that this book was sold to me as a general purpose view of the world of politics， it's disappointing that it just ends up falling into this moral panic rabbit hole and never climbs out。 。。。more
Nick Webb
，
In some ways I really liked this book - it is playful， it is easy to read， and it makes some important points。Some specific things I wasn't a fan of:- I'm not sure about primitive vs higher mind as a fundamental model to base everything off。 Where primitive mind is presented as our old evolutionary mind that causes us a lot of problems （buying and skoffing skittles at the checkout）， and higher mind as our scientific， truth-seeking mind。 These are said to be analogous to System 1 and System 2。 So In some ways I really liked this book - it is playful， it is easy to read， and it makes some important points。Some specific things I wasn't a fan of:- I'm not sure about primitive vs higher mind as a fundamental model to base everything off。 Where primitive mind is presented as our old evolutionary mind that causes us a lot of problems （buying and skoffing skittles at the checkout）， and higher mind as our scientific， truth-seeking mind。 These are said to be analogous to System 1 and System 2。 So I don't think these are quite right。 I'm not sure System 1， automatic reflexive quick thinking， is responsible for tribalism。 I'm not sure System 2， verbal concentrated thinking， leads to truth-seeking for most people。 There could have been discussion about mechanisms for truth-seeking like prediction markets。- the ladder （of truth seeking） seemed to me to have a massive gap between levels 1 （Scientist） and 2 （Sports Fan）。 I'm also not sure that most scientists would fit the bill as a scientist。- I like the idea of an opposite to an echo chamber， I'm not sure 'idea lab' is the right term though。 There wasn't much discussion on how to generate that， apart from to be more courageous。 I'd have liked some ideas on how to have improved incentives for better intellectual environments。- The intro starts with an argument about technology becoming more risky as it becomes more powerful， and then doesn't really talk about it again as far as I can see- I felt truth and accuracy were sacrificed for expressing interesting concepts without the payoff of some important insight gained。 Some of the neologisms obfuscated as much as they clarified， and became a bit wearisome after a while - "primitive mind vs higher mind" "golems vs genies" etc - it was more American-centric than I'd expected。 Lots of deep discussion of American political events。Some things I was a fan of:- the need to engage and not leave our intellectual discourse to extreme viewpoints， to not be silent， even though it might mean some discomfort。 We should try and see it as a moral good to encourage people to speak their mind， rather than leave the discourse to the 1% that post。- I broadly agreed with all the ideas in the book - including the arguments against social justice thinking， so perhaps that is part of the reason that I didn't rate the book more highly。 And perhaps that's unfair？- love the diagrams and playfulnessOverall， I felt the argument could have been made more succinctly， with more time spent on what we can do about it。 For example， for groupthink， he could have spoken about red teams， pre-mortems， 10th man rule， encouraging disagreement， getting people to express opinions individually before group discussion （Delphi method）。 。。。more
Tanul Mohod
，