An impressive reading list! I've heard of most of them, read excerpts from several, but only read a few from the list (I have been in a book-reading slump).
A few recommendations (1) as a companion to the rationalism books I'd recommend _Superforecasting_ by Gardner and Tetlock. It's slightly older (and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other books reference it), but mostly about the process of deciding how and when to change one's mind (the recommend being willing to make frequent small adjustments. So that, if you think "A" is likely to be true you don't want until you get to the point of saying, "I now think A is unlikely to be true" to register that you've changed your mind -- try to identify the points at which you think "I now think A is less likely to be true" than I did before.
I also recommend _High Conflct_ by Amanda Ripley. It has so much overlap with the topics you've been interested in, it might feel familiar, but worth reading. I've also heard recommendations for _Conflict Is Not Abuse_ by Sarah Schulman, but haven't read it myself.
Also, two slightly more off-the-wall recommendations. You might like _Maybe You Should Talk To Someone_ by Lauri Gottleib. Very readable (even bingeable; I read it on a short trip and it was perfect), it threads together her own experience going through a life crisis with stories of some of her best work as a therapist; it's a compelling description of the power of listening (to others and to oneself).
I should note, that I'm not religious, and have almost no religious education so you should take my recommendation with many grains of salt. It was easy for me to come to it. "as if I was reading it for the first time," so his style worked well for me, but I also think he's a very good writer.
A couple notes on the books you mention that I have read. I liked _Why We're Polarized_, and have recommended it to people, and I think you misrepresent it slightly with your summary:
"Klein makes the claim that Republicans are uniquely motivated by racial resentment (aka racism) and the rising tide of non-white immigrants. As I’ve explored previously, I feel like this is overly simplified and a major blindspot for Democrats, of which Klein is unapologetically one. This blindspot leads Klein to wrap the book by basically saying, 'well, if our choice is polarization or racism, I guess I’m picking polarization.'"
Klein doesn't arrive at a choice between racism and polarization because of the current debates between Democrats and Republicans (though I'm sure it was on his mind). The book presents that as an central historical thread -- racism was one of the major factors _reducing_ polarization in the mid-century (with racists and liberals in both parties), and one of the major costs of the low-polarization environment was that it often built a consensus by excluding racism as a topic of discussion.
I found _Lies That Bind_ interesting, and the major thing I found myself thinking about, after reading it, were how frequently movements for social change often contain both a reformist thread that want to fix existing social categories to make them function better and a radical element that wants to blow up some of the existing categories. For example, second wave feminism includes both a celebration of femininity (women are good, strong, and should be re-centered) which reinforces the idea of "woman" as an important category, along with more radical critiques.
I appreciated all of the examples that Appiah pulled together of people complicating binary identities (and I think that's an important point to make) and I also found myself thinking about the flip side of many of stories are people saying, "I believe in this identity and I want to make it fit better, or function better."
That thought doesn't lead me to a specific conclusion, except that I think that's also part of appreciating human connection and diversity.
I should also add that one of your capsule summaries, captured what I've found interesting about this blog. You write:
"The big idea: Despite a groundswell of Americans who genuinely want to combat racism, the leading voices of the movement have unintentionally led us into a divisive, counter-productive space that hurts everyone—most especially those it attempts to support."
Personally, I tend to believe that while there is much that is counter-productive in the current conversations about race, that it is, ultimately, pushing towards a more functional, more aware culture and comfort with race. But I'm not all sure about that conclusion. I appreciate that you, for your skepticism, have an interest in the goals of anti-racism (for lack of a better catch-all term), and that leads you to be interested in successes as well as failures.
So I read the blog with an eye towards, "does this challenge my belief that things could still be moving in a productive direction, or do I want to challenge you to be more open to that possibility :)"
Yeah, I think that is fair, I may have overstated the case in that capsule. It’s hard to say whether “the movement” is doing more harm than good, and certainly a lot of great stuff is happening. I think I just get frustrated that there is a lot of energy being invested in ideas that I believe are making things worse too. I’d recommend the Manji book for a good summary… or eventually I’ll get my ideas down here :) but I always appreciate your comments bc they talk me back from nihilism 😂
Oh, I definitely have my concerns and live in the U.S these days, but they start from Electoral politics (and some of the ways that bleeds into day-to-day life), not from the, "Americans who genuinely want to combat racism" (even if the latter group is sometimes counter-productive).
An example to illustrate that. I often think about the story about Mitt Romney's dog (and, if you followed the 2012 election, you know the story I'm referring to).
Overall, Mitt Romney seems like a decent enough fellow. I disagree with his politics and think he occasionally falls into the traps of ego, wealth, and success (as many politicians do). But, you occasionally see liberal praise of GHW Bush, and Romney seems like a similar caliber of politician.
I was never going to vote for him, but when the story about his dog came out that was the first time that I thought, "F*** that guy." And then I thought about who it was that found and released that story and how precisely it was selected to trigger a, "F*** that guy" response.
That's not new in politics -- finding _that_ story has been a goal for political campaigns going as far back as you want.
But social media has certainly made it easier both to find those stories and distribute them. They're most effective as word-of-mouth stories* and that's exactly what the current political landscape is optimized for.
I think some of that does spread outside electoral politics -- the number of circumstances in which it's effective to denounce someone you don't like in particularly florid ways has grown. But I don't think that's specific to the "woke" mindset.
* Think about this story about Lyndon Johnon and reflect on what it shows about the power of political _rumor_ as opposed to a story that claims an actual source.
-----------
This is one of the oldest and most effective tricks in politics. Every hack in the business has used it in times of trouble, and it has even been elevated to the level of political mythology in a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas.
“The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumour campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows.
“Christ, we can’t get away with calling him a pig-f****r,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofab****h deny it.”
I enjoyed cultish very much too. She did use “BIPOC” somewhere in there and I can’t remember off the top of my head but there were a couple other tells, as you say. I really wish she’d had the audacity to do a little exploration down that alley.
I’m wondering if you have a top 3, or 5? An idea of which of these books you’d recommend first/most highly.
I love the King quote, and it makes me likely to tackle that one first (after I finish a couple of books dealing with my primary obsession: movies).
I’ve read both Scout and Ghettoside and heartily agree with your recommendation of them. And though I haven’t read the Haidt or McWhorter books, I’ve read so much of those gentlemen online that I feel I may already have the gist. Really enjoy both.
Hmm- well even if you’re familiar with Haidt, I still highly recommend Righteous Mind to everyone who will listen :) After that, probably TCW’s Self Portrait (it’s short but excellent). Gods of the Upper Air was great, and so was Why Fish Don’t Exist and (so far) Secret of our Success. I think that trio would be good in any order!
So glad you’ve surfaced again. I’m curious about whether (or how) you “consume” books. Did you read any physical books on your list & if yes how did that alter your perception?
So, back in October last year I bought a ton of paper books from Amazon—I only finished Why were Polarized and How to be an antiracist from that cluster. Two of my unfinished books, Racecraft and Don’t Label Me, are physical copies which is why I have difficulty finding time for them. Scout Mindset was hard copy but I finished it on a flight I took. The rest I believe were audiobooks while driving. I took a solo road-trip for a family funeral in Feb, over 24 hours of driving, and was able to finish Born a Crime, Self Portrait, Becoming, and half of God of the Upper Air in that trip alone.
I think the paper copies do allow aspects to stick with me more long term, since I can highlight and re-reference (I haven’t checked out a physical book from the library, only bought them). But I seriously have a stack of like 10 books I know I’ll never get to, whereas the audiobooks I actually finish them. I have started occasionally checking out the ebook too for reference and pulling quotes (had to for several recaps here!).
I’ve found audiobooks to be pretty damn useful too. I mostly listen while walking one or another of our dogs. Occasionally I check out a hard copy from the library. The best thing for me is that audiobooks prompt me not to skip since the readers tend to be on the diligent side!
I enjoyed this review and appreciate that it included books written from a variety of perspectives. I often read or listen to podcasts for pleasure, so my reading/listening tends to become slanted to particular viewpoints. But you rightly highlight that we should listen to the "other side" sometimes to challenge and refine our thinking.
An impressive reading list! I've heard of most of them, read excerpts from several, but only read a few from the list (I have been in a book-reading slump).
A few recommendations (1) as a companion to the rationalism books I'd recommend _Superforecasting_ by Gardner and Tetlock. It's slightly older (and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other books reference it), but mostly about the process of deciding how and when to change one's mind (the recommend being willing to make frequent small adjustments. So that, if you think "A" is likely to be true you don't want until you get to the point of saying, "I now think A is unlikely to be true" to register that you've changed your mind -- try to identify the points at which you think "I now think A is less likely to be true" than I did before.
I also recommend _High Conflct_ by Amanda Ripley. It has so much overlap with the topics you've been interested in, it might feel familiar, but worth reading. I've also heard recommendations for _Conflict Is Not Abuse_ by Sarah Schulman, but haven't read it myself.
Also, two slightly more off-the-wall recommendations. You might like _Maybe You Should Talk To Someone_ by Lauri Gottleib. Very readable (even bingeable; I read it on a short trip and it was perfect), it threads together her own experience going through a life crisis with stories of some of her best work as a therapist; it's a compelling description of the power of listening (to others and to oneself).
Finally, your mention of the Rezla Azlan, makes me think you might enjoy Andrew Rilstone's blogging the Gospel of Mark: http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2019/03/the-gospel-according-to-st-mark.html
I should note, that I'm not religious, and have almost no religious education so you should take my recommendation with many grains of salt. It was easy for me to come to it. "as if I was reading it for the first time," so his style worked well for me, but I also think he's a very good writer.
A couple notes on the books you mention that I have read. I liked _Why We're Polarized_, and have recommended it to people, and I think you misrepresent it slightly with your summary:
"Klein makes the claim that Republicans are uniquely motivated by racial resentment (aka racism) and the rising tide of non-white immigrants. As I’ve explored previously, I feel like this is overly simplified and a major blindspot for Democrats, of which Klein is unapologetically one. This blindspot leads Klein to wrap the book by basically saying, 'well, if our choice is polarization or racism, I guess I’m picking polarization.'"
Klein doesn't arrive at a choice between racism and polarization because of the current debates between Democrats and Republicans (though I'm sure it was on his mind). The book presents that as an central historical thread -- racism was one of the major factors _reducing_ polarization in the mid-century (with racists and liberals in both parties), and one of the major costs of the low-polarization environment was that it often built a consensus by excluding racism as a topic of discussion.
I found _Lies That Bind_ interesting, and the major thing I found myself thinking about, after reading it, were how frequently movements for social change often contain both a reformist thread that want to fix existing social categories to make them function better and a radical element that wants to blow up some of the existing categories. For example, second wave feminism includes both a celebration of femininity (women are good, strong, and should be re-centered) which reinforces the idea of "woman" as an important category, along with more radical critiques.
I appreciated all of the examples that Appiah pulled together of people complicating binary identities (and I think that's an important point to make) and I also found myself thinking about the flip side of many of stories are people saying, "I believe in this identity and I want to make it fit better, or function better."
That thought doesn't lead me to a specific conclusion, except that I think that's also part of appreciating human connection and diversity.
I should also add that one of your capsule summaries, captured what I've found interesting about this blog. You write:
"The big idea: Despite a groundswell of Americans who genuinely want to combat racism, the leading voices of the movement have unintentionally led us into a divisive, counter-productive space that hurts everyone—most especially those it attempts to support."
Personally, I tend to believe that while there is much that is counter-productive in the current conversations about race, that it is, ultimately, pushing towards a more functional, more aware culture and comfort with race. But I'm not all sure about that conclusion. I appreciate that you, for your skepticism, have an interest in the goals of anti-racism (for lack of a better catch-all term), and that leads you to be interested in successes as well as failures.
So I read the blog with an eye towards, "does this challenge my belief that things could still be moving in a productive direction, or do I want to challenge you to be more open to that possibility :)"
Yeah, I think that is fair, I may have overstated the case in that capsule. It’s hard to say whether “the movement” is doing more harm than good, and certainly a lot of great stuff is happening. I think I just get frustrated that there is a lot of energy being invested in ideas that I believe are making things worse too. I’d recommend the Manji book for a good summary… or eventually I’ll get my ideas down here :) but I always appreciate your comments bc they talk me back from nihilism 😂
Oh, I definitely have my concerns and live in the U.S these days, but they start from Electoral politics (and some of the ways that bleeds into day-to-day life), not from the, "Americans who genuinely want to combat racism" (even if the latter group is sometimes counter-productive).
An example to illustrate that. I often think about the story about Mitt Romney's dog (and, if you followed the 2012 election, you know the story I'm referring to).
Overall, Mitt Romney seems like a decent enough fellow. I disagree with his politics and think he occasionally falls into the traps of ego, wealth, and success (as many politicians do). But, you occasionally see liberal praise of GHW Bush, and Romney seems like a similar caliber of politician.
I was never going to vote for him, but when the story about his dog came out that was the first time that I thought, "F*** that guy." And then I thought about who it was that found and released that story and how precisely it was selected to trigger a, "F*** that guy" response.
That's not new in politics -- finding _that_ story has been a goal for political campaigns going as far back as you want.
But social media has certainly made it easier both to find those stories and distribute them. They're most effective as word-of-mouth stories* and that's exactly what the current political landscape is optimized for.
I think some of that does spread outside electoral politics -- the number of circumstances in which it's effective to denounce someone you don't like in particularly florid ways has grown. But I don't think that's specific to the "woke" mindset.
* Think about this story about Lyndon Johnon and reflect on what it shows about the power of political _rumor_ as opposed to a story that claims an actual source.
-----------
This is one of the oldest and most effective tricks in politics. Every hack in the business has used it in times of trouble, and it has even been elevated to the level of political mythology in a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas.
“The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumour campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows.
“Christ, we can’t get away with calling him a pig-f****r,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofab****h deny it.”
Thank you 😊💗
Glad to see Haidt on here. IMO the top book on this list.
I enjoyed cultish very much too. She did use “BIPOC” somewhere in there and I can’t remember off the top of my head but there were a couple other tells, as you say. I really wish she’d had the audacity to do a little exploration down that alley.
Yeah, I think it was her claim that black and Latina women could not use Peloton products that raised my eyebrows 😑
Thank you, Marie, good to hear from you again.
I’m wondering if you have a top 3, or 5? An idea of which of these books you’d recommend first/most highly.
I love the King quote, and it makes me likely to tackle that one first (after I finish a couple of books dealing with my primary obsession: movies).
I’ve read both Scout and Ghettoside and heartily agree with your recommendation of them. And though I haven’t read the Haidt or McWhorter books, I’ve read so much of those gentlemen online that I feel I may already have the gist. Really enjoy both.
Hmm- well even if you’re familiar with Haidt, I still highly recommend Righteous Mind to everyone who will listen :) After that, probably TCW’s Self Portrait (it’s short but excellent). Gods of the Upper Air was great, and so was Why Fish Don’t Exist and (so far) Secret of our Success. I think that trio would be good in any order!
So glad you’ve surfaced again. I’m curious about whether (or how) you “consume” books. Did you read any physical books on your list & if yes how did that alter your perception?
So, back in October last year I bought a ton of paper books from Amazon—I only finished Why were Polarized and How to be an antiracist from that cluster. Two of my unfinished books, Racecraft and Don’t Label Me, are physical copies which is why I have difficulty finding time for them. Scout Mindset was hard copy but I finished it on a flight I took. The rest I believe were audiobooks while driving. I took a solo road-trip for a family funeral in Feb, over 24 hours of driving, and was able to finish Born a Crime, Self Portrait, Becoming, and half of God of the Upper Air in that trip alone.
I think the paper copies do allow aspects to stick with me more long term, since I can highlight and re-reference (I haven’t checked out a physical book from the library, only bought them). But I seriously have a stack of like 10 books I know I’ll never get to, whereas the audiobooks I actually finish them. I have started occasionally checking out the ebook too for reference and pulling quotes (had to for several recaps here!).
I’ve found audiobooks to be pretty damn useful too. I mostly listen while walking one or another of our dogs. Occasionally I check out a hard copy from the library. The best thing for me is that audiobooks prompt me not to skip since the readers tend to be on the diligent side!
I enjoyed this review and appreciate that it included books written from a variety of perspectives. I often read or listen to podcasts for pleasure, so my reading/listening tends to become slanted to particular viewpoints. But you rightly highlight that we should listen to the "other side" sometimes to challenge and refine our thinking.