Kyle Roth

This book was published in 2007, before the Great Recession. It definitely reads that way. Very capitalist, very Christian, very neo-liberal. I enjoyed learning more about Adam Smith. I feel like Skousen does a good job painting the importance of his ideas as an invention that drove the Industrial Revolution. According to Skousen, Marx is the devil incarnate, and his ideas are a dangerous disease infecting the minds of intellectuals and workers.

This is a good intro for non-statisticians to avoid some common pitfalls and misconceptions that the public often has. It’ll help you understand what it means when something is statistically significant, why sometimes studies contradict each other, and how to avoid believing in patterns that don’t exist. You’ll understand the following biases and fallacies: confirmation bias gambler’s fallacy hot hand fallacy “hindsight is 20/20”: the illusion of hindsight for explaining historical performance/events One mistake I want to point out:

This book really gave me the chance to think about what being the firstborn did to my personality and my life outlook. I think it’s pretty clear I fit the mold of a perfectionist firstborn, thanks to having usually met the high expectations of my parents growing up. It’s been especially valuable to think about how that will affect my own parenting, especially toward my first child. I think one of the most useful things about the book is that it prepares a parent to try to mediate some of the negative consequences of birth order.

thinking for yourself permalink I recognized myself a little in this book, not in the events, severity, or locations but in the path to being “educated” in the sense that Westover intends. I’ll try to convey what that sense is with some quotes from the book. The first moment is after she takes a class on American history at BYU. She returns home and gets her face dirty while working, and her brother calls her a N—r, a joke he had made many times before.

In this dialog Hermogenes comes to Socrates to discuss Cratylus’ view of the nature of names, whether they are true to the objects they represent or are just conventional. Hermogenes believes that names are purely conventional, while Cratylus believes the opposite. Socrates falls somewhere in the middle: I quite agree with you that words should as far as possible resemble things; but I fear that this dragging in of resemblance, as Hermogenes says, is a shabby thing, which has to be supplemented by the mechanical aid of convention with a view to correctness; for I believe that if we could always, or almost always, use likenesses, which are perfectly appropriate, this would be the most perfect state of language; as the opposite is the most imperfect.