09.28.06
Less is more
Bday wk.
Sleep Less, Eat Less, Think Less,
 (Can’t help it… that is 1 less than more)
09.04.06
Types of Books (Non-fiction) I like
I have been reading books specifically recommended to me by people. I also have spoken to a friend on the type of books I like.
 (This post has spoilers…)
In general, books that appeal to me would have a main thesis showing ALL of the following characteristics:
1) Contrarian to a point of being controversial
2) Non-obvious
3) Based on sound reasoning (subjective).
Take the book, ‘The World Is Flat’. It is a highly recommended book.  It introduces a few non-obvious ideas but the problem with this book is that though there are many anecdotes that do not stand up to scrutiny because it covers an area where I have personal experience in. Things on out-sourcing and China are not as close as I what I have experienced. Therefore, it scored low on having sound reasoning and in places where the writing is believable, they turn out to be knowledge already obvious to me.
Take another book, ‘Economic Hit Man’. This is a recommended book but it is written in a controversial style. On surface, the prose and style it is written in give you the feeling that the material is exaggerated (ala Michael Moore).  In reality, having little experience with most of the countries mentioned, I find the material hugely entertaining.
Another book I am reading is ’Guns, Germs, and Steel’. This book re-introduces an old idea on the reason behind the world powers today but the reasoning approach is interesting. Instead of basing the reasoning on the existing European powers, it focussed on the lesser known geographic regions and explained why they could not flourish into current powers.
I am a lazy and impatient reader. The thicker the book, the better it has to be. For example, it was a real pain struggling through “The World is Flat” compared to a possibly fluffier book say “Freakonomics”.Â
One thing I also realized is the age of the books. Old books that are recommended tend to be better than the new books that are recommended.
Having said that, I am not saying that books I like are good books and neither am I saying that the books I dislike or are neutral with bad books.
Neither am I truly scientific. I have a tendency to believe ideas that are controversial easily with little evidence. As a computer scientist, I am more interested in deduction and inferencing and would care less about statistics. Hence, well-crafted anecdotes explaining cause and effect is sometimes sufficient to convince me. Convincing statistics, on the other hand, raises my suspicion.