Nguyet Tran
Phenomenal theme and metaphors are diminished by the dull writing. Overall this is still a good read.
Phenomenal theme and metaphors are diminished by the dull writing. Overall this is still a good read.
Did this inspire 500 Days of Summer??? The lonely dreamer chasing love from the “dream girl” he barely knows at all???
I kind of wish I had read this in my teenage years. Back then, I also caught myself up in my own fantasies and made the same mistakes like the protagonist. This could have saved me from so many heartbreaks.
Did this inspire 500 Days of Summer??? The lonely dreamer chasing love from the “dream girl” he barely knows at all???
I kind of wish I had read this in my teenage years. Back then, I also caught myself up in my own fantasies and made the same mistakes like the protagonist. This could have saved me from so many heartbreaks.
I'm struck dumb that this book has so many good reviews because there are so many inherent issues with it.
First, I must acknowledge that there are some interesting takes. For example, I enjoyed the first part in which he discussed the benefits of free play to children. However, Haidt became over-ambitious and destroyed the book with his groundless overgeneralizations, flawed rationale, and deliberate cherry-picking.
1. His logic was fundamentally flawed when he tried to blame social media/phones for the sudden rise in mental illness among teenagers globally. His logic was (1) the rise of phone usage and the rise of mental health happened at the same time, and (2) the cause was not failing economy, climate change, etc., so it must be social media that caused mental illness. Hadt is so eager to point the finger at social media/phones that (1) he just used this weak reasoning to publish the book instead of trying to find the causation, and (2) he totally neglected the possibility of another factor existing that could cause the issue.
2. So many discussions are merely speculations rather than actual research. He often cherry-picks the research results that suit his agenda. For example, he simply quoted the survey result from Monitoring the Future to show that US students increasingly find life meaningless, which he then blamed on social media while the study never mentioned the correlation to social media. What he should have done was to find a study that can prove the causation or at least correlation between them rather than just quoting an irrelevant survey result to push for his agenda.
3. The book itself is quite repetitive. It could be 30% shorter.
4. Haidt wrote a book about the negative impact of phones/social media on teenagers, but I don't think he's putting the effort into understanding how teenagers use phones/social media at all; he merely wants to paint social media in a bad light. For example, throughout the book, he talks as if the only use of social media is dumb scrolling, while in fact, teenagers can also use social media as a texting app or learning resource. He also mentions frequently that social media reduces teenagers' sense of community and meaningful connections. At the same time, he fails to realize that social media can bring people with niche hobbies together and even foster real-life connections. If he truly wanted to understand the impact of social media on teenagers, he would have approached this very differently and tried to understand it through the lens of teenagers. Instead, he simply pushed for his boomer outdated view.
Overall, it feels like Haidt already had a hypothesis in his head, and he just wanted to write a book to satisfy it rather than put effort into finding the truth. What a waste of time for me.
I'm struck dumb that this book has so many good reviews because there are so many inherent issues with it.
First, I must acknowledge that there are some interesting takes. For example, I enjoyed the first part in which he discussed the benefits of free play to children. However, Haidt became over-ambitious and destroyed the book with his groundless overgeneralizations, flawed rationale, and deliberate cherry-picking.
1. His logic was fundamentally flawed when he tried to blame social media/phones for the sudden rise in mental illness among teenagers globally. His logic was (1) the rise of phone usage and the rise of mental health happened at the same time, and (2) the cause was not failing economy, climate change, etc., so it must be social media that caused mental illness. Hadt is so eager to point the finger at social media/phones that (1) he just used this weak reasoning to publish the book instead of trying to find the causation, and (2) he totally neglected the possibility of another factor existing that could cause the issue.
2. So many discussions are merely speculations rather than actual research. He often cherry-picks the research results that suit his agenda. For example, he simply quoted the survey result from Monitoring the Future to show that US students increasingly find life meaningless, which he then blamed on social media while the study never mentioned the correlation to social media. What he should have done was to find a study that can prove the causation or at least correlation between them rather than just quoting an irrelevant survey result to push for his agenda.
3. The book itself is quite repetitive. It could be 30% shorter.
4. Haidt wrote a book about the negative impact of phones/social media on teenagers, but I don't think he's putting the effort into understanding how teenagers use phones/social media at all; he merely wants to paint social media in a bad light. For example, throughout the book, he talks as if the only use of social media is dumb scrolling, while in fact, teenagers can also use social media as a texting app or learning resource. He also mentions frequently that social media reduces teenagers' sense of community and meaningful connections. At the same time, he fails to realize that social media can bring people with niche hobbies together and even foster real-life connections. If he truly wanted to understand the impact of social media on teenagers, he would have approached this very differently and tried to understand it through the lens of teenagers. Instead, he simply pushed for his boomer outdated view.
Overall, it feels like Haidt already had a hypothesis in his head, and he just wanted to write a book to satisfy it rather than put effort into finding the truth. What a waste of time for me.
Well discussed fundamentals about Web Design. Some UI aspects and examples are outdated. The chapter of user testing is interesting and insightful.
Well discussed fundamentals about Web Design. Some UI aspects and examples are outdated. The chapter of user testing is interesting and insightful.
This book has so much potential to be better. I watched the series first and I saw how poignant it was, so it's really unfortunate that the intentional simplistic writing could not convey the gravity of the characters' struggles.
I like the fact that the characters did grow. They missed so many opportunities together due to their own insecurities and miscommunication, which is definitely common to young people. In the final chapters, both Connell and Marianne became frank to each other, but the book ending fell flat compared to the series in portraying the growth of the characters in dealing with the final miscommunication.
This book has so much potential to be better. I watched the series first and I saw how poignant it was, so it's really unfortunate that the intentional simplistic writing could not convey the gravity of the characters' struggles.
I like the fact that the characters did grow. They missed so many opportunities together due to their own insecurities and miscommunication, which is definitely common to young people. In the final chapters, both Connell and Marianne became frank to each other, but the book ending fell flat compared to the series in portraying the growth of the characters in dealing with the final miscommunication.
It took me three attempts in 7 years to finish this book for a reason: the dull writing of multiple extraneous passages.
The premise is very promising, the solution is somewhat intriguing. However, they are negated by the writing quality. (1) there are many extraneous parts that divert the audience's attention. (2) there are many unsolved mysteries, and the practicality is lacking. If the writer can fix this, this can be a hit.
It took me three attempts in 7 years to finish this book for a reason: the dull writing of multiple extraneous passages.
The premise is very promising, the solution is somewhat intriguing. However, they are negated by the writing quality. (1) there are many extraneous parts that divert the audience's attention. (2) there are many unsolved mysteries, and the practicality is lacking. If the writer can fix this, this can be a hit.
everything is okay but i'm not a big fan of short novels
everything is okay but i'm not a big fan of short novels
3.5/5. Great concepts, uneven pacing. The 1998 plot drags, but the magical 1908 storyline shines. The 1908 storyline is like Twilight with incest twist and smarter Bella
3.5/5. Great concepts, uneven pacing. The 1998 plot drags, but the magical 1908 storyline shines. The 1908 storyline is like Twilight with incest twist and smarter Bella
3.5/5. It was captivating and pretty unique despite the plot contrivance.
3.5/5. It was captivating and pretty unique despite the plot contrivance.
3.5/5. Short, wholesome, easy to read. The overall idea is to create a gift economy where people prioritize sharing over personal hoarding. I can see how this works in a small community, but I doubt how this can work on a large scale. The book would have been better if the author had discussed how the gift economy has helped the Indigenous community on a large scale.
Btw I love the shade thrown at ExxonMobile CEO.
If you like this book, you can consider The heart of Buddha's Teaching of Thich Nhat Hanh.
3.5/5. Short, wholesome, easy to read. The overall idea is to create a gift economy where people prioritize sharing over personal hoarding. I can see how this works in a small community, but I doubt how this can work on a large scale. The book would have been better if the author had discussed how the gift economy has helped the Indigenous community on a large scale.
Btw I love the shade thrown at ExxonMobile CEO.
If you like this book, you can consider The heart of Buddha's Teaching of Thich Nhat Hanh.
Unique, magical, and immersive like a long fever dream in my childhood. I'm not sure I fully grasp the book's meaning, but I love how it makes me feel. The feeling is almost indescribable: a longing for a home I've never been to, as if I'm living on someone else's shelf while my real life waits somewhere beyond reach. And yet I'm aware this might be an illusion. Or maybe it isn't. Still, I feel content, not at all disappointed. My heart is somehow both empty and full.
Unique, magical, and immersive like a long fever dream in my childhood. I'm not sure I fully grasp the book's meaning, but I love how it makes me feel. The feeling is almost indescribable: a longing for a home I've never been to, as if I'm living on someone else's shelf while my real life waits somewhere beyond reach. And yet I'm aware this might be an illusion. Or maybe it isn't. Still, I feel content, not at all disappointed. My heart is somehow both empty and full.
First half: 💀🥀😔🌀🖤⛓️😵
Second half: 🌱☀️✨🌈❤️🩹🧘🙏
My overall impressions:
1. Leo Tolstoy was incredibly rational and articulate. Whether or not I agree with all of his conclusions, I can clearly see how deeply he thought through everything. He explained his inner thoughts with vivid metaphors that make abstract existential dread feel understandable. I’ve had similar existential crises since I was a teenager, but I never had the ability to describe those feelings so clearly.
2. His turn toward faith felt irrationally rational, which is what makes the book so fascinating. Tolstoy concluded that if life was rationally meaningless, then reason alone cannot save a person from despair. Faith, although irrational, becomes then capable of giving life meaning. This still feels relevant today, since many people ultimately fall back on faith, spirituality, or belief during difficult times in order to keep going.
3. I admire that Tolstoy approached faith critically rather than blindly. He fully acknowledged that organized religion contained both truth and falsehood, and could sometimes even justify atrocities, such as the Russian Orthodox Church supporting war and killing back then. This awareness separated him from blind believers who may act against the very teachings they claimed to follow. What Tolstoy truly valued seemed to be the compassionate and moral teachings at the core of religion, while still preserving his own conscience and sense of righteousness.
4. One thing that annoyed me was his claim that people who do not recognize life’s meaninglessness are either young, unintelligent, or women. I know it's way back then in the past, but I'm still annoyed.
Favorite quotes:
- “I united myself with my forefathers: the father, mother, and grandparents I loved. They and all my predecessors believed and lived, and they produced me.”
- “In order for the truth to be attained there must be no separation; and for there to be no separation we must love and make peace with those who are not in agreement with us.”
- "I realized that there was no meaning to be found here. It was the activities of the labouring people, those who produce life, that presented itself to me as the only true way. I realized that the meaning provided by this life was truth and I accepted it."
First half: 💀🥀😔🌀🖤⛓️😵
Second half: 🌱☀️✨🌈❤️🩹🧘🙏
My overall impressions:
1. Leo Tolstoy was incredibly rational and articulate. Whether or not I agree with all of his conclusions, I can clearly see how deeply he thought through everything. He explained his inner thoughts with vivid metaphors that make abstract existential dread feel understandable. I’ve had similar existential crises since I was a teenager, but I never had the ability to describe those feelings so clearly.
2. His turn toward faith felt irrationally rational, which is what makes the book so fascinating. Tolstoy concluded that if life was rationally meaningless, then reason alone cannot save a person from despair. Faith, although irrational, becomes then capable of giving life meaning. This still feels relevant today, since many people ultimately fall back on faith, spirituality, or belief during difficult times in order to keep going.
3. I admire that Tolstoy approached faith critically rather than blindly. He fully acknowledged that organized religion contained both truth and falsehood, and could sometimes even justify atrocities, such as the Russian Orthodox Church supporting war and killing back then. This awareness separated him from blind believers who may act against the very teachings they claimed to follow. What Tolstoy truly valued seemed to be the compassionate and moral teachings at the core of religion, while still preserving his own conscience and sense of righteousness.
4. One thing that annoyed me was his claim that people who do not recognize life’s meaninglessness are either young, unintelligent, or women. I know it's way back then in the past, but I'm still annoyed.
Favorite quotes:
- “I united myself with my forefathers: the father, mother, and grandparents I loved. They and all my predecessors believed and lived, and they produced me.”
- “In order for the truth to be attained there must be no separation; and for there to be no separation we must love and make peace with those who are not in agreement with us.”
- "I realized that there was no meaning to be found here. It was the activities of the labouring people, those who produce life, that presented itself to me as the only true way. I realized that the meaning provided by this life was truth and I accepted it."
the protagonist is very annoying
Interesting but not mind-blowing. The characters are exaggerated and unrealistic as they are all portrayed as super hot geniuses :/
Interesting but not mind-blowing. The characters are exaggerated and unrealistic as they are all portrayed as super hot geniuses :/
Quite a surprising twist, but the twist is unexpected because the plot is so unconvincing. All characters are overdramatized like in a soap opera. The male protagonist is irrational and lacks common sense. The female protagonist is way too reckless provided her experience. The romance is superficial. The cops are easily persuaded. Sometimes people act like they have nothing to do except for supporting the protagonists. Maybe Central Park is an okay-ish romantic book (and it is not even that romantic, the romance material does not appeal to me at all), but it is definitely a detective bummer.
Quite a surprising twist, but the twist is unexpected because the plot is so unconvincing. All characters are overdramatized like in a soap opera. The male protagonist is irrational and lacks common sense. The female protagonist is way too reckless provided her experience. The romance is superficial. The cops are easily persuaded. Sometimes people act like they have nothing to do except for supporting the protagonists. Maybe Central Park is an okay-ish romantic book (and it is not even that romantic, the romance material does not appeal to me at all), but it is definitely a detective bummer.
3.5/5. It was entertaining enough, but nothing particularly special. I’m not sure if this is all there is, as it feels overly simple compared to other mythologies.
3.5/5. It was entertaining enough, but nothing particularly special. I’m not sure if this is all there is, as it feels overly simple compared to other mythologies.