This is by far the best book I have ever read. The author not only presents numerous examples, based on psychology studies, showing how our brain often fails to make rational decisions, but also provides solutions on how we can overcome these biases. Throughout the book, I learned how to avoid situations that may impair our ability to make more rational decisions.
I was first introduced to the concept of the absence of free will by Daniel Kahneman's book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. I was astonished by how much bigger the so-called optical illusions were than I had previously thought, and how they could affect things like the correlation between the right and left brain through the corpus callosum, the willingness to walk slowly after reading about an elderly person, or the tendency to be more selfish after reading the word “money”. All of these things made me realize that thinking is not a magical thing, but a totally physical thing that is influenced by preceding events. So, when I was introduced to Bayes' Theorem, I fully grasped the logic of natural things. Furthermore, I read other books that talked about free will, including “Homo Deus” by Harari, “The Errors of Descartes” by Antonio Damasio, and “Por que não somos racionais?” (Why are we not rational?) by Ramon Consenza (only available in Portuguese).
Free will is more objective and philosophical than the others, but less applicable. Harris could focus more on knowable neurological conditions (such as Phineas Gage) to show people that often we don't have control over our actions. Additionally, we could focus on the maxim of Christopher Hitchens, “I don't have a body, I am a body,” to show readers that we cannot be separated as entities from our physical bodies. However, it is still a good book, and I recommend it to those who are new to the topic. If you're not convinced, try reading the other books I mentioned. I know you can't control what you want, can you?
“Duna” é um clássico definitivo que influenciou inúmeras obras de ficção científica e fantasia. Se você gostou de “As Crônicas de Gelo e Fogo”, “The Witcher”, ou é fã de “Star Wars” ou “Star Trek”, este livro proporcionará uma excelente jornada.
O início da leitura pode ser complicado, especialmente até a metade da Parte I. Muitos personagens, locais e conceitos são introduzidos sem explicações claras, o que pode ser confuso. No entanto, conforme a leitura avança, as intenções de Frank Herbert começam a se revelar. De maneira magistral, ele usa as próprias narrativas dentro da história para esclarecer o universo que criou. Dessa forma, o leitor é introduzido de maneira única a um livro extremamente rico. Embora o começo possa ser cansativo, o esforço será recompensado no final.
Aos poucos, as aparências enganosas dão lugar a uma abordagem mais realista. Política e religião começam a ganhar forma e são constantemente debatidas. Temas como biologia e geografia se incorporam à história, mostrando o meticuloso cuidado de Herbert ao escrever sua obra. Comparações com a realidade são inevitáveis: questões como petróleo, fanatismo religioso e elitismo estão presentes de forma evidente.
Para tornar a leitura mais prazerosa, concentre-se nos personagens que interagem com Jessica, Paul e Leto. Tudo começa a se encaixar ao final da Parte I. Boa leitura, ou melhor, uma boa jornada!
OBS: Considerando que o livro foi escrito na década de 1960, optei por ignorar as partes que fazem referência ao vilão “afeminado”, Barão Vladimir Harkonnen, retratado de maneira pejorativa como gay e possivelmente envolvido em incesto e pedofilia. Esse estereótipo, que aparece com frequência nas cenas em que o vilão é mencionado, é um dos principais pontos fracos da obra, pois ele é retratado de forma unidimensional, sem nuances que poderiam torná-lo um personagem mais complexo.
Outro tópico que me incomodou foi a eugenia. Em nenhum momento há uma crítica substancial a esse tema, exceto pela relutância de Paul em seguir o caminho que sua mãe determinou. Esperava que o autor mostrasse os perigos dessa ideologia, mas isso não ocorre. Quem sabe esse questionamento apareça nos próximos livros.
I have to confess that I watched the series before reading the book. I liked the series more than the book because Shruti is an amazing character, and they discussed several ethical problems with the main character. Let me explain.
First things first, it's a really good book about a doctor's life. Adam Kay did a brilliant job of showing that doctors are as human as non-doctor people. We get angry, sad and hopeless, and cheerful when we diagnose or the treatment helps the patient. But we also make mistakes, some early on in our medical student formation, but they never stop. It's inevitable as human beings to make mistakes. This is the main reason we need to review patient conditions. Don't underestimate their complaints, and don't overestimate them either. Overdiagnosis is also a huge problem. Sometimes we need to understand that we can't do anything to make this patient better (read palliative care), and other times, it's just an accident that happened. Common people think that doctors always do the right thing, so the patient must get better or that the patient gets worse, so it's the doctor's fault. Nothing is more wrong than that.
Adam Kay couldn't agree more. He did medicine to save lives, but medicine isn't just about that. It's about care. Parents know this too well. You care for your children, and it doesn't mean they'll be president or an astronaut. You try your best to improve their lives, but there are so many other variables.
One of the things I missed in the book was about Evidence-Based Medicine. Talking about probabilities, risks, and chances is a better way to explain to patients and to ourselves about our profession. However, some people still wouldn't like the “medicine way,” and that's completely fine. I totally support the author's decision at the end. This is not a spoiler; he tells us at the beginning of the reading.
Let's talk about the ethical problems: the dolphin stories, the smoking patient, the placentophagy, and jokes about the patient's ignorance or decisions. I'm not saying that I'm a saint. The point is that early on in medicine, we're taught that we're not the patient's father, we're like an advisor. You tell me what's bothering you, and I tell you what options you have to deal with that problem, and I can help you with that decision. An informative decision, reasonable, based on evidence. You must trust me, and I mustn't judge you about your complaint and choice. Obviously, it's not an easy task, but you usually get there. You focus on doing your job, and the patient's political views don't matter to you. This is one of the main philosophies about our job. Otherwise, we'd never treat any criminals. And don't forget, patients aren't obliged to know common stuff. Before I was a medical student, I had a lot of thoughts about biology and other stuff that were totally wrong (‘m at the end of my 4th year). As I developed my skills and knowledge, I realized that many things I thought and did were wrong because I didn't have the information. This is one of the reasons I always like to talk to patients and ask if they have any doubts or if they know why they're in the hospital, how the treatment works. It's really worth it when they say “thank you” or “never change to be like this person you are.”
In conclusion, I highly recommend reading the book. Do a critical read about it. Adam Kay talks about the wrong things with public service, etc., but also tells us so much about what doctors shouldn't do.
