
Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations - matnessme
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQDca1iI1GgcMwBl65XRvJaAnZOv6sCjmAamy_7cioVMV4U_VnBksgZrIKTe5P4aneEXtion1ZA7iPe/pubhtml#
======
MaxBarraclough
My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant,
it's somewhat dated (which figures).

In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as
much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way
Dawkins done.

Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken?

 _Edit_ I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two
chew things over would make for an awesome podcast. Pity.

~~~
juskrey
"Selfish gene" notion was debunked by Novak et al. Also Taleb extensively
writes in his books about how this contradicts evolution.

~~~
FabHK
I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options
trading.

Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the
"Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at
Wikipedia.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-
centered_view_of_evolutio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-
centered_view_of_evolution#Criticisms)

~~~
holowire
> I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except
> options trading.

Why do you say that? I’m broadly familiar with Taleb’s writing, but have yet
to fully read any of his books. So I’m curious of your perspective here and
what is informing that sentiment.

~~~
tptacek
He's a gadfly, not a scientist writing to popularize a field he actually does
work in. (With the plausible exception of options trading).

~~~
claytoneast
Do you think his central thesises around Black Swan events, tail risks,
hedging, and skin-in-the-game principle for evaluating advice/statements, are
not relevant to scopes beyond options trading?

Note, I am not stating he is not a gadfly. He is, absolutely. But is he wrong?

~~~
tptacek
I'd take him about as seriously as I take Wikipedia. Sometimes useful. Follow
links to sources, evaluate those.

------
trukterious
I read Dawkins before Darwin, which made sense. Just as, if I wanted to learn
relativity, I wouldn't go to Einstein's papers first.

~~~
empath75
They’re actually fairly readable as an introduction. Remember they were
written for an audience for whom this was a radically new idea.

[http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1...](http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf)

------
zby
Wonderfull! If only he added dates of release. Some of them are maybe truly
timeless - but still.

------
adamnemecek
Most of these are a bit pop sciency. Idk why people say they like Lolita.

~~~
wodenokoto
You could argue that Pinker too is a pop-science writer.

~~~
iainmerrick
Unless you have training and experience in the specific topic area, you
probably won’t get much out of a “real” science book. We all need pop science.

(There’s good and bad pop science, of course, just as with anything else.)

------
matnessme
Here is a "commentable" copy of the sheet. (also easier to make a copy of)

[http://bit.do/pinker-fav-books](http://bit.do/pinker-fav-books)

~~~
no_news_is
Thanks, that was a step towards what I would have liked to see. Here's the
same link without the url shortner.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBj...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBjqvU_3rhCpAtqundc-
NDq9SQ/edit#gid=0)

Not sure if this link will work without going through the proper method, but
here's a direct XLSX download link:
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBj...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBjqvU_3rhCpAtqundc-
NDq9SQ/export?format=xlsx)

