Reads

The main takeaway I take is that while we all value “great speakers” no one cares about “great listeners”. Yet often, just sitting there, listening to someone from a place of non-judgimental, pure understanding is the best help we can offer to someone. In brief, it is a reminder to talk less and listen more.

Considering how short the summary of this book can be written, it felt excessively long. I still admire, that someone has taken the time to write an entire book on Bullshit. My two cents: the liar is concerned with the truth, he knows the truth, but he wants to conceal it. The bullshitter on the other hand, doesn’t care about the truth, what he wants is to shatter any rational debate, anything having to do with a discussion on what is true. Trump is THE perfect example of a bullshitter, it doesn’t matter whether what he says is right or wrong, if in fact it doesn’t even matter if you PROVE him wrong, he is not interested on the truth, but on shattering any debate grounded in truth.

The whole opium ordeal and how at some point in the history of the US you could get incarcerated for having poppies in your garden was brilliant. I had no idea you could make essentially “opium” tea from poppies (!) I was also fascinated by the whole history of coffee and how it can be argued that it helped humankind leave behind the dark ages, as coffee offered an alternative to beer, which spurred rationality and intellectualism instead of, well, stupidity I guess. I absolutely loved reading about Honoré de Blazac and Voltaire’s coffee addiction. This paragraph of Balzac made the whole coffee chapter for me:
“I have discovered a horrible, rather brutal method that I recommend only to men of excessive vigor, men with thick black hair and skin covered with liver spots, men with big square hands and legs shaped like bowling pins. It is a question of using finely pulverized, dense coffee, cold and anhydrous, consumed on an empty stomach. This coffee falls into your stomach, a sack whose velvety interior is lined with tapestries of suckers and papillae. The coffee finds nothing else in the sack, and so it attacks these delicate and voluptuous linings; it acts like a food and demands digestive juices; it wrings and twists the stomach for these juices, appealing as a pythoness appeals to her god; it brutalizes these beautiful stomach linings as a wagon master abuses ponies; the plexus becomes inflamed; sparks shoot all the way up to the brain. From that moment on, everything becomes agitated. Ideas quick-march into motion like battalions of a grand army to its legendary fighting ground, and the battle rages. Memories charge in, bright flags on high; the cavalry of metaphor deploys with a magnificent gallop; the artillery of logic rushes up with clattering wagons and cartridges; on imagination’s orders, sharpshooters sight and fire; forms and shapes and characters rear up; the paper is spread with ink – for the nightly labor begins and ends with torrents of this black water, as a battle opens and concludes with black powder.”

One thing I take away is how the brain is a “judgement” machine and how we seem to assign arbitrary and variable weights to different qualities when making a judgement. He discusses how a simple model based on constant weights tuned to maximize success (say after having evaluated the 2yr performance of 5 candidates, you calibrate a simple, constant-weighting model on various of their qualities) will perform better than pretty much any human. However, if I understood correctly, I find this whole argument a bit flawed since obviously the model operates in hindsight. Nevertheless, it is an interesting piece of advice to consider. I also wondered, or was puzzled, how he describes a population of superforescasters, but obviously if you pick a group of people and take out those that predicted the best, you’ll get seemingly good forecasters (outliers) by chance (e.g. potentially a Warren Buffer). In any case, he suggest to be a good forecaster you need to be able to change your mind when faced with new data (be open minded to new info). Another good piece of advice to average judgments from individuals or even from two judgements from the same person spaced in time, better if they have different backgrounds, because their average will tend to be a better judgement (the famous the wisdom of the fools or wisdom within), to focus on “ranking”, than giving absolute scales and to think about the statistical or ensemble rather than the precise (i.e. how long you reckon a CEO with this profile will last in a company –> better answered thinking how long do CEOs last on average in a company). He also discusses the distinction between forecasts we can check (stock prices) and those cannot (sentencing) and guidelines to evaluate both. How forecasting should assign probabilities (i.e. apple will go up with 60% probability) as otherwise the quality of the forecasting cannot be evaluated. To reduced biases or dispersion in judgment by different people, rules or algorithms can be implemented. I really liked how the conversation suddenly revolved pretty much around the idea of free will. In brief, nice discussion on a very niche topic, with some things that I’d like to see further explained (models trained in hindsight and superforecasters).

I particularly appreciated the epistemological discussion on how modern science builds knowledge, not from a single discovery, but through the gradual accumulation of evidence and the formation of scientific consensus—an approach that the general public often struggles to understand. Additionally, the book effectively demonstrates how unregulated markets, which supposedly regulate themselves to ensure optimal resource allocation, have failed us, especially regarding environmental issues that lie outside this system. It clearly shows the necessity of government regulation to reintegrate the environment into the capitalistic equation.

I think having read how much of a “masterpiece” this book was and the initial setting of the novel, I was expecting some incredible story, which kept me reading, and reading and reading, but in the end this masterpiece ending or “wow” moment never came. In fact much of the story is left rather open, which made the entire experience a bit disappointing. Nevertheless, as I said there are some truly genius passages in it, in fact one particular passage was the inspiration for this story. Does that make it worth the entire read? Not in my opinion.

Really enjoyed to see many modern philosophical ideas about the fabric of reality (e.g. the simulation hypothesis) being discussed in the book.

I found appalling that about 35% (or more) of society is working at something they feel is useless. I found the case he makes as to how we’ve arrived to this situation quite convincing. Despite automatization, which should made a lot of jobs redundant and freed more time for everyone, leading to this predicted massive unemployment, we somehow have managed to create a society where it seems more acceptable to just keep everyone busy and miserable, regardless of whether there’s something of use for them to do. It has become inconceivable to just have people sitting idle or relaxing because we have all drilled in our minds (culturally or by religion) that we ought not only to “work”, but to “work hard”. Interestingly, both leftist or rightist fall for this: “it is through hard work that I built this company”, “the hard-working haven’t had a pay rise since”. He takes a strong stance against capitalism showing how despite living in a capitalistic society — which should remove inefficiencies to maximize profits by efficient resource allocation — we have arrived at this situation. I also think he makes a very convincing case for universal basic income.

I found his analysis of modern capitalism—morphed into what he calls “technofeudalism,” where cloud rent has replaced profits—quite enlightening, offering a fresh perspective on contemporary economics. His exploration of how feudalism relied on rent, capitalism on profits, and how we are now returning to a rent-based system was particularly insightful. He’s spot on in observing that many digital platforms have created “ecosystems” where their revenue comes simply from charging fees every time we sell, post, pay, or engage in other activities on their platforms, much like paying a toll on a highway. The Internet, once a borderless democratic platform promising to liberate and empower individuals, is now increasingly dominated by a few large corporations, whose business model is to take a cut from every remaining form of traditional capitalist business. For instance, Amazon takes a percentage from every seller on its platform, or Apple charges 30% per transaction in its App Store. The problem is that in many cases, their market dominance means competition is almost non-existent, leaving us with no choice but to surrender to these corporate fiefs. This problem will only worsen as the economy becomes more dependent on digital platforms. For example, peer-to-peer payments, which used to be “free” (cash), now rely on VISA/MASTERCARD networks, which take a cut of every transaction. The book also touches on the issue of personal data gathering by companies like Facebook and Amazon. The author argues that these companies are collecting as much data as possible to sell us products later, or in many cases, the company gathering the data is the same one selling us the products (Amazon being a prime example). While this isn’t new, he takes it a step further by suggesting that these companies use AI algorithms to modify our behaviour to increase consumption. While I agree with his analysis (once this became crystal clear to me when a friend received a notification from Uber Eats suggesting him to order dinner as soon as he sat on his Uber), I found it somewhat shallow. If we are going to discuss behaviour-modification algorithms, we should first address whether we make conscious decisions at all. So yes, we’re being monitored, our data being sold, and products marketed to us based on our behaviour, but whether these companies are crossing the line into actually modifying our behaviour is a discussion in itself. Are they modifying or simply anticipating our behaviour? If my friend orders food after receiving a notification from Uber Eats, did he genuinely want the food, or did the app just offer what he wanted? In brief, I found not discussing these aspects a bit flawed. The author also discusses how these algorithms are replacing traditional “marketing” experts, who used to repackage simple products as “experiences”—turning a functional item like a purse into a status symbol meant to make someone feel special, unique, or luxurious. It was interesting to revisit an idea I first encountered in Bullshit Jobs: that capitalism, having moved beyond meeting demand, is now focused on generating it, hence the growth of all these marketing departments. Now because AI algorithms know more about us — and might even predict or modify our behavior—are effectively automating this process and replacing marketing gurus. I found this aspect of the book intriguing.

On another note, I felt this was one of those books that could have been summarized in a blog post or a few pages. In fact, the author devotes little time to his main thesis and doesn’t provide many examples of “cloud fiefs.” Some arguments are not well-developed or are poorly explained, such as why cryptocurrencies, which allow transaction-free direct peer-to-peer transactions, are not a viable solution to bypass the financial cloud fiefs. The chapter ends with the question, “But before any of this becomes remotely possible, we need to answer the most pressing of questions: What is the alternative to technofeudalism?” I found this rhetorical style often irritating. The author frequently uses grandiose constructions (like “mega-rich ultra-powerful big corporations”) that felt superfluous in many instances (and gave me the ChatGPT vibes). He also tends to write overly convoluted sentences, such as, “In the shadow of this New Cold War, the best we can now hope for are two separate green transitions, one in each super cloud fief—a bifurcation of the global green agenda, which, I fear, will play into the hands of fossil fuel conglomerates who will find ways to play one off against the other, allowing them to keep drilling.” Many sentences were unnecessarily complex. He also tends to pose this rhetorical questions (like the one above), which in many instances came out of the blue, in an attempt (I guess?) to sort of build up the tension, but that felt super forced in many instances. Get to the point Mr. Varoufakis. The book is also quite disorganized. The author discusses aspects of his thesis only to say, “but I will discuss this in length in Chapter X.” Why not address it thoroughly right there? It felt like he was trying to stretch the book out. I lost count of how many times I was reminded that we moved from feudalism to capitalism, which culminated in the 2008 crash when the economy became sustained by money printing rather than profits. It felt like I was reading the same ideas repeatedly. There was constant repetition of certain points, many of which had little to do with the central thesis. For example, I suddenly found myself reading about China/U.S. economic relations in the 90s for far too long. Overall, I found there was lot of fluff and unnecessary discussion about geopolitics and economic history not so relevant for the main topic.

In the end, what you realize is that many of the dialogues are just a play on words, reflecting on how many of our everyday expressions take for granted the speaker intentions, without reflecting on the true, literal meaning of the words. I found particularly amusing the dialogue between the Knight and Alice, when discussing over the name of a song:
The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes’.”
“Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.
“No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed.
“That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man’.”
“Then I ought to have said ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.
“No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And Means’: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”
“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’: and the tune’s my own invention.”

Most of us would have considered “What is the song called?” or “What is the name of the song?” to be the same question, but here Lewis is playing upon the fact that taken literally these constructions can be interpreted differently. This is the gist behind most dialogues in the book, and what makes them so amusing.

In passing, I will say it was disheartening to learn that Lewis Carroll (or Charles Dodgson) had a weird fetish with little children (specially girls) and liked to photograph them with as little clothing as possible in other words, which he was, potentially, a paedophile.

Much of Marco Aurelius wisdom lies in reminding ourselves of our insignificant existence, a blink in an endless Universe, a speck of dust in an infinite space. But instead of falling into dispair, MC encourages us to let go, to not worry and lose ourselves in futile endevours of fame and pleaseure, because after all we will end up in oblivion. I hadn’t realized how stoicism is surprisingly similar to Budhism or oriental teachings, in that it invites us to observe the mind and its movements, and reflect upon the fact that it is not the external environment which causes us harm, but our own mind’s reaction TO them. MC invites to see external events as a stone sees rain falling onto it, things as they are, neither good or bad. In brief, MC invites us to take an observer perspective in life, rather than a protagonist.

I think there are few key pieces to understand about anxiety laid out in the book:
1) All your ailments are not a collection of different diseases, but just one and only one thing: anxiety. Understand this, and the problem becomes extremely manageable. Anxiety will convince you that you have the most weird of things (or multiple of them) when in reality is just one of the many forms anxiety can manifest into. This are just the results of our anxious mind looking for fabricated answers to a non-existing problem or becoming oversenstive in scanning our own bodies. It is very hard to fight many weird and diverse symptomatology, but battling anxiety is simple. At the end of the day, anxiety is very simple.
2) Lose the “What if”, what if I have a panic attack? What if I go crazy? What if my heart stops beating? and so on… These thoughts are coming from an anxious mind, simply ignore them. But how to tell if one of these is actually a useful thought? Compare your anxious thought with your thoughts prior to anxiety. If that thought was not there earlier, chances are you are just panicking about an irrational fear.
3) Forget about anxiety and keep doing the usual things, keep your mind busy and slowly the times where you “feel normal” will just expand, and over time, all that will remain is normality, your previous self with its thought process.
I had already experienced many of these things but it was reassuring to see them laid out. It also helped me a lot to see that many of the “symptoms” I was experiencing were just, well, anxiety, and not some fabricated physical/mental disease.

I think Harari is on point on the main theme of the book, which is that more information does not lead to truth. Anyone trying to convince a flatEarther will agree with that and it underscores one the main challenges of our society, which is to agree on global issues such as climate change. I think his reading of what constitutes a “democracy” is on point. I always thought that besides having elections, being able to tweet “fuck the president” is key to a democracy. His analogy between the USSR kulaks and the witch hunting in medieval Europe is superb and illustrates perfectly his point: “More information does not lead to truth”. The book also made me reflect on the role of bots contaminating our infosphere, something I also discussed in my blog , and an easy solution which I had not thought of is to ban AI impersonification, which I think should be the case. However, as he discusses, if spam has shown us anything, is that AI won’t be that big of an issue in terms of misinformation (at least until we catch). This same problem already happened with email and spam, and today 99% of the spam is correctly classified. Meaning you can always police AI with AI, so AI bots spreading misinformation or polluting our infosphere is in all likelihood a transitory problem.
However, I was a bit disappointment on other aspects. For instance, I found he exaggerates the role of ChatGPT-4 in managing to lure a worker on TaskRabbit online to solve a Captach on its behalf. Turns out the story is much less surprising and there was a lot more human involvement than portrayed in the book (see link). In a book discussing the relationship between information and truth, I was expecting more, although perhaps ironically this validates his point. I also felt some of his arguments concerning AI were too reductionists. For instance, he argues that with regards to AI, data is everything and that whoever has more data wins (“more data = better AI”). Yet if DeepSeek has made something plainly obvious is that the AI architecture/training is as important if not MORE important than having vast amounts of data. Moreover, in many settings e.g. autonomous driving, current algorithms have already plateaued, despite having access to vast amounts of data. The limitation here probably being either the need for more/better sensors (i.e. OTHER type of data, not just “more”) or a fundamental change in the approach we take to solve autonomous driving. He also makes the point about governments or whoever having an AI overlord ruling us all, but the reality is looking more like a bunch of open source implementations, meaning AI will be free for all and it’ll be hard for private companies to maybe even make a profit out of them(!).

The book describes some seemingly unrelated circumstances or questions where outcomes which defy conventional wisdom can be explained under this framework of incentives. The book makes a compelling case for empiricism and against relying on conventional wisdom, which in a way echoes many of Taleb’s works (e.g. The Black Swan). It’s an ok read if you are interested in sociology and human behaviour. As a scientists, I was also delighted to read about Steve D. Levitt genius. In essence, another takeaway was that SDL, is a master at framing a question and devise an experiment to answer it, which in economics, boils down to finding the right dataset and extracting the relevant information from it (what SDL calls gaming the data or something along those lines). This is in spirit what any good scientist should strive for and as such I feel there was quite a bit to learn from Steve.

I recently found a perfect example what Malcom calls “the advantage of the disadvantages” in this interview to Mathematician Edward Frenklen. Even himself acknowledges that the fact that he was (unfairly) rejected to Moscow State University “supercharged” him to do mathematics at the highest level, and that if it wasn’t for that rejection, he might have not done it. A perfect example of how something seemingly disadvantageous, can turn out to be an advantage. The whole interview is just brilliant btw.

There are several things that I retained from the book. The first that struck me is how Aristotle, influenced by Plato’s comments on the art of persuasion, is very aware that he is about to open a pandora box by explaining everyone how to use speech to convince others, but he argues that the same argument can be made about e.g. “strength” and that, by understanding the art of convincing, we will best armed when these techniques are used against us, which made an excellent case for the development of say, some technology which would otherwise think of dangerous (for instance AI or or human enhancement, I guess this links up nicely with the Reversal Test. Going into practical advices, perhaps my favourite, which I had never thought about so strongly I guess, is the power of the metaphor or the analogy (or the simile), which are very similar figures of speech, because of how new information is presented to the listener, which is always averse to new information, in the form of something he’s already familiar with, which makes it much easier to accept as true. This resonated a lot with an excellent talk by Hofstadter I had seen not long before reading the book, which I highly recommend and helps bring the point home. The other obvious one is the art of repetition, again reading the book has helped me to see how great interviewers will basically answer a question, develop, and then hammer the point again, which makes whatever it is they’re saying immediately sound a lot more convincing. There’s then a more than extensive list of arguments when trying to defend a certain case, say in court, which one can use and again a more than extensive list of reasons one might have committed a crime. AH! Another very important one is that if you want someone to be humble, you praise them by their humbleness, even if they’re not, and that will compel them to act in the way you praised them to be. I also enjoyed his description of young, adult and the elderly and the different stages of life and how each will be guided by different principles (different degrees of emotion and rationality basically).

There were too many great ones to pick a favourite. I will add also, that I particularly loved the preface to “What if” (also one in my top list). In that one, he tells the story of how on a train ride to New York, his wife asks him how he gets all his ideas and his reply is that you can get an idea pretty much anywhere if you think hard enough and the guy proceeds to write “What If” on the train itself, which is a brilliant story. What this goes to show is that Asimov might not have had any edge over anyone else, he simply was willing to devote long stretches of time and space to think deeply and creatively, and while I doubt few can match his output rate, it is comforting to know that such creativity is potentially within reach to us mortals.

I found the whole “if science shatters free will with its 2+2 =4, humans will find refuge in consciousness” so spot on, so pertinent today; I resonated it with it a lot. It reminded me particularly of Peters Hacker’ rebutal of Thomas Nagel’s famous What Is It Like to Be a Bat? But I very much liked how he touched upon the fact (or at least that’s how I interpret it) that who cares? If my EXPERIENCE is of free will, if I feel guilt, regret, if I feel I have the power to take choices, and that those choices influence the world and my life, who cares what science says? In many respects, this is actually how I think about free will. It also made me think about Adam Frank’s “blind spot” this idea that science has forgotten about the conscious experience, about the observer (although quantum mechanics seems to be a theory that brings the observer back into the Equation). I think his point if very similar to Dostoyevsky or at least, I interpret it that way. I also resonated a lot with his attack on Greek philosophy, on this notion that any man, if it cultivates its rationality, will naturally follow virtue. Instead, the main character, rightly in my opinion, shatters this belief: all man wants its to follow its own volition, whether it is morally accepted, “beneficial” for me, self-destructive it doesn’t matter. People want to do what they want to do, they want to feel in control of their own actions. That’s why powerlessness can feel so devastating. In fact, this is why there’s no distinction between “feeling” free and “being” free. If I have the feeling that I exert my volition to the fullest, even if my desires or range of actions is being manipulated somehow, then I will be happy. That’s why if science shatters our free will, we will be lost, we will lose our most precious life illusion and seek refuge in consciousness, in that we can still experience the world.

The things that struck the most about the book relate to our own “blindness” which as Dalio argues comes from two fronts:

a) Our own ego, the fact that we always want to be right and b) The fact that we think everyone thinks and sees the world like us.

Dalio makes a lot of emphasis on the fact that everyone thinks and sees things differently, and understanding this fact is key in personal relationship and when it comes to hiring a team of people (you want to hire people that complement each other e.g. someone that fixates in small details and big-picture type of guy). It also made reflect more on how I see the world. \n He also makes a lot of emphasis on being cognizant of these two “blind spots” and therefore be extremely open-minded. In tune with Noise and the superforecasters — people willing to change their minds when new data comes into play — he also makes a lot of emphasis on the fact that we need to be willing to change our mind and that is generally a good thing, although at the same time we need to be assertive. In brief, we need to have this question always in mind: “How do I know I have the truth?”. He, like Feymann, makes a point of knowing how people got to hold the view they hold, rather than knowing their view. As I said, I was a big fan of the whole “weighting people’s opinions by their credibility”. You’ll receive a lot of advice throughout your life, so it is important to consider how qualified that person is to give that advice.

My favourite two passages are the visit to the painter and the supposed trip with the Italian visitor to the church, where nothing makes sense and no one speaks clearly.

The chapters I liked the most and I find the most convincing are those dealing with cognitive behavioural therapy and the placebo/nocebo effect. I think these two chapters make a very strong case for the existence of the mind as something separete. The book though has a hard time making a compelling definition, so here’s mind: the mind-brain is a two-way system. The brain can influence the mind but the mind can also influence the brain. For instance, if you suffer from anxiety, your brain has been rewired, your amygdala is being overly triggered for no reason, and this causes you to have panicky thoughts. But at the same time, you can through meditation, self-talk, expose to fearful situations, etc reprogram your mind, that is the, the mind can rewire the brain. Materialists instead argue that all that there is is the brain, and that the brain is what causes the thoughts, period. But CBT and the placebo effect I think challenge this notion. Regarding the PSI effect, I am almost certain it is a statistical fluke. It reminded me of this Veritasium video (which looking back at it it DOES talk about the PSI effect). The problem is the book does not go into detail, so from the book alone it is hard what to make of the “evidence” gathered so far. Almost similar thing can be said about near death and religious/mystical experiences, but the issues raised here are harder to rebut and therefore stronger. Don’t know yet what to make of them, certainly the book intrigued me by near-death experiences, where seemingly people leave their bodies and when they come back and report what they saw, they saw things that actually happened, even outside the operation room sometimes. Moreover, these people are technically (clinically dead), so how on Earth does that happen? Even if it’s an hallucination, how does the brain create it if it’s shut off? It certainly does make you wonder and makes a good case for more research to be done about the topic. As I said, the door is now open for me to investigate!

Some aspects I loved about the book. I loved the introduction and the first chapter, they were so beautifully and clearly written. The clarity of Richard thinking was a recurrent theme throughout the book to me. Other things that I learned and that blew my mind: I was not aware of the importance or emphasis of “gradual increments”. For instance, how at first, it seems unthinkable that something as complex as the eye could have arisen by evolution. But even the “eye” can be thought as coming about via gradual increments. There’s an excellent talk on the topic by Richard himself, 100% worth watching. Another aspect I did not know about was the “arms race” or the fact that species are not only selected by the environment, but by other species (e.g. predators). That is, some species co-evolve or select each other. The biomorphs was another fascinating piece. The chapter on sexual selection is also just brilliant. Some of the descriptions of the book also blew my mind. The description of the driver ants or the whole “it’s raining floppy disks” to refer to the idea that we are just code and that trees spread their DNA as floppy disks was also incredible. Have to say this made me feel a certain nihilism or void. I was also very happy to learn what taxonomists do, what a cool job! There was another sentence of the book, that I want to capture, because it felt so prescient with regards to AI: “And if any entity, anywhere in the universe, happens to have the property of being good at making more copies of itself, then automatically more and more copies of that entity will obviously come into existence. Not only that but, since they automatically form lineages and are occasionally miscopied, later versions tend to be better at making copies of themselves than earlier versions, because of the powerful processes of cumulative selection. It is all utterly simple and automatic.” Spooky.