What do you think?
Rate this book
1000 Random Things You Always Believed That Are Not True
As the title suggests, 1000 Random Things You Always Believed That Are Not True, contains a huge list of interesting and unbelievable misconceptions about the world around us. This book helps break through all the myths that surround us and give you the straight facts on topics that range from animals to food and even to space. 1000 Random Things You Always Believed That Are Not True is packed with interesting, entertaining, educational and fun things to read. You'll get everything from the weird to the wonderful and from the horrible to the hilarious. We bust some common misconceptions such The tongue doesn't have different regions dedicated to different tastes. Every single taste can be sensed on every part of your tongue. Vikings did not wear helmets with horns on them.
- GenresNonfictionTrivia
197 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 26, 2015
431 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
About the author
John Brown
74 books2 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
This is John Brown, author of trivia books.
This is John Brown, author of trivia books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
January 18, 2016
I feel like I should write a follow up book called 250+ errors of the 1000 Random Things book. I was bordering on confusion on how Mr. Brown was single statement disproving what a google search could reprove. There are lots of false facts and (possibly) opinions in this book. It became almost a game to have google open on my iPhone as I went through the book disproving his disprovings, lol.
But at least I got to learn the specifics of certain *facts*.
But avoid this book, unless you want to play the same game I did.
But at least I got to learn the specifics of certain *facts*.
But avoid this book, unless you want to play the same game I did.
May 21, 2016
It is true that the book is supposed to explain (random) misinterpretations, but it is just way too random. I mean it is confusing to be talking about American Regime and then suddenly shift to Camels or Crocodiles. There is a better way to arrange the information. Say, Physics, History, Biology, etc.. each in its own section. Unfortunately, things were just randomly presented.
In addition to having repetitive (myths), some were definitely unimportant. Some points were trying to clarify a misunderstood fact about, say an animal, or a medical condition, without properly explaining that specific item. It would be great to give a comprehensive explanation before clarifying that particular myth.
Also, with 1000 different random things to be discussed, I can see how difficult it is to give references to each one of them, (no references were listed) which initiates doubt to fully accept everything that is there.
On the other hand, I found this book helpful in a sense of making use of the (hidden moments) of the day. Waiting in line in a bank or health centre, going shopping with your sisters (it can be quite bothersome at times, I assure you), or waiting for your friend at a restaurant, all these wasted minutes can be easily exploited, because this book lists the information in points, none has anything to do with the former or the latter. You can read even one point at time, and that's it. You don't need the same concentration required for a novel or some scientific or historical book, which won't be as easily read.
In addition to having repetitive (myths), some were definitely unimportant. Some points were trying to clarify a misunderstood fact about, say an animal, or a medical condition, without properly explaining that specific item. It would be great to give a comprehensive explanation before clarifying that particular myth.
Also, with 1000 different random things to be discussed, I can see how difficult it is to give references to each one of them, (no references were listed) which initiates doubt to fully accept everything that is there.
On the other hand, I found this book helpful in a sense of making use of the (hidden moments) of the day. Waiting in line in a bank or health centre, going shopping with your sisters (it can be quite bothersome at times, I assure you), or waiting for your friend at a restaurant, all these wasted minutes can be easily exploited, because this book lists the information in points, none has anything to do with the former or the latter. You can read even one point at time, and that's it. You don't need the same concentration required for a novel or some scientific or historical book, which won't be as easily read.
January 22, 2019
so, so bad...
The thing is... I love fun facts. I LOVE them. I love interesting facts, weird trivia, and great quotes.
But here's the other thing I love... evidence. Referencing. Research. And I love my facts to be non-fiction.
Sadly, the author seems to think fact-checking is also a myth (judging by the staggering number of innacuracies in this atrocity.)
So many were just... wrong.
And when I got to myth 543 that told me it's not uncommon to snow in Canberra (Australia's capital city.... coincidentally also where I live), I gave up.
The thing is... I love fun facts. I LOVE them. I love interesting facts, weird trivia, and great quotes.
But here's the other thing I love... evidence. Referencing. Research. And I love my facts to be non-fiction.
Sadly, the author seems to think fact-checking is also a myth (judging by the staggering number of innacuracies in this atrocity.)
So many were just... wrong.
And when I got to myth 543 that told me it's not uncommon to snow in Canberra (Australia's capital city.... coincidentally also where I live), I gave up.
January 13, 2016
There's some nice little tidbits of information I found in here, but if I was to count through the book, I would say that of the 1000 that are published, about a quarter of these are incorrect, while about half aren't pieces of new information. And with the quarter which I did find to some degree interesting, it's really just splitting hairs between what I had known and what is written (and I've not done further fact checks to be sure).
An example of a straight up fallacy, which itself is commonly purported, is that the bible wasn't written in 345AD. The Nicean council you may generously argue "compiled", or at least if you're being derisive "edited" the holy texts to compile what we presently have as our bible, but they in no way wrote anything then. The bible's authorship has been the subject of an enormous amount of scrutiny, and its accuracy and historicity continually validated and verified time and again and it's perplexing that a book which claims to exist to shed light on commonday fallacies would include such a glaring one itself.
Other examples are silly things, like Brazil nuts and bananas being seeds, not nuts or fruits as they're claimed. Other issues are the oversimplification of matters, such as vaccines. Yes, vaccines have the tiniest amount of some of the strands they're designed to overcome, but overwhelmingly, the vast majority of illnesses which vaccines inoculate us from are artificially synthesised in a lab.
And, to whit, the book isn't great, but what really annoys me is that I'd hoped, at the very least, that its content would be well written. If it can't be well researched and sourced, surely it would have its punctuation and grammar well set? Sadly it even fails on this merit too, and for that we can't solely blame Brown, as there are editors and typesetters and all name of other people whose eyes the publication passes before it reaches outside of the publishing house, so I somewhat alleviate John Brown's responsibility, only mitigated by the fact that it's someone else's responsibility, but it does still no less concern me that a person who can't fact check nor write well is given an opportunity publish something such as this.
An example of a straight up fallacy, which itself is commonly purported, is that the bible wasn't written in 345AD. The Nicean council you may generously argue "compiled", or at least if you're being derisive "edited" the holy texts to compile what we presently have as our bible, but they in no way wrote anything then. The bible's authorship has been the subject of an enormous amount of scrutiny, and its accuracy and historicity continually validated and verified time and again and it's perplexing that a book which claims to exist to shed light on commonday fallacies would include such a glaring one itself.
Other examples are silly things, like Brazil nuts and bananas being seeds, not nuts or fruits as they're claimed. Other issues are the oversimplification of matters, such as vaccines. Yes, vaccines have the tiniest amount of some of the strands they're designed to overcome, but overwhelmingly, the vast majority of illnesses which vaccines inoculate us from are artificially synthesised in a lab.
And, to whit, the book isn't great, but what really annoys me is that I'd hoped, at the very least, that its content would be well written. If it can't be well researched and sourced, surely it would have its punctuation and grammar well set? Sadly it even fails on this merit too, and for that we can't solely blame Brown, as there are editors and typesetters and all name of other people whose eyes the publication passes before it reaches outside of the publishing house, so I somewhat alleviate John Brown's responsibility, only mitigated by the fact that it's someone else's responsibility, but it does still no less concern me that a person who can't fact check nor write well is given an opportunity publish something such as this.
April 5, 2023
Many of the so called "Myths" appear multiple times. The Myths often feel made up or stated in the most unbelievable way. The answers are okay but topics that have the potential for controversy are brushed of with the simalr statements.
January 25, 2016
I do not recommend. Many of the "myths people believe" he mentioned are things I never really heard anyone say. Many of the facts in the book are things I've known for long which made it a boring reading experience.
The author's knowledge seems to be superficial since many of the "facts" he said lack accuracy in a way that makes them somewhat wrong. There are some "facts" he shared that can be disproved with a 5-minute Google search. There are also some typos and punctuation mistakes in the book.
The author's knowledge seems to be superficial since many of the "facts" he said lack accuracy in a way that makes them somewhat wrong. There are some "facts" he shared that can be disproved with a 5-minute Google search. There are also some typos and punctuation mistakes in the book.
February 22, 2016
I was disappointed. It was not what I expected. There are some facts that were not well researched
February 8, 2018
Don't bother reading this. I got to like Myth 25 out of curiosity (I only started it because it was free on Prime) and it's literally him saying one thing like "Napoleon was short" which he answers with, "Nope he was tall" or "Putting baby birds back in their next will cause their mothers to reject them" by answering "No their mothers won't reject them" and that sort of thing, with no explanation or facts to back it up. So basically he can say whatever he wants and you have no idea if it's true. And I'm guessing some of it's not. So don't bother. Just google things you'd want to know about and you'd be better off!
August 6, 2017
1000 Random Straw Men
After I read the author's 'fact' that Mexico is not in North America, I had to finish the book just to see how bad he could get with his 'facts'. The intractable use of straw man arguments to support his version of 'truthiness' is tiring, which leads me to posit # 1001: The proofreader loved this book. No, the proofreader was apparently bored stiff, as evidenced by the numerous typos toward the end of the book.
After I read the author's 'fact' that Mexico is not in North America, I had to finish the book just to see how bad he could get with his 'facts'. The intractable use of straw man arguments to support his version of 'truthiness' is tiring, which leads me to posit # 1001: The proofreader loved this book. No, the proofreader was apparently bored stiff, as evidenced by the numerous typos toward the end of the book.
April 14, 2018
Wow, this book sucked. The 1000 things are completely unorganised and many of the questions are just stupid (it is a short distance to other star systems, no they are really far apart). There are no references to sources. It is quite obvious the book was only lightly edited considering the number of typos. So actual fact checking doesn't seem to have happened either, quite a few of the answers are completely wrong.
November 23, 2023
On the whole interesting...
...but either poorly-written or poorly-edited. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors. I also question some of the information. For example, on one page we read that tar and nicotine in cigarettes do not cause cancer, but that toxins in the smoke do. A few pages later we read that not nicotine, but tar causes cancer. Also questionable is the idea that indoor-only cats are miserable and fat.
...but either poorly-written or poorly-edited. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors. I also question some of the information. For example, on one page we read that tar and nicotine in cigarettes do not cause cancer, but that toxins in the smoke do. A few pages later we read that not nicotine, but tar causes cancer. Also questionable is the idea that indoor-only cats are miserable and fat.
December 31, 2017
Some of the facts are not true due to details. the equivalent of "splitting hairs". But there were quite a few that were fun to learn and research showed them to be all true facts he has listed. For me, the best one I learned was what is the largest living thing. I did not know that one and will need to add it to my list of things to see.
May 7, 2019
Oh dear! I picked this up a dippy, easy read. And my goodness, if you believe the drivel in this book, you shouldn't be walking the streets unaccompanied! The facts such as they are, are very well known by all and sundry.
Maybe, its a children's book and I'm not aware of it, because for most adults this kind of information is common knowledge!!
Maybe, its a children's book and I'm not aware of it, because for most adults this kind of information is common knowledge!!
June 13, 2017
Fact checking is a myth. If you go by the evidence here.
Footnotes anyone?
Be honest and call this my unsubstantiated opinions you should share.
Or a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Or I was just following orders.
Footnotes anyone?
Be honest and call this my unsubstantiated opinions you should share.
Or a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Or I was just following orders.
November 13, 2017
As expected, this book is supposed to challenge some things you believe, but some of them are oversimplified and still more wrong than right. Others are just dated and incorrect. Many, however, are true, and that was fun.
November 5, 2018
A quick and entertaining read, but the book was marred by some useless repetitions, some rather forced ‘myths’ (like the one about the age of the universe), a really appalling number of typos and misspellings, and at least a few things that were blatantly wrong.
March 23, 2024
Assertions with no foundation
Glaring factual inaccuracies across different subject domains
For example makes assertion that women are more often domestic abusers when the peer reviewed studies have sow the polar opposite. Personal bias of author, perhaps?
Glaring factual inaccuracies across different subject domains
For example makes assertion that women are more often domestic abusers when the peer reviewed studies have sow the polar opposite. Personal bias of author, perhaps?
May 29, 2017
Rubbish, collected tidbits from the internet, many errors, misinterpretations, you name it. Not worth anybodies time, let alone money.
June 5, 2017
This book wasn't what I expected and wasn't something that interested me, so I didn't finish.
February 2, 2018
Was expecting references
The book just stared so called myths and then facts. Some i do not believe. Some i have read before.
The book just stared so called myths and then facts. Some i do not believe. Some i have read before.
May 24, 2019
Not really interesting informations to know. It would have been better if you wrote the sources of the informations.
June 19, 2022
Interesting but some of the items have been proven wrong.
May 23, 2023
While there is a lot of interesting information in the book, some of the conclusions are patently wrong, which makes me wonder what else is wrong that I don't know.
I also found it frustrating that the author spelled, "prey" wrong 98 percent of its use.
I also found it frustrating that the author spelled, "prey" wrong 98 percent of its use.
December 17, 2023
Eh.
Maybe some good stuff for a pub quiz.
Maybe some good stuff for a pub quiz.
April 28, 2024
Contradictory
Several "facts" contradict earlier ones, while others are flat out wrong. Knowing this makes you question many of the author's so called truths.
Several "facts" contradict earlier ones, while others are flat out wrong. Knowing this makes you question many of the author's so called truths.
October 17, 2017
This thing really, desperately needs to quote its sources in the text.
January 22, 2016
so -so at best
Several of the "facts" seemed very questionable. Some were outright assertions with nothing to back them up. Even some of the logic used to debunk the things people supposedly believe is shoddy. For instance, the "myth" that most people who threaten suicide won't actually kill themselves. The author attempts to refute this by saying that most people who commit suicide do talk about it first. Even if most people who commit suicide talk about it first, it does not follow that most of the people who talk about it will commit suicide. Also, the book contains numerous errors in grammar and spelling.
Several of the "facts" seemed very questionable. Some were outright assertions with nothing to back them up. Even some of the logic used to debunk the things people supposedly believe is shoddy. For instance, the "myth" that most people who threaten suicide won't actually kill themselves. The author attempts to refute this by saying that most people who commit suicide do talk about it first. Even if most people who commit suicide talk about it first, it does not follow that most of the people who talk about it will commit suicide. Also, the book contains numerous errors in grammar and spelling.
November 10, 2015
Well, some things I knew were myths, was surprised by others. Decent enough collection, but as I've said before, Mr. Brown has an issue with commas. He has no clue as to when to use them.
Typos were minimal, so at least he is learning as he churns out these things.
Typos were minimal, so at least he is learning as he churns out these things.
February 6, 2017
Not as expected
Imprecise, incomplete, and sometimes even incorrect explanations. There are even cases where two 'facts' contradict each other.
Moreover, the book is riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes.
Imprecise, incomplete, and sometimes even incorrect explanations. There are even cases where two 'facts' contradict each other.
Moreover, the book is riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes.
February 16, 2017
Interesting
I found some of these little tidbits to be fun. It was a rather quick read. I also found.d it very entertaining.
I found some of these little tidbits to be fun. It was a rather quick read. I also found.d it very entertaining.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews