Sign in with Facebook
“When she collected a Memory of a person, she was snipping free a bud of their soul, and she cultivated and grew it on the page. Charcoal for sinew, paper pulp for bone, ink for blood, the paper’s texture for skin.”
― The Way of Kings
― The Way of Kings
“Once I have forgotten what I appeared to know, then I can desirously love that which I cannot think.”
― Mysticism
― Mysticism
“A narrow focus, serial analytic approach encourages us to think that the way to understand music is to see what is in each note, and then add them together to find out the sum. Or to understand flow by looking at a single molecule of water, or even at a small sequence of contiguous molecules of water, and work out from that what flow really is.
Two main consequences result from this fallacy of reduction to parts.
One is that the search goes in the wrong direction: not upwards, to understand how a phenomenon such as flow functions in the context of everything it takes part in, but downwards, towards units that not only do not exist as discrete entities, but, even if they did, would contain no more of the secret of flow than an agglomeration of single notes explains Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis.
The other consequence of the atomistic, serial, linear approach is a futile search for what causes what. As an example, a lot of effort has been, and continues to be, directed at disentangling what it is that the right hemisphere is contributing, when we say it is good at understanding metaphor. Is it its affinity for novelty? For complexity? For the implicit? For understanding utterances in context? Or for seeing the connexion between superficially unrelated elements? Which causes what?
This is a little like asking what explains the cat’s success in catching mice. Its swiftness? Its agility? Its visual acuity? The sharpness of its claws? Its habit of going out hunting at night? Which is the primary quality? This is the typical left hemisphere approach: if we can only break it up into bits, we will finally understand it, by stringing the bits together in the right order.”
― The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World
Two main consequences result from this fallacy of reduction to parts.
One is that the search goes in the wrong direction: not upwards, to understand how a phenomenon such as flow functions in the context of everything it takes part in, but downwards, towards units that not only do not exist as discrete entities, but, even if they did, would contain no more of the secret of flow than an agglomeration of single notes explains Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis.
The other consequence of the atomistic, serial, linear approach is a futile search for what causes what. As an example, a lot of effort has been, and continues to be, directed at disentangling what it is that the right hemisphere is contributing, when we say it is good at understanding metaphor. Is it its affinity for novelty? For complexity? For the implicit? For understanding utterances in context? Or for seeing the connexion between superficially unrelated elements? Which causes what?
This is a little like asking what explains the cat’s success in catching mice. Its swiftness? Its agility? Its visual acuity? The sharpness of its claws? Its habit of going out hunting at night? Which is the primary quality? This is the typical left hemisphere approach: if we can only break it up into bits, we will finally understand it, by stringing the bits together in the right order.”
― The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World
“The personality elements of the funnel of misbelief
Personality—broadly understood as individual differences—plays a role in explaining why some of us are more susceptible to misbelief than others.
It is extremely difficult to do personality research on misbelievers, since they instinctively mistrust the motives of the researchers. However, some common traits have been observed.
Being more prone to misremembering, falling into the trap of false recall and false recognition, feeds misbelief.
Seeing patterns where none exist is linked to misbelief.
Overtrusting our intuitions is linked to misbelief.
Decision-making biases such as the conjunction fallacy, illusory correlations, and the hindsight bias are more pronounced in misbelievers.
Narcissism plays a role in misbelief.
Personality cannot be easily changed, but knowing which traits correlate with misbelief can help us to identify risky points.”
― Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things
Personality—broadly understood as individual differences—plays a role in explaining why some of us are more susceptible to misbelief than others.
It is extremely difficult to do personality research on misbelievers, since they instinctively mistrust the motives of the researchers. However, some common traits have been observed.
Being more prone to misremembering, falling into the trap of false recall and false recognition, feeds misbelief.
Seeing patterns where none exist is linked to misbelief.
Overtrusting our intuitions is linked to misbelief.
Decision-making biases such as the conjunction fallacy, illusory correlations, and the hindsight bias are more pronounced in misbelievers.
Narcissism plays a role in misbelief.
Personality cannot be easily changed, but knowing which traits correlate with misbelief can help us to identify risky points.”
― Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things
“Cuando todo tiene carácter de producción los rituales desaparecen.”
― La desaparición de los rituales: Una topología del presente
― La desaparición de los rituales: Una topología del presente
James’s 2025 Year in Books
Take a look at James’s Year in Books, including some fun facts about their reading.
James hasn't connected with his friends on Goodreads, yet.
Polls voted on by James
Lists liked by James
