Scan barcode
ethannp's review against another edition
3.0
Pleasant book, very well written. At this point it is a standard denunciation of PC culture without much new to add. Easy for me to agree with almost everything in here. Nice to see someone presenting these ideas so clearly, because I sure wouldn’t want to, nor would I be able to say it so eloquently.
carnivorous_mower's review against another edition
2.0
Fascinating but frustrating.
There are so many great ideas here, ruined by shit takes and illogical conclusions. Gad Saad pokes into any number of modern day societal issues, but doesn't come up with any helpful solutions. This book is peppered with Saad's attempts at humour. He says people often don't understand his "satire" online, but that's because it's not funny and comes across as trolling rather than satire.
Still, it's good for you to occasionally read something you don't agree with.
There are so many great ideas here, ruined by shit takes and illogical conclusions. Gad Saad pokes into any number of modern day societal issues, but doesn't come up with any helpful solutions. This book is peppered with Saad's attempts at humour. He says people often don't understand his "satire" online, but that's because it's not funny and comes across as trolling rather than satire.
Still, it's good for you to occasionally read something you don't agree with.
palipoto's review
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Do not be influenced by some of the low rating reviews, as they may come from exactly the people that perform the actions analyzed in this book. This is a very good read that will make you think and put in perspective some of the things that are happening around us. After this book, I recommend to complement it with Social Justice Fallacies by Thomas Sowell.
dyslexzak's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
An interesting look at the world.
jpsearcy's review against another edition
challenging
fast-paced
3.0
This wasn’t exactly what thought it was going to be. It was interesting, however I felt the author spoke in extremes and had a very sarcastic tone. While I agree with a lot of the points he was making, it was more of an all or nothing take on it, and that part I didn’t agree with. Interesting thoughts, I’ll give it that!
aaronsequel's review against another edition
2.0
Gad Saad is credited as the author of The Parasitic Mind but it seems at least two writers are present: one, a professor guiding the student (reader) through the curious world of evolutionary psychology and two, a very, very online veteran of the culture war, smarting from the bops and bruises incurred during—ahem—Twitter spats. The latter takes lead through most of the book’s eight chapters, leaving the former to only shine towards the end—a bizarre editorial choice, as the second-to-last chapter provides the clearest insight into nomological networking that would have made so much of its preceding content more navigable. Alas, rage is the bait and epistemology is the trap—but shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Even if/as truth abounds, Saad does himself no favours with his unpalatable style. There’s even a totally unnecessary chauvinism in these pages he doesn’t hide from—indeed he embraces it by repeatedly invoking the godawful phrase “testicular fortitude” to underscore his words of encouragement. Equally anachronistic are his derisions: his enemies, for example, are constantly tagged “social justice warriors”—a term I don’t think I’ve heard used unironically in the decade prior to this book's publication in 2020(!). And yet here it is, again and again and again and again and again.
Inquiry and truth and honesty will never become passé, yet there’s something deeply unfashionable about Saad’s chosen approach to timelessness.
Even if/as truth abounds, Saad does himself no favours with his unpalatable style. There’s even a totally unnecessary chauvinism in these pages he doesn’t hide from—indeed he embraces it by repeatedly invoking the godawful phrase “testicular fortitude” to underscore his words of encouragement. Equally anachronistic are his derisions: his enemies, for example, are constantly tagged “social justice warriors”—a term I don’t think I’ve heard used unironically in the decade prior to this book's publication in 2020(!). And yet here it is, again and again and again and again and again.
Inquiry and truth and honesty will never become passé, yet there’s something deeply unfashionable about Saad’s chosen approach to timelessness.
mildo's review against another edition
1.0
1.5*
Quoting the author himself:
"Beware of those trying to impress you with confusing word salads"
Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of his opinions, but not with arguments behind them. In fact, I can't remember an argument which he used to support an opinion I agree with that I would agree with.
The Parasitic Mind might have been a good book... if it wasn't written by "a parasitic mind", by a narcissist who is, on numerous occasions, hiding behind "scientific view", but majority of his arguments are either backed by an anectodal evidence or argued with numerous logical fallacies. Be it a red herring, a slippery slope, a false dilemma or a strawman. He uses a strawman so often that the book should have rather been called a Strawman mind. I must give him credit for being a very skillful writer so you must listen/read carefully to catch those.
What I dislike about the content of the book is that the author is pointing out many -isms and -ist ideologies (like progressivism, leftism, feminism, postmodernism, transgenderism, relativism) without even defining what those terms mean to him. Some of these ideologies are either not strictly defined or are so broad that it is not clear what part of an ideology is he critisizing. Other problem about his fight against these ideologies apart of already mentioned fallacies is that his critique is very black&white. E.g. He criticizes a person for a behavior or an opinion being a small subset of an ideology and the person is automatically put in a box of this ideology. Many people mentioned in the book are seen through a prism of a specific ideology even though they in fact don't have to be affiliated to all of the ideas of such ideology. On the other hand he mentions Donald Trump at least a few times per chapter within first 3 chapters, but he hasn't used a single opportunity to criticize him despite criticizing many others on the other side of political spectrum. That tells a lot about his mental compass.
Personally I also dislike the sarcastic discourse he uses throughout the book.
It's fair to say that I haven't listened to the whole book. I've finished somewhere in the 4th chapter. In the 2nd chapter I've started realizing something is wrong, but I wanted to find out whether it is something wrong about my moral compass or there is something wrong about this book.
All in all I recommend reading this book, but only with a firm focus and as a catalogue of argumentation fouls.
Quoting the author himself:
"Beware of those trying to impress you with confusing word salads"
Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of his opinions, but not with arguments behind them. In fact, I can't remember an argument which he used to support an opinion I agree with that I would agree with.
The Parasitic Mind might have been a good book... if it wasn't written by "a parasitic mind", by a narcissist who is, on numerous occasions, hiding behind "scientific view", but majority of his arguments are either backed by an anectodal evidence or argued with numerous logical fallacies. Be it a red herring, a slippery slope, a false dilemma or a strawman. He uses a strawman so often that the book should have rather been called a Strawman mind. I must give him credit for being a very skillful writer so you must listen/read carefully to catch those.
What I dislike about the content of the book is that the author is pointing out many -isms and -ist ideologies (like progressivism, leftism, feminism, postmodernism, transgenderism, relativism) without even defining what those terms mean to him. Some of these ideologies are either not strictly defined or are so broad that it is not clear what part of an ideology is he critisizing. Other problem about his fight against these ideologies apart of already mentioned fallacies is that his critique is very black&white. E.g. He criticizes a person for a behavior or an opinion being a small subset of an ideology and the person is automatically put in a box of this ideology. Many people mentioned in the book are seen through a prism of a specific ideology even though they in fact don't have to be affiliated to all of the ideas of such ideology. On the other hand he mentions Donald Trump at least a few times per chapter within first 3 chapters, but he hasn't used a single opportunity to criticize him despite criticizing many others on the other side of political spectrum. That tells a lot about his mental compass.
Personally I also dislike the sarcastic discourse he uses throughout the book.
It's fair to say that I haven't listened to the whole book. I've finished somewhere in the 4th chapter. In the 2nd chapter I've started realizing something is wrong, but I wanted to find out whether it is something wrong about my moral compass or there is something wrong about this book.
All in all I recommend reading this book, but only with a firm focus and as a catalogue of argumentation fouls.