Scan barcode
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.
missmiow's review against another edition
funny
informative
reflective
fast-paced
3.5
He makes some good points but I wish he went a bit deeper in some of his analyses. It was pretty funny, insightful and even a little scary at times. It has made me think more about living in today's society, particularly in the west, and the future that may be awaiting us.
pdmateus's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting but got bored halftime way thru it... it just repeats and repeats everything. I agree with him but it’s those this meeting could have been an email. But I understand his point and probably this is a bigger issue than I make of it, probably bcs I’m not from the US, still not so crazy here I guess.