Scan barcode
bioniclib's review against another edition
4.0
How to create a Utopia through behavioral engineering. Interestingly enough, claims Utopias can't be created through any political movement.
harleyrae's review against another edition
2.0
I wasn't a huge fan of this book. It wasn't the worse book I read for my history course but it wasn't the best either. I just found it boring, it dragged on and on. Each chapter just explained the system of something in the society. It felt as if this book had no real plot. So yea just wasn't a fan.
undefinedadult's review against another edition
informative
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
nelsbels's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.75
This is, without a doubt, the most confusing book I’ve read this year. Skinner is at once incredibly progressive and weirdly backwards. He promotes eugenics in one section, then says race is a human construct in another. I want to have dinner with this man just so I could understand his beliefs.
Overall, this book doesn’t know what it wants to be. It reads mostly like a thought experiment, where Frazier narrates in detail his utopia. Castle’s rebuttals often feel like an excuse for Skinner to cram as many strawman arguments as possible into the book; he must have been bullied by a philosophy professor or something because Castle is truly unbearable.
There are sections of debate that feel interesting and realistic, but Skinner often escapes genuine criticism of the plan by saying something along the lines of “it’s not theory; this has worked for us.” For example, look at Frazier’s claim that jealousy had been entirely removed from Walden Two. This claim seems outlandish to a reasonable person (and Castle seems ready to debate this assertion), but Frazier shuts down any space for criticism by claiming that the proof is in the pudding. How is the reader supposed to take this book as a serious meditation on social engineering when there is no pudding for us to examine? This tactic is what mainly confused me while reading; does Skinner want this book to be considered as a blueprint for an actual society, or does he just want to write a piece of fiction. By switching the tone of the book to suit whatever point he wants to make, Skinner ultimately creates a confusing mix of hypothesizing and preaching.
Overall, this book doesn’t know what it wants to be. It reads mostly like a thought experiment, where Frazier narrates in detail his utopia. Castle’s rebuttals often feel like an excuse for Skinner to cram as many strawman arguments as possible into the book; he must have been bullied by a philosophy professor or something because Castle is truly unbearable.
There are sections of debate that feel interesting and realistic, but Skinner often escapes genuine criticism of the plan by saying something along the lines of “it’s not theory; this has worked for us.” For example, look at Frazier’s claim that jealousy had been entirely removed from Walden Two. This claim seems outlandish to a reasonable person (and Castle seems ready to debate this assertion), but Frazier shuts down any space for criticism by claiming that the proof is in the pudding. How is the reader supposed to take this book as a serious meditation on social engineering when there is no pudding for us to examine? This tactic is what mainly confused me while reading; does Skinner want this book to be considered as a blueprint for an actual society, or does he just want to write a piece of fiction. By switching the tone of the book to suit whatever point he wants to make, Skinner ultimately creates a confusing mix of hypothesizing and preaching.
sydneyarthur's review against another edition
2.0
1.5 ⭐️ I really wish that I had enjoyed this more… I read it very quickly, not because Skinner is an especially entertaining fiction author, but because the formulaic/repetitive nature of the book allowed me to. I kept waiting for there to be a plot, or character development, or a more likable dialogue among the characters. None of those things ever came.
This is not the say that Skinner was not a genius psychologist and behaviorist, just that this particular book does not have much literary merit. He presented many creative ideas for a utopian society, but most of them were not even based on behavioral principles, which is a disappointing discovery for the behavior analyst who reads this. Frazier’s character, who was basically a voice for Skinner himself, (although the narrator’s name was Burris) came off as unlikable, creepy, arrogant, and attention-seeking, qualities that were also present in the narrator and the contentious philosopher, Castle. I personally just don’t enjoy reading books with characters that I find unlikable or annoying.
In conclusion, the two stars reflect my opinion of Skinner’s writing style (specifically the clumsy dialogue, lack of a plot and character development, and minor plot holes) and *not* my opinion of his contributions to the field of psychology and behaviorism, to which Skinner would objectively deserve five stars.
This is not the say that Skinner was not a genius psychologist and behaviorist, just that this particular book does not have much literary merit. He presented many creative ideas for a utopian society, but most of them were not even based on behavioral principles, which is a disappointing discovery for the behavior analyst who reads this. Frazier’s character, who was basically a voice for Skinner himself, (although the narrator’s name was Burris) came off as unlikable, creepy, arrogant, and attention-seeking, qualities that were also present in the narrator and the contentious philosopher, Castle. I personally just don’t enjoy reading books with characters that I find unlikable or annoying.
In conclusion, the two stars reflect my opinion of Skinner’s writing style (specifically the clumsy dialogue, lack of a plot and character development, and minor plot holes) and *not* my opinion of his contributions to the field of psychology and behaviorism, to which Skinner would objectively deserve five stars.
bmo264's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
bonkish's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0