Scan barcode
A review by nelsbels
Walden Two by B.F. Skinner
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.