ŷ������

Hi, guys!
My name is Malola. :) Happy to have come to this group!
I'll be editing/augmenting books... or not.

I'll stick to twelve books, one per months (or something like that).
POP-SCIENCE:
1. El hombre que confundió a su mujer con un sombrero
2. The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life Plus the Secrets of Enigma
3. Sleep Smarter: Evening Habits And Sleeping Tips To Get More Energized, Productive And Healthy The Next Day
4. Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People
5. El gen egoísta. Las bases biológicas de nuestra conducta
6. Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers

ETHICS/LAW/POLITICAL THEORY/SOCIOLOGY
7. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life
8. Principia Ethica
9. Ethics
10. Abuso de Confianza
11. Por qué las mujeres disfrutan más del sexo bajo el socialismo
12. Happiness is the Wrong Metric: A Liberal Communitarian Response to Populism

BIOGRAPHIES
13. Aimée & Jaguar: A Love Story, Berlin 1943
14. Poets Thinking: Pope, Whitman, Dickinson, Yeats
15. Yo seré la última

BONUS: (I hope I can read, but maybe not.)
16. One of Us: Conjoined Twins and the Future of Normal
17. Manifesto Cyborg
18. Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms
19. War's Unwomanly Face
20. Intention
21. Apuntes sobre la Prueba en el COGEP
22. I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer
23. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking
24. The Heart of the New Thought
25. The Book of Tea
26. Una habitación propia.
27. The Analysis of Mind.
28. The Book of Life.
29. Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters
30. Yo acuso. El caso Dreyfus
31. The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe
32. Supreme Court DOBBS,. v. JACKSON: The ruling overturning Roe V Wade
33. Woman and the New Race
34. Más allá de la filosofía: escritos sobre cultura, arte y literatura
35. Economic Facts and Fallacies
36. Fouché: Retrato de un hombre político
37. You Can't Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom

11. Por qué las mujeres disfrutan más del sexo bajo el socialismo.

Quite interesting.
Although I was somewhat skeptical about the main premise (and still have a couple of objections), overall I think PhD. Ghodsee does appropriately support her conclusion.
Here and there I don't like how she supported certain parts of her thesis (the satisfaction surveys are not crossed with specific questions from X country), however she does mention that they are problematic in themselves. Furthermore, she does postulate differences in the same type of surveys, but with different ethnic groups (which suggests a real difference in how X is understood).

She encouraged me to delve into the texts of Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin and Aleksandra Kollontai.
On the negative side, I do think there is some lack of organisation in the presentation; but at the end of the day PhD. Ghodsee speaks in general terms. She does not pretend to give a fixed recipe of how to achieve X, she simply postulates that the greater economic equality, the less need to use sex in a transactional way.

3. Sleep Smarter: Evening Habits And Sleeping Tips To Get More Energized, Productive And Healthy The Next Day.

Too obvious.
Bordeline tautological.

Malola wrote: "Sleep Smarter: Evening Habits And Sleeping Tips To Get More Energized, Productive And Healthy The Next Day

Too obvious.
Bordeline tautological."

I like 'tautological'.. Excellent description.. (after I looked it up, lol)

XD lol

21. Apuntes sobre la Prueba en el COGEP.

Ok, well... It's super educational.
Dr. Ramírez definitely has a good use of the language, easy to understand, he is a good professor and very orderly when presenting the points.
The book is very exhaustive in presenting ALL arguments regarding the COGEP test. I found the part about the "new proof" VERY USEFUL for one of my cases.
Although the book specifies that it's about notes related to COGEP, there are things that are taken almost word for word from COGEP; therefore I think that he needed to delve a bit more into the doctrine... or perhaps he needed to put his own analysis.
It feels a bit disconnected and lacks a bit as it does not include issues related to Roman Law, General Theory of the Process and/or Adjective Law when presenting ideas.

Recommended for any lawyer.

22. I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer.

Well, I'm not sure I'm too fond of the audiobook format.
I definitely prefer it in this type of books or essays.

The narrator is a girl with a TY channel called "asecretihave"; her voice is well crafted for this type of angsty books. Now, with regards to the content, it was very interesting to listen about the obsessive personality of McNamara... such a sharp mind, her idea of "bedroom talk" was talking out loud about her inner monologues on things that caught her attention.
I'm quite impressed by her ability to cross-reference/contrast/blend things that are seemingly apart, but are not.

23. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking.

It reminded me of Nietzsche.
I think it makes sense for people who don't want to think about moral ontology and the sort; hence, he makes tautologies and postulates truisms as if I should take his word prima facie.
Why, though?

If you take things at face value and don't question whatever the author says, then this is the book for you.

24. The Heart of the New Thought.

Better than I thought it would be...

EWW doesn't give any true foundation (read: ontology and epistemology) for her philosophy (which by default I find annoying); however overall the book was nice. (It actually reminded me somewhat of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations with the assertions she makes.)

The meditation part (breathing exercises, habits of mind, power of thought) stroke a chord.
I reject the appeals to a god/higher power, but still it's worth reading.

25. The Book of Tea.

Perfection is everywhere if we only choose to recognize it. Rikiu loved to quote an old poem that says, “To those who long only for flowers, fain would I show the full-blown spring that abides in the toiling buds of snow-covered hills.��

Uff... Amazing.
I may need to reread/relisten it. That ceremonious parsimony of the Japanese that makes the person be present... in the moment, just beautiful. How Okakura makes a case that it's art, it's poetry, it has to be well-thought and present... it's not just "tea", it's an identity... even a way and a way of understaing life reflected in the ceremony.
The death of the master ecchoes that of Socrates. We all want to live, but once live is completely understood as ephimeral and passing, one can suffer and die with dignity. (It's still hard for me to believe such an attitude in a concrete person.)
Chidi of The Good Place said it better "for spiritual stuff, you gotta turn to the East".

22. Una habitación propia.
(Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own.)

Brilliant. Effing BRILLIANT.

It has been a happy discovery to note the lucidity with which Woolf writes, at the same time I can't help but notice how... ironic (?) of such a situation is considering her chronic depression (bipolar disorder type I?).

Now, Woolf is clearly committed to intellectual honesty to the point that she openly mentions her biases as she notices them.
Her fish/thought analogy of hers reminded me of the imagery in two Emily Dickinson poems: Hope Is The Thing with Feathers and Grief Is a Mouse.

After her rant about how in fact a woman with the excellence of William Shakespeare CANNOT exist... uff... she perfectly dissects the essence of the problem of sexism hidden behind the thin veil of sexual dimorphism. Unfortunately, a good number of times these differences (perfectly obvious, publicly there... in view and plain sight for of all us to see) become the perfect excuse to diminish the "other" and prevent them from growing.

Mindblowing... and not because what she says is not obvious, but because of the SOBRIETY, solemnity and dignity with which she says it.
She also gives a good number of authors to read (she postulates them as examples, more than anything else) and she encourages women to write regardless of the result.

A thousand pens are ready to suggest what you should do and what effect you will have.

To write, women! The obstacles are coming, but we have the pens.

27. The Analysis of Mind.

Listened from the LibriVox catalogue.
Quite interesting. Professor Russell was clearly extremely smart, it's interesting how he tried combine several philosophy of mind theories to try to make them match.
I have the feeling this is quite outdated by now.
The dwells somewhat in epistemology. He makes a good case, it's mostly satisfying, but so far the assertion "knowledge is AT LEAST a justifiable belief" seems to remain quite untouched.

28. The Book of Life.

Well, the rather high score is because I think Mr. Rom Maczka did a really good job in narrating. He definitely caught my attention and his voice is clear and focused.
With regards to the content written by Upton Sinclair, overall is good and he's definitely clear in the message. As a pop-science author, he hit the nail in the head... However the content is quite outdated.
Everything he says about fasting is nonsensical and borderline suicidal, his views on race, marriage and homosexuality are so backwards, I don't even know where to begin with, and his economic views are too utopical.

I do applaud him because he tried to weigh, trial and experiment certain things on himself; however he just lacks the knowledge on some areas, so his advice lacks foundation. He clearly was a smart man, but his experiments lack rigour and if he was honest about the results, maybe he should have check them with especialists in the area... then again, he wouldn't have been able to make the case that the science is rigged. *shrugs*
Also, I doubt he was good foundation on metaethics and moral philosophy is general, hence I'm not to sure on how to understand what he mentions on virtue and whatnot.

Cobbler, stick to your last.

12. Happiness is the Wrong Metric: A Liberal Communitarian Response to Populism

Some chapters were quite forgettable and the book felt disconnected (considering it's a bunch of papers written throughout his life, gee... I wonder why).
However, I do think I learned a couple of new things with regards to AI, robots and technology.
The bioethics part was too superficial.

You have a great variety on your reading list. I also loved The Book of Tea. Happiness is the Wrong Metric: A Liberal Communitarian Response to Populism sounds very interesting.

Thank you, Beth. :)

29. Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters

Well, this is one of those cases where I am divided.
So, since what I found positive/good/right/well presented is quite intertwined what I consider to be negative/bad/wrong/poorly presented, I will write the CAVEAT in italics.

i) Her writing is OK. It's easy to read, quite a good use of the language. She's mostly clear.
CAVEAT: It takes her until the second half of the book to even define the term "transgender" and then she complaints about it being a tautology. Girl... Definitions ARE tautologies. If I say: "a human male is someone with a XY chromosome"... it is the same as saying "XY is a male".
But that's not even the issue. She could present her own definition and test it, yet she doesn't. She just tries to poke holes at something that she DOESN'T delimit AT ALL. I definitely think the problem is that she doesn't want to concede that, though sex and gender are linked, they cannot be defined as perfect synonyms. This is a huge problem for her thesis because it's not even clear what she is even presenting... let alone criticising.

ii) Though she doesn't give ANY ontology whatsoever (she can't, since she refuses to define the word), she does try make an epistemological case; hence she criticises some of the criteria for diagnosing transgenderism.
I do think she makes a good point with some of her criticism to DMS-V.
CAVEAT: My two cents that there are other protocols that complementary, that she didn't present in her book.
Also, in the criticism she makes, she mentions that transitioning doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing... Then why would it be a problem if certain trans men don't want surgery? If a trans man gets a double mastectomy, the fact that they don't want bottom surgery shouldn't mean there are less of "trans". Don't get me wrong, I do think that if a person wants to be treated as a "man", they should present themselves in a man-like fashion. But if Shrier wants to make the case that there is a middle point where "mutilation" is not need, then she needs to revise her position about what constitutes a transgender. She seems to believe that a transition that is not completed means that a person is not fully transgender.

iii) Her main thesis is quite interesting. I do believe SOME of what she says is at least a "fair enough point"; including her insistence that transgenderism in AFABs has spiked in the last few years.
Scientists have to investigate this and answer "why" and, though I can accept the assertion of "oh, well, trans people are 'oppressed' since there's a lot of transphobia" is at least to a degree, affirming that that is the ONLY reason why this spike exists is just overreaching.
It begs the question, why are not middle-aged AFAB transitioning at the same amount as middle age AMAB. Historically speaking there have been a lot more males transitioning, is it all due to misogyny and transphobia?? If it's easier to be a male, why hasn't that been an "incentive" for AFABs to transition before? Is such a difference entirely because of society... or there might be biological differences to consider? Why do all these AFABs present these issues while teens and not infants?
How should the scientific community improve the criteria to find out who could be a "false positive"? How does transgender ontogenesis begin to happen? Which teens are to be understood as the ones that are "really trans" and for it which might be a good idea to transition?

iv) She brings several sources to the table, including people who have transitioned and are happy to have done so.
CAVEAT: She references Wikipedia... I mean, WTF?
She mostly interviews detransitioners which seems biased, then again one of her points is on that specific demographic, so...
Also, she does present people who are clearly transphobic. The example of the mother who "didn't know what could have happened" with the trans woman in the dressing room is plain condescending and insulting. What did she think would have happened? She clearly was implying that the worker was a pervert (possibly a sexual offender) just because she's a trans woman. Yes, I agree with Shrier that many women (including myself) feel better/more comfortable with other females in certain jobs, I do think female OB-GYNs have better bed side manners than their males counterparts... but that's not to say that male OB-GYNs are possibly perverts/sexual offenders and that "I don't know what would happen" if one were to attend to me. What would happen? Nothing. That person would do their goddamn job and that's it.

v) She has said that she believes conservatives should extend the courtesy to use the pronouns and names of which the person feels most comfortable with.
CAVEAT: Yet she dead-names people... and uses the wrong pronouns with people who are adults. (Despite the fact that she pretends that she only does that with teens because they can't know for sure.)

vi) She makes a point in finding ways of reconciling children with their parents.
CAVEAT: At moments she sounds really naive considering that some parents might not be supportive AT ALL. It's not like people will openly say they're transphobic or homophobic... and even if they were to say that, the moral dimension would be such that probably such behaviour is perceived as "good".

vii) She makes a good case that the internet, Tumblr and whatnot are garbage, that teenagers look for information there and that some ideologues are too eager to push their agendas.

viii) I definitely agree with her that in case of doubt (ANY doubt), NOT doing anything permanent is better... and that in ambiguous cases, it might be better to wait.
CAVEAT: She seems to believe that even social transitioning is bad and presents an really bad anecdote of a Jewish woman who was made to pass as Catholic as a child in WWII as an example. Erm... What? As cherry on top of the cake, she presents this woman as a sad, pathetic excuse of a spinster Jew who doesn't even "feel" Jewish. WTF? How frigging condescending to that poor woman. Maybe she didn't want to get marry because she hates men or * insert whatever dumb reason *... but implying that all the misery in her life is because she had to pass as a Catholic is insane. Catholics are not that bad, for crying out loud. Not to say THAT HER WHOLE BOOK IS ABOUT HOW "FEELINGS" ARE NOT A DIAGNOSIS FOR TRANS PEOPLE... YET SHE CLAIMS "NOT FEELING JEWISH ENOUGH" IS A GOOD REASON TO PITY THIS WOMAN. It's like she picked the most subjective, tragic and convoluted example she found... the most disconnected from her point and then went "oh, well, here you go".

ix) I learned a couple of new things about the surgeries and hormone suppressors that I found interesting, like how losing your boobs makes your hips look wider. (So, trans men better be sure they want to go the whole way lest the mastectomy give them bigger dysphoria.)
I had read some stuff similar before about rhinoplasty and how a smaller nose makes the ears look bigger.

x) She makes a good case some stereotypes and wording for "females" is just plain insulting. Bleeders? Breeders? Way to demean women to just their genitals.

__
Definitely more research is needed in this area.
It's an interesting I'll be reading more about.

30. Yo acuso. El caso Dreyfus

What a tongue!

What a way to shake a nation, with such eloquence, with statements... viperine (but true).

This version (edited by the Court) contains several of the open letters written by Zolá with a short prologue by Fernando Tinajero; I would have liked a little more historical background, but, well... You can't have everything in this life.
Émile Zolá was for sure committed to the truth...

31. The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe

It was quite interesting and easy to follow.

The narrator (Mr. Michael York) had a beautiful voice (which gave a sense of gravitas) and quite a nice diction.

The book is basically a bunch of PhD. Hawking's lectures. Gladly, the style is such that mere mortals can understand it. XD (So, kudos to him for transforming complex subjects and making to em digestible. That's a quite especial type of genius.)
Still, some stuff was hard to imagine... both from the scientific point of view to the philosophical one.

5. El gen egoísta. Las bases biológicas de nuestra conducta

Very good.
Now, to be honest, I really wanted to give it five stars, but I just can't.

Of the things that I liked are:
i) In general, I think Dawkins is VERY good at explaining. I do think he is a good teacher... or so he gives me the impression by how he tries to simplify complex and ramifying theories.
ii) It is noted that he is very imaginative and quite a scholar in ethology and biology.
iii) Some time was taken to include objections and opposing positions.
iv) I applaud his continued insistence on the use of language by levels and that certain language is technically not the most appropriate, but it is the most useful to explain given the context.

Of the things that are farting:
i) Geezus Xrist (:v), what a way to write BS when he writes about philosophy, let alont when he talks about moral/ethical philosophy.
There is NO moral dimension in science; therefore biology (evolutionary or not) can NOT give me answers as to whether racism is "bad" or whether speciesism is "bad". Science has NOTHING to say about ethics, even worse about metaethics.
ii) The statement in some reviews that the guy has an air of condescension and conceit is true.
iii) Talking with my friend Aurora, who specializes in Molecular Biology, it seems that Dawkins tends towards reductionism. (That is to say, it is not a mere "simplification" as I postulated in (i) of the first group.) I had this intuition (that is why I shared it with my friend), but my incredible ignorance about biology/ethology forces me to take prima I do whatever Dawkins or Aurora tell me, and thus obliges me to be cautious with any kind of rebuttal or criticism that I may posit. That is to say, I believe Aurora when she confirms that Dawkins is a reductionist, but I wouldn't dare to contradict him.
iv) I think having a little more confidence in my philosophical intuitions to assert with more certainty (than I would in biology/ethology) that his presentation of the "meme" (cultural unit) is de facto reductionist, therefore disposable . (But as an explanatory model, it is quite interesting.)

Anyway, the book itself is very enjoyable and, of course, I do think I learned new things.
I wouldn't read it again, but I will read other works by Dawkins.

32. Supreme Court DOBBS,. v. JACKSON: The ruling overturning Roe V Wade

Well, this is something.

The majority's opinion, though quite elaborated and eloquent, fails to even consider the most basic standard for people's rights over their own bodies. And, as an excuse, of course, insist that that's not the point of that particular case. At the end it reads like a big "not my problem what will happens next" and it just fall flat... but they are the majority and things are what they are.
The minority does make a good case stating that that shouldn't be changed to state decisis given that there haven't societal and technological changes that would make it a compelling case and overall considering women's choices and autonomy at stake.

Clearly all one needs to manipulate the Law and take away rights is having a majority of Judges in the Supreme Court. Sad realisation, but I don't think anyone was that surprised.

As for today, given other jurisprudences, I'm afraid conservatives will go after Loving, Obergefell and other jurisprudences. *shrugs*

33. Woman and the New Race

Well, this definitely didn't age well, that's for sure.

It was somewhat interesting. Margaret Sanger (MS) clearly tried to be as thorough as possible bringing as many statistics as she could to present her point properly.
I definitely believe her position is mostly out of compassion rather than racism or eugenics and whatnot. (But she was racist and she was pro-eugenics.) However, given that her statistics don't apply now (we understand a lot better of nutrition and overall health), a good chunk of her arguments go out the window.

Given how we understand ethics/morality nowadays, I can see why many people find this unappealing.
Well, as someone who's very pro-choice, I have to say that at least the overall message is good: Women should have autonomy over their own bodies... even in cases of conflict in rights. Stripping women from agency over their bodies is wrong and abortion does allow better family planning.
Is it better not to get pregnant in the first place? Well, DUH! But there are many events in a person's life (even during pregnancy) that make me her make that decision.

Anyways, the presentation of her ideas was mostly good, the content was good as well... But as I've postulated, some of her arguments hardly pass.

As for the narrator, Becky Cook, her voice suits well for this type of readings. Good intonation, very well paced. Definitely a reader I'd follow.

34. Más allá de la filosofía: escritos sobre cultura, arte y literatura

Well, Hannah Arendt, excellent as always.
The essays are quite good, I liked the type of analysis she presents and how she links it to "reality". Her unspoken dissertation on how art influences society and vice versa, as well as the value of art itself, magnificent.
I think I would have enjoyed the essays more if I were familiar with the works she is examining. Given my ignorance, I guess a good chunk of points went over my head.
He still gave me a good list of works that go to my TBR.

35. Economic Facts and Fallacies

Excellent.
One can understand why PhD. Sowell is well respected as an economist.
He's quite thorough and explains very well.

I did find good points in his presentation on how cultures, resources, geographic conditions and so on either help or delay advancements. (Some points reminded me of PhD. Marvin Harris.)
He doesn't make a "desert" case, he explains phenomena and presents a very pragmatic point of view.

The parts related to race, gender and universities were quite interesting. However, can't help but think there's some level of petitio principi. Sure, he states things to the best of this knowledge and brings statistics to the table in a way to compare or contrast the many wrong conclusions others have made. But even so it's not very clear to me that that he's not just going in a loop.

On the bad side, he makes a case that certain things create unintended consequences. Well, duh. I doubt taking away public education and whatnot will better society's wellbeing. Even if not all the consequences are OK, taking some social help away will not necessarily be the better choice.
Same with racism. Would it be better to not put pressure on illegitimate discrimination? I can see that it brings a cost... but I'm not sure if the racist would understand such cost therefore it'll render it useless as a penalty.
We, people, are not quite rational, we're highly emotional and as any economist, he starts with that flawed premise.

Not that say that, internationally speaking, one of the reasons why some countries have been held back is actually USA's aggressive policies... You know, kind of like they stage a coup d'état and then pretend it's to help throw down "tyrants" and not... hegemony.

I do think it's worth the read. Also the narrator, Jeff Riggenbach, is really good. His voice is nice, good intonation, good pacing, gravitas. Excellent work.

36. Fouché: Retrato de un hombre político

Zweig is quite talented when it comes to presenting an individual from behind because that one, for better or worse, marked the course of history while he was alive. It seems to me that Fouché had psychopathic tendencies. It's not "normal" to be such a SoB with such divided loyalties... no, erase that, without any loyalty whatsoever... so willingly to have people gunned down as if nothing and with the mask on for everything occasion. He reminded me a bit a psychopath, E.M. Thomas/Jamie Lund, who described herself as having "no form" but instead "becoming" what people wanted her to become.
It is clear that Fouché shone in all his psychopathic splendour precisely because of the historical moment in which he found himself... Perhaps it even maximized said impulses, since he KNEW that he would go unpunished as long as he changed sides at the right time .
The book is quite interesting, but here I must admit that I am not so much a fan of the "history" genre.