Two Books I'm Excited To Read: Rottenberg and Reynolds
The Depths: The Evolutionary Origins of the Depression Epidemic
Rottenberg, who himself has falling into "the depths," explains depression in evolutionary terms rather than as a product of defects in the mind or brain, and points to new paths to treatment. (I'm copying this off the press release that came with the book, but I've also looked through it, and was very excited about it because it discusses some very compelling ideas about depression I've read in ev psych literature by Randy Nesse and others.)
I'll have Rottenberg on my radio show in March, but if you want to have that possibly sink in better for you, you might want to read his book in advance.
The other book I have here, goading me to drop my required weekly science reading (for my column and radio show) and pick it up, is a slim volume by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself
I find his ideas I've read in his columns about problems in education and the education bubble -- and his observations and ideas about solutions -- compelling and right on. I keep skimming his book when I get a few moments, and will read it in full as soon as I get through my LA Times Festival of Books reading in early April. (I usually moderate panels and sometimes have a pile of reading.)
Oh, and about my describing it as a "slim volume," it's about 100 pages long, which, frankly, many books should be. The writing looks very Elmore Leonard -- not because it's about crime or has a lot of punchy dialogue -- but because it does what Elmore advised in his "10 Rules of Writing." It "leave(s) out the part people tend to skip when they read."
Again, more authors should try harder to do that!
Both books seem interesting. I hope I am aware enough to catch the podcast next month.
The problem I have with Reynolds book, as I understand his thesis (and I haven't read the book), is the problem I have with moocs like Coursera, Udacity, etc., or even with online high schools.
It's very hard for me to believe that sitting at home surrounded by the newest video games, and having only video lectures, and chatrooms, that the same quality of learning can be achieved as can (okay supposedly) be achieved in person.
And I do think that an important part of education IS the part where you leave home and comfortable surroundings to be challenged with good teachers. That's not to say that today's colleges are doing a good job of that either, just saying I find it hard to believe that the college from a home bedroom experience is going to be anywhere near equivalent to what students get today on campus.
It will certainly make me scared to use the bridges they build, and the airplanes they design.
I would like to see schools concentrate on a) tuition reduction (which is a hard problem after spending three decades building exorbitant buildings and gyms and hiring people for that), and b) driving the average stay in college to 4 consecutive years, if not less.
Politifact says it is true that the average college stay is now six years. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/11/ron-johnson/average-college-degree-takes-six-years-us-sen-ron-/
I would find it very hard to believe that in 1980 say, the average college stay was more than 4.5. The vast majority of students where I went finished in 4 years, with the rest maybe taking 5 or 6. But the average would certainly not be close to six years.
That extra two years has to be driving costs of tuition AND room and board and living expenses through the roof.
Admittedly, it might help my critique if I read Reynold's book.
jerry at February 19, 2014 4:59 PM
It's very hard for me to believe that sitting at home ... that the same quality of learning can be achieved as can (okay supposedly) be achieved in person.
Okay, supposedly? high schools that graduate people that can barely read and write, let alone handle mathematics? those schools?
I do see how this could be worse.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 20, 2014 6:37 AM
Amy, I am going to do a one click buy on this book because some of your recommendations have helped me feel good for awhile in the past. I am a little concerned by the meaning of "It's not a self-help book, but it would be a boon to anyone who is suffering" in the first customer review at Amazon. I one clicked "Unhooked" a while back and it took me from SAD to full on depression and I only got to page 7 of the introduction. I now wish Nathaniel would have made me stop smoking like he made the drug users and drinkers stop during therapy in the 70's. Unlike Frederick, I don't know what I'm still not dealing with and I quit 26 years ago and 103 pounds heavier.
Dave B at February 20, 2014 4:45 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/02/19/two_books_im_ex.html#comment-4272960">comment from Dave BSorry about that, Dave B. Have you tried the patch? Maybe you don't need to quit smoking.
Maybe part of this is habitual, and that you enjoy it, and that you aren't looking at the long-term consequences vis a vis the short-term pleasure you get out of it. Maybe you can make yourself do that examination -- of the trade-offs. But what's harmful about smoking is its impact on the lungs. I'm not a doctor, of course, and a reliable one would examine you, but I wonder if you really need to quit nicotine or just the method by which you get it.
Amy Alkon
at February 20, 2014 6:42 PM
Leave a comment