Skip to main content

Awe - Dacher Keltner **

Over the years, Dacher Keltner has covered a range of really interesting topics. Take, for instance Born to be Good on 'the science of a meaningful life' from 2010 or The Power Paradox on 'how we gain and lose influence' from 2016. Now he's done it again with Awe, exploring 'the explorative power of everyday wonder'. And just as with the other two, I was drawn in by the concept only to be disappointed by the content - it's a bit like popular science clickbait.

To be honest, I'd forgotten I'd read the previous books when I bought this one, but referring back to the earlier reviews, I'm getting the same feeling all over again. I noted that Born to be Good was 'strung together rather haphazardly' and that The Power Paradox felt like many business books - a good magazine article strung out to make a tissue-thin book. It's deja vu all over again.

Keltner divides the book into four sections. Only the first is directly about 'a science of awe' (though the scientific references continue throughout). From 69 pages in we get onto 'stories of transformative awe', because this is far more about the experience than the science. Then we move on to 'cultural archives of awe', and finally the life lessons bit: 'living a life of awe'. It's absolutely fine that Keltner personalises the process in writing a lot about his family, but it does feel much of the time that the content is observational without any significant depth beneath it.

The basic concept of the importance of awe, combined with some difficulty in describing just what it is, is interesting and arguably important for us as human beings. I do feel that most of us don't experience enough awe in our lives, potentially making our lives feel relatively pointless. We need awe. But the way that Keltner delivers this wisdom sometimes feels more like we're in a Bill and Ted movie, without the humour or the storyline. It's all 'Whoa!' and 'Feel this, man!' This is a sheep in wolf's clothing: a spiritual self-help book dressed up as popular psychology.

The other problem I have with this book is that I can't take seriously any post-replication crisis psychology book that does not mention it at all and does not explore the quality of the studies it references. Keltner has 250 references at the back, but in the text all we ever get is apparent fact such as 'a study showed this' before moving on snappily to the next observation. It's not just that there is no depth - it's all surface - but we are never told anything about the quality of the studies. Was there p-hacking? Did they use small samples? Were the effects significant but with minimal effect? Did they use the low standard of being considered significant if there is a 1 in 20 chance of the effects being seen if the null hypothesis being true? Have they been successfully replicated? Nothing. Nada. Whoa!

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book
Post a Comment
Read more

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T
Post a Comment
Read more

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more