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

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more