Skip to main content

Radical Thinking - Peter Lamont *****

It's not often you start reading a book and within a few pages are thinking 'this is something special.' Peter Lamont writes with a distinctive style, in places verging on poetry or liturgy in the way he uses repeated sentences for emphasis. There's also something of the dance of the seven veils about the whole thing - he glides around a subject, letting the reader catch a glimpse of something interesting, but taking his time to coyly reveal things. That can be a touch irritating at times, but it certainly catches the attention.

What this book isn't despite the subtitle, is a 'how to' guide, except at the most basic level. And it probably isn't about radical thinking per se either - it's more about the nature of thinking in general, and critical thinking in particular. Lamont uses various walks around bits of Edinburgh (where he lives and works), using historical connections to expose us to the nature of what we think about things and what to make of our thinking. And it's brilliant - I was captivated. It helps, I think that as well as being a professor of the history and theory of psychology, the author has also been a professional magician, understanding not only how we communicate things but how we conceal them.

Lamont stresses that we can only truly think critically if we consider ideas rather than people - playing down the modern tendency to discount an idea because the thinker did something we don't like. He's also quite down on the psychologists' collection of biases - not in the sense that they don't exist, but rather that they are unavoidable - and sometimes necessary to function. We need to be aware of them, but we can't 'fix' them - just act in a more considered way thanks to our awareness.

The closest we get to 'how to' is that when presented with information we ought to consider what the claim is (this can take some digging - it's not always at all clear in how it's put across), what the basis is for that claim, and what the purpose is of making the claim. But this is a tiny part of the way in which Lamont encourages us to think about how we think about things - what we see, what we feel, what we hear, the pros and cons of the scientific method, and the importance of considering viewpoints beyond our own. As he notes, we see the world through a narrow window and need to look beyond that.

Don't expect magic answers on how to become a super-thinker, or a radical. And I think it's fair to say that some people will find the way that Lamont dances around the subject in a teasing fashion, rarely taking it straight on, frustrating. But I found the book hugely readable - I kept wanting to come back to it when I had to put it down - and at risk of coming up with a cliché it genuinely makes you think, which can't be a bad thing. Highly recommended.

Hardback:   
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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Math for English Majors - Ben Orlin *****

Ben Orlin makes the interesting observation that the majority of people give up on understanding maths at some point, from fractions or algebra all the way through to tensors. At that stage they either give up entirely or operate the maths mechanically without understanding what they are doing. In this light-hearted take, Orlin does a great job of taking on mathematical processes a step at a time, in part making parallels with the structure of language. Many popular maths books shy away from the actual mathematical representations, going instead for verbal approximations. Orlin doesn't do this, but makes use of those linguistic similes and different ways of looking at the processes involved to help understanding. He also includes self-admittedly awful (but entertaining) drawings and stories from his experience as a long-time maths teacher. To make those parallels, Orlin refers to numbers as nouns, operations as verbs (though he points out that there are some flaws in this simile) a

2040 (SF) - Pedro Domingos ****

This is in many ways an excellent SF satire - Pedro Domingos never forgets that part of his job as a fiction writer is to keep the reader engaged with the plot, and it's a fascinating one. There is one fly in the ointment in the form of a step into heavy-handed humour that takes away its believability - satire should push the boundaries but not become totally ludicrous. But because the rest of it is so good, I can forgive it. The setting is the 2040 US presidential election, where one of the candidates is an AI-powered robot. The AI is the important bit - the robot is just there to give it a more human presence. This is a timely idea in its own right, but it gives Domingos an opportunity not just to include some of the limits and possibilities of generative AI, but also to take a poke at the nature of Silicon Valley startups, and of IT mega-companies and their worryingly powerful (and potentially deranged) leaders. Domingos knows his stuff on AI as a professor of computer science w

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