Will democracy become a distant memory as humanity discovers a better political system? In his chapter on how colours are viewed through the years, I learned about a meme called The Dress which was fascinating. Team sports like American football will be completely unpopular in just a few decades? Come on. And contemporary people are turned off of the idea of tyrants because of bad recent examples like Hitler and Stalin?
What a doofus. There have never been benevolent tyrants ever. The same goes for the sections on science and philosophy which are similarly shakily constructed and questionable. What do most of us know about 19th century France off the top of our heads? Take that back even further to years ago and what do we know about the 16th century world?
Maybe the only significant factoid future people will remember about the early 21st century will be that America elected its first black president shortly before electing its second, Kanye West! All the bullshit we yammer on about, gone, replaced with the bullshit future generations will be yammering on about, and so on. The TV chapter felt especially overlong.
Fair enough - but an entire chapter to make that point?? Actually you could make the case for the entire book - the thesis is fairly succinct and self-explanatory from the start! View all 5 comments. Jul 02, Justin rated it really liked it. This was my first Klosterman book and my first nonfiction book in a minute as the kids say. I really liked most of the book. It's pretty abstract, there aren't any answers to the questions he's asking since we can't see into the future, but I enjoyed the discussion and trying to gaze into the crystal ball.
The premise of the book is trying to look at the present as if it were the past, basically putting ourselves into a time machine and looking back at our current times from a variety of angles. Each chapter tackles a different part of our culture from books to TV to football to science to politics and beyond.
His writing is excellent. Klosterman can weave sentences together with adjectives you may not use everyday in a very readable fashion. I loved his prose and the ideas he presented throughout the book. Is Breaking Bad going to be viewed as the best show off all time in years? Will TV even matter anymore, or will it be done archaic thing people did in the past like listening to radio programs or buying cassette tapes?
Will the NFL still exist in the future, or will concussions and possible deaths end the sport? Or do we really wanna see more violence after all and keep it going? Are there other universes out there we don't even know about and never will know about? Can we ever know more about the infinite universe wet live in? How far can science take us in understanding ourselves and the world? Big questions, few answers, but the intellectual arguments and opinions shared by Klosterman and others are very interesting to consider and think about pop culture from a completely different perspective.
Plus, wet have a lot in common. All the bands, TV shows, movies, and celebrities were stuff I consume and enjoy. It made the whole thing thought provoking but also something I could relate to personally. It felt at times like talking to a friend while drinking a local bar drinking a local IPA because every else would you be drinking anyway?
Oct 30, Marc rated it it was ok Shelves: futurology. The starting point of this book is absolutely interesting: let us imagine what people would think about our own age in or 1, years, assuming that there still are humans. Not a simple matter, of course, but there is a strong tendency to immediately conclude that what we now take for granted will turn out to be completely wrong, just as we now see that what was thought or 1, years ago largely was wrong or at least not adequate enough.
Klosterman illustrates this by asking, for example The starting point of this book is absolutely interesting: let us imagine what people would think about our own age in or 1, years, assuming that there still are humans. Klosterman illustrates this by asking, for example, who will be considered the greatest rock musician of the late 20th century: Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, the Beatles or Bob Dylan.
He rightly points out that even after a few decades, the judgment about these people has shifted considerably, and probably will continue to change. In the literature and sports sector too, valuations can change very quickly, certainly in the much longer run.
Up to this point, Klosterman is very entertaining, with often nice one-liners such as: " the future world will be fundamentally unlike our present world ", or " history is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining ".
But then he also starts venturing into the field of science, historical studies and politics, and then things are going pretty wrong. You can clearly feel that these are less familiar terrains for him, that he remains very shallow and sometimes hits the ball completely wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, did not make Newtonian physics wrong, but just placed it in a broader context.
And the tendency of historians to build more on factual data and on statistical material instead of telling stories may be problematic for understanding the past correctly, it is not necessarily a wrong way: provided that transparency and continuous addition and adjustment of the data are achieved, a gradual better understanding of the past is possible without losing sight of the narrative aspect.
In short, Klosterman certainly raises pertinent issues, and he does so in a very entertaining way sometimes with a too American focus , but in fact he does not go beyond busting through open doors: the future is uncertain, our views and valuations are shifting constantly, so we better assume that we are wrong.
In the end you think: so what? Jul 06, Benjamin rated it it was ok Shelves: nonfiction. I really want to give this more stars, I should have liked it- but, ugh. Yes, I'm sure lots of the things we now believe about reality may one day be proven wrong, but so what? How does that effect our lives? Well, as the author states it doesn't because most people don't care.
The shepherd in A. We're just the same, centuries from now when we finally unlock the secrets of I really want to give this more stars, I should have liked it- but, ugh.
We're just the same, centuries from now when we finally unlock the secrets of the quantum and launch the star-ships most people will probably still be more concerned about finding money, power, and love than awed by the fact we can actually understand and colonize the universe. And why so much space spent on analyzing TV?
Yes the future will have a much different understanding of ourselves then we will, and I'm sure we have ridiculous ideas about how ancient Egyptians lived and felt, but so what? Everyone will seem ridiculous when they're dead, or if they live long enough; hopefully that represents progress. Nov 21, Stevie Kincade rated it really liked it Shelves: reviewed , published , audiobooks. God, you should have seen me the year I read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink", I could hammer the thought-candy from that book into any conversation about anything at all.
Gladwell's premise is that throughout history we have been completely wrong about everything SO, what things that we accept as completely true now, will we look back on in years and laugh at?
Then, just in case he thought he might lose me, he touches on my other favourite subjects: The singularity, Simulation theory, the phantom time hypothesis and the role of DMT in consciousness.
Well thank you Chuck! You might have lost me otherwise! If we won't be alive in or a thousand years, what difference would it make if we are unknowingly wrong about everything, much less anything? Isn't being right for the sake of being right pretty much the only possible motive for any attempt at thinking about today from the imagined vantage point of tomorrow? If it turns out that the citizens of have forgotten the Beatles while remembering the Butthole Surfers, what difference will that make to all the dead people from the 20th century who never saw it coming?
The stakes here are not super high although the issue of climate change is touched on briefly. In Klosterman's own words he describes being wrong about most issues as detrimental not dangerous.
This is the kind of pop culture philosophy that will have you spouting its ideas to your friends as they stroke their carefully manicured facial hair in deep thought while drinking a kale shake. Klosterman isn't interested in guessing what things we underrate now will become important in the future.
He instead looks to the past at how paradigm shifts caused the art of prior generations to be viewed in an entirely different light and what this could mean going forward. Herman Melville didn't know there was a world war coming. After it did, his books became interpreted through a new filter and he went from also-ran to literary giant.
It was fascinating looking at who the literary critics of the 's thought were the important writers and poets and then who became important and remembered and why. In one amusing passage Klosterman asks us to imagine for a moment that ancient Egypt had television and we just unearthed the entire archive.
He makes the point that the thing we would be MOST interested in the national news, then the local news, then the advertisements. This leads Klosterman to ask What is the realist fake thing we have ever made on purpose? I am familiar with Klosterman mainly through his appearances on Bill Simmon's podcast.
I added this to my "to read" list after hearing Klosterman talk about these ideas in depth on Maron's WTF podcast. I like Klosterman's manic, rapid fire way of speaking particularly at 1.
The narrator was fine but a non fiction audiobook is just yknow - reading. I am not really sure how to rate nonfiction but if you love to think and argue about culture then I can highly recommend you check this one out.
Just stay away from me at parties. View all 7 comments. Apr 25, Katie rated it it was amazing. This was a fun book. I received an ARC in exchange for my review, and I have to say that I would strongly recommend this to anyone who loves to ask "What if? You will ponder who the next Kafka will be, whether the Beatles will still be historically important in the far future, whether there is another version of you or multi This was a fun book.
You will ponder who the next Kafka will be, whether the Beatles will still be historically important in the far future, whether there is another version of you or multiple versions of you out in the vast universe, among many other silly things. Klosterman is funny, but he's also intelligent despite his self-deprecating nature. If you like philosophy, or just want to read something that is unusual, pick this up.
It's a fast read and is thought provoking in its own right. Feb 12, Peter Derk rated it it was amazing. Best thing I've read this year. The premise is pretty simple. Basically, Klosterman spends most of a book He starts with fucking gravity! Not proving that gravity is nonexistent as we experience it, but that it may be an emergent force, which is a force that results from other thing Best thing I've read this year. Not proving that gravity is nonexistent as we experience it, but that it may be an emergent force, which is a force that results from other things and therefore isn't its own force.
Does that make any goddamn sense? He's better at this than I am. That's why I give his book 5 stars and mine 3. Plus, his covers look better. Plus, everything else besides his covers and clarity is also better.
I have some favorite parts, but I'm going to limit myself to one because I could be here all damn day. I have to do this one because this is a point of personal passion for me, and I think Klosterman expresses something really important about the first amendment: "There is no amendment more beloved, and it's the single most American sentiment that can be expressed.
Yet its function is highly specific. It stops the government from limiting a person or an organization's freedom of expression and that's critical, particularly if you want to launch an especially self-righteous alt weekly or an exceptionally lucrative church or the rap group N.
But in a capitalist society, it doesn't have much application within any scenario where the government doesn't have a vested interest in what's being expressed. If someone publishes an essay or tells a joke or performs a play that forwards a problematic idea, the US government generally wouldn't try to stop that person from doing so, even if they could. If the expression doesn't involve national security, the government generally doesn't give a shit.
But if enough vocal consumers are personally offended, they can silence that artist just as effectively. They can petition advertisers and marginalize the artist's reception and economically remove that individual from whatever platform he or she happens to utilize, simply because there are no expression-based platforms that don't have an economic underpinning.
It's one of those situations where the practical manifestation is the opposite of the technical intention: As Americans, we tend to look down on European countries that impose legal limitations on speech, yet as long as speakers in those countries stay within the specified boundaries, discourse is allowed relatively unfettered even when it's unpopular.
In the US, there are absolutely no speech boundaries imposed by the government, so the citizenry creates its own limitations, based on the arbitrary values of whichever activist group is most successful at inflicting its worldview upon an economically fragile public sphere. As a consequence, the United States is a safe place for those who want to criticize the government but a dangerous place for those who want to advance unpopular thoughts about any other subject that could be deemed insulting or otherwise.
Some would argue that this trade-off is worth it. Time may prove otherwise. Thank you. There's this thing that people say. Because if there are consequences for speech, then what part of it is free, exactly? Are you just reaffirming that you don't have the ability to physically stop a person from saying something? You're telling me that you're not Beetlejuice? I need to use a Beetlejuice GIF in everything.
And also, I need to not say his name again in this review, lest I call him forth. But anyway, are we saying that once unappreciated words leave a person's mouth, as long as we act within the law, it's game on to bring down whatever consequences we can? Because that's not freedom of expression at all. That's freedom of thought. Once the thought is expressed, it's subject to some pretty heavy restrictions. I can write a blog about how I think my boss is stupid I don't , and I can be fired for that.
Off work time, not using work tools, I'm still an idiot for saying how I feel in the medium of my choosing. I agree with Klosterman, it may be worse to have non-delineated consequences for non-specific types of speech than to have what appear to be restrictive laws. If the law makes some specifications, I can knowingly violate those and accept the consequences, or I can choose to operate within them and stay safe.
In the US, you don't have that option. If you say something that makes an individual or group upset, they may not be able to put you in jail, but they could certainly attack your personal life, your livelihood, just about anything they wanted to.
This has happened many, many times, and I encourage you to check out Jon Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed to find out more about just how devastating this type of consequence can be and how uneven and disproportionate its application is.
Frankly, I think what's fair and just is for everyone to know the rules. It's fair to pull me over for speeding when the limit is posted.
And the other thing, who the fuck died and made you the decider of what consequences a person deserves for pissing you off? And why did they have to die to make you in charge? Seems like you had something to gain from the untimely demise of this unnamed individual who was formerly in charge. I have a lot of questions for you, buddy, and I think you should probably answer some of them before you get all high and mighty.
In all seriousness, I really dislike that we tout our freedom of speech when, in reality, the freedom is in your freedom to express things within parameters. You're free to say whatever you want as long as you're polite, considerate, on the right side of current events, and as long as you don't say something about someone who can fire you. Or you can be independently wealthy and above any significant consequence in terms of your ability to get and keep a gig.
Of course, as with most rules, freedom of expression applies most to rich people. Go figure. I feel, and I feel very strongly, that the right path is not to limit speech, whether we do that by participating in retweeting or blasting people with fire hoses, but to create more speech in opposition to the things we don't like.
Not to ask for removal of or apologies for expression, creating what we assume to be a vacuum that we assume will SURELY be occupied by something good and wonderful and acceptable, but to instead skip straight to creating the good and wonderful thing that would occupy the space directly adjacent to what we find distasteful.
When it comes to books and art and movies and tweets, space is something we've got in spades. Trust me, I took a grad level class on information storage and retrieval, a field that, in the digital realm, is all about the ability to classify and locate things within an infinite space. There is no limit to the quantity of space we have for art and for expression anymore. The only limit is the one we put on, the limit of what we see as quality, but is more accurately boiled down to what we do and don't "like.
It's good to view reality as beyond our understanding, because it is. And it's exciting to imagine the prospect of a reality that cannot be imagined, because that's as close to pansophical omniscience as we will ever come. If you aspire to be truly open-minded, you can't just try to see the other side of an argument.
That's not enough. You have to go all the way. After reading this book, I could definitely be wrong. And I could be wrong in thinking that limiting speech is not ultimately a good thing. I've been wrong about things before. I listened to ska music. A lot. My perspective on it is just that we've tried it this way. We've tried to let faceless citizens decide what is and isn't acceptable speech. And it's worked, sort of, and it's not worked, sort of. And so, if we try it another way, the likely result is that it will ALSO sort of work and sort of not work.
But if we have a larger variety to choose from, a 31 flavors, if you will, as opposed to the single pint of ice cream in the fridge, I can make a choice. I can consume the flavors I like, or I can try out a new flavor, or I can be crazy, say fuck off to that pink tester spoon and get a whole scoop of something that turns out to be Mint Chocolate Chip, by which I mean a flavor lots of people love and I'm not crazy about.
And yes, there's a risk. Some disaffected youth working at 31 Flavors might cross-contaminate a flavor I love with some bullshit flavor, and once in a while I'll get a taste of something I don't care for. Perhaps I'll become sick because I ate a bit of something I'm allergic to. But ultimately, my dislike of a flavor doesn't remove that flavor's right to exist, and doesn't have any bearing on whether or not someone else might enjoy that flavor. I say, with full knowledge I could be totally wrong, that if you don't like any of the 31 flavors, your answer is not to ask that the store remove a flavor in hopes they'll replace it with something you love.
It's to ask them to get 32 flavors. Please note that this analogy does not apply in any way to that pink ice cream with the bubble gum bits in it. That's vile. That's like dipping your Bubble Tape into a glass of milk before chewing. View 1 comment. Aug 08, Todd rated it liked it. Every time I read an essay by Chuck Klosterman -- and, given my interest in music and pop culture, I've read a number of them -- I'm struck by his self-deprecating tone.
It's the written equivalent of throat clearing and foot shuffling: parenthetical asides, wryly humorous footnotes, run-on digressions from his central point. It can be charming. But in small doses, and in the right context. The book's conceit is a good one: What will mat Every time I read an essay by Chuck Klosterman -- and, given my interest in music and pop culture, I've read a number of them -- I'm struck by his self-deprecating tone. The book's conceit is a good one: What will matter in or years?
What will survive of our culture? After all, as Klosterman observes, if you look at what people valued or how they thought in or , much of it is now considered wrong scientific ideas or minor popular books of the era. When it comes to his wheelhouse, music, Klosterman is at his best. Assuming rock music is simply a bygone genre by , what aspects of it will remain?
What artist will stand out as being most representative? After making the usual distinctions between "rock 'n' roll" and "rock" and "pop" -- distinctions he acknowledges will likely be pointless, and perhaps already are -- he comes to a conclusion that Chuck Berry will be the last man standing.
He has some provocative digressions about "merit" does it matter? Perhaps the nadir is a chapter on scientific truth, from which Klosterman segues into a discussion of philosophical truth. It bugged me in two ways. For one, the point of science is to suggest theories based on observable phenomena, or at least some mathematical bedrock.
If you want to throw in "Matrix"-like concepts of living in a dream world or alien-manufactured simulation, feel free -- but it stands outside the science. It makes me think of Douglas Adams, frankly. And thanks for all the fish! In science, if a hypothesis doesn't pan out, then you construct a new one based on the evidence. This is a continual process. The other was in Klosterman's shambling style. It's reasonable to speak out loud about the blind alleys of your thought process, but it's also reasonable to have an editor who can remove some of that conversation from the end product -- as well as some of the lesser jokes.
Here, Klosterman's meanderings are no better than a late-night college bull session. Other essays fall between these two poles -- a discussion of the future of football, for example, or the Internet trope of "You're doing it wrong.
Even when I wished he would remove a reference to some mediocre '90s band, I kept reading because the ideas he's working with are fascinating. But in trying to be expansive, he just becomes tedious. Free and premium plans. Sales CRM software. Customer service software. Content management system software. Premium plans. Operations software. Connect your favorite apps to HubSpot.
See all integrations. As a salesman at one point in his life, author Dale Carnegie made his sales territory the national leader for the firm he worked for. Even Warren Buffet , one of the most successful investors of the 20th century, took Carnegie's course at age Fortunately for us, all the same lessons were packaged into the now famous book, How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Most of us don't. The book becomes another item on that backlog of to-dos we never seem to go to. That's why we summarized the entire book for you.
In fact, here is a quick snapshot of all 30 principles. To capture the full lessons behind each of Carnegie's principles which are listed below , jump or scroll down for quick summaries, tweet-worthy quotes, and practice exercises. Fundamental Techniques in Handling People. Be a Leader: How to Change People. Principle Overview:. World famous psychologist B.
Skinner proved that an animal rewarded for good behavior will learn much faster and retain what it learns far more effectively than an animal punished for bad behavior. Do you know someone you would like to change in some way? The only way we can get a person to do anything is by giving them what they want.
What do most people want? Health, food, sleep, money, sex. Most of these wants are usually gratified, but there is one longing, almost as deep and ingrained as the desire for food or sleep, that is seldom gratified: the desire to be important.
We tend to take the people in our lives for granted so often that we neglect to let them know that we appreciate them. We must be careful to keep in mind the difference between appreciation and flattery, which seldom works with discerning people, as it is shallow, selfish and insincere. Day in and day out, we spend most of our time thinking about ourselves.
Perhaps your favorite dessert is strawberry cheesecake. Excellent choice! Now, if you were to go fishing, would you bait your hook with cheesecake? To convince someone to do something, we have to frame it in terms of what motivates them. And in order to do that, we have to be able to see things from their point of view as well as our own. How can I frame this in terms of her wants?
Craft your language to make it about them. But even if we are right, what does arguing about it yield? Why prove someone else wrong? Is that going to make the person like us? Not to mention, nine times out of 10, arguing just results in the other person even more firmly convinced that he is right. If we lose the argument, we lose; if we win the argument, we have made the other person feel inferior, hurt his pride, and made him resent us.
In other words, we still lose. What if, instead of arguing with someone, we admit their importance through appreciation? Instead, sleep on it. This comes off as a challenge. It arouses opposition and incites in the other person a desire to battle with us.
Carnegie tells a story of a computer department manager who was desperately trying to recruit a PhD for his department. He finally found the perfect candidate, but the boy also had offers from much larger and better known companies. When the boy told the manager that he was choosing his company, the manager asked why. The boy explained: "I think it was because managers in the other companies spoke on the phone in a cold business-like manner, which made me feel like just another business transaction.
Your voice sounded as if you were glad to hear from me … that you really wanted me to be part of your organization. This one is simple: Challenge yourself to smile at someone every hour of the day for a full week.
A person's name is a very powerful thing - it's an embodiment of that person's identity. It's a reference to them. So remembering and using someone's name is a great way to make that person feel important.
Calling someone by their name is like paying them a very subtle compliment. Conversely, forgetting or misspelling someone's name can have the opposite effect and make it feel as though we are distant and disinterested in them.
Remembering and using people's names is also a critical component of good leadership. The executive who can't remember his employees' names can't remember a significant part of his business, and is operating on quicksand. Yet, most people don't remember names for the simple reason that they don't put in the effort to.
We make excuses that we are too busy. We are introduced to a stranger and forget his name only a few minutes later. Next time you meet someone new, make a sincere effort to remember her name. Repeat her name several times and try to associate it in your mind with her features or expression, or something you've learned about her. If it is an uncommon name, ask her to repeat it or spell it for you.
Then write it down later so you can visualize the name too. Free Tool: Just as asking someone to repeat their name for the fifth time can be taken as frustrating, so can asking "have you seen my email yet? Carnegie explains that he once attended a dinner party where he met a botanist whom he found to be absolutely fascinating. He listened for hours with excitement as the botanist spoke of exotic plants and indoor gardens, until the party ended and everyone left.
Of course, Carnegie had hardly said anything at all. What he had done was listen intently. He listened because he was genuinely interested. Even the most ill-tempered person, the most violent critic, will often be subdued in the presence of a patient, sympathetic listener.
Take for example, a store clerk. If the clerk constantly interrupts and irritates customers, those customers are more likely to start arguments and bring frustrations and complaints to the store manager. But a clerk who is willing to listen could calm even a customer who storms in already angry. Yet, most people would prefer a good listener to a good talker. Remember that the people we are talking to are a hundred times more interested in themselves and their own problems than they are in us and our problems.
Next time you have a conversation, pay attention to how much of the conversation is you talking vs. How much listening are you doing? As you practice this, pay attention to what causes you to jump in with more talking. Are you filling awkward silences? Do you tend to get carried away when you tell stories or share ideas? Think of some ways you can encourage the other person to do more of the sharing.
We now understand that people like to talk about themselves and have others be interested in them. The next best thing to talking about themselves is talking about the things that they enjoy.
Whenever Theodore Roosevelt expected a visitor, he would stay up late the night before, reading up on whatever subject he knew particularly interested his guest. And that is because Roosevelt was keenly aware of the following idea:. Carnegie describes a story from a man named Edward Chalif, who was planning to ask the president of one of the largest corporations in America to pay for his son to go on a Boy Scout trip.
Before Mr. Chalif went to see him, he had heard that this man had drawn up a check for a million dollars, and that after it was canceled, he had had it framed. Upon meeting the man, he mentioned how much he admired the check and would love to see it.
The man was thrilled! Chalif was there to see him. When Mr. Chalif mentioned his request, the man agreed without any questions and even offered to fund the trip for several other boys as well. What could we say to that person to cheer them up? We could think of something about them that we honestly admire. This might sometimes be difficult with a stranger, but we should push ourselves to think of something, and mention it to them. When Carnegie describes having this type of interactions with a stranger, he notes that many people have asked him what he was trying to get out of the person.
His response:. Go out of your way to offer words of kindness to that person through a genuine compliment. Aim to do this at least once every day. If I am wrong, I want to know why. The latter approach becomes disarming, and often causes the other person to be much more reasonable, or even thank us for having an understanding attitude. It also hopefully inspires our opponent to be just as fair and open-minded as we are.
Without our egos threatened, we may become very open to exploring new possibilities. You might even ask the other person for permission to share your perspective on the matter, which readies the other person to listen to your ideas in a less critical mindset.
You can tell someone you're upset and why without putting that person down. You can be honest about how you feel without being unkind. But sometimes anger takes over and kids might lose self-control. They might say mean things, lose their cool, and hit or push someone.
Afterward, most kids realize that even if they were right to be angry, it is not OK to behave that way. That's when an apology is definitely needed. Saying I'm sorry when you need to is the right thing to do. It does a lot of good. But by itself, it might not be enough to make everything all better again.
Sometimes along with an apology, a person needs to fix the mistake or promise to do better. Sometimes doing a nice thing for the person after you apologize helps show that you really are sorry and want to be friendly again.
Sometimes a heartfelt "I'm sorry" fixes everything right away. Other times, it might take a while for someone to feel friendly after you apologize. You might need to give the other person some time.
Even after you say you're sorry, you might still feel bad about what you said or did — but you can feel good about apologizing and about making up your mind to do better. When someone apologizes to you, you might not feel like being friendly again right away. Once in a while, if a person doesn't change, you might not want to be friends anymore. You might feel relieved and glad that the other person apologized and admitted being wrong. But if someone keeps behaving in mean ways or does something that keeps hurting, you might not feel the same way anymore.
Just because someone apologizes to you doesn't mean you have to be friendly again.
0コメント