Ask HN: Best books you read in the past decade?
Now that the decade is coming to a close, what where the most (personally) influential books you read? Which impacted you the most either personally or professionally? The ones you learned the most from?
433 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 283 ms ] threadNonviolent Communication.
I think it was linked on HN where it caught my attention. This book teaches a great way to communicate, but for me, it has also helped me think about my feelings and how I can communicate those feelings better. I feel more in touch with my feelings and more empathetic as a direct result from following what the book is teaching.
On the communication side, it has helped me put more structure around tough conversations, personally and professionally. It has helped me understand others more and vice versa. It's also helped me see toxic traits in others. Such as people who aren't interested in understanding or people who struggle to understand their own emotions.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
It almost feels like magic how effective it is as it seems to sort of ballet step away and around from conflict. I usually don’t care about conflict so it’s nice to just sort of leave behind all the distractions that come when people focus on the wrong parts of communication.
A recent example where this helped me...I was trying to figure out what tasks needed to be done to launch a product. At first I asked the project manager what tasks he defined and he started getting very defensive because perhaps I thought he sucked at his job. Just by rephrasing that I was concerned that I wouldn’t be able to contribute to things that needed to happen and that I wanted to know what steps needed to be taken, the pm opened up. I felt like the book saved me 30 minutes of pointless arguing.
Actually connecting with people rather than just talking past them and having them talk past me is something that I find very appealing at this point in life after realizing how much people seem to ignore what I am actually saying (and realizing I am almost certainly doing the same to them).
I wonder how his co-authorship affects contents of the book. I bought the book (b/c of this thread, not even looking at the authorship), and I will judge the book based on its contents, but suporting financially a de-facto cult leader of a not very rational movement doesn't sound like a good move from my perspective.
Still, not to surrender in this thread completely, letting such type of person to write a foreword for a book is not a very good initial signal in itself - it casts doubt on the main author's judgement with regard to whom she considers an authority in matters of communication (or, in any matter other than producing confusing statements).
In a different version of the book than the one you mentioned, the forward is written by Mahatma Gandhi's grandson. That forward is also very worth reading.
> it has also helped me think about my feelings
The book focuses on communication with others, but effectively fosters constructive inner dialogue as well. I know of at least one other person who claimed it helped them avoid destructive habits.
> it has helped me put more structure around tough conversations
I deescalated a nasty dispute between two people close to me after reading only the first few chapters. I was impressed because I wasn't the type of person to emotionally connect with people so effectively.
I believe the world would be a better place if more people read this book.
You can save yourself the time/money and just read the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
While it may not be the most important, if you've been meaning to up your terminal game and want a bit more dexterity when shuffling between panes, tmux and vim are a good area to invest time in [1]
Personality theories:
Textbooks in this area. Affordable on Amazon if you get them used, some are also on kindle but pricey.
An Introduction to Theories of Personality: 7th Edition by Robert B. Ewen is so good.
They can be used as sampler to springboard into areas of psychology you like. The material in this space - normally in paper books - is fantastic. It's totally normal to read through material from 50-70+ years ago.
[1] Not the configuration part, though. That's where the timesink is. Try to be basic as possible with vim configs. `vimtutor` is nice to play with.
Tiling window managers like i3 are supposed to make the whole OS work like tmux. I tried i3 and a few others once but somehow never got into them.
I'm not sure why but maybe it's worth another try. On the other hand I think there are 10% of tasks that are just easier to do with a mouse.
https://i3wm.org/
I think those window managers are much easier to use with a keyboard, but harder to use with a mouse, which isn't always a win.
But yeah I think doing 90% of my programming tasks with the keyboard is reasonable; it doesn't need to be 100%.
Politics is the continual friction between individuals and various groupings of people.
why isn't left/right a valid grouping then?
For example: I am absolutely pro-choice on the abortion issue. I am also rabidly pro-gun on the second amendment issue. So do I fall into the "left" bucket or the "right" bucket? The answer is "neither".
I'm also a little more radical than most people, and if I have to pick a label for myself, I'm more likely to choose "voluntaryist", "anarcho-capitalist", or "libertarian".
Even in your own example you can fall into either group by selecting what you care about the most and giving up others. Group where others in the group have made similar compromises.
Otherwise how can you possibly form a group, there is no one else is the world that has the precisely the same preferences as me.
Sure, you could do that, and people do. The point though, is that it makes these terms mostly useless for actually describing anything. Let's say I chose to define myself as "right" because I care more about the second amendment than abortion. You see me self-identify as "right" and then conclude that I oppose abortion, support tight border control, want a legal system defined by Judeo-Christian ethics, etc. But all of those conclusions would actually be wrong. And the same kind of construction could be applied to what would happen in the other case.
That said, of course there are some people who just happen to fit exactly into the bucket of "right" or "left" as defined by colloquial usage. But I still find that the terms are mostly useless because they lack any kind of logical consistency and because so few people actually have that "exact fit". But, that's just me.
Exactly, Unless @smitty1e knows the person personally, a generic response
> The whole left/right dichotomy is a bugaboo.
is invalid. since, as you noted, it does apply to some people.
Not exactly. Grouping along left/right, conservative/progressive axes is in effect a severe dimensionality reduction, simplifying thousands of metrics of political stance into two neat little clusters. It is technically valid, but overly reductive and forces black/white thinking into the common psyche which itself becomes a source of friction.
To me, if reading about Gulag destroys left-wing for you, is like if realizing world was not created in 6 days destroyed your faith. Like what was your belief in the first place? But I had simmilar moments as well :)
I did hear that SSSR does still have fans in some western countries, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn has really good antidodes against that, I myself am a fan of "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"
https://inside.bwater.com/publications/principles_excerpt
Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl is also excellent.[2]
[1] - https://tripinsurancestore.com/4/on-the-shortness-of-life.pd...
[2] - https://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-Frankl/dp/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl#Controversy
> In his "Gutachten" Gestapo profile, Frankl is described as "politically perfect" by the Nazi secret police, with Frankl's membership in the Austro-fascist "Fatherland Front" in 1934
> None of Frankl's obituaries mention the unqualified and unskilled brain lobotomy and trepanation medical experiments approved by the Nazis that Frankl performed on Jews who had committed suicide with an overdose of sedatives, in resistance to their impending arrest, imprisonment and enforced labour in the concentration camp system. Operating without any training as a surgeon, Frankl would voluntary request of the Nazis to perform the experiments on those who had resisted and once approved, published some of the details on his experiments, the methods of insertion of his chosen amphetamine drugs into the brains of these individuals, resulting in at times an alleged partial resuscitation, in 1942, prior to his own internment at Theresienstadt ghetto in September later in that year
They seem plausible at first read, and should receive more attention. Thank you for highlighting them.
https://existentialstoic.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/victor-fra...
Website link below has whole program for listening (I recommend), as well as a published list of all recommendations:
https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101874704/tell-us-your-favori...
“ When we meet somebody whose separate tunnel-reality is obviously far different from ours, we are a bit frightened and always disoriented. We tend to think they are mad, or that they are crooks trying to con us in some way, or that they are hoaxers playing a joke. Yet it is neurologically obvious that no two brains have the same genetically-programmed hard wiring, the same imprints, the same conditioning, the same learning experiences. We are all living in separate realities. That is why communication fails so often, and misunderstandings and resentments are so common. I say "meow" and you say "Bow-wow," and each of us is convinced the other is a bit dumb.”
A lot of people have a hard time with it, considering it nonsense and giving up a fifth of the way through. I'd strongly suggest sticking with it. There is a reason is seems like nonsense and the reason is given at the end of the book - the whole purpose of all of it is to reprogram your brain. It's a journey worth taking.
It's not all apples and oranges. Some people are right some people are wrong and some things are better than other things.
There is an infinite bunch of realities, and the one you see is defined by your own experience only.
In other words, what you perceive is what that you are. Or that you can't perceive that what you can't accept.
Hat tip to Douglas Adams who described this idea that obvious.
Except that the majority of people perceive realities that are highly, highly similar indicating that they are all perceiving a singular thing outside of their own experience.
There's a reason why people who deviate too far from the norm get locked up.
There's also a reason why you understand the reality that I am describing to you right now. Likely because we are both perceiving the same thing. In order for us to perceive the same thing it likely must exist as a single shared reality separate from our own internal minds.
Evidence from common sense and psychology attribute the distinction in your example to flaws in human memory. No field except philosophy tries to twist it into some multi-reality concept.
There is no concrete evidence either way proving whether there is actually a shared reality or not. Additionally, it's impossible to even prove the existence of other realities outside of the reality you yourself are experiencing. I could be a figment of your imagination. Such things are impossible to prove.
But what lends evidence to the notion that there is in fact a shared reality, is the fact that we all go out and look at the sky and see that it is blue. It's that simple. Your intuition says there's a sky and that means it probably is. Don't get too lost in the philosophical mumbo jumbo because all these concepts of reality have equal probabilities of being true. But the reality or illusion that is placed in front of your eyes is the reality where multiple individuals occupy a shared reality where they all see a sky and they all say the sky is blue. That's all you got, might as well believe it.
How do you now there are people for that matter other than brain(s) in vats ?
The fact that you are willing to assume so much does not invalidate parent’s argument, merely exposes the flaws in yours.
see my response to another persons post. By coincidence i address your issues as well.
People that get locked up are just the poor souls that can't live with this fact.
To quote:
The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each child is born as ignorant as any caveman. What keeps the world from reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos but still mythos, the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in the body of man. To feel that one is not so united, that one can accept or discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what the mythos is.
There is only one kind of person, Phaedrus said, who accepts or rejects the mythos in which he lives. And the definition of that person, when he has rejected the mythos, Phaedrus said, is "insane." To go outside the mythos is to become insane.
- Daniel J. Levitin - Organized Mind
- Shunryu Suzuki - Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind
* Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse
* A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss
If anyone knows similar books, please please point me to them.
- Digital Minimalism: Cal Newport
- How Democracies Die: Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt
- How to Disappear: Akiko Bush
- Bullshit Jobs: David Graeber
- Its basic Income: Amy Downes and Stewart Lansley
- Utopia for Realists: Rutger Bergman
- Human Rigths and the uses of History, Samuel Moyn
- Too much Stuff: Kozo Yamamura
I didn't necessarily agree with all of it but it helped me understand the changes I've seen across workplaces, colleges and beyond. It was also a nice way of thinking more "grey" in terms of the current political climate, and trying to understand the reasons behind people's actions regardless of their political stance.
[1] https://www.thecoddling.com/
Great for grey thinking and better understanding. And I think it's one of those books that if everyone read it, we'd all be better off. Like an antidote or inhibitor to tribalism.
For me, I just flat cannot understand this current generation, from safe spaces, to being mentally broken over the smallest things. I've always viewed it as a dishonest way to try and get power over people.
Until Jonathan Haidt. He helped convince me that these young people are legitimately fearful of the world around them.
Deep Work - Cal Newport
Value-Based Fees - Alan Weiss
Technology Strategy Patterns - Eben Hewitt
The Road Less Stupid - Keith J Cunningham
The Business of Expertise - David C Baker
Atomic Habits - James Clear
Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933 - by Anne Applebaum.
Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction by Phillip Tetlock.
The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance by David Epstein.
https://commoncog.com/blog/how-the-superforecasters-do-it/
* (Lot's of machine learning books to list: PRML, All of Stats, Deep Learning, etc.)
* Active Portfolio Management - Kahn, Grinold
* Thinking, fast and slow - Kahneman
* Protein Power (the Eades') / Why we get fat (Taubes)
* Why we sleep (Walker)
* Deep Work / So Good They Can't Ignore You (Newport)
* Flowers for Algernon (Keyes)
* Getting to Yes (Fisher)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Replic...
https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
The short story was lengthened in to the novel and was ruined, in my view, by all the Freudian-influenced attempts to sexualize and psychoanalyze the protagonist. It was a real let down after the brilliance of the short story, which had absolutely nothing to do with any of that.
https://www.ancient.eu/Bhagavad_Gita/
However, I see its core messages as deeply problematic. The entire work is a justification of violence, obedience, and traditional social roles. It's simply amazing to me that Gandhi, the most famous advocate of non-violence in history, was a huge fan of it.
The Bhagavad Gita is a subset of the Mahabarata epic, albeit the most famous one, so the preceding story was that peaceful negotiations were not possible even though that was the route preferred. The idea is that if two sides are willing to negotiate peacefully, that is the option that should be taken. But if one side insists on war, action (karma) and inaction (akarma) are two sides of the same coin - inaction is not avoiding doing something, it is a form of action ("He who seeth inaction in action and action in inaction, he is wise among men; he is a Yogi and performer of all actions"). In fact, Ghandi actually wrote a letter to Hitler initially asking him "peacefully" to stop WW2. This was followed up with a less peaceful letter [0]. It would seem he was happy for violent war against Nazis because they were evil and it was against injustice. (Naturally, this leads to discussions on what one would consider evil but the idea is not to be the first to attack and provoke). The ending of the epic is wasteland of emptiness caused by the war - both as a symbol of the waste of war but also as an idea that everything and nothing exists at all times; whether you chose action or inaction is on you, time destroys all regardless.
Ghandi (and I guess Oppenheimer [1] to a degree but not sure) seemed to take the concept of Dharma (duty) to strengthen his resolve and he accepted what he considered his Dharma to keep going through the difficult times. The other aspect is that Arjuna did not choose the war but his previous actions (karma) have led him to be where he is. Just like what is said nowadays about how your past makes you who you are today. Sometimes the battle is unavoidable given past actions.
Sorry, probably too long a response :D but I genuinely had the same thought as you when I first started reading about it but then did some further reading. There's so much to dissect, from all sides, which is why I think it's one of the greatest philosophical works written.
Interestingly enough, if you watch the first Matrix with the Bhagavad Gita in mind, you'll notice a lot of parallels in the hidden meaning of the Gita and Hindu philosophy about what we consider 'real' and how life is an illusory. So much so that the Matrix Revolutions soundtrack during the end fight is a famous Sanskrit mantra from the Upanishads
asato ma sad gamaya
tamaso ma jyotir gamaya
mrtyor mamrtam gamaya
(From delusion lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality) [2]
Imagine Neo is Arjun.... there is no spoon ;)
[0] https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/when-mahatma-g...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A67OhOUoUsc
Arjuna had thrown down his weapons and refused to fight until Krishna intervened with his godly arguments to make Arjuna fight despite his disinclination to do so.
If Krishna had instead used his superhuman persuasiveness to argue for non-violence to each of the war's participants, perhaps the entire war could have been averted.
Regarding the Matrix and Hinduism, while there are undeniable parallels, and while Hinduism might be able to lay claim to being the first major religion to posit the illusionary nature of the world, there are also parallels to other philosophies and religions.
For instance, one can see parallels between the Matrix and Plato's allegory of the cave, and to Gnosticism.
Also, it's important to mention that Hinduism is not a single religion, but might better be thought of as an umbella term for dozens if not hundreds of different religions, some of which have radically different views.
If there was a superhuman in real life who could avert all wars (literal and metaphorical), that would be great, but we don't live in a world where we can pray to fix away our problems (my humble opinion of course, not to offend anyone). This sets a basis for the story upon which life lessons can be learnt in the form of the Gita; fundamentally stating that time has no beginning or end, therefore everything on the battlefield has come and gone, regardless of your input in life (" I am death, the mighty destroyer of the world, out to destroy. Even without your participation all the warriors standing arrayed in the opposing armies shall cease to exist.").
I think it's why the book is so powerful, looking at a wiki list of people it's influenced, a common theme is a day to day reference of spirituality more than actual religion [0]
You're right, I didn't mean to imply it's the only philosophy or religion but I would posit it's the largest. Also, the Matrix thing was just a flippant offshoot but I never noticed until I heard them playing the Sanksrit shokla :D
Agreed, Hinduism is a catch all, often misunderstood. It's completely different from Abrahamic religions from a fundamental point of view. You can be any religion, or atheist, and still be a Hindu, in essence. Most (if not all?) branches of Hinduism considers God to be the ultimate reality of which we're all part of as opposed to an external entity, hence in the Gita, Barbarika said Krishna was the one who one the battle despite not taking part directly. Whether you use the Bible, or Vedic scriptures, to reach Moksha (Englightenment) isn't prescribed, it's your journey.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_Bhagavad_Gita
Well, one of the interesting things about religious texts is how divergently people understand them, even when they're being totally sincere.
- Jobs by Walter Isaacson. To learn about the Apple and Steve Jobs himself. I thought it was great
- Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It's older than a decade (about 4 decades old actually) but I only read it a few years ago when I studied philosophy and it left quite an impression on me, food for thought.
- The Dip. It's motivational, I think back on it every now and then when pushing myself through a rough patch in the gym or professionally.
- Turing's Cathedral, it's a history of computers basically. Recommended if you're into software/computers.
https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/habeas-data/