I've just read a book called "Good Thinking" by Guy P. Harrison at the request of a my best friend who knows I enjoy the topic of thinking skills. This is the rare book that made my judgment hackle rise up. It violated my sense of hypocrisy because of the title being so different from the actual content of the book not containing enough process or tools.
I have to say, that if a writer doesn't have a relationship to what they can learn, I'm not sure that I have much respect for what they communicate that they do know. I mean, can this guy tell me the ways he became convinced that what he does believe is really truth? It doesn't appear so, he just tells me the results of what he knows and tries to convince me he is right.
How did Guy come to his conclusions? He doesn't say, he just writes the content of what he has become convinced is fact and makes fun of people who have not come to the same conclusions as he has grabbed onto as his own beliefs. Granted, some of this fact he relates is interesting because it's about the brain and what's known about it.
This author attempts to convince about what exactly is "good thinking" without telling me what sort of thinking he is actually doing. Rather than just talking about the results of his conclusions, can't he have written a bit more about his process of thinking so someone else can do it instead of having to listen to him pronounce his own results? It appears he cannot - or he all too rarely did not.
It just makes me want to slap him up side the head - because if he did want other people to think...he's going to need to get a bit better at teaching and do less preaching.
(...Which is probably exactly what *I* could stand to do too.)
No comments:
Post a Comment