A High Low Tide: The Revival of a Southern Oyster - André Joseph Gallant

 I both enjoyed and hated this book. I loved the topic; I hated the writing style.  It was like the longest magazine article I've ever read.  I wanted to know more about the science, failures, numbers, endeavors and politics of the whole topic but instead the author focused on the people while dropping in a heavy dose of nature scenery word porn.  I don't think I'd recommend this book to anyone even though it is a good story. 

The Death Of Democracy: Hitler's Rise to Power and the Downfall of the Weimar Republic - Benjamin Carter Hett

 To tell you the truth, I've read a lot on nazi Germany but never understood how that psycho Hitler got in power.  Yea, he gave good speaches and ran in the right circles, but it always seemed like the majority of people in the government weren't keen on him, so how, exactly, did he take over everything? This book has a clear story of how that happened that I haven't seen so well laid out in any other book.  

The Weimar Republic had so much hope at its creation and it hurts to look back and see all the flaws that lead to its destruction. Its downfall was basically giving too much power to one man, Hindenburg.  The role of chancellor of Germany changed hands 23 times during the Weimar Republic.  No one served more than 2 years and some odd days. Sometimes guys were removed and reinstated a few months later. It was stupid and all because Hindenburg.  Though he never explicitly stated it, he seems to have wanted himself in the role essentially.  He wanted a puppet strong enough to keep the rest of the government in check.  But, of course, anyone smart enough to do that wouldn't follow Hindenburg blindly, which was what he wanted.  Every time a chancellor disagreed, Hindenburg would remove him, or make sure that party wasn't in a position to keep the chancellorship.  When Hitler was finally given the position, Hindenburg lamented that there were no other options, but in the (about) 2 years leading up to that unfortunate event, there were THREE guys all doing ok, or even good, jobs.  They just weren't doing exactly as Hindenburg wanted.  So he kept plotting and yanking them until only Hitler was left on the field.  Then the asshole promptly dies and Hitler is uncontested right at Germany's most volunerable moment with social anger running high, out of control inflation and nationwide shortages of everything.  Germans wanted someone to blame and Hitler pointed the finger. 

Your Best Year Ever - Michael Hyatt

 I guess this would be a good book for a neurotypical new adult? I'm not even sure.  Maybe for people searching for some sort of justification to get rolling? The major take-home idea of the book is do 1 little thing to get started.  You will feel you've accomplished something and that will give you the dopamine dump and moral boost to take step 2, probably one that's a little harder.  Frankly, I have no idea what this guy is talking about because when you accomplish the first simple task, like organizing or putting your name at the top of the paper, you still have to keep going and I think he's full of it regarding any positive feelings from finishing the easy part first.  The same difficult task you weren't excited about is still before you and it seems like you have a great excuse to say, "Alright, I got one thing done. That's enough for today." to just keep putting off the stuff you actually needed to do.  I think he's full of it and don't recommend this book at all.

Chariots Of The Gods - Erich Von Daniken

 So I knew going in that this would be ridiculous, but I was still unprepared for the white supremacy/colonizer racism.  I did not expect that.  And it was so casually thrown in too.  I must chalk it up to "back in my day" phrasing but it was just so short-sighted and ill placed that it made the author look even dumber than he already did.  Allow me to explain; I'll have to start at the beginning of this silly book.

The premise is that ancient man could in no way have built, mapped, calculated, guessed, or understood so much of the knowledge to come out prior to .... the enlightenment period? Or maybe the renaissance period? Basically, anything before white people came onto the intellectual scene.  And the only other possible explaination for this is that humans were routinely visited by an advanced alien civilization that gave them maps, math, technology, insight, new philisophical ideas, etc.  Pretty much any impressive feat ancient people accomplished could show evidence of this interaction.  

My approach to deciding what is true often reverts to "what is the most likely answer" barring some strong evidence.  It pretty much kills most conspiracy theories.  So in the case of this book, sure it's possible these advancements and ideas could come from aliens, but is that the most likely answer? No.  This book relies on poor understanding of technology and civilizations at this time coupled with the assumption that ancient people were not very smart.  They would have used every trick they knew at the time and just because there isn't a continuous line of this knowledge doesn't mean people didn't once have it.  Europeans lost the knowledge of iron production and ripped it out of the colusseum in Rome.  In a pre-historic peoples, this loss of knowledge seems even more likely to occur.  So which scenario is more likely? Aliens helped/built stone henge because ancient people were to stupid to figure out where the sun would rise/set and couldn't work together enough to haul giant stones that far.  Or they did just that. Sure there's the argument that there weren't many good, straight trees around for rolling the stones on and those pullies would have been massive and difficult to work, and it all would have been very dangerous, but is aliens the more likely anwer?

Another example is the carved heads on pacific islands.  The author argues that these have features this genetically narrow group of people wouldn't have seen like narrow noses and thin lips.  But what the author is really arguing is that these people spending hours, days, months? carving stones wouldn't want to change it up.  There is no way they didn't make the faces thinner, thicker, fatter, skinnier, big-eyed, squiny eyed, heavy browed, or all the other variations to the human face just to make each unique.  It doesn't mean they had some mysterious contact with other people.  Any group is going to have natural variation and even if the carvings have greater variation than seen in the local population, just go look at some anime to see people don't really draw/create their art in exact copies of the world around them.  The author really shows his colonizer attitude in thinking that these people couldn't have "come up" with variations in features.  Again, which is more likely: people taking artistic license or aliens?

He brings up the Nazca lines as obvious evidence that ancient peoples were drawing art/trying to guide/wanting to please aliens coming from the sky.  However, the author seems to totally forget that many of the oldest religions were based on sun/moon worship.  The "god in the sky" concept is incredibly old and huge endeavors for a god above is not unheard of either.  So which is more likely: people continuing the "god is above" concept as created by man, or visiting aliens?

Honestly, the bible has the most convincing evidence with the balls-tripping description of "angels" that really do sound like badly translated descriptions of space ships.  I'll give him that.  But time has taught me to be incrediblly skeptical of taking any of the old testament and most of the new at face value.  I can name multiple mistranslations right off the top of my head.  The most interesting point of this argument is how the same stories crop up across the globe.  But again, is the more likely answer that these stories pre-date people leaving Africa and carrying the stories with them, or aliens?

These are just a very few well-known examples.  While in the process of reading this book, I could immediately think of more likley reasons for these "phenomena" than the answer the author offered.  It was like a bizarre fall into non-logic-land.  If anyone is interested in the psychology of conspiracy theories and why/how people get wrapped up in them, this is a good excercise in observing the failure of deduction, while being easily thought around with a second's worth of consideration. I have sitting on my counter right now Carl Sagan's Demon haunted world which I know has a small chapter on aliens and I'm super excited to read it to compare notes from this book.

The Origin of Names, Words and Everything in Between - Patrick Foote

 This book is absurdly somehow both fun and forgettable.  Lots of interesting history and linguistics.  Lots of "Oh now that makes so much more sense!" moments.  But 24 hours after finishing the book, I can't seem to recall any of it.  Perhaps that's lucky?  The author has a youtube channel apparently and I could always pop over there for some reminders.  Overall, I'd say it's a fun read, but won't really change your life.  

Mindset: The New Psychology of Success - Carol Dweck

 While a very insightful and important view on the psychology of success in human, let me save you some hassle and give you the key points of this book so you can spend your time reading something more nuanced. 

There are 2 ways of looking at the world which the author has termed fixed and growth.  People are largely pushed into one or the other based on their upbringing, but can change them naturally and without notice over time or by actively trying to restructure their thinking. The fixed mindset is based about the idea that either you are smart and "get it" or you are not.  

A fixed mindset person believes everything should be easy because it comes to them naturally, or they will never get whatever "it" is.  It is a "that's just how the world is" view.  They dislike change and do not feel they have control of many aspects in their lives.  It dictates that only you can accomplish what you want and inclines people to take responsibility for a whole project, even when others were involved.  

A growth mindset person believes everything takes hard work and nothing comes naturally.  They believe every one and thing has a potential for change, and view the world as a challenge to overcome. Teamwork is appreciated and not seen as a problem but an opportunity to get new insight and ideas. 

When laid out in this format, it seems obvious how the fixed mindset could hinder someone's goal accomplishment and growth, but in real life, it is deceptively difficult to pick out.  An example I see regularly in my daily life:  I have red hair and get complimented on its shade often.  The fixed mindset is that I have this hair color and I have somehow earned it.  All the complements due to me boost my personal worth.  So what happens when my hair goes grey? All the self-worth I've derived from it goes too.  Now typically my response to these complements is, "Oh thanks! But it just kinda happened."  Even before reading this book, I realized the need to complement people on something they have done, achieved or chosen.  I am lucky to have this hair experience show me the importance of focusing on what people have done in a natural way, instead of things that were luck/chance.  I make it a point to complement people on colors or fits of clothing that the chose, or hairstyles instead of hair type, smart moves in a game or witty comments.  All of these kind of complements address the growth mindset, things people can change and actively work on, instead of things we can't change.  This is exactly what the book encourages.  There is one additional aspect of these complements that I was subject to growing up and it actively pushed me into a fixed mindset as a child.  I have worked hard to get out of it and, thanks to this book, now consciously make an effort to not say the same to any children I'm around.  I was often told growing up, "Oh you're so smart!" But society's implication is people are born smart or not, so there's nothing to change that, and therefore complementing a child this way puts them into that fixed mindset and when they have an academic problem they can't overcome, they begin to doubt their own intelligence.  I now make an effort to to say things more along the lines of, "Oh wow! You got an A? You must have worked very hard to get that!" Which subconsciously tells the child that effort will get results (Not always true, but it frames working hard in a positive way instead of meaning if you don't get it instantly, you're not good enough and never will be).  Oh, and this is true for adults too, but typical in more subtle ways. 

Smart Couples Finish Rich - David Bach

 I was super unimpressed with this book. Other than pushing money market accounts and a scheme for figuring out what you actually want, it was all the same old drivel about curbing spending and maximizing investments that you always find in financial books.  Being as you've heard all that before, allow me to focus on the one unique aspect I found in this book (it probably isn't novel either, but I personally haven't come across this idea elsewhere yet).

What do you actually want to spend your money on?  Sit down and write your top 5 things you want your money to do for you, like "more financial security" or "travel". Alright, cool, but what does that even mean? What is "travel"? How would any amount of money make you more financially secure? Doing this with a spouse and asking these questions forces you to hammer out the details of what you actually want to do with your money and that makes you figure out how much you really need and when you can honestly expect it to happen.  Let's say that "financial security" for someone is nothing more than a $1,000 rainy day savings account.  Alright, we have a specific amount in a specific location for an important reason.  Now the person can go looking for the extra cash to put into that account and get that goal accomplished.  Without those details hammered out, your stuck in limbo with some abstract idea of what you want, but no concrete plans to accomplish it.