I am shocked! Where could he have gotten his ideas about dominance, inducement, submission, and compliance?

And, because I’m not on a MP sub, I’m posting here. :) So far this seems like a great takedown of the wellness industry. And the author says how much she loves Maintenance Phase!

https://www.amylarocca.com/book-how-to-be-well

Anyone know anything about this book?

>Consider the popularity of Keith Johnstone’s 1979 acting guide, “Impro,” which has taken on a cult status in tech circles. At Palantir, the data analysis and software company co-founded by Peter Thiel, the book has been recommended reading for new hires. It’s also been cited by tech founders like Anduril’s Trae Stephens, the productivity guru Tiago Forte and influential tech-world bloggers like Venkatesh Rao and Scott Alexander.

I really like this podcast but I mostly read fiction.

Has anyone here read Attensity! ? Very curious for people’s opinions. I’m only 20% through, but there have been like 50 red flags so far 😅

Love that I’m a much more critical reader & thinker thanks to IBKC, (old) You’re Wrong About, and Maintenance Phase!

I fell asleep last night listening to the new episode and woke up at 4:30am from a nightmare that Peter was actually conservative.

Aside from that, is anyone else following Love Trapped? The bachelor baby fraud case? The segment on toxic femininity made me think of that and how because I listened to it I’m now getting all these awful manosphere podcast recommendations.

Seriously, these guys are such a breath of fresh air. I love them so much.

It was the Long Island Railroad. Oh how far we’ve fallen from the Turkish Airlines first class lounge.

Right after he left, everyone immediately started confirming with each other that it was really him.

Shoot me now, I’m so sick of this bullshit.

Reminds me of Peter talking about voters in historical elections. “Why are we allowed to say, ‘oh, back then they were just dumb racists’ but we can’t say the same thing about any modern voters? ‘Oh, the party failed them, they failed to explain their message clearly’.”

Don't get me wrong, love the fact checks on all these dumbasses, but I wish they'd launch their own Free Press to distribute good writing by good writers.

Apparently the Rich Dad, Poor Dad guy is over a billion in debt, and the author of this article checks notes couldn’t write a schadenfreude-filled piece because he found the guy too sympathetic and his story too complex 🤔

The caption also calls him a “rabbit” Trump fan instead of rabid which made me lol.

Post here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DcgbSNiFhjf/?igsi=MWQ1bzNkOXNzeXExMg== (full disclosure, I haven’t read the article itself).

https://www.vanityfair.com/story/the-wild-origins-of-rich-dad-poor-dad

This is mainly about yet another Atlantic columnist (well, Helen Lewis again) farting out a column based entirely on shit they saw in the dankest corners of social media, and insisting it's an important Discourse for the real world. But please do note the third slide, with its complete lack of self-awareness and friendly chat with a white supremacist.

The boys haven't done this one, but I think it fits their beat!

I feel like it was EVERYWHERE around six years ago (also when I got my first corporate tech job), and I couldn't sneeze without a manager (usually another woman) telling me I NEED to read this book. I think I listened to about half the audiobook in the end.

It's a classic IBCK contender because it's an almost ludicrously simply concept ("being both kind and direct is the most effective way to give people feedback") intellectualized and dragged out to book length and presented as though the author is the first person to ever articulate this idea.

From what I remember of my half-listen, most of it wasn't particularly egregrious. There is a torturous sequence where she tries to argue that Radical Candor works in every cultural context (I think she compares Japan and somewhere in Eastern Europe), but it kind of boils down to "so basically I act completely differently with these people from these two entirely different cultures, but since everything I do is actually Radical Candor, that means Radical Candor works everywhere, hooray!" Like babe, it's fine, please calm down, it's ok that your ideas about effective corporate leadership are just not applicable to cultures you know nothing about? (Again, classic IBCK: things can't be specific or local or nuanced, your theory must solve everything forever with no exceptions!)

Its reception and the culture climate around it (2017, Silicon Valley in the early throes of full-blown reputational cataclysm) is also part of the discussion I think, because while I wouldn't say this book did massive harm on its own power (there was too much other shit going on tbh), it definitely contributed to the peak Aggressive Tech Bro vibes of that era. Even though the book is at pains to explain that "Radical Candor" does not mean just being blunt and rude to people all the time... that's pretty much exactly how it was interpreted and applied in a lot of tech companies, and I remember there were a lot of anecdotal reports flying around of it being used as a smokescreen for bullying and blame culture.

Then there's also the gender/race aspect, which is obviously completely ignored (at least in the first version). The idea that systemic bias distorts and complicates how feedback is both received and given is not addressed at all. And for women, it furthers the ever-popular myth that there's some magical sweet spot of Perfect Communication where we will finally be taken seriously for the content of our thoughts, rather than being judged for our tone and phrasing and demeanour! (I promise it exists ladies, you just have to keep searching for it!)

edits: I apparently cannot type

Talked to a girl recently, asked what kind of books she likes. Her favorite book is rich dad, poor dad. Said she only read self help and leadership/ business books. Queue: simple plans untitled