Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This book was gifted to me on audible. In short, it contributes little to a better understanding of the world for anyone with a basic understanding of macroeconomics or empiricism. Pass on this one. 1. I felt the style was childish. For example, the author persists in comparing the reader or particular groups to a theoretical group of chimpanzees (his apparent go-to stand in for random selection) who answer multiple choice questions by grabbing labeled bananas thrown into a cage. Even a rudimentary knowledge of statistical relationships should make it apparent that chimps randomly grabbing bananas is *deterministic* behavior, not random. Continually reporting how this or that group of people "failed to beat the chimps" seems less like a lesson on empiricism and more like an excuse for the author to flex his supposed intellectual superiority. This is a pattern throughout the book. 2. Author makes an extravagant show of examining how subject matter experts wrongly assume expertise in fields outside their domain of knowledge -- even fields that are closely related. This is a completely legitimate observation. However, in succeeding paragraphs and chapters, the author -- a *medical doctor* consistently tries to provide analysis in the domains of economics and statistics. The irony appears lost to this author as is his sense of self-awareness. 3. The main thesis of the book -- that many, uncommonly known things are improving -- is of marginal use at best. One can pick almost any point in history and find a previous point where x condition was worse. As an analogy: the standard of living in Roman times was exponentially better than tribes of nomadic hunter/gatherers. This is not a particularly useful or shocking revelation, nor does it follow that such a relationship existed between the peak of the Roman empire and the next several decades as it fell into decline. Furthermore, by choosing to focus attention solely on specific, statistical improvements, the author precludes discussion of statistical retrogressions or analysis of negative outcomes not measured by statistics. Even mention of the limitations of statistical measurements get short shrift. I didn't feel these were intentional oversights, more like the result of insufficient understanding of economic systems and the cause/effect relationships involved. I could continue, but hopefully these criticisms make my point sufficiently. One might argue that I'm not the audience of this book -- that the author is speaking to high school students or first-year undergrads -- but, even so, the prevalence of flawed logic and insufficient expertise makes it difficult to recommend. Readers would be better served by reading "Basic Economics" and "Facts and Fallacies" by Thomas Sowell. Similar material presented in a logically consistent fashion.