A good summary of CoT?
July 21st, 2007 4:07pm
It's funny and clever but I don't think it's the whole story.
If I read a review on Amazon for a book from Guy Kawasaki, I can assume a commonality that people writing a review of it are interested in what Guy Kawasaki writes about, his style, or at least enough for them to buy the book and post a review.
On COT, I cannot assume commonalities when I write a post. This board is called Crazy, not "look at all the common interests we have", so you lose people right from the get-go if it goes beyond some funny quip. That's probably half the passive-aggressive excitement to this board, watching the chaos of misunderstanding, and different come-froms ensue.
July 21st, 2007 4:23pm
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.. It's named COT merely for historical reasons not because it's all "crazy".
If it has the psychological effect on people, that wasn't the intention.
I'd describe it as being exactly the opposite from what LorB says. If I read an Amazon review, I have no idea where the person is coming from - maybe they're keen on the topic, maybe they have an axe to grind w/ the author, maybe it's the author themselves... OTOH, if I read a review on CoT by one of the regulars, I have an idea of their background. Not to mention it yet again, but I picked up The Omnivore's Dilemma largely based on Peter's references to it.
On the gripping hand, I generally don't base book-buying decisions on a single review...
July 21st, 2007 5:06pm
OTOH, if I read a review on CoT by one of the regulars, there's no way to be sure it is the regular I think it is.
>>> there's no way to be sure it is the regular I think it is.
There's no way to be positive, but you can be pretty darn sure. If someone else posts a review saying Omnivore's dilemma is a piece of crap, it's likely that I'll post that the other one is an imposter. Worst case, for some of the regulars, you can email them.
July 21st, 2007 5:42pm
To be honest, I probably wouldn't buy a book recommended by a COT regular unless it was instrumental to their success in something.
It only seems like in the last few months people are talking about their jobs here, and I think that's partly a spillover effect from when blah is slow.
July 21st, 2007 5:44pm
How many people here are _exchanging_ emails. I'd figure the frequency to be pretty low, and I don't count hate-mails or whatever.
July 21st, 2007 5:46pm
Crap is good for agriculture.
Omnivore's Dilemma has its fair share of it:
"I probably wouldn't buy a book recommended by a COT regular"
If they give a solid post as to why it's a good book what does it matter who they are?
"How many people here are _exchanging_ emails."
Not really much point. A few people have emailed me from time to time to discuss specific one-to-one things. I have a few CoT/Blah regulars on MSN. I have a lot of CoT/Blah regulars on Facebook.
"I have a few CoT/Blah regulars on MSN. I have a lot of CoT/Blah regulars on Facebook."
I wasn't aware of a Facebook clatch. That may speak well for facebook blogs or whatever it uses, but it doesn't say much for shedding anonymity on this board.
July 21st, 2007 6:08pm
>>> Crap is good for agriculture.
Omnivore's Dilemma has its fair share of it:
I just quickly skimmed the Slate article, but a big chunk of it is a strawman argument: Pollan never says that his "foraged" meal is the ideal we should strive for. In fact, like the rest of the book, he's very honest about the limitations of that type of eating - it took a lot of effort and a lot of help to do it: it's not sustainable.
I have to admit a bias against economists: if they're so smart, how come they do such a lousy job predicting things? Other than some basic micro-economics rules, I don't think they really know much about how systems behave. So the tagline about "an economist analyses the book" puts me off. The thing about Pollan's economic analysis of industrial farming is that the line of reasoning makes sense. Supply and demand doesn't work the same way for food as for, say, TV's, because there's a limit to how much food we can each eat.
Anyway, I'm sure there's some crap in Omnivore's dilemma, but the percentage is much much lower than that article. At least 50% of the article is BS, Pollan might have some factual errors and a few reasoning errors, but that would be a fraction of a % of the book.
July 21st, 2007 6:46pm
you are saying Pollan makes no proposals or suggestions for how agriculture should be structured?
Also this economist agrees wholeheartedly with your opinion that farm subsidies should be cut (as Pollan wants subsidies and tariffs, just favoring a different constituency, it's him who is on the margin):
Cowan also put a carrot on the cover of his economics book, I see. Can't be all bad.
"Supply and demand doesn't work the same way for food as for, say, TV's, because there's a limit to how much food we can each eat. "
Is there a limit to how much money I can spend on television?
>Supply and demand doesn't work the same way for food as for,
>say, TV's, because there's a limit to how much food we can
There ain't no limit to how much you can spend on either.
Supply and demand works similarly for TVs and food, but not for other goods such as CDs.
crap ... looked all over the place to find the blog I'd already the link that Rick posted ... wasted at least 10 minutes and then it dawned on me - JOS. It'd been so long since I'd even stopped by there [let alone here] that it completely slipped my mind.
When I fist saw it ... COT came to mind immediatly :)