Do you dislike pop psych and similar dumbed down books? Why? And how intense is your distaste?

Do you dislike pop psych and similar dumbed down books? Why? And how intense is your distaste?

It has done significantly more damage to humanities' (rightful) place in people's general life discourse, than STEM, the usual suspect, old severely autistic card, could ever hope to do with his severe autism

although I would extend the definition to diss on all of psych, since popularity is in it's essence just a quantitative measure, while the qualities remain the same for either pop or obscure

Is English your seventh language or something?

Why would anyone hate psychology but embrace philosophy?

What does pop knowledge do wrong? What should good books aim to do?

There's nothing wrong with anything.

What would be considered pop psychology?

Not neccesarily, but I did try Malcolm G and thought he was obnoxious. There is something about his writing that annoys me.
Psychology today is another horrible phenomenon.

Wish the field of psychology was more respected but they do deserve everything that is coming at them.

I thought Outliers was pretty good. Very easy to read and I thought he was mostly right. Are you telling me it was all bunk?

psychedelic pop is aight

Yes.
Navajo -> Ancient Greek -> your mom's body -> Tamil -> Hindi -> Early Modern English (we only have obsolete language books in Hindi) -> dumbed-down conversation with you English

Good _introductions to what aims to be a scientific field of study_ should definitely not try and sensationalize breakthrough high-level concepts in order to short-term profit with their book sales. Same goes for blogs. If you want to teach someone a science, start from the basics and instill a sense in him of what it means to be a thinker inside of that field
I mean of course, it's not like anyone cares if a ten year old watches a video about Klein bottles and then believes he can understand all of arithmetics, algebra and calculus, but when you're, on the other hand, in a relationship with someone who hasn't been taught to reflect on themselves and other people through analog words (i.e. s/he doesn't read fiction), but instead spouts shit like "narcissistic pee-dee" and "my MBTI type is INTP " several times a day, it really makes a person reflect on what it even means to be human in the first place, and if the phenomenon is slowly starting to get lost on us in a very meaningful way, almost like we're boiling frogs.

I don't know if all of this was captain obvious, I'm kinda sleep deprived to be desu

You're implying that pop-sci books are meant as a replacement for high level learning, which is wrong, granted some readers do tend to believe they're a step above after finishing these books, they are still widely considered introductory and surface level at best, they are more for entertainment and curiosity. If I'm curious about psychology I'll pick up a book or two on the subject by some asshole with a few phds, read it, look more into the parts that interest me and call it a day because I'm not looking to invest 4 years of my shitty life to study psychology, I'm just curious about it. Not everyone in the world is an autistic fuck.

>MBTI
Triggered

Mainstream academia is still "pop", just with less finely edited, needlessly jargon-filled writing.

i like your attitude

he's either an idiot or attempting a parody of pop psych books.

Psych is treated like it is a hard science by a lot of people and it simply isn't.

malcolm gladwell is to psych as freakonomics is to economics. hot takes based on limited study disguised world-shattering revelations for popularity. unfortunately this is a growing genre

>malcolm gladwell is to psych as freakonomics is to economics.
Are you me?

Yes but that's you, that isn't the populus. I listen to the yeezy ironically, but if tomorrow he didn't exist anymore, I can't say I would think that was a pity.
What do you think pop-sci books are meant as? I don't think they are meant as anything inherently; they're written because it returns beaucoup bucks, just like everything "pop", i.e. mass-mediated.

Except it's much more dangerous when the creator of a mass media content doesn't pretend to be just a regular Everyman fella asking the questions people want to hear answered (i.e. journalist), but instead he "just mentions" his credentials in passing and lets it create confusion around his identity. He isn't just another reporter fella now, because he's a scientist! But then again, he also isn't the voice of God, because he's just one of the millions of scientists. So what is he?

By the time they will actually have read one page of a piece so introduced, that question of the author's identity, and role in the world, is subconsciously pretty much the only thing populus is looking to have answered.

Which won't exactly happen obviously, so upon finishing the book, the populus settles for at least having picked up a few buzzwords which they will now themselves also use, as they misunderstand to have been taught, whenever their own personal identity, or their own role in one of the relationships they're personally in, isn't 100% set in stone. i.e. any human relationship.

Pussies.

So? That's like saying that a bunch of people don't understand politics therefore you are going to hate the field of politics. What do you care that a bunch of people are idiots, you're going to let that ruin the scholarly pursuit of understanding our own minds?

I actually like it desu. I can't be bothered to read thousands of pages of equations and obscurantist nonsense that can be summed up in easier terms.

Sometimes pop science makes it much better to understand, but Malcolm fails imo
To me he adds unnecessary stories and makes his whole book obnoxious

Others do it so much better, but that is my opinion

And some single papers outperform whole pop science books too