What is the stupidest book you have ever read?

[Gustaf]

Organizational Leadership by Bratton, Grint and Nelson.

Sample quotes: " If there was no discrimination, leadership positions would be split 50-50 between women and men, reflecting population statistics"

"While many explanations for this effect have been proposed, two in particular seem most plausible. One is discrimination[...]. Much of this discrimination is based on sex sterotypes. Related to the glass ceiling is the idea of glass walls, which are barriers that constrain women in staff/support positions[...]"

"The connection between charismatic leadership and rethorical skill is illustrated in the movie Pearl Harbor [...half a page of this example...]. At the opposite end of the spectrum from the use of scenes from fictional movies as research data is the use of scientific experiments"

[Gustaf]

Oh, and the best one is the one about the brick. It is a metaphor about changing organizations. It goes like this:

there is a brick with two holes and two different pieces of string are tied through the holes tying the brick to the ceiling. If you take the bottom piece of string (preferably wearing a glove, don't ask me why) and pull fast the bottom string will break but if you do it slowly the top string will and the brick will fall.

"This simple experimient demonstrates the significance of inertia and tension (power)"

Never mind that they did not actually perform an experiment, they merely assumed everything and furthermoer did not prove any connection between this little fantasy and the real world. But moving on.

"The brick represents the present: the organization, the followers, etc. as they currently exist.  The hand is that of the leader as she or he tries to move the organization from the present into the future, and the bottom string represents the connection between the leader and the organization, the followers, and so on. The top string connected to the ceiling, which represents the past - the connection of the organization and the followers to their collective history."

Their example of inertia is then the downfall of Ceasescu. He apparently died because people would not move (literally, not move).

Conclusion? "To successfully detach the brick from the top string, the leader must persuade the brick to move"

If you want to make the point of persuasion why the hell choose a ing brick a your example??!

The fact that I had to read that book still haunts me at nights.

[Jack Vance RIP]

" If there was no discrimination, leadership positions would be split 50-50 between women and men, reflecting population statistics"

Ummm... This is wrong?

The rest though... but hey books on business by businessmen for businessmen are always way down on the book food chain...

[Sibboleth]

" If there was no discrimination, leadership positions would be split 50-50 between women and men, reflecting population statistics"

Ummm... This is wrong?

Yes. A much higher proportion of women than men chose to stay at home and a much higher proportion of women than men chose to work in part-time jobs; you could argue that the cultural factors responsible for this are examples of discrimination, but only with great difficulty and certain unfortunate implications.

[Jack Vance RIP]

" If there was no discrimination, leadership positions would be split 50-50 between women and men, reflecting population statistics"

Ummm... This is wrong?

Yes. A much higher proportion of women than men chose to stay at home and a much higher proportion of women than men chose to work in part-time jobs; you could argue that the cultural factors responsible for this are examples of discrimination, but only with great difficulty and certain unfortunate implications.

Yeah of course. It is just that that statement is one of those statements which may be true but would be impossible to find out by any sort of realistic method. I would not rule it out though and I would not consider it a sign of "stupidity".

[Gustaf]

" If there was no discrimination, leadership positions would be split 50-50 between women and men, reflecting population statistics"

Ummm... This is wrong?

Yes. A much higher proportion of women than men chose to stay at home and a much higher proportion of women than men chose to work in part-time jobs; you could argue that the cultural factors responsible for this are examples of discrimination, but only with great difficulty and certain unfortunate implications.

Yeah of course. It is just that that statement is one of those statements which may be true but would be impossible to find out by any sort of realistic method. I would not rule it out though and I would not consider it a sign of "stupidity".

I threw that one in there because I knew someone would bite.

What makes it stupid is mostly the second part which is a really, really stupid blanket statement. The implication is that if there was no discrimination then every profession  would have the exact same division of all groups. Which is completely ridiculous. Now, given the right sort of qualifications (along the lines Al suggest, for instance) it isn't necessarily stupid. But the analysis pretty much begins and ends with that quote. And that is breathtakingly shallow.

I mean, for starters there are many groups and many professions where this is obviously untrue (such as physically very demanding jobs, for instance). So, in order to make this claim one must first explain why leadership positions and gender stand out in this respect.

[Gustaf]

I should also add that the main reason why I think the other quote on gender equality to be stupid is the simple facts that it promises to give me two plausible explanations and then only comes up with one.

[Chairman Wow]

Well I use Hitler's Willing Executioners as an example of poor historical writing, whenever it needs to be said.

But the absolute stupidest book would have to be American Theocracy, by Mr. Phillips.

[phk]

None. I typically have a good feel for what I'm about to get into.

I could be swayed to read a stupid book if its like $1.

[Cubby]

How The Irish Saved Civilization: Written by a Jesuit 'historian' (he has a bibliography... practically all his sources are by Jesuits...) about how Irish Christianity helped keep alive the Classical tradition in the period laymen still refer to as the 'dark ages'. The thesis is historically dubious in itself (though admittely isn't totally without merit), indeed it repeats practically all the long debunked myths about Irish history in that period (which is basicallly all Irish history in that period). But hum-ho, what makes it really stupid is his bizarre tendency to use events from the 5th Century to underline moral points about today. The logic goes... The Huns were migrants to Western Europe, they destroyed 'Roman Civilization' therefore illegal immigration is bad (Were the Huns illegal?). While this is a common trick of pop history, it doesn't mean it isn't offensive and moronic rubbish especially considering that this is actually a big selling book which is where alot of people learn about early Irish history. I'm surprised by the amount of people who have read it.

I liked that book!    I think part of the reason it was so popular in the US was because so many people have Irish ancestry.

I can't stand it when people bash The DaVinci Code because they wrongly think it makes them look edgy and sophisticated. I'm pretty sure it was the biggest selling fiction book of the past decade and I loved it myself. It had a great mix of history and suspense, I learned so much from it.

[Ameriplan]

Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

While Buchanan pointed out some things about Churchill that evades the common opinion of the man, most of his entire book were blanket statements and rampant speculation (This certainly would happen!) based on his personal opinions of WWI and WWII and how we are falling into another trap with China playing Germany. It was pretty dumb, to be honest.

Really? It was probably the best book I read the spring.

[Ameriplan]

Of course, I'm a Buchanan nut

[Vasall des Midas]

I think the prize goes to some "Economics 101" type book actually available at Cologne uni library... badly translated from the American to boot... but I wouldn't be able to tell you the title or the author or authors.

[Sibboleth]

I think the prize goes to some "Economics 101" type book actually available at Cologne uni library... badly translated from the American to boot... but I wouldn't be able to tell you the title or the author or authors.

Stupid in the predictable ways, or were there special extra horrors?

[Sibboleth]

For idiocy at academic level, I nominate the bulk of Patrick Joyce's work. Postmodernist history is usually pretty terrible, but when it isn't even theoretically consistent...

[afleitch]

I hate trash history in general; The Hidden Hitler, stuff by Gavin Menzies etc. Oh and also 'Misery Lit' where people try to outdo each other in writing about abusive childhoods.

[Ameriplan]

I hate trash history in general; The Hidden Hitler, stuff by Gavin Menzies etc. Oh and also 'Misery Lit' where people try to outdo each other in writing about abusive childhoods.

I agree 100%, I never did like the works of Frank McCourt.

[J. J.]

Return of the Native

[Jack Vance RIP]

Return of the Native

*ahem*

Return of the Native, by Thomas Hardy.

[Sibboleth]

Return of the Native

*ahem*

Return of the Native, by Thomas Hardy.

He's just trying to make it clear that he really hates that book.

[Storebought]

A mathematics "treatise" written by a crank called The Ridiculous Oversight, or some nonsense.  I think he was trying to justify dividing by 0.

Edit: I found it in my library's catalogue
   
Title: The stupid ridiculous oversight / by Lloyd Collester Jones.
   
Edition:    1st ed.
Publisher:    [Iowa City] : Jones, 1978.
Description:    274 p. ; 29 cm.
LC Subject Heading(s):    Differential equations --Numerical solutions.

No, the author wasn't trying to justify dividing by zero, he merrily divided by 0 in every line of that unsourced, unformatted, unproofed high-school algebra number vomit.

[dialectical fetishist]

Probably Stupid White Men, though it should be remembered I've never read any real right wing books.

[Vasall des Midas]

A mathematics "treatise" written by a crank called The Ridiculous Oversight, or some nonsense.  I think he was trying to justify dividing by 0.

Edit: I found it in my library's catalogue
   
Title: The stupid ridiculous oversight / by Lloyd Collester Jones.
   
Edition:    1st ed.
Publisher:    [Iowa City] : Jones, 1978.
Description:    274 p. ; 29 cm.
LC Subject Heading(s):    Differential equations --Numerical solutions.

No, the author wasn't trying to justify dividing by zero, he merrily divided by 0 in every line of that unsourced, unformatted, unproofed high-school algebra number vomit.

Wtf?

Oh, also, "some crank called The Ridiculous Oversight" reads funny.

And welcome back!

[feeblepizza]

My Life, by Slick Willie Blythe. Filled with "conservatives are evil, liberals are right, I'm smarter than you." And besides that, it's 10,000 pages long!!!

[Bo]

My Life, by Slick Willie Blythe. Filled with "conservatives are evil, liberals are right, I'm smarter than you." And besides that, it's 10,000 pages long!!!

His name is William Jefferson Clinton. And it's 1,008 pages long--something which should take about a month to read, or even less than that if one enjoys reading.