Teo Degas' Books & Decks

David Livermore PhD, President of the Cultural Intelligence Center and an expert on the field, will delight listeners with this entertaining, poignant and very helpful course that helps to understand the multicultural multifaceted world we live in.

If you have a high CQ (or  a high level of cultural awareness and receptivity) you will naturally gravitate towards this course. If you aren't, just give the course a chance, as the lectures will help you in your travels overseas or simply to understand your foreign neighbours better.

I have travelled throughout the world and on my own  quite frequently, so I can say that the advice given in the course is sound and well-grounded, and that Livermore's approach to the cultures of the world is quite accurate. There is a Spanish proverb that I love: "allá donde fueres, haz lo que vieres", which roughly translates, "wherever you go, do what the locals do"; this is, precisely, one of the main items of advice in the course.

I found the lectures most helpful to understand my life as an immigrant and I got a few ahas! and "that is it" from  the first twelve lectures.That it is priceless.

The course is not a list of dos or do-nots, although some of those are provided at the end of each of the lectures devoted to individual cultural areas of the world.

THE LECTURES

The course is structured in two main parts. The first part is an overview of ten pairs of opposed general traits that serve to define most cultures (lessons 3-12). The second part gives a general overview of the different cultural clusters of the world, which are configured by applying the criteria mentioned in the first lectures, as well as religion, family structure, and history. The course starts with a definition of what CQ (Cultural Intelligence index) is, and ends with a series of practical items of advice on how to prepare to travel to a country with a different culture.

The list of lectures is: 1- Culture Matters. 2- Developing Cultural Intelligence. 3- Identity—Individualist versus Collectivist. 4- Authority—Low versus High Power Distance. 5- Risk—Low versus High Uncertainty Avoidance. 6- Achievement—Cooperative versus Competitive. 7- Time—Punctuality versus Relationships. 8- Communication—Direct versus Indirect. 9- Lifestyle—Being versus doing. 10- Rules—Particularist versus Universalist. 11- Expressiveness—Neutral versus Affective. 12- Social Norms—Tight versus Loose. 13- Roots of Cultural Differences. 14- Anglo Cultures. 15- Nordic European Cultures. 16-  Germanic Cultures. 17-Eastern European/Central Asian. 18- Latin European Cultures. 19- Latin American Cultures. 20-  Confucian Asian  Cultures. 21- South Asian Cultures. 22- Sub-Saharan African Cultures. 23- Arab Cultures. 24- Cultural Intelligence for Life.

THINGS I LIKED

> Livermore is a wonderful speaker: very engaging, has a great tone, pitch and voice inflection, very entertaining and open minded. He is also able to structure and present the material in a way that is both easy to understand, and easy to apply to our personal lives and cultural context. He gives many examples of his personal life, which perfectly apply to what he is explaining.
> Livermore explains why some clichés and stereotypes aren't true and what lies beneath them, and repeatedly reminds listeners that what he is saying is general and cannot be taken as a black-and-white description. We are not robots, we are part of our culture, but also individuals.
> Another point I loved, is the the importance the Livermore gives to food, the foods, how food is eaten, table manners, table customs, etc. to see the values and characteristics of any given culture. It is very true!
> I found Livermore especially good at individuating a simple element within a culture, one that might be apparently not relevant, and turn it into a symbol of the culture he is describing. One of the best examples, to me is how he uses the Matrioshka dolls to explain the characteristics of the Eastern European block, or Ikea for the Nordics. There are many examples of the same type.
 > Livermore basically tell us to look at the world with fresh eyes, with less stereotypes and clichés, and to learn to appreciate the richness of ways of being and doing that humans exhibit, which aren't better or worse than any other, just different.
> I loved the fact that Livermore pointed out that the fact that a person belongs to a certain culture doesn't eliminate their individuality, so we cannot judge a culture by the behaviour of an individual, or vice versa.
> One of the best items of advice in the course is that we, Livermore included, have prejudices, and that the more we become aware of them, the better will be face other cultures and people from other cultures with the right attitude.
> We don't need to love or agree with the customs or culture of a given region or country, we need to respect them. It sounds simple, but basically I find most travellers I come across when I don't travel on my own doing just the contrary! Demanding. Disrespecting. Showing disgust because some people don't speak English or have a strong accent and a long list of grievances that are very painful to witness.
> This course has put Livermore in my author-to-follow radar. I liked a lot how he speaks, his attitude and the way he presents the material.

THINGS I MISSED

> One of the main divisions of cultures is the structure of family. Although Livermore mentions family structure when discussing some culture clusters, there is no specific lesson devoted to something as important. I thought that nuclear vs extended family was a lesson necessary and missing from the course!
> The same can be said of the role of women. Being a woman who has travelled on my own to many places, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between cultures where women are treated with respect disregarding whether they are married or not, and others where that is not the case. I missed a lesson on that. Too often, I find myself discussing things with male travellers about a given country or area, and we had different experiences basically because of our gender.
> The same can be say about cultures that are gay friendly or anti-gay. Some of my friends are gay, and you have to think about many things if you are married to a person of the same gender to certain areas or sleep in the same bed when going to certain parts of the world.
> Another element missing, although hinted during the discussion of cultural clusters, is the generational gap.The country where my parents lived in and the one I was born and grew up were two extremes regarding structure of the family, social hierarchy, power distance, open communication etc. That has been the source of great generational conflict. You have to be aware that if you visit my country and deal with old people you will find a set of values, and if you deal with me or people younger than me you will find another. So, I missed a bit of more emphasis on that.
>  In a way, when I picked this course I wanted not only to improve my CQ and to learn about other cultures, but also to learn how to respond to people from other cultures who have a low CQ but utter very offensive, albeit subtle, racist and very demeaning comments about my culture and country of origin mostly based on prejudice and ignorance. I consider responding well to those attacks and abuse part of improving my CQ. However, this is the most difficult thing in the world to do when one feels hurt or unfairly treated on the basis of nothing. I expected some advice on that, but nothing is provided in the course. Perhaps this was just an expectation, and not part of what having CQ is?

THINGS OFF 

> Livermore's  rosy version of the Anglo-Saxon culture and the British Empire. Really, I found offensive  the consideration that the British collaborated with local population and ignoring how the British crushed local populations,, how they destroyed Native Americans, Aborigines and any other culture that wasn't willing to accept their domination. Collaboration happened in some places, but the locals were never considered equals or equal human beings.  Do you remember Gandhi being thrown out of the train and tortured by the British? I leave it there.
> Livermore insists on us not using the information in the course to create stereotypes or clichés. Yet, if you choose a Brazilian as  an example of a person whonis always late or an Ukrainian as an example of rude customer service you are perpetuating the stereotypes! It doesn't matter that Livermore gives very successful explanations for those things.
 > I tend to excuse non-historians in their historical digressions. However, Livermore has a great authority when speaking, and I found a bit dangerous that some of his statements can be taken at face value. Like the one mentioned above about the British colonisation, or the statement that the cultural cluster with more influence in the world has been the Anglo-Saxon... well, just if you are part of that group. If you dig into the structure of your psyche, you will be astonished at discovering that the Western World and part of the Middle East fed on the Greco-Roman culture, ways of being and thinking that persist in our world  no matter you are a Norwegian, a German or an American. Then, the origin of civilisation is in Africa and in Far Middle East, not in Britain, USA nor even Australia. Christianity was born and spread from the Mediterranean, Islam from the Middle East,  Buddhism from Asia.
 > I find seriously ridiculous including Greece in the Eater European cluster. Yes, it is true that the Eastern Europeans fed on the Greek alphabet and Orthodox faith, but, 1/ Greeks are, re their ways of being, doing and thinking, basically Mediterranean and Southern European. 2/ They have never been nomads in the way that Mongolians or Central Asians have been. 3/They are in the Mediterranean, not in Central Europe or Asia. 4/ Greek Culture was the basis of  the Roman  Culture.  5/They have never been part of the USSR. 6/ Etc.!
> A few things are ignored to put Greek with the Eastern Europeans, and then Israel, a nomadic culture by definition, Arab in part is put with the Southern Europeans. Have you ever lived in the Middle East? Well, Israel fits there perfectly.

OTHER THINGS

> I was in Norway just a few months ago. The Janteloven, the "you are nothing special" that seems to infuse Norwegian culture that Livermore mentions so many times is in gus lecture. Older people complain about the younger generations being cocky, showy and too individualistic, so unless you are over 60+, Janteloven is not as important as used to be. Also Livermore mentions that Norwegians aren't in the EU as if they are too good and don't need it, but the fact is that other Nordic countries are in the EU, Norway cannot enter the EU because, if they did, their economy would literally be crushed; and also Norwegians have been historically linked or dependent to/from  other Nordic countries and they want to be just themselves and independent. 
> Livermore mentions repeatedly that "Work to live instead of live to work" is the basis of the Nordic way of living. Well as much as of the Southern European way of living! Just to give a personal example, I worked in Dublin, in a hotel, many years ago, to pay for my English school; most of the workers were seasonal young Europeans, North-Africans and Asians. According to one of the housekeeping managers, the difference between the Southern Europeans and the rest was that they wanted and needed the money as much anybody else, but once they finished work they wanted to have fun and free time, while people from other areas would prefer the money and work in their days off.
> Calling some European cultures "paternalistic" is perpetuating an American stereotype, no matter Livermore says he is using the word with a different meaning than it is used normally. Why not using "egalitarian" or "caring"?
> The comments on the role of women in Southern Europe is also biased and probably true for 80-90y.o. people. Yet, in the year 2016, the index of domestic violence in Sweden and Australia is higher than in some Southern European countries; of course nobody will tell an Australian ir a Swedish that their men are one of most violent and therefore quite domineering over women. 

"Reading the Comments" is an exploration of online comments, of their nature, their authors, what is good, bad and funny about them. Reagle shows how comments inform (reviews), serve to improve your own works or projects (via feedback), can be manipulative and serve to alienate people (through abuse and hatred), and shape how we see the world and ourselves (via quantification and social comparison). Reagle uses a humongous amount of data, using the main platforms generating comments:Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, fiction writers communities, and personal blogs.

The book poses and answers intriguing questions with a more or less degree of success:
> Why do people like disclosing info about themselves in their comments?
> Is society more narcissist today as a result of the Internet?
> Is anonymity the mother of all problems in abusive comments?
> Is fakery the exception or the norm in review?
> Who is writing false reviews and why? And what is being done to counteract it?
> Who are those creating sock-puppet accounts?
> Why do review sites benefit from your comments?
> How do Facebook and Google+ use your profile and contact list every time you rate a product?
> What is the difference between a comment and a review?
> What is the key to providing a good feedback that is useful to the author without hurting their feelings?
> Is a bullied person bullying a person as bully as the bully?
> Can good communities, in self-defence, morph into what they try to avoid?
> Do the gazillion comments processed during the day affect our ability to concentrate and our well-being?
> Is the pervasive rating and ranking of people and services dehumanising?

The book is divided in seven chapters:
1/ Comment, offers a contextualisation of comment, of what makes people comment, interact or to look for another place.
2/  Informed, is an introduction to reviews, ratings, unboxing videos and other informative commentary on the web.
3/Manipulation, is about the use of fake reviews and online fakery in general.These manipulators are fakers (those who deceptively praise their own works or pillory others), makers (those who do that for a fee), and the takers (those who avail themselves of such services).
4/ Improvement, deals with feedback: peer feedback, feedback in formal writing communities, and feedback in communities where the line between feedback and collaboration blurs.
5/ Alienated, describes online trolls and haters, bully battles and  misogyny, and tries to frame this "culture" with what we know about the effects of anonymity, deindividuation and depersonalization.
6/ Shaped, poses the question of how this infinite stream of information, status updates, and photos affects self-esteem and wellbeing and our view of ourselves.
7/ Bemused, focuses on the puzzling aspect of commenting as comments can be slapdash, confusing, amusing, revealing, and weird.

 I found this statement one of the most interesting in the book:

All forms of writing that have gone before are present on the Web— and at a very large scale. These types of comment existed before the twenty-first century, but never were they available in such great numbers or were they as easily accessible as they are today.

I love the historical contextualisation of commenting, and to learn that many attitudes we find online nowadays were very much alive in the past, and that well-known writers, philosophers and artists of the past were involved in actions or activities that are today found online. I found really good the section on feedback and the section on trolls very exhaustively informative. When you provide with historical antecedents for online behaviour that are rooted in morphed off-line behaviour, we can have a mini-epiphany because then, some behaviour and attitudes are not only contextualised but can be tackled in different ways. Reagle's analysis on quantification or rating, which are more relevant by the day in our times. was also really good.

I agree with Reagle about the search for intimate serendipity being one of the reasons why some people aren't in big social sites or social networks in general, they join when they are small and quit then when they become too big, too popular or the first scum appears, or they don't allow comments on their personal sites. That is my case, and that is great putting a name to what I do.

I really loved some of the comic strips from The Geek & Poke, a German nerdy comic-strip, reproduced in the book, which are really relevant for some of the matters discussed in it. I especially feel connected to the the one below, but this is precisely one of the comments I get most often from people I don´t know or have interaction with me, and the other one, that "the free gift" (above) use preached by corporations, major social networks and dot com start-up companies and geeks.

Reagle clearly mentions at the beginning that the book isn't about the future of online sites or of commenting online. This being the case, one of the most interesting and controversial aspects of commenting is hurdled over, which is very disappointing to me. In that regard, the book scratches the top layers of the subject, leaving many of the issues associated to commenting just described. Which is not bad if you want a comprehensive analysis of the subject without digging down.

Although I enjoyed the book, Reading the Comments is a bit a sum-up of things and research found in other works, and Reagle  does not always expresses his opinion on important matters; for example, how would he tackle some of the problems he describes? However, he does give his honest opinion other times, as when he says that he doesn't think anonymity is the problem for the state of the online world. In fact, some of the most abusive people I've come across online had their real photo and name displayed. I always appreciate solutions, or at least proposals on how to change things online, especially when an expert is writing. Reagle is, after all, an academic, an expert on communication and on the Internet so I expected more prognosis, diagnosis or  even personal involvement.

The book reads well as a course for students, where his students would learn about things and the teacher wouldn't always need to express his views upfront unless questioned. That is OK for a course, I expected more on bleeding matters: like sexist misogynist comments, the level of verbal aggression thriving online, why does trolling occur beyond those groups who made an entertaining of doing so? In that regard I found Sarah Jeon's book necessary to read after this, because she digs on the subject and provides readers with personal answers and solutions on how to turn things around. Both books complement each other quite well.

The book is wonderfully edited. I didn't notice any typo, the reference system and endnoting are flawless, something that, as a reader, I always appreciate.There is always a lot of work to get to that point, and you cannot take it for granted. I think the first chapter should be called Introduction, because that is what it is, and where the author mentions what he is going to do and describes the subjects discussed in each chapter.

The rendering for Kindle is excellent except for the index at the back, which isn't linked for Kindle, therefore, worthless. I always feel cheated when this happens.

IN SHORT

The book reads really well, is engaging, entertaining and digs on many aspects of the web that aren't well known to people who don't live on or research the Internet. Three and half stars rounding to 4. That is why the five-star-rating system sucks...

I read this book after finishing this book on apocalyptic predictions. I missed in it some insight into what makes people want to predict the future, date the end of the world or make predictions, prophetic or not. Future Babble gives you the answers! So it has turned out a perfect companion to the other one. Actually, I would recommend reading this one and then the other.

Although based on economical, demographical, political and social predictions in the last century or so, Future Babble is a brilliant book with a great work of research, and a sound historical and psychological approach to prediction making and the power of the expert in Society in general, in the contemporary world in particular. In a way, Future Babble is an X-rayed view of the sugar-coated magic ball that experts' predictions are.

 The goal of this book is not to mock particular individuals. Nor is it to scorn the category known as “experts.” It is to better understand the human desire to know what will happen, why that desire will never be satisfied, and how we can better prepare ourselves for the unknowable future" (Locations 69-71)

The book replies with specific details to questions like these:
> Why do we want and need predictions on anything?
 > Is anything predictable and subject to future predictions?
> Why do we trust some experts and not others?
> What does make an expert an expert and trustworthy for prediction making?
> Why are tides and eclipses predictable when predictions about so much else can be blown away by the flap of a butterfly’s wings?
> Why can we calculate insurance premiums, but not the world markets in 10 years time?
> Why experts whose predictions failed miserably consider them successful even the evidence is undeniable?
> Why experts whose predictions failed are constantly called to make more predictions?

> Why experts who make real successful predictions are rarely believed and those who have no clue are listened to, and unquestionably so?
> Why do experts fail in their predictions?
> Are there patterns in the Economy, Demography, History, Politics or human relationships that can explain the future in those areas?
>  If the future is unpredictable, doesn’t that mean all our planning and forecasting is pointless?
> Are experts really so bad?
> What distinguishes the mass of delusional experts from the few impressive ones? 

The book is well structured and discussed, without being boring or pretentious. Yet, all the examples are historically and statistically backed, and explanations are given to every single point in which you might find yourself asking, "but why?". The whys are the most important and interesting part of the book, and they are explained by a psychological approach. Among others, some psychological biases and heuristic involved in prediction making, justifying the failed predictions and forgetting about the expert's constant failures are: :
< Optimism Bias.
< Confirmation Bias.
< Status Quo Bias.
< Negativity Bias.
< Hindsight Bias.
< Rationalization Bias.
< The bias bias.

< Anchoring-and-adjustment Heuristic.
< Availability Heuristic.
< Representativeness Heuristic.
< Confidence Heuristic.
 
The point of departure needed to be scientifically sound. And it is sound. Gardner needed of an academic and scientific study to figure out the rate of failure among experts and how accurate expert's predictions are, and which characteristics do successful and unsuccessful prediction experts display. Otherwise, the whole discourse could have crumbled before even starting. Lucky Gardner had a brilliant stand on the research on this very subject by Philip Tetlock.

The book has many specific study cases, cases of international experts who predicted and failed miserably, of predictions that sound utterly ridiculous today but sold millions of books and were listed as the most important books of the decade at the time, and many small cases that showcase how and why people make predictions, and why they are bound to fail, or not.

I thought, well, it is great that Gardner sees the speck in the neighbour's eye, but not the log in his. So, how does he do (or how do we do) to see our own log? Gardner knows that all the biases he mentions affects us all, so how do we do to balance them?  The last chapter, The End, comes with the answers. Gardner does not focus on himself, of course, he shows how that can be done by using Alan Barnes' system on dealing with the documentation and research for the Privy Council Office of the Canadian Government. There are three key elements to balance your own biases: metacognition, information aggregation and humility. Not easy. Especially meta-cognition. Most people out there are not even conscious. Now, how did Gardner do that with this book? Did he do it himself?  Or was his editor or anybody else? Did he stop to ask himself, hey gorgeous me I am being biased here by any chance?  I would love to know that from the author himself, the specific method he applied to this specific book. Out of academic interest. 

This is not only a good book, it is very engaging  and intriguing, that gives answer after answer after answer. Besides, the book is well written, researched and referenced and has an impressive bibliography. Barely any typo in sight, as well. And Gardner is able to explain complex things in ways that any lay person can understand them. Kudos to him.

The Kindle Edition is flawless. However, if you read the book on Kindle for PC, the Lateral Index of  Contents does not display in it, while display perfectly in android devices.

There are other books on randomness and market prediction but this is the first I read on the subject and it is flawless.

Number one in my list of best books of 2015 so far.