radiantsoul: (Default)
This book won the William Hill Sports Book of the Year 2007. It is a look back at Brian Clough's 20 year career as manager of Nottingham Forest. It is written by Duncan Hamilton who was a reporter who worked for a local paper.

I have previously read and review a couple of other books about Brian Clough - Damned United and Walking On Water.

I found the book to be a very easy read. I already knew most of the events that occurred in Brian Clough's management career and the book focuses rather more on the man. He was a rather eccentric character who was a bizarre mixture of arrogance and insecurity. His many eccentricities are highlighted, the tendency to kiss people(male or female in a friendly way), the continual threats to resign, the way he used to take his teams to the pub before games, the fact he used to punch some players, etc. I suppose I feel the book doesn't have that much that is really new. I wonder if the author really has quite the close bond with Clough that he seems to imply. I wonder if rather he just did a hell of a lot of research. The idea that he saw Clough as a sort of father figure seem a little bit far fetched to me. I just got the feeling that a lot of it was stuff that I had read before and it wasn't really getting behind the issues, I feel that the book probably doesn't deserve the praise it seems to have received. I suppose I am disappointed that less is mentioned about how Clough actually managed his teams, he was after all probably the best man-manager in British football history and yet little is really made of how - perhaps it can't be taught.

I suppose I found this an enjoyable read, but expected more. A lot of the material wasn't new and that rather tarnished it for me.
radiantsoul: (Default)
This book won the William Hill Sports Book of the Year 2007. It is a look back at Brian Clough's 20 year career as manager of Nottingham Forest. It is written by Duncan Hamilton who was a reporter who worked for a local paper.

I have previously read and review a couple of other books about Brian Clough - Damned United and Walking On Water.

I found the book to be a very easy read. I already knew most of the events that occurred in Brian Clough's management career and the book focuses rather more on the man. He was a rather eccentric character who was a bizarre mixture of arrogance and insecurity. His many eccentricities are highlighted, the tendency to kiss people(male or female in a friendly way), the continual threats to resign, the way he used to take his teams to the pub before games, the fact he used to punch some players, etc. I suppose I feel the book doesn't have that much that is really new. I wonder if the author really has quite the close bond with Clough that he seems to imply. I wonder if rather he just did a hell of a lot of research. The idea that he saw Clough as a sort of father figure seem a little bit far fetched to me. I just got the feeling that a lot of it was stuff that I had read before and it wasn't really getting behind the issues, I feel that the book probably doesn't deserve the praise it seems to have received. I suppose I am disappointed that less is mentioned about how Clough actually managed his teams, he was after all probably the best man-manager in British football history and yet little is really made of how - perhaps it can't be taught.

I suppose I found this an enjoyable read, but expected more. A lot of the material wasn't new and that rather tarnished it for me.
radiantsoul: (Default)
This book won the William Hill Sports Book of the Year 2007. It is a look back at Brian Clough's 20 year career as manager of Nottingham Forest. It is written by Duncan Hamilton who was a reporter who worked for a local paper.

I have previously read and review a couple of other books about Brian Clough - Damned United and Walking On Water.

I found the book to be a very easy read. I already knew most of the events that occurred in Brian Clough's management career and the book focuses rather more on the man. He was a rather eccentric character who was a bizarre mixture of arrogance and insecurity. His many eccentricities are highlighted, the tendency to kiss people(male or female in a friendly way), the continual threats to resign, the way he used to take his teams to the pub before games, the fact he used to punch some players, etc. I suppose I feel the book doesn't have that much that is really new. I wonder if the author really has quite the close bond with Clough that he seems to imply. I wonder if rather he just did a hell of a lot of research. The idea that he saw Clough as a sort of father figure seem a little bit far fetched to me. I just got the feeling that a lot of it was stuff that I had read before and it wasn't really getting behind the issues, I feel that the book probably doesn't deserve the praise it seems to have received. I suppose I am disappointed that less is mentioned about how Clough actually managed his teams, he was after all probably the best man-manager in British football history and yet little is really made of how - perhaps it can't be taught.

I suppose I found this an enjoyable read, but expected more. A lot of the material wasn't new and that rather tarnished it for me.
radiantsoul: (Books are magic)
I have just finished reading the Lucifer Effect which gives an account of how normal people end up commiting evil deeds. It was written by Philip G. Zimbardo, who was behind the Stanford Prison Experiment. Basically he created a fake prison and divided groups of students into guards and prisoners. Most of the book details what happened in the experiment, which was a descent into sadism by the guards in just a few weeks. The experiment was terminated after a week rather than the two it was meant to run. A lot of time is spent describing how the guards reacted, depriving prisonners of food and sleep and calling them names, locking them in solitary confinement and verbally abusing them. How on a day by day basis the abuse and mental anguish of the guards steadily worstenned. I suspect it was the lack of sleep that must have really destroy the prisonners. Also the impacts of the experiment on all those involved are considered, it seems that it was overwhelmingly a benign experience.

The prisoners are not really as closely analysed. Some rebel against the system, but this attracts more abuse from the guards. But the point is made that they were free to leave at any time, yet didn't do so. They seemed to genuinely believe that they couldn't leave and even plotted to escape.

The book then moves on to consider attrocities as Abu Ghraib in Iraq. His analysis of the behaviour of the guards is interesting and sympathetic towards them. For example the prison was under intermittant mortar attack, the Iraq guards smuggled in guards, civilians did the interrogation, guards were told to "soften up" prisonners, the prison was overcrowded, senior officers never patrolled the night shift and some of the abuses photographed were in retribuation for attacks by the criminals. One of the guards who received a long sentence had worked for 40 twelve hours on/twelve hours off shifts in a row and his time off was spent sleep in a prison cell.

Next he attempts to put the military and civil leadership of the US army on trial for the abuses. Interesting stuff, but it seems that there isn't really enough evidence to convict anyone or even to hold them morally if not legally responsible. It is not clear who is responsible, but on the other hand as an Iraq who had been abused I would want someone punished. I was pretty critical of the prison guards a few years ago, but I now see that in their position it would be hard to say for sure I wouldn't have acted in the same way.

The book then examines the Stanley Milligram experiements and others of their ilk testing the way people comply to authority and will happily harm others if an authority figure instructs them to do so. These experiments consist of an authority figure request a subject inflicts pain on a confederate. Overwhelmingly people do. Interestingly of those that refused they tended to just walk out of the experiment rather than attecting to stop the experiment, something I had never really thought about. As these experiments are carried out usually in universities asking for volunteers merely walking away wouldn't have stopped any real abusive experiments. In the Stanford Prison Experiment a priest, parents and a lawyer were allowed visiting rights and despite some protest no-one really acted to stop it.

The book then looks at another risk factor which is groupthink, the tendency of people to suspend critical judgements and go with the rest of the group - it looks at the Bay of Pigs invasion as the classic example. I might have liked to have seen this section expanded.

The theme of the book is very much that people are driven towards evil as a result of the situation or system they are in rather than an intrinsic evil within them. However the book does argue that some are more surspectible to evil by virtue of their personality - conformist and shy people especially.

The book does allow some room for individual agency and next considers how to resist being lead down the path towards evil. The 10 points are:-
1. Admit mistakes. Be prepared to cut losses as bad choices or actions.
2. Be mindful. Don't live in autopilot.
3. Take responsibility for your own actions.
4. Protect your individuality. Don't hide behind an identity.
5. Respect just authority, rebel against unjust authority.
6. Seel group authority but value independence
7. Be frame vigiliant, be aware of how issues and situations are presented to you.
8. Balance time perspectives. Think how the future you will look back on your actions and look back at past commitments. Avoid what the author calls an extended present, where proper consideration of consequences can be avoided.
9. Don't sacrifice freedom for security
10. Be aware you can make a difference to systems and situations.

The book then enters what is, in my opinion, its weakest section which looks at heroism. There is an attempt to provide a taxiology of heroism that is rather useless imho. Much of the book is well researched, but there is less scientific rigour in this part, probably because their isn't much research into heroism.

At times the book considers other attrocities and evils such as those in Vietnam, Rwanda and Nazi Germany. Although these are not analysed to the same extend of Abu Ghraib, probably because the author was an expert witness in the trial that followed.

This is a very good book, although I feel it is overlong and the author allows his political stance to colour the book somewhat. The chapter on heroism could have waited for another book really, and I am not sure it really fitted with the tone of the book. The overal theme is that evil is something that is normal for all of us.
radiantsoul: (Books are magic)
I have just finished reading the Lucifer Effect which gives an account of how normal people end up commiting evil deeds. It was written by Philip G. Zimbardo, who was behind the Stanford Prison Experiment. Basically he created a fake prison and divided groups of students into guards and prisoners. Most of the book details what happened in the experiment, which was a descent into sadism by the guards in just a few weeks. The experiment was terminated after a week rather than the two it was meant to run. A lot of time is spent describing how the guards reacted, depriving prisonners of food and sleep and calling them names, locking them in solitary confinement and verbally abusing them. How on a day by day basis the abuse and mental anguish of the guards steadily worstenned. I suspect it was the lack of sleep that must have really destroy the prisonners. Also the impacts of the experiment on all those involved are considered, it seems that it was overwhelmingly a benign experience.

The prisoners are not really as closely analysed. Some rebel against the system, but this attracts more abuse from the guards. But the point is made that they were free to leave at any time, yet didn't do so. They seemed to genuinely believe that they couldn't leave and even plotted to escape.

The book then moves on to consider attrocities as Abu Ghraib in Iraq. His analysis of the behaviour of the guards is interesting and sympathetic towards them. For example the prison was under intermittant mortar attack, the Iraq guards smuggled in guards, civilians did the interrogation, guards were told to "soften up" prisonners, the prison was overcrowded, senior officers never patrolled the night shift and some of the abuses photographed were in retribuation for attacks by the criminals. One of the guards who received a long sentence had worked for 40 twelve hours on/twelve hours off shifts in a row and his time off was spent sleep in a prison cell.

Next he attempts to put the military and civil leadership of the US army on trial for the abuses. Interesting stuff, but it seems that there isn't really enough evidence to convict anyone or even to hold them morally if not legally responsible. It is not clear who is responsible, but on the other hand as an Iraq who had been abused I would want someone punished. I was pretty critical of the prison guards a few years ago, but I now see that in their position it would be hard to say for sure I wouldn't have acted in the same way.

The book then examines the Stanley Milligram experiements and others of their ilk testing the way people comply to authority and will happily harm others if an authority figure instructs them to do so. These experiments consist of an authority figure request a subject inflicts pain on a confederate. Overwhelmingly people do. Interestingly of those that refused they tended to just walk out of the experiment rather than attecting to stop the experiment, something I had never really thought about. As these experiments are carried out usually in universities asking for volunteers merely walking away wouldn't have stopped any real abusive experiments. In the Stanford Prison Experiment a priest, parents and a lawyer were allowed visiting rights and despite some protest no-one really acted to stop it.

The book then looks at another risk factor which is groupthink, the tendency of people to suspend critical judgements and go with the rest of the group - it looks at the Bay of Pigs invasion as the classic example. I might have liked to have seen this section expanded.

The theme of the book is very much that people are driven towards evil as a result of the situation or system they are in rather than an intrinsic evil within them. However the book does argue that some are more surspectible to evil by virtue of their personality - conformist and shy people especially.

The book does allow some room for individual agency and next considers how to resist being lead down the path towards evil. The 10 points are:-
1. Admit mistakes. Be prepared to cut losses as bad choices or actions.
2. Be mindful. Don't live in autopilot.
3. Take responsibility for your own actions.
4. Protect your individuality. Don't hide behind an identity.
5. Respect just authority, rebel against unjust authority.
6. Seel group authority but value independence
7. Be frame vigiliant, be aware of how issues and situations are presented to you.
8. Balance time perspectives. Think how the future you will look back on your actions and look back at past commitments. Avoid what the author calls an extended present, where proper consideration of consequences can be avoided.
9. Don't sacrifice freedom for security
10. Be aware you can make a difference to systems and situations.

The book then enters what is, in my opinion, its weakest section which looks at heroism. There is an attempt to provide a taxiology of heroism that is rather useless imho. Much of the book is well researched, but there is less scientific rigour in this part, probably because their isn't much research into heroism.

At times the book considers other attrocities and evils such as those in Vietnam, Rwanda and Nazi Germany. Although these are not analysed to the same extend of Abu Ghraib, probably because the author was an expert witness in the trial that followed.

This is a very good book, although I feel it is overlong and the author allows his political stance to colour the book somewhat. The chapter on heroism could have waited for another book really, and I am not sure it really fitted with the tone of the book. The overal theme is that evil is something that is normal for all of us.
radiantsoul: (Books are magic)
I have just finished reading the Lucifer Effect which gives an account of how normal people end up commiting evil deeds. It was written by Philip G. Zimbardo, who was behind the Stanford Prison Experiment. Basically he created a fake prison and divided groups of students into guards and prisoners. Most of the book details what happened in the experiment, which was a descent into sadism by the guards in just a few weeks. The experiment was terminated after a week rather than the two it was meant to run. A lot of time is spent describing how the guards reacted, depriving prisonners of food and sleep and calling them names, locking them in solitary confinement and verbally abusing them. How on a day by day basis the abuse and mental anguish of the guards steadily worstenned. I suspect it was the lack of sleep that must have really destroy the prisonners. Also the impacts of the experiment on all those involved are considered, it seems that it was overwhelmingly a benign experience.

The prisoners are not really as closely analysed. Some rebel against the system, but this attracts more abuse from the guards. But the point is made that they were free to leave at any time, yet didn't do so. They seemed to genuinely believe that they couldn't leave and even plotted to escape.

The book then moves on to consider attrocities as Abu Ghraib in Iraq. His analysis of the behaviour of the guards is interesting and sympathetic towards them. For example the prison was under intermittant mortar attack, the Iraq guards smuggled in guards, civilians did the interrogation, guards were told to "soften up" prisonners, the prison was overcrowded, senior officers never patrolled the night shift and some of the abuses photographed were in retribuation for attacks by the criminals. One of the guards who received a long sentence had worked for 40 twelve hours on/twelve hours off shifts in a row and his time off was spent sleep in a prison cell.

Next he attempts to put the military and civil leadership of the US army on trial for the abuses. Interesting stuff, but it seems that there isn't really enough evidence to convict anyone or even to hold them morally if not legally responsible. It is not clear who is responsible, but on the other hand as an Iraq who had been abused I would want someone punished. I was pretty critical of the prison guards a few years ago, but I now see that in their position it would be hard to say for sure I wouldn't have acted in the same way.

The book then examines the Stanley Milligram experiements and others of their ilk testing the way people comply to authority and will happily harm others if an authority figure instructs them to do so. These experiments consist of an authority figure request a subject inflicts pain on a confederate. Overwhelmingly people do. Interestingly of those that refused they tended to just walk out of the experiment rather than attecting to stop the experiment, something I had never really thought about. As these experiments are carried out usually in universities asking for volunteers merely walking away wouldn't have stopped any real abusive experiments. In the Stanford Prison Experiment a priest, parents and a lawyer were allowed visiting rights and despite some protest no-one really acted to stop it.

The book then looks at another risk factor which is groupthink, the tendency of people to suspend critical judgements and go with the rest of the group - it looks at the Bay of Pigs invasion as the classic example. I might have liked to have seen this section expanded.

The theme of the book is very much that people are driven towards evil as a result of the situation or system they are in rather than an intrinsic evil within them. However the book does argue that some are more surspectible to evil by virtue of their personality - conformist and shy people especially.

The book does allow some room for individual agency and next considers how to resist being lead down the path towards evil. The 10 points are:-
1. Admit mistakes. Be prepared to cut losses as bad choices or actions.
2. Be mindful. Don't live in autopilot.
3. Take responsibility for your own actions.
4. Protect your individuality. Don't hide behind an identity.
5. Respect just authority, rebel against unjust authority.
6. Seel group authority but value independence
7. Be frame vigiliant, be aware of how issues and situations are presented to you.
8. Balance time perspectives. Think how the future you will look back on your actions and look back at past commitments. Avoid what the author calls an extended present, where proper consideration of consequences can be avoided.
9. Don't sacrifice freedom for security
10. Be aware you can make a difference to systems and situations.

The book then enters what is, in my opinion, its weakest section which looks at heroism. There is an attempt to provide a taxiology of heroism that is rather useless imho. Much of the book is well researched, but there is less scientific rigour in this part, probably because their isn't much research into heroism.

At times the book considers other attrocities and evils such as those in Vietnam, Rwanda and Nazi Germany. Although these are not analysed to the same extend of Abu Ghraib, probably because the author was an expert witness in the trial that followed.

This is a very good book, although I feel it is overlong and the author allows his political stance to colour the book somewhat. The chapter on heroism could have waited for another book really, and I am not sure it really fitted with the tone of the book. The overal theme is that evil is something that is normal for all of us.
radiantsoul: (Default)
I enjoy cycling. I like to watch it on the television, although recently the Tour De France has been rather dull. Part of it is because no sooner does a hero arise than we discover that they are a cheating bastard. It seems that it is all about drugs. And that tells to kill the interest.

So we need to go back to Lance Armstrong. Probably the greatest cyclist of all time and it is a great story. The book doesn't really deal with cycling all that much it is more about him and how cancer changed him. I read it in a couple of days and it was hard to put down. There are some interesting bits in it about how cycling works, training, etc. But the most interesting bits are about how cancer changed him. How it made him a better, more complete person. He managed to end up as a single minded person, but it is more that he learns more about motivation and goals. He actually seems to regard the cancer as a good thing, in fact it probably helped him to lose upper body muscle weight that made him a more perfect cyclist. The book seems to major on his relationship with his mother a lot, I am not sure how his wife would feel about that.

He certainly comes across as a thoughtful guy who metamorphosed from an angry, aggressive outsider to someone who seems to appreciate the depth of life.

The style of writing is very easy to read. The book does cover his first tour win, but he really names few of his team mates or competitors. It is really a book that deals with him rather than his relationship with other people.
radiantsoul: (Default)
I enjoy cycling. I like to watch it on the television, although recently the Tour De France has been rather dull. Part of it is because no sooner does a hero arise than we discover that they are a cheating bastard. It seems that it is all about drugs. And that tells to kill the interest.

So we need to go back to Lance Armstrong. Probably the greatest cyclist of all time and it is a great story. The book doesn't really deal with cycling all that much it is more about him and how cancer changed him. I read it in a couple of days and it was hard to put down. There are some interesting bits in it about how cycling works, training, etc. But the most interesting bits are about how cancer changed him. How it made him a better, more complete person. He managed to end up as a single minded person, but it is more that he learns more about motivation and goals. He actually seems to regard the cancer as a good thing, in fact it probably helped him to lose upper body muscle weight that made him a more perfect cyclist. The book seems to major on his relationship with his mother a lot, I am not sure how his wife would feel about that.

He certainly comes across as a thoughtful guy who metamorphosed from an angry, aggressive outsider to someone who seems to appreciate the depth of life.

The style of writing is very easy to read. The book does cover his first tour win, but he really names few of his team mates or competitors. It is really a book that deals with him rather than his relationship with other people.
radiantsoul: (Default)
I enjoy cycling. I like to watch it on the television, although recently the Tour De France has been rather dull. Part of it is because no sooner does a hero arise than we discover that they are a cheating bastard. It seems that it is all about drugs. And that tells to kill the interest.

So we need to go back to Lance Armstrong. Probably the greatest cyclist of all time and it is a great story. The book doesn't really deal with cycling all that much it is more about him and how cancer changed him. I read it in a couple of days and it was hard to put down. There are some interesting bits in it about how cycling works, training, etc. But the most interesting bits are about how cancer changed him. How it made him a better, more complete person. He managed to end up as a single minded person, but it is more that he learns more about motivation and goals. He actually seems to regard the cancer as a good thing, in fact it probably helped him to lose upper body muscle weight that made him a more perfect cyclist. The book seems to major on his relationship with his mother a lot, I am not sure how his wife would feel about that.

He certainly comes across as a thoughtful guy who metamorphosed from an angry, aggressive outsider to someone who seems to appreciate the depth of life.

The style of writing is very easy to read. The book does cover his first tour win, but he really names few of his team mates or competitors. It is really a book that deals with him rather than his relationship with other people.

Profile

radiantsoul: (Default)
radiantsoul

December 2016

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
1819 2021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags