So, about every 3rd thread recommends this book, so I thought I'd read it. Now, I'm apparently going to commit MDC heresy...
I wasnt all that impressed. I DID like the chapers on describing fear and intuition. I liked the sort of "what to look out for and why certain interactions can justifiably set someone on edge" and I like that it "gives permission to follow gut feelings" and not need to "rationalize" all the time and trust that sometimes our brain is registering things that we need to know but due to politeness or whatever, we choose to disregard. That we should listen to that little voice more. That when we feel off-balance, we can respond firmly and directly, even if we don't have "proof". That there are standard sort of ways that people looking to exploit or harm you will use. That trying not to get someone angry or to be polite in the face of blatent disregard for social rules is not a good long-term strategy. Got it, learned some, and agree.
BUT- I was kinda unimpressed with the celebrity stuff and the political assasins. The chapers on domestic violence and dating safety did not apply, so I only skimmed them. And the chapers on violent children and patricide (children killing their parents) was just... gratuitous. His examples were about truly extreme denial (to the point of neglect) of an ill/abused child's needs and the stories were fairly gruesome. I really felt like only about 1/3 of the book really applied and had truly "useable" information for me.
I also felt that there were a lot of inconsistencies and some of the important things to know were left out. Half the book is about listening to intuition regarding fear, and to this he gives examples. He tells the story of someone who was killed by a mail bomb and someone who was the victim of a random shooter at a college. He eludes to the idea that since they had alarmbells, that they should have known or done something to stop or protect themselves. Then, later in the book, he goes into a whole schpiel about how we shouldn't worry about the rare and random violence that is amped by the media. Hmmm....? And random shooters and mailbombs are not square in that category? The "justification" is that with a firm sense of trusting fear and intiution, we should follow it even in those rare cases. But still. It seemed very contractictory. Listen to your fear and intuition to the point of random shooters and mail bombs, but don't get into being fearful of "unlikely scenarios" because that is a waste of your time and your fear. He even dedicates a whole chapter to workplace massacres. I mean, sure they happen, but... Really? And he never really describes what he considers an "unlikely scenario", especially in light of mentioning very rare events as examples of when we should "listen".
Also, he describes the idea of NOT walking around defensive all the time. BUT then he talks about "reasonable precautions". However, he never describes them. He chides people about being in defensive postures or having keys through fingers as a weapon when entering a dark, underground parking lot, but then he describes what appears to be an office building with no especially inflamatory mission- just a regular business- that keeps all doors locked all the time and card access as "good safety". He tells a terrible story of a child sexually abusing other children in a school and then talks about school safety and whatnot, warning parents to be vigilant and put safety first and hinting that schools are not safe (which is quite a claim to make, as there are national, local and even individual person factors in play in any one school and such a broad statement almost amounts to fear mongering- one of the very things he says to stay away from), but ANYTIME your child is out of your sight SOMETHING could happen to them and I finished that portion thinking that the only way to really stop all danger is to tie my child to my hip until he is 25. Which, is of course, unreasonable and paranoid and explicitly stated in the book as what NOT to (want to) do. So, what is his idea of reasonable? He never really explicitly discusses it.
So, I read "The Gift of Fear". I guess I will take some from it and maybe remember to be a little more bold when I feel I am being intimidated or uncomfortable (though I pretty much always was anyway). But I didn't find it quite what others did. I guess I'm just kinda bummed about it.
And- as a side note, I found a bunch of the language very self-congradulatory and somewhat self-serving. He didn't really miss an opportunity to tell what committees he was on, what groups he funds, what high-profile type people he's worked with, which high profile court cases he testified on, etc. He also quoted some very wild-sounding statistics, but they were vague and did not have references so I did not know what to make of them.
Out of 5 stars, I give it 2.5.
I wasnt all that impressed. I DID like the chapers on describing fear and intuition. I liked the sort of "what to look out for and why certain interactions can justifiably set someone on edge" and I like that it "gives permission to follow gut feelings" and not need to "rationalize" all the time and trust that sometimes our brain is registering things that we need to know but due to politeness or whatever, we choose to disregard. That we should listen to that little voice more. That when we feel off-balance, we can respond firmly and directly, even if we don't have "proof". That there are standard sort of ways that people looking to exploit or harm you will use. That trying not to get someone angry or to be polite in the face of blatent disregard for social rules is not a good long-term strategy. Got it, learned some, and agree.
BUT- I was kinda unimpressed with the celebrity stuff and the political assasins. The chapers on domestic violence and dating safety did not apply, so I only skimmed them. And the chapers on violent children and patricide (children killing their parents) was just... gratuitous. His examples were about truly extreme denial (to the point of neglect) of an ill/abused child's needs and the stories were fairly gruesome. I really felt like only about 1/3 of the book really applied and had truly "useable" information for me.
I also felt that there were a lot of inconsistencies and some of the important things to know were left out. Half the book is about listening to intuition regarding fear, and to this he gives examples. He tells the story of someone who was killed by a mail bomb and someone who was the victim of a random shooter at a college. He eludes to the idea that since they had alarmbells, that they should have known or done something to stop or protect themselves. Then, later in the book, he goes into a whole schpiel about how we shouldn't worry about the rare and random violence that is amped by the media. Hmmm....? And random shooters and mailbombs are not square in that category? The "justification" is that with a firm sense of trusting fear and intiution, we should follow it even in those rare cases. But still. It seemed very contractictory. Listen to your fear and intuition to the point of random shooters and mail bombs, but don't get into being fearful of "unlikely scenarios" because that is a waste of your time and your fear. He even dedicates a whole chapter to workplace massacres. I mean, sure they happen, but... Really? And he never really describes what he considers an "unlikely scenario", especially in light of mentioning very rare events as examples of when we should "listen".
Also, he describes the idea of NOT walking around defensive all the time. BUT then he talks about "reasonable precautions". However, he never describes them. He chides people about being in defensive postures or having keys through fingers as a weapon when entering a dark, underground parking lot, but then he describes what appears to be an office building with no especially inflamatory mission- just a regular business- that keeps all doors locked all the time and card access as "good safety". He tells a terrible story of a child sexually abusing other children in a school and then talks about school safety and whatnot, warning parents to be vigilant and put safety first and hinting that schools are not safe (which is quite a claim to make, as there are national, local and even individual person factors in play in any one school and such a broad statement almost amounts to fear mongering- one of the very things he says to stay away from), but ANYTIME your child is out of your sight SOMETHING could happen to them and I finished that portion thinking that the only way to really stop all danger is to tie my child to my hip until he is 25. Which, is of course, unreasonable and paranoid and explicitly stated in the book as what NOT to (want to) do. So, what is his idea of reasonable? He never really explicitly discusses it.
So, I read "The Gift of Fear". I guess I will take some from it and maybe remember to be a little more bold when I feel I am being intimidated or uncomfortable (though I pretty much always was anyway). But I didn't find it quite what others did. I guess I'm just kinda bummed about it.
And- as a side note, I found a bunch of the language very self-congradulatory and somewhat self-serving. He didn't really miss an opportunity to tell what committees he was on, what groups he funds, what high-profile type people he's worked with, which high profile court cases he testified on, etc. He also quoted some very wild-sounding statistics, but they were vague and did not have references so I did not know what to make of them.
Out of 5 stars, I give it 2.5.
