[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1608700085059.png (498 KB, 676x648)
498 KB
498 KB PNG
Which books would you say are incredibly well written, that have a kind of "magic sauce" that 99% of other course material doesn't possess?

On the flipside, which books are fucking awful?

Three books that really stand out for me are:
>How Humans Evolved, Boyd & Silk
https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324061748
>An Introduction to Behavioral Endocrinology, Nelson & Kriegsfeld
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/an-introduction-to-behavioral-endocrinology-sixth-edition-9780197542750
>Methylxanthines, Fredholm
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-13443-2

The first two are incredibly intuitive. These authors provide many analogies and insights that help you to quickly absorb the material on a very basic level, and in some cases they are able to deepen your understanding with their perspectives, even if you are already familiar with the subject matter. Perfect balance between creative writing and presenting the subject matter.

The third is for me the perfect kind of "specialization book". Usually these are filled with individual articles that expand upon the particular author's research. These kinds of books are often mangled collections of individual pieces related to the subject, just kind of cobbled together. "Methylxanthines" is incredibly comprehensive, structured and relevant, which is very unusual for this type of book.

These two are fucking garbage:
>Attention: Theory and Practice, Johnson & Proctor
>Behavioural Neuroscience, Breedlove

The first is incredibly incoherent. It jumps from topic to topic without really grounding the reader in any of them, and terminology is constantly spewed that hasn't really been expanded upon early in the book.

The second is so pedantic and dry, it doesn't just fail to immerse the reader in the subject, but it's likely to extinguish the passion of someone who already enjoys the subject. Feels like you're pushed out of the trenches in World War 1 and you just have to run through No Man's Land.
>>
Tertium Organum? At the Time? Haven't read yet
>>
>>16868856
1912



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.