Kevin Bacon Books

As a CPA and candidate for controller of Montgomery County, PA, it is refreshing to see the long-term planning, comparison, functional issue review, and the "watchdog" functions of a controller so well laid out. Montgomery County will be well served to use this planning approach.

Please tell me it's not this easy to run a city. If all the Giulianis, Rendells, and Daleys of the world would just implement this new direction for urban america, our cities would not be afflicted with the ills they currently suffer. Every big city resident should demand that local government run as recommended in this book. Students, policy professionals, elected officials, and urbanites everywhere should make this book a part of their libraries.

I am a passionate city fan and wish every mayor in the country would read this book and implement the policies the authors advocate. There are no quick fixes to the problems shared by large American cities (crime, poverty, decay). As successful cities prove over and over, local government must concentrate on the basics -- improving schools, reducing crime, lowering taxes -- to make the city a place where people want to be instead of a place people want to avoid. If Philadelphia would adopt the recommendations of this book, the city would truly be a great one.

Jonathan Saidel and his staff at the City Controller's Office have truly revolutionized the way city government looks at urban policy in 21st century Philadelphia. This initiative demonstrates how municipal governments can spearhead positive change in urban America. The socioeconomic proposals demand serious consideration in an ever-competitive urban environment. Philadelphia can now be seen as a motivating force for improved urban life. Citizens now can view government as a partner for improved quality of life.

This book makes concrete, achievable, realistic suggestions for reform in Philadelphia which will serve as a model for public policy direction in cities across the US. Mandel, Babyak, and Volpe have written the definitive text to lead Philadelphia into the next century. PANUD also would be an excellent textbook for public policy, urban studies, and government courses at the college and graduate levels.

Every psychologist (science-practitioner) who conducts psychoeducational evaluations should read this book. It not only summarizes the latest research on cognitive abilities, but it shows the way to apply these results to practice. My only criticism is that maybe the authors should have emphasized a little more the fact that interpretation of results is mostly scientific, but also a bit artistic/intuitive.

Great introduction to Gf-Gc Theory for practitioners. The authors did an excellent job of explaining Gf-Gc theory, test interpretation using Gf-Gc theory, and implications of the results. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the field of educational assessment.

This book is very interesting and it helped me a lot. It arrived on time.

How to think straight about psychology is a great book about how to critical thinking in psychology. Excellent examples are provided for all concepts discussed. Great for the begining student.

I'm not surprised this book has gotten good reviews. In terms of laying out the methodology of the discipline, and systematically defending some of the sophomoric objections people have to it, it's perfectly laudable. However, when the author goes on riffs against every strawman he can think of in the throes of a vague persecution complex, and regurgitates the party line of a Demon Haunted World, in which scientific empiricism is the only real savior, but does so without any of Sagan's inquisitive spirit and fundamental open-mindedness, my eyes glaze over. The fact that not many people have the critical background to see this -- particularly psychology students -- makes me a little sad.

"The world is full of nonsense, like psychic healers and astrology," the book will tell you in a vaguely messianic tone, proffering three or four caricatures of non-empirical quackery to drive the point home, "but now we have the power to question this nonsense, and it's called science!"

It's a good thing the world we live in isn't bass-ackwards like the one in Galileo's time, you think, and that you've found a like mind within it. You feel reassured.

"But," it says then, "there are forces out in the world that object to Psychology becoming widespread, just like they did with Galileo!" And, of course, you gasp, just as the author proffers a few more empirical examples about the unending folly of intuition and subjectivity, from which we finally have the scientific and statistical tools necessary to shelter ourselves.

Unfortunately, it turns out that every non-empirical idea presented in the book, whether dangerous or merely silly, is taken up as a caricature for the purposes of swift dismissal. "Crap", you think, "before we had science, we really had nothing! Just a bunch of dogma and lies!"

Now, of course, you have found someone who will help you to cut through the nonsense, and even allow you to pat yourself on the back for your newfound critical thinking skills -- according, of course, to the methodology he just gave you, which is quite unconcerned with the incredible leaps of reductionistic logic that litter the portions of his text that are not backed up by empirical evidence, and quite content with developing a narrative hostile to any other sort of thinking about human beings. Here, "American Experimental Psychology" is substituted for "Science in General" and we are supposed to be none the wiser.

Now, considering that Stanovich is out there to make you a "critical consumer of information," as he himself admits, this is all good and well, right? He's not out to make an Einstein or even a Skinner, he's out to keep you away from the Snake Oil salesman. This seems to reveal, to my mind at least, that the standards Stanovich aspires for in his readers are not too high, but entirely too low.

It simply seems to me that the scientific community ought to espouse understanding of society and the human condition not nearly so patronizing, or ultimately as adolescent as the one presented here. Is this an acceptable representation of the spirit of the endeavor? Doesn't the position of psychology, both as a body of scientific knowledge and as a privileged institution (particularly in North America), necessitate a less reactionary way of looking at the world? And to think that this book is often intended for students!

I shudder to think that a satisfied "consumer" of this book, who hadn't even thought to ask the question, might go on to become yet another cynical acolyte of the methodology, or worse, to be turned away from it altogether.

If you really want to be a critical thinker -- and an undogmatic one -- I don't necessarily discourage you from picking up this book and reading ever page of it, especially if you are in Psychology. Know the methodology and understand why it works. (It really does.) But in that regard I would say this: you ought not to forget that what really keeps science both serious and alive is not mere allegiance to a methodology but a respect for rigorous inquiry and a curious mind.

If the points I'm making interest you, and you like to read, I recommend a few things. I think the thing Stanovich brings attention to is important: more people ought to know how to think properly about what they're trying to think about. I also think that people ought to learn how to argue their cases without patronizing their readership, and there are a handful of good authors who do a far better job of avoiding precisely this.

First, pick up a more general text on logic or rhetoric -- to get a broader grasp on thinking in general. The "Introducing..." series by Icon Books is fantastic for this, illustrated throughout but without lacking good content. They even have one on Psychology and mind and brain.

Also, read Thomas Kuhn to get some general perspective on the philosophy of science. Kuhn presents a very difficult case of his own one with all the reserve one would expect of a respected physicist, and though the "theory" of his is well-known, the particulars of it are quite relevant to the sort of ideological thinking that Stanovich manifests so lamentably well.

So why does the choice even have to *be* between dogma and science? The answer, I would say, is that it does not. Jacques Barzun wrote an interesting book in this regard called "The House of Intellect" that might be worth looking into.

As for the "spirit of the endeavor" side of things I recommend two authors, Erich Fromm and Carl Sagan. The first wasn't a scientist in the sense that the modern discipline necessitates, but you'll at least get to see what I mean by a spirit that is driven by something quite other than a simple need to "stick-it-to-the-man of 'common sense' with the billy-club of science." Sagan on the other hand is an astronomer par excellence and one of its greatest popularizers, whose "Demon Haunted World" focuses on a similar theme to Stanovich's, but who nevertheless has always urged readers to let their imaginations soar. To see the just what sorts of wondrous speculative insights such a mind can have on the topic of human existence, take a look at "The Dragons of Eden."

"Straight" is certainly one important way to think about science, but as Sagan himself would likely tell you, it doesn't have to be the only one.

This book was assigned by my professor in Research Method class and it is the first textbook that I actually enjoy reading!
Accessible language, examples helpful in understanding complicated concepts- really great book!

A very insightful introduction into scientific method as it used in Psycholgy. The text is well-written and full of references to research projects. The author incorporates real life situations as well as psychological research programs into the text. The way the author communicate is amazingly straightforward. Read it and you start to look at Psycholgy in a clearer way.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Now this is a great book. It essentially addresses the ways psychologists (particularly those involved in research) think about what they do, and furthermore, debunks some of the criticisms and misconceptions from the public about what psychologists do (that's right - most of us no longer are interested in the pathology of potty-training!). Three particularly great parts are the one on falsifiability (crucial when evaluating the claims of self-help gurus, or advocates of unusual theories), the one on converging evidence (i.e. when the results of individual and differing studies point toward the same general conclusions), and the importance of probabalistic thinking (i.e. when thinking about coincidences).

The only criticism I can bestow on Stanovich is his treatment of parapsychology. Stanovich basically claims that psychologists don't have any interest in investigating psi phenomena because the majority of research conducted over the past few decades has been non-significant, and any significant results have been extremely difficult to replicate. I haven't received the impression that this is the case. For anybody interested, I recommend "The Conscious Universe," by Dr. Dean Radin. Radin presents an eye-opening analysis of psi research conducted throughout the past few decades. He makes a particularity strong case for its reality using the principle of converging evidence. The most derisive criticism for Radin's book came from the journal "Nature" in 1998. Interestingly, the journal refused to publish a rebuttal sent in by Nobel Laureate Brain Josephson citing statistical errors made by the reviewer (look in Brian Josephson's home page to find it, as well as a couple of Radin's letters asking the reviewer to correct some statistical errors made in the review). Likewise, the Parapsychological Association (www.parapsych.org) is teeming with professional research. I think most reasonable researchers would admit that not all of this research can be totally bogus, flawed, fraud, etc.

That said, Stanovich has written a great book (essential, in my opinion) for both psychology students, and perhaps the interested general reader alike!

This game can be fun for people really into movies and the "creators" of the game have given us a pretty good companion book for people to check themselves. However, I found one very glaring mistake in the book. In the section about the Baldwins they claim that you can link Billy Baldwin to Kevin Pollak in The Usual Suspects and then to Kevin Bacon in A Few Good Men. Unfortunately, Billy Baldwin wasn't in The Usual Suspects. His brother Stephen was in The Usual Suspects. I'm a little surprised that no one has written about this in a review yet. For a couple of guys you claim to know a lot about Kevin Bacon, they sure screwed that one up. Other than that, this book is fun.

Only good to go along with the game--and the game is impossible to play.

OK, I was in the first dinner theatre production of "A Chorus Line" with Joe Inscoe who was in "From the Earth to the Moon" with Elizabeth Perkins who was in "He said She said" with Kevin Bacon.

This is a charming commentary on the prolific career one of America's premier thespians. In this modern classic, Mr. Ginelli truly captures the essence of Mr. Bacon's career on the big screen. Like a barefoot jaunt through a flowery meadow, this novel captivates all of the readers senses. Thank you Mr. Ginelli for this masterpiece of modern literature.

This book is a companion piece to the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game. I've played the game a few times, but I never actually knew there was a real 'board game' game of the game until recently. I figured that the book might help me learn a bit more about that wonderful actor, Kevin Bacon, and give me an edge over my croonies in crime the next time we play the game. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot here. The book is quite short and basically consists of a bunch of "six degrees or less" lists. The introduction by Kevin Bacon himself is interesting to read and so is the history of the game. The book also has a Kevin Bacon filmography that is rather informative. However, the book needs an update because Bacon's been in several films since 1997. This book is great for any fan of Bacon, any serious film buff, and anyone who likes to play the game. If you don't fall into one of those categories, don't waste your money.

I never know what to expect when ordering something used. I was very happy, it was like brand new, but at a used price. Very nice, Thanks

Dr. Meyer's Case Studies is a well-written and comprehensive view of mental disorders. It is a fine supplement to any abnormal, clinical or forensic psychology class. Disregard the previous reviewer's comments. It is obvious that his political views cloud his "scholarly" judgment.

This is an excellent collection of case studies that illustrate the various classes of mental disorders. It is a useful addition to courses on psychopathology. Although most abnormal psychology texts have a few case studies, it is helpful to have even more examples.

The book includes several case studies for each class of mental disorder, as well as descriptions of the common features of each class. It discusses differential diagnosis and treatment options for each class of disorder, although sometimes these discussions (particularly regarding treatment options) are not as thorough as one could hope. However, given that the purpose is to serve as a secondary text, it is more than adequate.

One feature of the book can be a strength or a weakness, depending on your point of view. The author includes many case studies of famous people (e.g., Karen Carpenter for anorexia). This can be considered a strength, as it is likely to engage people in learning the material. It is also a weakness, primarily because these figures typically have much more severe forms of the disorder than most people are likely to encounter in clinical practice (most people with paraphilias are not like Jeffrey Dahmer). These examples are useful for learning about the core features of a disorder, but less useful for depicting the typical presentation in a clinical context. Even given this limitation, I highly recommend this book for anyone who is taking an advanced undergraduate course in psychopathology.

In the case studies for abnormal sexual behaviors, along with Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, is listed that one of William Jefferson Clinton. If we consider the life of the former president an abnormal behavior instead of a political maneuvre to discredit a political opponent on an issue that it would be otherwise been accepted as a normal behavior from very many in the U.S. and abroad - many psychologists included - we teach a dangerous lesson and we set a dangerous standard. Such lesson would be very much welcomed by those people who exploit sexual personal issues to either state a twisted ethics (like Sen. Rick Santorum) or present a non-serious examination of sexual abnormal behavior, based on facts not always proved , like Mr. Meyer did in the case of Mr. Clinton.

On the back of my book, USA Today quips, "Catcher in the Rye for the MTV generation." I couldn't agree with that statement more (although I really didn't care for Catcher). Less Than Zero's Clay has the cynicism and adolescent boredom of Holden Caulfield, only on a more depraved level. He surrounds himself with degenerates who lead decadent, shallow lives full of drugs, booze, sex, and money. When one character is asked, "...What don't you have," he replies, "I don't have anything to lose." That sums up this narrative of aimless wanderings and deep unhappiness, which defines Ellis as the voice of his generation.

Um, this is pretty much like every other Bret Easton Ellis book, except it was the first, so I guess they are all like this one. It's about a bunch of rich kids who became jaded about life too early on. They do a bunch of drugs. Have a bunch of sex and commit crimes that don't really disturb them, including raping a 12-year-old girl. It's pretty good up until the end, where the 12-year-old girl came in. That was a bit too much for me.

The thing I found interesting about this book is that it's based in L.A. and the people in it are exactly what I expect of the rich L.A. brats, even though the book was written in 1985. It's Laguna Beach, before Reality TV was invented. I seriously would have thought the book was written today, except for the references to playing the atari and putting movies in the betamax. That kind of dated the book a bit.

Ellis is an expert at chronicling the callow consumerism and nihilism of a particular breed of American wealth. He hits it here. These characters aren't at all overblown. They are incredibly shallow. They are exactly as shallow as they would be if they were actually alive. If you don't know people who are exactly like this then you've never known anyone from Sherman Oaks or Beverly Hills.

And then, as he always does, once he's created these completely plausible characters, Ellis starts dragging things more and more extreme. Do I "believe" the section about the snuff film? It's irrelevant, because I do believe that if these characters were alive this is how they would react and (as I said) characters just like these are actually alive.

One note on the film version: I'm a fan of Ellis' works, but had left this one aside because of the film. Now that I've read it I can't see how they got that film from this book. Or maybe I can: if the film was like the book it would have cut a bit too close for the people making it. One thought though: it's said that after playing Jeanne d'Arc, Falconetti never worked again, the role changed her so much. In the film the role of Julian is played by Robert Downey Jr...

This book is a disturbing look at the overpowering negative aspects of life in L.A. All the drug use and the emptiness that comes with a privileged life devoid of meaning are narrated by a protagonist from that environment, a kid who has left for school in New England and is back visiting for the holidays walking his old beaten paths with friends and reflecting on his life. What I found most depressing about this story is that this is the sort of life to which our consumerist culture, thanks to "reality" shows like The Hills", has conditioned kids everywhere to aspire. I have met kids in small-town Macon, Georgia for whom this sort of life is the type they happily strive to emulate.

Less Than Zero is a youthful spurt dripping with the removed, disinterested excess of modern youth. Ellis portrays the lives of rich, young, carefree L.A. kids so accurately that it is difficult to distinguish any removed perspective of him as author, other than the implied commentary in the portrayal of the characters themselves. Clay returns home from his first semester at college to find his friends continuing on a path of utter nihilism. Excessive drug use, promiscuous sex, and even premature death are dealt with in such an unemotional carelessness by Ellis' characters that they offer little indication of the relevance of anything in their lives. Clay's friends are so overstimulated by the excesses of wealth and modern society that they become incapable of stimulation. However, unlike Salinger's Holden Caulfield, to whom Clay is often compared, Ellis seems to shy away from creating a sympathetic critic of society in his protagonist. Clay presents the situation in its brutal reality, with little commentary. While the novel is a great success in conveying the degeneracy of wealth and the blasé attitude of youth, it falls short in truly indicting this culture. Ellis expects this nihilism to impeach itself, but offers little positive hope, in even the possibility of personal reflection from Clay, so that the reader is merely left with an overwhelming sense of nothingness, a profound statement on corruption that lacks any positive artistic statement.

Good girl, Bad girl was a well written book on Whitney Houston, but unfortunately the book was unauthorized and none of us know if any of the information was true. I will say that many of his comments were true, I know because I am a true Whitney Houston fan. Getting to the contents of the rest of the book I liked it,Ammons words seemed truely sincere he seemed to know information only some one close to Whitney would know. I gave this book 2 stars, because it is an unauthorized, so for that I took I took away some stars.

I wanted to read a biography on one of my favorite singers that will give a realistic, yet, smart look on her life. Good Girl, Bad Girl is nothing but a piece of trash written by a man who either wanted to get back on Whitney for something, or was looking to make a quick buck at her expense. I am aware that celebrity lives behind the spotlight might not be wonderful---but I still feel that they are entitled to their privacy. I am so glad I didn't buy this book, I returned it to my friend the very next day, I didn't bother to finish it.

Oh please, read the book, wasn't thrilled. It had it's amusing points, but I think that Mr. Ammons has a vendetta against Whitney and this is the payback. I am no where near a Whitney houston fan and I read this with the intention of having more fuel to add to my fire- but this was no kerosene. I often got the impression that though this was supposed to be a "tell-all", Mr. Ammons was reluctant to diverge a lot of information he could have told. Maybe he's saving that for a follow-up, who knows? who cares? This book is best left in the store.

I enjoyed this book on Whitney Houston and I know personally that a lot of what Kevin Ammons says in the book is true. I took away one star, as the latter part of the book sounds like research and not first hand knowledge.

Sounds to me like Kevin wrote this book to make a quick buck and to get back at Regina. And Kevin was just as scanless as Regina he had a wife and children, however, was having an affair with Regina because of the promise of a record deal. Most of the things that were written about Whitney was not original. I could have wrote this book myself based on gathering information from previous articles written on Whitney. He should have wrote a novel about him and Regina and their scanless ways. I am glad that I waited for this book to come out in paper.

I was rather unimpressed with this skimpy text. It quickly skims over many aspects of our digital society. Without having the space to adequately address these. For example, no mention of the rise of blogging. Though this was already common in 2003, when the book was published. The biggest omission is of search engines. Google was already popular in 2003. But even aside from that, other search engines had already been widely used by the late 90s, like Yahoo or Altavista. It was recognised that they played a vital part in enabling access to the Web's riches.

The index is sloppily put together. It lists Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, who is described in the book. But it omits Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the Web. Though Berners-Lee is in fact also mentioned in the narrative. While the crucial "browser" inexplicably does not have its own entry in the index. Instead, it is put under the World Wide Web item.