Has any one read this book. I was just sitting here in my moms office working on a Sat. morning, and I saw she had this on her book shelf. Has any one read it, Who Moved my Cheese? By. Spencer Johnson, M.D. If you have read it what did you think of it and what did you get out of it?
Who Moved my cheese?
- Thread starter kcklla
- Start date
I read it some time ago.
I liked the simplicity of the issues brought fourth.
BUT. I really didn't like the lack of concern about ethical and philosophical implications involved. Johnson essentially separates people into the 4 categories and says that one has to either forsee the change and change with society immediately, or to change after others do, or to refuse change, or to change at a much later time.
The problem with this is that while change does occur, the question he never addresses is: "just what good is change?"
Is all progress necessarily good? Just because a persom invents a new technological advance, and this changes the course of history, why is the person who changes the fastest the best off? He implies that the person who refuses change is the worst off while is reality that isn't necessarily so. Look at the Amish. They have refused the modern benefits in favor of keeping a community. They have a low divorce rate, they are generally very healthy, they are happy with life and not depressed. They have a strong familial structue. Their community supports each other. Not to say they they are perfect but compare this with the condition of the modern man. The modern man is depressed, searches for meaning, kills each other, hates work, and generally has little community. This is the result of immediately accepting change as very great without fully considering WHY the change should be accepted. Without a consideration of why, people are grasping at more and more, at faster and better but they never arrive at a destination. They are climbing a vertical wall, trying to grab onto something to hold on to.
So, I didn't especially like what he said nor do I agree. Is his book accurate in the modern context? Yes. But only if one values the western definition of wealth as success in a market economy in the form of monetary gain.
That is the full implication of his book although it has valid and accurate psychological observations about people and the social millieu.
I liked the simplicity of the issues brought fourth.
BUT. I really didn't like the lack of concern about ethical and philosophical implications involved. Johnson essentially separates people into the 4 categories and says that one has to either forsee the change and change with society immediately, or to change after others do, or to refuse change, or to change at a much later time.
The problem with this is that while change does occur, the question he never addresses is: "just what good is change?"
Is all progress necessarily good? Just because a persom invents a new technological advance, and this changes the course of history, why is the person who changes the fastest the best off? He implies that the person who refuses change is the worst off while is reality that isn't necessarily so. Look at the Amish. They have refused the modern benefits in favor of keeping a community. They have a low divorce rate, they are generally very healthy, they are happy with life and not depressed. They have a strong familial structue. Their community supports each other. Not to say they they are perfect but compare this with the condition of the modern man. The modern man is depressed, searches for meaning, kills each other, hates work, and generally has little community. This is the result of immediately accepting change as very great without fully considering WHY the change should be accepted. Without a consideration of why, people are grasping at more and more, at faster and better but they never arrive at a destination. They are climbing a vertical wall, trying to grab onto something to hold on to.
So, I didn't especially like what he said nor do I agree. Is his book accurate in the modern context? Yes. But only if one values the western definition of wealth as success in a market economy in the form of monetary gain.
That is the full implication of his book although it has valid and accurate psychological observations about people and the social millieu.
linuxboy I agree with you totaly... Thats really what i got out of it. Its nice if you dont know how to deal with change on your own but all of it isnt god. Right on
what's amusing to me is that it was bestseller for 4-5 some weeks. The "lessons" in that book can be learned by simply reading a good philosophy book or even modern literature (or by going outside and living life : ). But hey, what do I know. I don't have an MD like Johnson.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter