Five lectures George Soros recently delivered at the Central European University in Budapest - which he founded in 1991 - distill a lifetime of thinking on finance, capitalism and open society In a series of lectures delivered at the Central European University in October 2009, George Soros provided a broad overview of his thoughts on economics and politics. The lectures are the culmination of a lifetime of practical and philosophical reflection. In the first and second lecture, Soros discusses his general theory of reflexivity and its application to financial markets, providing insight into the recent financial crisis. The third and fourth lectures examine the concept of open society, which has guided Soros' global philanthropy, as well as the potential for conflict between capitalism and open society. The closing lecture focuses on the way ahead, closely examining the increasingly important economic and political role that China will play in the future. "The Budapest Lectures" presents these five seminal talks into one volume, which offers a condensed and highly readable summary of Soros' world view.
The Soros Lectures: At the Central European University
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are you a finance, investing, economics or accounting professional? Find books, read blog posts, and discover new authors and thought-leaders in Money & Markets, a new home for finance industry professionals on Amazon.com. > Shop now |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
Fareed Zakaria, CNN
“It’s a terrific look into the worldview of one of the richest and most fascinating men in the world.”
Guardian
“Soros offers a charming mix of autobiography, analysis of the financial crisis, and explication of his concept of ‘reflexivity’ in economics.”
Financial World
“It’s a terrific look into the worldview of one of the richest and most fascinating men in the world.”
Guardian
“Soros offers a charming mix of autobiography, analysis of the financial crisis, and explication of his concept of ‘reflexivity’ in economics.”
Financial World
“When George Soros speaks, people listen, which is why this collection of lectures by Soros on his philosophy of life and markets will command attention.”
About the Author
George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and the founder of a global network of foundations dedicated to supporting open societies. He is the author of several best-selling books, most recently The New Paradigm for Financial Markets. He was born in Budapest and lives in New York City.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
George Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary on August 12, 1930. He survived the occupation of Budapest and left communist Hungary in 1947 for England, where he graduated from the London School of Economics. While a student at LSE, Mr. Soros became familiar with the work of the philosopher Karl Popper, who had a profound influence on his thinking and later on his professional and philanthropic activities. The financier. In 1956 Mr. Soros moved to the United States, where he began to accumulate a large fortune through an international investment fund he founded and managed. Today he is Chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
36 of 43 people found the following review helpful
By S. Spilka
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
At this--America's dark and anxious hour--the Soros Lectures comes to us as a rare gift of clear and deep thinking about American democracy. This is the clarion call of the man who created the Open Society Foundation and dedicated his life to the enhancement of democracy in America, as well as in many closed societies all over the globe.
I was particularly struck by the force and lucidity of Lectures three and four, which explain, in a succinct and distilled manner, how our present dire situation threatens not only the financial well-being of all Americans, but also the essence of our democracy--the open society.
Many may raise an eye-brow at the notion that our society is no longer the open society our founders envisioned. Can't we say, print, or tweet anything we want? Can't we freely assemble and freely practice our various religions? True, we can. However, Soros examines the open society concept from a different angle. His explicit requirement for an open society is "the pursuit of truth" (63). In our society, this requirement is a tall order. Politicians and markets have learned that through various propaganda devices reality can be manipulated. This manipulation, according to Soros, has been gradually progressing for a long time but has reached its ultimate expression during the Bush presidency (63). With "alarm," Soros notes that "it has surfaced in the Obama administration as well" (67). Soros was further shocked to find out that Frank Lunz, a right-wing propagandist, "openly admitted that he used George Orwell's 1984 as his textbook in devising his slogans" (59). This discovery is indeed shocking, not only because it points out that the manipulation of truth has been conscious and deliberate, but also because it suggests a connection between the Communist dictatorship, which Orwell describes, and the "dictatorship," if we may call it so, of manipulated reality.
If deception is to be effective, however, the populace must be willing to embrace it. Indeed, they are. In Soros' words, Americans "are not particularly concerned with the pursuit of truth" (58). In fact, "they do not mind being deceived; indeed, they seem to positively invite it" (60). Why? Because Americans "are more interested in being entertained than informed" (60). They are eager to avoid "unpleasant realities" and pursue, instead, the "path of least resistance" (68). Sadly, President Obama, sensing that the country "is unwilling to face harsh realities" (69) has himself ducked them. Soros does not develop this subject, but I wonder, in light of his insights, if Obama has ever faced the nation with bitter truths or inspired it to acts of courage and discipline. The danger to our open society does not come from Big Brother but from our own cowardice and chase of vain pleasures.
In the next chapter, "Capitalism versus Open Society," Soros examines the "deep-seated conflict between capitalism and open society" (81). The market's pursuit of profit is amoral and that, according to Soros, is fine as long as the market is separate from politics and culture. But it isn't. In present day America, market "fundamentalism" (76) threatens the integrity of our social values by penetrating into areas--politics, law, education, and journalism--where it does not belong. Our society is ensnared by profit and greed. Our politicians put their own interests "ahead of the interests of the people" (82). Getting elected is so expensive that politicians are "beholden to their supporters" (82). Money corrupts politicians and special interests contaminate the political process. Surely, this is not a new idea, but it bears repeating because it puts into sharp relief our loss of all sense of shame. Americans are proud of their success, "irrespective of how they achieve it"(83). This may be illustrated by the recent Supreme Court decision which facilitated the flooding of our political system with special interests' money, but since Soros does not mention this decision, I assume that he published his book before it was announced. I wonder what he thinks about it.
The last chapter of the book is titled "The Way Ahead." However, the only solution Soros can offer is the separation of the markets from society. But how can we do that? Does anybody know?
This book is a seminal study. I hope its ideas will spread and capture the imagination of thinkers, artists, and doers, all across this land.
Shelly Spilka
I was particularly struck by the force and lucidity of Lectures three and four, which explain, in a succinct and distilled manner, how our present dire situation threatens not only the financial well-being of all Americans, but also the essence of our democracy--the open society.
Many may raise an eye-brow at the notion that our society is no longer the open society our founders envisioned. Can't we say, print, or tweet anything we want? Can't we freely assemble and freely practice our various religions? True, we can. However, Soros examines the open society concept from a different angle. His explicit requirement for an open society is "the pursuit of truth" (63). In our society, this requirement is a tall order. Politicians and markets have learned that through various propaganda devices reality can be manipulated. This manipulation, according to Soros, has been gradually progressing for a long time but has reached its ultimate expression during the Bush presidency (63). With "alarm," Soros notes that "it has surfaced in the Obama administration as well" (67). Soros was further shocked to find out that Frank Lunz, a right-wing propagandist, "openly admitted that he used George Orwell's 1984 as his textbook in devising his slogans" (59). This discovery is indeed shocking, not only because it points out that the manipulation of truth has been conscious and deliberate, but also because it suggests a connection between the Communist dictatorship, which Orwell describes, and the "dictatorship," if we may call it so, of manipulated reality.
If deception is to be effective, however, the populace must be willing to embrace it. Indeed, they are. In Soros' words, Americans "are not particularly concerned with the pursuit of truth" (58). In fact, "they do not mind being deceived; indeed, they seem to positively invite it" (60). Why? Because Americans "are more interested in being entertained than informed" (60). They are eager to avoid "unpleasant realities" and pursue, instead, the "path of least resistance" (68). Sadly, President Obama, sensing that the country "is unwilling to face harsh realities" (69) has himself ducked them. Soros does not develop this subject, but I wonder, in light of his insights, if Obama has ever faced the nation with bitter truths or inspired it to acts of courage and discipline. The danger to our open society does not come from Big Brother but from our own cowardice and chase of vain pleasures.
In the next chapter, "Capitalism versus Open Society," Soros examines the "deep-seated conflict between capitalism and open society" (81). The market's pursuit of profit is amoral and that, according to Soros, is fine as long as the market is separate from politics and culture. But it isn't. In present day America, market "fundamentalism" (76) threatens the integrity of our social values by penetrating into areas--politics, law, education, and journalism--where it does not belong. Our society is ensnared by profit and greed. Our politicians put their own interests "ahead of the interests of the people" (82). Getting elected is so expensive that politicians are "beholden to their supporters" (82). Money corrupts politicians and special interests contaminate the political process. Surely, this is not a new idea, but it bears repeating because it puts into sharp relief our loss of all sense of shame. Americans are proud of their success, "irrespective of how they achieve it"(83). This may be illustrated by the recent Supreme Court decision which facilitated the flooding of our political system with special interests' money, but since Soros does not mention this decision, I assume that he published his book before it was announced. I wonder what he thinks about it.
The last chapter of the book is titled "The Way Ahead." However, the only solution Soros can offer is the separation of the markets from society. But how can we do that? Does anybody know?
This book is a seminal study. I hope its ideas will spread and capture the imagination of thinkers, artists, and doers, all across this land.
Shelly Spilka
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Genuine Look into the Mindset of One of the Worlds Truly Distinct Humans
July 31, 2011
By TW
VINE™ VOICE
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Billionaire speculator George Soros is about as intriguing an individual as you can find. Escaping the Nazis with his family as a boy, Soros slowly built up one of the world's largest fortunes by constantly taking advantage of market inefficiencies. Once worth billions, he found himself seeking purpose and developed the Open Society Institute among other philanthropic organizations. Soros prefers now to see himself more as a philosopher than a speculator, although he continues to utilize his monetary theories to run his hedge fund.
As would be expected, the lectures of such a diverse and successful individual are full of intrigue. Each lecture is a reflection of his philosophical views that drive all aspects of his life. His theory of reflexivity defines his understanding of the financial markets giving a broad outline of why he feels he has been able to continue succeed where nearly all fail. He speaks in depth about open societies, a belief that began with discussions with the late Karl Pooper and has developed into a passion for aggressively promoting democracy around the world. Lastly, Soros speaks about his thoughts on the future both from an economical and political point of view where he shares his thoughts on the ramifications of the likely battle between international and state capitalism.
Soros is a polarizing figure as he is not shy about expressing his views and reasoning about politics and the massive hypocritical nature of the self interests of agency relationships, most notably that of governments. Yet reasonable people can disagree and still find value in the substance of well reasoned opposing views, thus no matter how anyone feels about Soros's opinions I have no doubt one can appreciate his reasoning. I am sure these lectures will be of value to anyone with an interest in better understanding some of the world's larger issues.
As would be expected, the lectures of such a diverse and successful individual are full of intrigue. Each lecture is a reflection of his philosophical views that drive all aspects of his life. His theory of reflexivity defines his understanding of the financial markets giving a broad outline of why he feels he has been able to continue succeed where nearly all fail. He speaks in depth about open societies, a belief that began with discussions with the late Karl Pooper and has developed into a passion for aggressively promoting democracy around the world. Lastly, Soros speaks about his thoughts on the future both from an economical and political point of view where he shares his thoughts on the ramifications of the likely battle between international and state capitalism.
Soros is a polarizing figure as he is not shy about expressing his views and reasoning about politics and the massive hypocritical nature of the self interests of agency relationships, most notably that of governments. Yet reasonable people can disagree and still find value in the substance of well reasoned opposing views, thus no matter how anyone feels about Soros's opinions I have no doubt one can appreciate his reasoning. I am sure these lectures will be of value to anyone with an interest in better understanding some of the world's larger issues.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
"In the course of my life," says well-known financier and philanthropist George Soros, "I have developed a conceptual framework that has helped make money... It is about the relationship between thinking and reality... My goal is ambitious. It is that this conceptual framework should provide the foundation for a better understanding of human affairs" (p. vii,3) This book is short, to the point, and stuffed with interesting ideas. If you want to go for an exhilarating merry-go-round with an interesting thinker, I recommend Soros highly. His blend of extreme arrogance and unstudied humility is worth experiencing, as is thinking deeply about the principles he espouses.
Soros studied with the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper, and indeed Soros confesses that in his school days in London (having barely escaped the Nazis in his homeland, Hungary) he "harbored some fantasies of becoming an important philosopher." (p. 7) He has thus spent much of his life switching back and forth between making (lots of) money and writing semi-popular philosophical tracts. As he admits, and for which he blames only himself, these tracts were widely read but dismissed by serious philosophers and economists.
Soros learned from Popper that the "open society" is the only way to truth, and political democracy with civil liberties and a non-intrusive state are the key institutions of an open society. He learned from economics that buyers and sellers are by and large rational, and their judgments about the future are, on average, very accurate. This is the so-called "rational expectations macroeconomics" that developed in the mid-1970's in the hands of Robert Lucas and friends, but was long held in a more tacit form much earlier by most of the great University of Chicago economists, including Milton Friedman and George Stigler, and was doubtless taught at the London School of Economics.
The central principle of rational expectations macro theory is the so-called Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH). The weak form of the EMH states that financial markets are informationally efficient, so that the current price of a security contains all publicly available information concerning its future performance. Because the past performance of a security add no information concerning its future performance, one cannot on average "beat the market" by judicious buying and selling based on stock market levels or dynamics. I believe this principle is highly defensible. Indeed, investors who think they can beat the market using some daffy scheme or other based on market levels or dynamics do nothing other than line the pockets of their brokers.
The strong form of the EMH holds that investors' mean expectations about the future securities prices are unbiased. If the strong form of the EMH were it true, there should never be speculative bubbles, and financial markets should be intrinsically stable. Soros rejects rational expectations theory and the strong form of the EMH precisely because speculative bubbles and financial instability indubitably exist. He is, of course, not alone in holding this position.
It may seem that the weak form of the EMH implies the strong, because in the midst of a speculative bubble, those who get out before the collapse necessarily earn superprofits. Therefore the weak form of the EMH appears to imply that there are no speculative bubbles. The problem with the argument is that no one knows when the collapse will occur, and it may always be better to stay in for the ride rather than watch by the wayside.
Soros' alternative to rational expectations macroeconomics is the theory of reflexivity. "It so happened that the theory of reflexivity," he tells us, "provided me with a new way of looking at financial markets, a better way that the prevailing theory." (p. 8) The theory of reflexivity starts with the observation that there are two aspects of thinking about the social world: the cognitive (understanding the world) and the participatory/manipulative (changing the world). We thus accept an idea either when it true, or when it is very useful and by accepting the idea, we tend to induce others to accept the idea as well. Thus we may embrace ideas, whether true or false, that when conveyed to others, leads them to behave in ways we prefer. Soros gives the example of the idea `This is a revolutionary moment.' Soros observes, "That statement is reflexive, and its truth value depends on the impact it makes." (p. 13)
The most important form of reflexivity for Soros is the reflexive feedback loop: "The participants' views influence the course of events, and the course of events influences the participants' views. " (p. 14) Such feedback loops, suggests Soros, can be negative, in which case the participants' views and the actual situation are brought closer together over time, or positive, in which case they are driven ever further apart. Negative feedback loops are thus self-correcting, while positive feedback loops are inherently self-reinforcing, and hence unstable. Soros also calls positive feedback loops "fertile fallacies." (p. 16)
It is obvious how positive feedback loops can explain speculative bubbles, and hence how Soros' theory of reflexivity might provide an alternative to traditional financial theory. Soros goes further than this to argue that the problem with traditional economics is that it pretends that one can do social science in the same way that we do natural science, and that this is a mistake. "In the case of the natural sciences," says Soros, "events unfold irrespective of the views held by the observers." By contrast, in human affairs, the thoughts and ideas of the observers change the social dynamic. As a result, he says, "social theories themselves are reflexive." (p.23) Therefore social science is far different from natural science: the former is more challenging, simply because it is impossible to tease out the cognitive from the participatory/manipulative aspects of a social theory. In particular social theories can suffer from the same sort of positive feedback loops as occur in human thought in general. In the natural sciences, by contrast, there is no participatory/manipulative element to thought, simply because inert matter does not think, and we cannot persuade it to behave the way we would like. Thus there is never a positive value of an incorrect theory over a correct theory.
If Soros is correct, then we must abandon any attempt to base economic theory in general, and financial theory in particular, on the sorts of scientific models generally used today, and inspired by the successes of the natural science over the past three centuries. Rather, he argues, a philosophical analysis of economic activity, based on the notion of reflexivity and related ideas, can provide the basis for social policy, much as these ideas, he contends, made money for him. This doctrine should be carefully assessed before lending our agreement, because it implies that economic theory, solidly based on the principles of scientific research, is inevitably the enemy of sound social policy. I shall argue that Soros is incorrect in his relegating social theory to the annals of non-scientific discourse.
Soros' assessment of social science is a standard view of some prominent sociologists, especially those informed by Ludwig Wittgenstein's later writing (see for instance Peter Winch's The Idea of a Social Science, 1958). This assessment is rejected by most scientists, natural and social alike. The idea is also a key element of postmodern social theory, which I believe is a humanistic movement lacking any analytical core. Soros does distance himself clearly from postmodernism, asserting that reality eventually comes to bear even on the most vigorous positive feedback systems, holding that a positive feedback system "cannot go on forever because eventually the participants' views would become so far removed from objective reality that the participants would have to recognize them as unrealistic." (16) I infer from this that Soros takes positive feedback systems as occasionally large excursions from a basic equilibrium system in which the majority of feedback mechanisms are negative.
Soros defends his assertion that social theory cannot be scientific by stressing that science is about the natural world, but human thought and subjectivity, the core elements of social life, lie in a subjective realm beyond the natural world. Soros' subjective/objective, ideal/material dichotomy has a venerable lineage back to Hegel and Marx, but it is not at all persuasive. The fact is that the human brain is a part of natural reality, and is subject to the same natural laws as the rest of natural reality. Subjectivity is an expression of the genetic structure of Homo sapiens, and despite its complexity, is substantive part of the natural order. For instance, Soros' positive and negative feedback loops, which he is correct in implicating in humans social dynamics, are part of reality itself, and hence in principle can be studied by traditional scientific methods.
Moreover, the contention that in the natural world, events unfold irrespective of the views of the observers, whereas in the social world, observers and their theories change the course of events, is not correct. Astronomy, geology, epidemiology, evolutionary biology, and host of other natural science research areas have had huge influence on the direction and pace of social change in the modern world, and natural science theories are regularly espoused and rejected because of their social implications. Indeed, individuals have consistently attempted to interpret scientific principles in a way favorable to their political goals (think of Lysenko in the Soviet Union and George W. Bush and his cronies in the United States). Read more ›
Soros studied with the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper, and indeed Soros confesses that in his school days in London (having barely escaped the Nazis in his homeland, Hungary) he "harbored some fantasies of becoming an important philosopher." (p. 7) He has thus spent much of his life switching back and forth between making (lots of) money and writing semi-popular philosophical tracts. As he admits, and for which he blames only himself, these tracts were widely read but dismissed by serious philosophers and economists.
Soros learned from Popper that the "open society" is the only way to truth, and political democracy with civil liberties and a non-intrusive state are the key institutions of an open society. He learned from economics that buyers and sellers are by and large rational, and their judgments about the future are, on average, very accurate. This is the so-called "rational expectations macroeconomics" that developed in the mid-1970's in the hands of Robert Lucas and friends, but was long held in a more tacit form much earlier by most of the great University of Chicago economists, including Milton Friedman and George Stigler, and was doubtless taught at the London School of Economics.
The central principle of rational expectations macro theory is the so-called Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH). The weak form of the EMH states that financial markets are informationally efficient, so that the current price of a security contains all publicly available information concerning its future performance. Because the past performance of a security add no information concerning its future performance, one cannot on average "beat the market" by judicious buying and selling based on stock market levels or dynamics. I believe this principle is highly defensible. Indeed, investors who think they can beat the market using some daffy scheme or other based on market levels or dynamics do nothing other than line the pockets of their brokers.
The strong form of the EMH holds that investors' mean expectations about the future securities prices are unbiased. If the strong form of the EMH were it true, there should never be speculative bubbles, and financial markets should be intrinsically stable. Soros rejects rational expectations theory and the strong form of the EMH precisely because speculative bubbles and financial instability indubitably exist. He is, of course, not alone in holding this position.
It may seem that the weak form of the EMH implies the strong, because in the midst of a speculative bubble, those who get out before the collapse necessarily earn superprofits. Therefore the weak form of the EMH appears to imply that there are no speculative bubbles. The problem with the argument is that no one knows when the collapse will occur, and it may always be better to stay in for the ride rather than watch by the wayside.
Soros' alternative to rational expectations macroeconomics is the theory of reflexivity. "It so happened that the theory of reflexivity," he tells us, "provided me with a new way of looking at financial markets, a better way that the prevailing theory." (p. 8) The theory of reflexivity starts with the observation that there are two aspects of thinking about the social world: the cognitive (understanding the world) and the participatory/manipulative (changing the world). We thus accept an idea either when it true, or when it is very useful and by accepting the idea, we tend to induce others to accept the idea as well. Thus we may embrace ideas, whether true or false, that when conveyed to others, leads them to behave in ways we prefer. Soros gives the example of the idea `This is a revolutionary moment.' Soros observes, "That statement is reflexive, and its truth value depends on the impact it makes." (p. 13)
The most important form of reflexivity for Soros is the reflexive feedback loop: "The participants' views influence the course of events, and the course of events influences the participants' views. " (p. 14) Such feedback loops, suggests Soros, can be negative, in which case the participants' views and the actual situation are brought closer together over time, or positive, in which case they are driven ever further apart. Negative feedback loops are thus self-correcting, while positive feedback loops are inherently self-reinforcing, and hence unstable. Soros also calls positive feedback loops "fertile fallacies." (p. 16)
It is obvious how positive feedback loops can explain speculative bubbles, and hence how Soros' theory of reflexivity might provide an alternative to traditional financial theory. Soros goes further than this to argue that the problem with traditional economics is that it pretends that one can do social science in the same way that we do natural science, and that this is a mistake. "In the case of the natural sciences," says Soros, "events unfold irrespective of the views held by the observers." By contrast, in human affairs, the thoughts and ideas of the observers change the social dynamic. As a result, he says, "social theories themselves are reflexive." (p.23) Therefore social science is far different from natural science: the former is more challenging, simply because it is impossible to tease out the cognitive from the participatory/manipulative aspects of a social theory. In particular social theories can suffer from the same sort of positive feedback loops as occur in human thought in general. In the natural sciences, by contrast, there is no participatory/manipulative element to thought, simply because inert matter does not think, and we cannot persuade it to behave the way we would like. Thus there is never a positive value of an incorrect theory over a correct theory.
If Soros is correct, then we must abandon any attempt to base economic theory in general, and financial theory in particular, on the sorts of scientific models generally used today, and inspired by the successes of the natural science over the past three centuries. Rather, he argues, a philosophical analysis of economic activity, based on the notion of reflexivity and related ideas, can provide the basis for social policy, much as these ideas, he contends, made money for him. This doctrine should be carefully assessed before lending our agreement, because it implies that economic theory, solidly based on the principles of scientific research, is inevitably the enemy of sound social policy. I shall argue that Soros is incorrect in his relegating social theory to the annals of non-scientific discourse.
Soros' assessment of social science is a standard view of some prominent sociologists, especially those informed by Ludwig Wittgenstein's later writing (see for instance Peter Winch's The Idea of a Social Science, 1958). This assessment is rejected by most scientists, natural and social alike. The idea is also a key element of postmodern social theory, which I believe is a humanistic movement lacking any analytical core. Soros does distance himself clearly from postmodernism, asserting that reality eventually comes to bear even on the most vigorous positive feedback systems, holding that a positive feedback system "cannot go on forever because eventually the participants' views would become so far removed from objective reality that the participants would have to recognize them as unrealistic." (16) I infer from this that Soros takes positive feedback systems as occasionally large excursions from a basic equilibrium system in which the majority of feedback mechanisms are negative.
Soros defends his assertion that social theory cannot be scientific by stressing that science is about the natural world, but human thought and subjectivity, the core elements of social life, lie in a subjective realm beyond the natural world. Soros' subjective/objective, ideal/material dichotomy has a venerable lineage back to Hegel and Marx, but it is not at all persuasive. The fact is that the human brain is a part of natural reality, and is subject to the same natural laws as the rest of natural reality. Subjectivity is an expression of the genetic structure of Homo sapiens, and despite its complexity, is substantive part of the natural order. For instance, Soros' positive and negative feedback loops, which he is correct in implicating in humans social dynamics, are part of reality itself, and hence in principle can be studied by traditional scientific methods.
Moreover, the contention that in the natural world, events unfold irrespective of the views of the observers, whereas in the social world, observers and their theories change the course of events, is not correct. Astronomy, geology, epidemiology, evolutionary biology, and host of other natural science research areas have had huge influence on the direction and pace of social change in the modern world, and natural science theories are regularly espoused and rejected because of their social implications. Indeed, individuals have consistently attempted to interpret scientific principles in a way favorable to their political goals (think of Lysenko in the Soviet Union and George W. Bush and his cronies in the United States). Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
I wish more people of distinction wrote down organized thoughts about...
This isn't a vanity book written by a ghostwriter for some person of distinction (as is my impression, which is quite possibly wrong, of some books by the rich and powerful), but... Read more
Published 4 months ago by Jordan Bell
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant!
There are those who will smugly dismiss Soros reflexivity as obvious. As with the tin can, it isn't, until it is. You have to think to gain from this book. In it, Mr. Read more
Published 4 months ago by Newton Fawcett
4.0 out of 5 stars
Public interest in politics, self interest in markets
In this age of information, we are overwhelmed by problems despite the ready availability of information. Read more
Published 16 months ago by LouiseSStonington
5.0 out of 5 stars
Soros Philosophy - Great way to Review
George Soros lays out his paradigm for making sense of the way market theory and reality interact on a practical basis. Read more
Published 16 months ago by charles ewing
3.0 out of 5 stars
Ok.
The book could be better. There is no handwritten notes,
but the way they used the book could have been better.
but the way they used the book could have been better.
Published 23 months ago by cn23271
5.0 out of 5 stars
Epic.
George Soros is a legend. After finishing this book I understand why this man evokes so much envy and contempt. Soros' father beat the odds and escaped pogroms in Eastern Europe. Read more
Published on March 9, 2011 by Dr. Smoker
3.0 out of 5 stars
Mediocre, lacking in any new or innovative ideas
This book consists of 5 short lectures given by Soros at the Central European University. These same lectures can be viewed, free of charge, at [...]. Read more
Published on January 27, 2011 by Yoda
5.0 out of 5 stars
One of the best books ever.
George Soros is great indeed. He tried to be a known philosopher all of his life. It was his dream since he was a kid. Read more
Published on December 13, 2010 by Dardan
5.0 out of 5 stars
a little book from a great man
This is a deceptively simple, small book. Were it not written by one of the greatest financial wizards and by a man who personally suffered in real life under fascists and then... Read more
Published on October 6, 2010 by loyal customer Bill
5.0 out of 5 stars
Timeless Insight with a Key Fallacy
George Soros understands to capture the very essence of human behavior in a couple of rather succinct lectures. Read more
Published on June 6, 2010 by Emmentaler
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
|
|
