Hunger

Hunger by Knut Hamsun translated by George Egerton

The protagonist of Hunger is a true starving artist. He had a falling out with his landlord and is forced to leave his apartment. He now has no place to live and is just wandering the streets. He has a manuscript he has worked on that he sends to the publisher that he hopes will provide him something. He remembers others that he has helped before. However, he is too prideful to accept handouts from them (or even ask for something in return.) The police send him to a homeless shelter. However, he is too prideful to ask for a meal ticket like the others have. This type of cycle repeats many times. He comes really close to getting food or money, but his pride gets in the way. He doesn't see himself as in need, so is reluctant to take. He even asks for a "dog bone" and tries to chew of the mea (only to throw it back up.)

A society can have many resources available. However, they don't help if people are unwilling to use them. Those that have been able to contribute to society may be the least likely to accept that they are now in a position of need. 

The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil

I couldn't help but feel the lead of the Stanford Prison Experiment was a little too full of himself. He sees the experiment as one of the key pieces of research in our society. The book comes across as one big "humble-brag" as he tries to extract solutions to everything from the Stanford Prison Experiment.

A middle section describes the prison experience. In it, he had volunteers be "prisoners", while others were "guards". The prisoners were incarcerated full time for a week. The volunteers preferred to be prisoners because they thought that was something they were more likely to encounter in their lives. (There were plenty of student activists in the group.) During the studies, the guards inflicted extreme psychological cruelty on the prisoners. (So much so that he ended the experiment early) The conclusion that he drew was that given a situation, even good people can turn bad.

The book then rambles on for a long time trying to apply this to other parts of life. The prisoner abuse in Iraq gets a lot of attention. People with little training took out frustrations and abused prisoners. They were punished in part because they recorded it with photos and videos. 

I had the feeling that he was getting too broad in his conclusion. People do tend to play the role that they are put into. In the prison experiment, guards were encouraged to play their role. The prisoners also adopted their position, perhaps even too much. (He noted that they did not communicate with each other about their regular life.) He showed that when people are encouraged to play a role, they can do a good job at it.

He also proposes exposing people to "good situations" to encourage goodness, and lists a number of different types of "goodness". There is some logic to this argument, though it seemed to stretch things out. After all the book, the conclusion is "people are likely to adapt to the situation given."

Who Cares: Are You a Giver, Taker or Watcher?

Who Cares is a self-help audiobook with a decidedly late-90s conservative Christian feel to it. It discusses ways that we should authentically care about others and do things for the greater good. Positive examples are provided in historical figures such as the founder of the Salvation Army, while Bill Clinton's philanderings are among the negative examples. The book has a rapid-fire hodgepodge of advice. Good employees should be focused on the company rather than the perks. Good bosses should focus on the company. There are few nuggets in here, but most of the examples feel dated.