Reviews for Psychology

The average rating for Psychology based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-12-30 00:00:00 Clinton Miller I doubt that anyone really reads or cares about the Tags we label our good books within (you know fiction or non fiction etc) so I mention that I placed this work in "pop-academic" even though technically it may be found in your University library and not at your local library. But it is to me a good example of bad research writing. The author states his credentials within the text and he does so in bad taste. His text lacks notations where they might really be supportive, maybe even needed to make several statements credible but there are none. There are many facts, studies, and even personal anecdotes based on insider-military experiences none of which carry a courtesy notation of evidence. This guy goes on to let the reader know he has zero combat experience, but anyone who is seasoned with academic literature can see that Lt. Grossman has not spent much time in serious literature reviews or exchanges with people outside perhaps the military. This book is frequently cited in solid examples of literature on PTSD and for that I feel sorry for the lack of alternatives. It is poorly written and difficult to trust as a result of its source and its execution

Review # 2 was written on 2017-07-17 00:00:00 Marissa Euell Yet another book that has been relegated to the DNF file. If I had wanted to read On Killing again, I would have picked up a copy of On Killing and read it again. I made it 75 pages in, and none of the information in On Combat was anything new. Also, I'm fairly certain Shakespeare (you know, the guy who wrote all those great tragic plays in the late 16th and early 17th century?) wasn't exactly a warrior, so what's with all the quotes from him to start chapters and sub chapters? I also take offense at all the anecdotes and "testimonial stories" (a term I use VERY loosely here) with absolutely no footnotes or references for where the information may have come from, or who told the story. This kind of writing makes the skeptic in me ask, "Is this actually a factual story, or is it just made up to manufacture "evidence" of the point the author is trying to make at this particular point in the book?" I read On Killing several years ago, enjoyed it, and actually felt somewhat enlightened by much of the information contained therein. Sadly, On Combat just flat out doesn't make the grade. I have entirely too many other books I would like to read to either entertain myself or to integrate my brain with new and useful information to force myself to slog through something this poorly written that is just a rehash of another work that came out long before this book was published.