If you are reading popular books on social science (which many business books are), it is very likely that the author is pushing research they are personally invested in succeeding. They are often not trying to convey a nuanced understanding of a phenomenon. Furthermore, popular books are often not peer-reviewed to the same extant or at all as regular research literature.

A better alternative is to read review articles in journals. They are shorter than books and will also give a more reasonable estimate of the certainty experts have in a certain field of results. For example, in psychology there is the Annual Review of Psychology, which generally publishes ~50pg readable summaries of literature by experts in the field. For the love of social science, please stop reading popular books on the brain/mind.

It's worth noting that the NYT's 'best seller' list is hand-curated, and is not an objective list of books that have sold the most.

I wish there were a market for pamphlets (as there was in ye olde days). Hear me out. So many categories of books (business, psychology) could more effectively communicate their core thesis to a lay audience via 40-90 pages[0]. A long article. But the economics basically require the author to format as a 200-400 page book, resulting in the kinds of filler this post suggests.

I realize I could read a summary online, but that takes the interpreted benefit without directly rewarding the actual author. I am paying for the ideas, not the length, and would love to reward the most efficient way to deliver that.

[0] Obviously I realize there are many great exceptions to this tongue-in-cheek take on the market.

I'd recommend reading summaries of business books instead of reading them wholly. It's usually a few decent observations and a bunch of filler and repetition so they can be sold as books. The quality of summaries varies widely, though.

The survivor / confirmation bias is my biggest issue with a lot of these books.

I listen to a lot of "How I Built This" and have noted that the vast, vast majority of the founders on that program will answer the "what percent is luck vs skill" question with 90 (or above) for luck.

This rarely seems addressed, specifically in the entrepreneurship segment of these books. Which is understandable as "get lucky" is not a pitch that is going to sell a lot of books. But it's unfortunate when some of these folks use blanket advice like quit school or quit your stable day job because it worked for me.

> "But I have noticed that some authors have an idea and without fleshing it out and properly researching it they decide to write a book about it."

My rub isn't the lack of research, it's the lack of a balanced argument. For instance, Gladwell. Study after referenced study to support his theory, but rarely if ever a counter point.

Confirmation bias gone wild. Which in this day and age is understandable. It's the norm. What's disheartening is how this approach gets passed off - and generally accepted - as expertise.

If you are attempting to follow the advice of business books verbatim that could be the problem.

Most / all of the good ones I have read tell one view of what led to success. I take what I learn and attempt to apply it to my own schools of thought and with any luck come out of the exercise with a more well rounded opinion than I went in with.

Your post seems to advocate for peer reviews in business books as well, don’t you think that unbiased reviews from readers fill that need?

It seems like all modern business books, those released in the last few years, are nothing but a vomit of name drops of famous people and companies and how they do things. I’m sick of hearing about them. I know their stories.

If only popular business books presented their limited substance in your bulleted format instead of dragging out 20 supporting anecdotes for 200 pages!