How Not To Be Wrong got a really nice review from Laura Miller at Salon. I like that she foregrounds the interweaving of mathematical and humanistic ways of treating problems, which is really central to the book, by me anyway.
In the Guardian, I get the “digested read” treatment; Jim Crace boils the book down to 800 words. It’s sort of weird seeing your own style parodied:
Now let’s move on to some other more straightforward problems. Like is there a God? If you’re using the standard p>0.5, then yes, but don’t just take it from me. Look at the probabilities. Now as we’ve already seen in Boylais’s postulate, every straight line is a curve and every curve is a straight line and if we add everything up then 75% x 1000 + 24% x (-200) = 750 – 50 = 700. So there is more likely to be a God than not, especially if you employ Pascal’s wager. Take the sequence RRRRRR and RLLLRL. One appears more uniform, the other more random. Except they both have the same probability of coming up. Spooky? Then get this. Neither was a random sequence because I wrote them down.
My British editor has taught me that this is called “taking the mick.”
Steven Mazie is more or less on board with my criticism of the argument by design in Big Think.
Becky Holmes has a piece about me and the book in Madison’s alternative weekly, Isthmus. It features a photo of my head superimposed atop a drawing of a classical geometer in a robe!
New York magazine’s Maggie Lange generalizes the “handsome guys are jerks” theorem.
Good stuff on the role of “geniuses” in research math at Persiflage, with many number theorists weighing in in the comments.
And the claim that I know what time you should get to the airport crosses back over the Atlantic to appear on the Today show. I gotta say, in a minute and a half the hosts do a better job explaining the idea than any of the British newspapers. U – S – A! U – S – A!