Richard Shenkman
Author of Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History
About the Author
Works by Richard Shenkman
One-Night Stands With American History: Odd, Amusing, and Little-Known Incidents (1980) — Author — 350 copies, 5 reviews
Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics (2016) 58 copies, 3 reviews
Tarihin Büyük Yalanları 1 copy
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Other names
- Shenkman, Rick
- Birthdate
- 1954-12-23
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Vassar College
- Occupations
- journalist
professor
television news reporter
historian - Organizations
- George Mason University
History News Network - Short biography
- [from Independent Institute website]
Richard Shenkman is the Founder and Editor of the History News Network at George Washington University, former Associate Professor of History at George Mason University, Fellow of the Society of American Historians, and Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter. He has been Co-founder and Managing Editor of TomPaine.com; Producer and Writer for “The Tech Effect: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy” (History Channel); Producer and Writer for “The Pentagon” (Discovery Channel); Producer, Writer, and Host for the prime-time TV series, Myth America (Learning Channel); Adjunct Lecturer in Journalism at American University; Contributing Reporter for NBC's Sunday Today Show; Managing Editor of KIRO-TV in Seattle; and Investigative Reporter at KUTV News in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Shenkman regularly appears on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, and he is the New York Times best-selling author of six history books, Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History; Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power and Got Things Done; Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter; Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History; I Love Paul Revere Whether He Rode or Not; and One-Night Stands with American History.
Educated at Vassar College, where he received the Vassar Prize in History, and Harvard University, he has studied the American presidents for two decades including working on the Papers of Andrew Jackson. - Nationality
- USA
- Places of residence
- Washington, D.C., USA
Seattle, Washington, USA
New York, New York, USA
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA - Associated Place (for map)
- USA
Members
Reviews
Shenkman offers scientific research to help explain why we make political choices which are neither in our own best interests nor in the best interests of the society and nation as a whole. Many forces within our own psychology contribute to this bad decision making and we are also very much influences by our heredity and upbringing.
The analysis offered in this book rests upon research and surveys explaining many forces not previously factored into evaluating why elections turn out the way show more they do.
In spite of the quality of the evidence offered here, some is a bit superficial and incomplete with broad conclusions supported by very little evidence. But what is worse, is that many factors that influence elections are ignored. For example, what is the impact on the national consciousness of the constant distortion of facts and events be a certain "news" (re: propaganda) network?
The book's final section deals with 'lack of empathy" and probably understates the impact of this characteristic in determining our votes and our actions. For example, feeling sympathy for someone who is homeless or afflicted by a disease or addition is not the same as understanding their situation with empathy. Sympathy places the one who is sympathetic in a position of believed moral superiority over the other, the victim, while having empathy places the empathic person in a position of wanting to feel, think, and share the burden of the other person. Americans are sympathetic to the Syrian refugees, for example, but empathy would compel us to act.
Moreover, there is a strong mismatch between what people genuinely believe they believe and value and the behaviors those beliefs ought to influence. A person believes in honesty, for example, but brings home office supplies from work; or, more drastically, believes in honesty and justifies "calling in sick" as merely a "lie that everyone tells," rather than seeing it for what it really is: stealing a day's wages through dishonesty.
The book raises moral and ethical questions, but mainly focuses on the explanations of why our thinking is so shallow and decisions so poor. It is a good read and eye opening, but its explanations and analysis is incomplete. show less
The analysis offered in this book rests upon research and surveys explaining many forces not previously factored into evaluating why elections turn out the way show more they do.
In spite of the quality of the evidence offered here, some is a bit superficial and incomplete with broad conclusions supported by very little evidence. But what is worse, is that many factors that influence elections are ignored. For example, what is the impact on the national consciousness of the constant distortion of facts and events be a certain "news" (re: propaganda) network?
The book's final section deals with 'lack of empathy" and probably understates the impact of this characteristic in determining our votes and our actions. For example, feeling sympathy for someone who is homeless or afflicted by a disease or addition is not the same as understanding their situation with empathy. Sympathy places the one who is sympathetic in a position of believed moral superiority over the other, the victim, while having empathy places the empathic person in a position of wanting to feel, think, and share the burden of the other person. Americans are sympathetic to the Syrian refugees, for example, but empathy would compel us to act.
Moreover, there is a strong mismatch between what people genuinely believe they believe and value and the behaviors those beliefs ought to influence. A person believes in honesty, for example, but brings home office supplies from work; or, more drastically, believes in honesty and justifies "calling in sick" as merely a "lie that everyone tells," rather than seeing it for what it really is: stealing a day's wages through dishonesty.
The book raises moral and ethical questions, but mainly focuses on the explanations of why our thinking is so shallow and decisions so poor. It is a good read and eye opening, but its explanations and analysis is incomplete. show less
Shenkman offers scientific research to help explain why we make political choices which are neither in our own best interests nor in the best interests of the society and nation as a whole. Many forces within our own psychology contribute to this bad decision making and we are also very much influences by our heredity and upbringing.
The analysis offered in this book rests upon research and surveys explaining many forces not previously factored into evaluating why elections turn out the way show more they do.
In spite of the quality of the evidence offered here, some is a bit superficial and incomplete with broad conclusions supported by very little evidence. But what is worse, is that many factors that influence elections are ignored. For example, what is the impact on the national consciousness of the constant distortion of facts and events be a certain "news" (re: propaganda) network?
The book's final section deals with 'lack of empathy" and probably understates the impact of this characteristic in determining our votes and our actions. For example, feeling sympathy for someone who is homeless or afflicted by a disease or addition is not the same as understanding their situation with empathy. Sympathy places the one who is sympathetic in a position of believed moral superiority over the other, the victim, while having empathy places the empathic person in a position of wanting to feel, think, and share the burden of the other person. Americans are sympathetic to the Syrian refugees, for example, but empathy would compel us to act.
Moreover, there is a strong mismatch between what people genuinely believe they believe and value and the behaviors those beliefs ought to influence. A person believes in honesty, for example, but brings home office supplies from work; or, more drastically, believes in honesty and justifies "calling in sick" as merely a "lie that everyone tells," rather than seeing it for what it really is: stealing a day's wages through dishonesty.
The book raises moral and ethical questions, but mainly focuses on the explanations of why our thinking is so shallow and decisions so poor. It is a good read and eye opening, but its explanations and analysis is incomplete. show less
The analysis offered in this book rests upon research and surveys explaining many forces not previously factored into evaluating why elections turn out the way show more they do.
In spite of the quality of the evidence offered here, some is a bit superficial and incomplete with broad conclusions supported by very little evidence. But what is worse, is that many factors that influence elections are ignored. For example, what is the impact on the national consciousness of the constant distortion of facts and events be a certain "news" (re: propaganda) network?
The book's final section deals with 'lack of empathy" and probably understates the impact of this characteristic in determining our votes and our actions. For example, feeling sympathy for someone who is homeless or afflicted by a disease or addition is not the same as understanding their situation with empathy. Sympathy places the one who is sympathetic in a position of believed moral superiority over the other, the victim, while having empathy places the empathic person in a position of wanting to feel, think, and share the burden of the other person. Americans are sympathetic to the Syrian refugees, for example, but empathy would compel us to act.
Moreover, there is a strong mismatch between what people genuinely believe they believe and value and the behaviors those beliefs ought to influence. A person believes in honesty, for example, but brings home office supplies from work; or, more drastically, believes in honesty and justifies "calling in sick" as merely a "lie that everyone tells," rather than seeing it for what it really is: stealing a day's wages through dishonesty.
The book raises moral and ethical questions, but mainly focuses on the explanations of why our thinking is so shallow and decisions so poor. It is a good read and eye opening, but its explanations and analysis is incomplete. show less
A quick and breezy read. I always think I'll like these books with a lot of little stories, but they often leave me with more questions than answers. They are also hard to get into, since they jump around and don't really tell a story.
This book is filled with tasty bits and bites of American history appropriately sectioned chronologically in 9 chapters. Even the most inveterate researchers, students, or historians will probably find a number of nuggets to enjoy. For example, who knew that FDR was related to 11 other presidents? (But then again, if you go back far enough, aren't we all?)
This is a quick read that is written without any particular slant or bias and is, therefore, an enjoyable experience.
This is a quick read that is written without any particular slant or bias and is, therefore, an enjoyable experience.
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 11
- Members
- 2,109
- Popularity
- #12,203
- Rating
- 3.4
- Reviews
- 27
- ISBNs
- 39
- Languages
- 1