Off topic, but I bought that book, and I think it gets a little too much credit for being scientific. A lot of stuff in there is not tested theory, but rather conjecture. Conjecture can be scientific in spirit, yes, but conjecture is many times not tested and scientific in practice. I felt it had too much untested conjecture, and so doesn't deserve the hype.
I agree, I got the book because it was recommended by someone here on HN, and I found it full of reference to studies that I think most interested readers would already be familiar with. Then it would take those study results and extrapolate, leaving me thinking "wait a second, that wasn't proved at all."
