[bathMarm0t]

Is the counter-swing of low-fluff incomprehensible density?

I think if you want to avoid fluff, read something that was written more than 20 years ago. Time has a means of eroding away the pop-sci books (Will anyone read Gladwell in 20 years?). I personally like reading the pivotal pieces of a field / founding texts. Jung and Nietzsche come to mind.

Maybe another question you could ask (a fluff test if you will): Could you see a college course using the text as a primary source?

[whatshisface]

>I think if you want to avoid fluff, read something that was written more than 20 years ago. Time has a means of eroding away the pop-sci books (Will anyone read Gladwell in 20 years?). I personally like reading the pivotal pieces of a field / founding texts. Jung and Nietzsche come to mind.

Historical philosophers are not even remotely comparable to present-day popular authors, a more fair comparison would be to present-day philosophers. Present-day popular authors are best compared to old popular authors, like the ones who wrote books on manners for 1800s Americans who wanted to use their affluence to become more like old-world elites, or the 1950s authors that wrote manuals on how to "be a man."

[emodendroket]

Even if we stick to fluffier stuff, if it's been around for a while it's probably got some merits (for instance, Agatha Christie or Raymond Chandler are not exactly challenging authors, but they're really good at what they do).

[FabHK]

FWIW, I’d consider both authors you cite peddlers of mistaken (and potentially dangerous) ideas. Read early psychoanalysis and German idealism out of historical interest, by all means (certainly very influential), but please don’t appropriate that way of thinking.