Hm... On the plus side, she does manage to get a lot of good stuff in here about what is and isn't a logical argument. It's not very focused though, and she uses a lot of examples she obviously has strong feelings about, or at least a strong desire to talk about. In a way, it reminded me of "How to Have Impossible Conversations" which is also about how to disantangle yourself from an entrenched position and use logic to persuade others while at the same time remaining open to the possibility that you're the one whose wrong. The difference is that they use examples that reflect their yank centre-right views (pause here to remember when James Lindsay as only centre-right and not an absolute Trumpist gobshite), Eugénia Cheng holds views that are acceptable within the catechism of 21st century orthodoxy. While Lindsay and Boghossian come across as a bit obnoxious, Cheng is just insufferably smug, setting out her beautiful opinions so that we, the readers, can admire them. I think there's probably some good lessons to be learned if you are very orthodox in your viewsand want to be told how to make better arguments without actually being personally challenged, but I found myself cringing from time to time.

The chapter on Emotions was by far the most illuminating, with the rest being filled with great examples on showing how to discuss differences of opinions. Does not work with stupid people

This was an interesting and easy read, albeit a bit shallow on the logic content. It seemed mostly to deal with real-world examples, and contentious ones at that, and how they relate to logic, emotion, and their interplay.

At times it felt like the book was a bit of a soapbox for calling out bigots, racists, anti-vaxxers, science deniers, and the like, which was at first off-putting and distracting, but in the end I think it helped support her point about the indelible connection between logic and emotions. I’m pleased she directly addressed the near-fat-shaming rhetoric. I was just hoping she would (more) directly address the soapbox vibe.

There were a few glaring typographical errors, but overall it was well-written and articulate. I’m curious to read her other popular maths books, and I would especially like to read some of her work in category theory.

I’d also very much like to know about the intended audience for this book. As a computer professional, armchair mathematician, and logical person, the book had little to teach me. And I wonder if it would be interesting to someone less familiar with mathematics, or less inclined to employ logic.