This is a special post for quick takes by Biff Wiff. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
A pet peeve of mine is when people recommend books (or media, or other things) without considering how large of an investment they are to read. Books usually take 10 hours or so to read. If you're going to go slow and really dig into it, it's probably more like 20+ hours. To make the claim "I think you should read this book", the expected benefit should outweigh the relatively large investment of time.
Actually, no, the bar is higher than that. There are middle-ground options other than reading the book. You can find a summary, a review, listen to an interview with the author about the book, or find blog posts on the same topic. So to recommend reading the book in full, doing so has to be better than one of those middle-ground options, or worthwhile after having completed one of the middle-ground options.
To be charitable, maybe people frequently aren't being literal when they recommend books. Maybe they're not actually saying "I think it would be worth your time to read this book in full, and that you should prioritize doing so some time in the next few months". Maybe they are just saying they though the book was solid.
Related to this there was a period of time maybe 2 years ago where online any and all ills related to self-improvement or productivity were prescribed "Atomic Habits" by James Clear. "I'm having trouble studying, any recommendations?" you'd get a two word response: Atomic Habits. "I'm trying to learn a new skill but can't keep it together" "You should read Atomic Habits". People weren't forthcoming with why it was effective or what lessons they gleaned from it. But were effusive in their praise and insist that it should be read.
Yeah, that seems plausible. I have no issues with that sort of a recommendation. I think cover-to-cover recommendations also happen not infrequently though.
2Biff Wiff
I don't think social obligations play much if any role in my pet peeve here. If someone recommends a book to me without considering the large investment of time I'd have to make to read it, but doesn't apply any social pressure, I'd still find that to be frustrating.
I guess it's kinda like if someone recommends a certain sandwich without factoring in the cost. Maybe the sandwich is really good, but if it's $1,000, it isn't worth it. And if it's moderately good but costs $25, it also isn't worth it. More generally, whether something is worthwhile depends on both the costs and the benefits, and I think that in making recommendations one should consider them both.