It didn’t just teach me systems theory it permanently changed how I interpret cause and effect. I stopped seeing problems as isolated events and started seeing feedback loops, delays, leverage points, and unintended consequences everywhere: in businesses, politics, personal habits, even relationships. Once you internalize the idea that most outcomes are the result of system structure rather than individual intent, it’s impossible to go back to linear thinking.

A close second would be “Gödel, Escher, Bach” by Douglas Hofstadter. It rewired how I think about self-reference, consciousness, and abstraction. After reading it, I began noticing recursive patterns across math, language, art, and software connections that felt invisible before.

Both books didn’t give me answers; they changed the questions I ask.

The book devolves into policy opinions that have been absolutely torn apart, but the parts about inequality and inheritance shattered some long standing assumptions.

For example, it points out how generational wealth being gone in 3 generations is not for the reasons people extrapolated, the common assumption being that the person that earned it had a lot of discipline, while the subsequent generations experienced complacency and excess, as that was just anecdotes with no data. It replaces them with data that highlights population growth alone influencing this outcome:

In periods of large population growth inheritances were simply diluted to the point of having little efficacy for heirs. In America the free population was 3,100,000 in 1790, while 308,000,000 in 2010. The last census before the book came out. In comparison, France in the old world had 30,000,000 in 1790 and 60,000,000 in 2010. Old world wealth has tended to stay in the same families for centuries. The US is experiencing the same thing amongst some families and as more families get better at estate structures that work for them, a lower birthrate and age of the country, but all of it challenges the common assumption and point of generational wealth.

There are more illuminations around the movement of capital in that book.

Seeing like a State (1998)

I read it as a child.

It’s a collection of his essays but the one quote that stuck out to me is:

I don’t see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize-I’ve already got the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding things out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it - those are the real things, the honors are unreal to me.

It really got me to get over external validation and doing things for the sake of discovery and learning.

Virtually every book that survived the test of time has some gem worth finding.

For example the bible is a perfect source of ethical and moral ideas and problems, whether you’re agnostic or not.

Any decent university level course of general physics is a perfect source to learn not only the universe but how would you approach the process itself of learning and exploring it.

1. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Books, 1991.

2. https://amstudugm.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/s...

The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement by Eliyahu M Goldratt opened my eyes to process optimization. It is nominally about process optimization in a manufacturing plant, but so many of the lessons can be applied to other domains, such as software development. (And also about life in general, how to think about what matters and what doesn't.) It is a bit dated now; for example The Principles of Product Development Flow offers a much more systematic treatment of the topic. But I think The Goal remains the best intro to process and systems thinking.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume

Multiple books from both the Torah, and Old and New Testaments of various versions of the Bible

Gomorra by Roberto Saviano

I read it during a journey that ended up leading me out of religion. That book showed me so clearly how strange it is to believe in supernatural events.