Captain America vs. Iron Man: Freedom, Security, Psychology (Popular Culture Psychology Book 3)

“Freedom, Security, Psychology” is the sub-title to this book and as a fan who has read most of the initial Marvel Civil War comics event and found much of it to be fantastic and engaging, especially the social and political philosophies that Iron Man/ Tony Stark and Captain America/ Steve Rogers upheld and evaluated, I was interested to go a round 2 in this book and both revisit ideas that had been sometimes wonderfully developed in the comic as well as probably broaden and go deeper with those and other related ideas. Welp. That didn’t happen. This book, which is an all-to-easy read in the sense that it’s practically perfunctory and acts more as a very basic introductory course to psychology, was a let-down. The chapters are short touchpoints on attributes of Cap and Iron Man and relate them to different areas of psychology and sociology. They attempt to be brief explanations of the dynamics of these two titanic superheroes who went toe-to-toe over ideology, over grounding beliefs, over the soul of a man and the politic of a people. I would have much rather read a variety of dense treatises of poly-sci that then were linked to the thinking and behavioral lines of these two characters that the rough outlines sketched herein. What was a bit maddening and even made me feel talked down to in the book was that there are copious comic book references, other references (directing us toward foundational issues and writings in psychology, sociology, and philosophy), and “notes” that are slammed in there as if they were really connected in a scholarly way to the text, which usually amounted to a one or two sentence length remark that had something to do with what was being noted. (A) It would be overwhelming to devote time to look into all the notes, not that hardly anyone does that anyway but still…and (B) the remarks are so broad that just a directing note on them does them no justice.So while I disliked this book and was disappointed by it in one sense I am also an old fan-boy, so I certainly didn’t hate the book. But in good conscience I can’t recommend it. And I don’t think that Stark or Rogers would recommend this book either. Shame on Stan Lee for being a money trap for this book by writing the forward! 2.75 stars.

The ultra heroes, Cap and Iron, hold some very exaggerated views on the nature and destiny of society and reading more of the personalities of the men who hold these views was supposed to be perhaps one of the central themes of the book.But it was difficult to separate the fiction from any fact, despite the numerous notes and references that are relaid. So the two men are superheroes, we learn, but I think it might have been more convincing to leave this to the reader's judgment than to try to turn this into a very rudimentary sort of sociology-cum-psychology treatise.

I absolutely loved this book! It's a fun read that gives depth to the superhero characters for fans, while also providing psychological insight to general readers. It's basically an Intro to Psychology course review using examples that are immediately understandable. More than that, it illustrates the struggle between freedom-to and freedom-from that I am forever trying to explain to my young-adult children. Reading sections of this book aloud lead to some very animated discussions among them that stimulated deeper thinking. As if that wasn't enough, it also instigated voluntary summer book reading of some other books in this series...  Doctor Who Psychology: A Madman with a Box  for my teenage daughter and...  The Walking Dead Psychology: Psych of the Living Dead  for my teenage son. I am thrilled!

Cap always loves freedom while Tony wants safety.

If you appreciate the supehero and philosophy books edited by Mark White which employ a comparatively rigorous methodology even when using Continental approaches (e.g. Nietzsche), do not buy this book. I don't know what it is about sociology, psychology, and education as disciplines, but the scholarship is all smoke and mirrors, relying on hidden references, paraphrase, and allusions. For example, the chapter "Ego," written by editor Travis Langley, comprises 3 1/2 pages, one of which is a bulleted list of reductive definitions: "During a period of prolonged stress, he numbs himself through /regression/..." (104). This is...elementary. Additionally, the broad, disciplinary gesturing is embarrassing. So, Langley lists at the end of this 2 1/2 page "essay" (I don't count bullet points as argumentation) no fewer than 22 footnotes, 24 "Other References," and 7 "Comic Book References."Worse, authors Eric D. Wesselmann and J. Scott Jordan in less than 9 pages manage to cram 57 footnotes, 27 "Other References," and 15 "Comic Book References" into 13 sub-titled sections, 9 of which are one paragraph long. This is a clever way of writing bullet points in which information is presented as argumentation. For example, "Morality based on in-group / loyalty focuses on strengthening individual attachments to established social groups (e.g. family, country) and safeguarding those groups' unity and well-being" (118).If you are a psychologist or sociologist or professional educator, this book will be a familiar read, but if you are expecting deeper insights grounded in philosophy and theology it's not for you.

Awesome!👍🏻

great read

Great book :)

Knowledgeable. Learning about morals and other dilemmas of life in Marvel way is a great way to learn new things.

Gran producto y a muy buen precio