Part 1. Definition
In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.
Part 2. Example
Hopeful for those who seek harmony in the world . I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who thinks that religious wars, repression of individual spirits or rape of the earth are good things. Those who seek peace, harmony, celebration of each of us and respect for our earth will find this hopeful
Answer: POS
Explanation: The overall sentiment of the review is positive as the reviewer mentions positive expressions such as 'hopeful', 'will find this helpful' etc.. Hence, the label is 'POS'.
Part 3. Exercise
Redundant and uninteresting . I obtained this book with the hope that it would build on the themes I encountered in another book I'm reading (Destructive Trends in Mental Health). As a practicing experimental psychologist, I have observed first hand the strengths and weaknesses of the field of psychology. Unfortunately, McIntyre failed to deliver. First, the book is short on ideas and repeats them often. Having biases is bad (he scapegoats religious and political ideologies). Social scientists aren't brave enough (the author seems to idolize Galileo and Darwin). Social scientists whine too much (about how *hard* their science is - my whining is in the next paragraph). Social scientists need to look at the data instead of relying on armchair theorizing. People don't really want to understand human behavior. Yep, I think that's about it. Now, repeat this in as many ways as possible and you can stretch it into a very short book. The author turns a good word and thus the book is an easy read (thus the two stars). As much as I might agree with some of his points, he overstates them (he caricatures social scientists as ignorant ideologues uninterested in data) and misses many important ones regarding the challenges of the field. If I had as much control over humans as physicists and chemists have over their subject matter, things would be a lot easier. So-called "hard" scientists don't have to ask the subjects of their inquiry if they want to participate in their experiments. They also have much greater control of extraneous variables (Can I *please* be allowed to raise humans in the lab??? Can I *please* be allowed to run experiments on societies, governments, races, companies, ... by changing their laws, rules, structures, income, etc. to my hearts content?). The book would have been much less repetitious if he would have seriously considered the other challenges facing the social sciences instead of assuming that they're all easily surmountable. Hint: Think weather prediction and you'll better understand the challenges of the social sciences. The author needs to check his own biases at the door - it's obvious that he's a liberal atheist (as he was free to admit). In sum - read the second paragraph of my review and you've gotten the gist of the author's message. Skip the book.
Answer:
NEG