That Old Cape Magic. Really enjoyable read. He creates very believable main characters and funny supporting characters. The story is definitely depressing for someone who is in mid-life and has been married for 10 years.

Reviews from the NY Times and the Washington Post.

Buy it here.

DRiVE. By Daniel H. Pink. I swear I know his name from somewhere, but none of the other things he has written ring a bell. Anyway, I like this although I feel like it could have been shorter - he is repetitive sometimes. Specific comments:

P 27: discussion of the famous experiment where one participant is given ten dollars and told he must divide it however he wants with another participant. If the 2nd participant accepts the division, they both keep their share of the money. If the 2nd participant does not accept, then neither one keeps anything.

The "rational" thing to do as the 2nd participant is to accept any amount - something is better than nothing. However, that is not what happened: generally, if offered $2 or less (20%), the 2nd participant rejected the offer.

My take:

(1) $10 is not necessarily enough to make a broad statement about actions - would it make a difference if the amount was 20% of $100,000 ($20,000)? Probably. So, possibly only when the amount is de minimus would this behavior be seen. The same problem may arise if the 2nd participant is very poor - and to whom no amount is de minimus. Would that person give up any amount? Probably not. Thus the problems with enforcing a contract "negotiated" between parties with very different resources. Be careful when interpreting the results of this experiment.

(2) The outcome of the experiment is only confounding to economists when you only look at the individual in isolation. Yes, an individual is individually economically better off with $2 rather than no dollars. However, humans have a drive to protect the group, not just the individual (once certain basic needs are met). If you take that group-preservation theory, then punishing someone for being greedy (the 1st participant trying to keep much more for himself) makes sense. The small amount that participant 2 is giving up is not as painful as the big amount that participant 1 is giving up - and that will encourage participant 1 to be more generous in the future, thus benefiting the group in the future.

P 36 et seq.: discussing what happens when you provide external rewards as "motivator" - you lose any internal motivation. In other words, you care less about the work, you only care about the reward.

My take:

Isn't this exactly what happens with big CEOs (and others below them rewarded in similar fashion)? They don't give a crap about the company, they only care about their bonus/options/retirement/etc. By giving them these bonuses, we are virtually guaranteeing that the long-term health of the company will not be a priority.

P 115:
Regarding "flow": what relationship does this concept of "flow" have with walking or working meditation - where you are totally focused on your task at the moment?

Reviews? Apparently not really reviewed as a general interest book, but only as a business book, thus: Small Business Trends & Harvard Business Review.

Buy it here.

3 stars: 4 for interest, 2 for writing.

The Good Thief. Another slightly more violent book than I would have liked, but good. Kept me going. Perhaps my social stripe in some ways: don't be conventional, conventional bad (makes you crazy), unconventional good (though you might die or get beat up, at least you are interesting and sane). On the other hand, I'm not a big believer in just looking out for yourself and perhaps one or two others you consider family as this book seems to push in some ways. Anyway, I enjoyed it, but wouldn't necessarily recommend it to someone who is not a very fast reader (there are other books I would recommend first).

3 out of 5 stars.