Buy it here.
Update: I put it aside. I will probably get back to it at some point, but have been taken over by interest in monetary things...
Showing posts with label non-fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non-fiction. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Second Nature
Michael Pollan's Second Nature is enjoyable, as all his books are. I find myself agreeing with him mostly, but some things just don't sit well. I am still in the middle of it, so I will write more when I am done.
Gaia's Garden
Well, it has been way too long since I read much of anything. My office had a trial and it seemed to take over my life!
I have managed to read Gaia's Garden, by Toby Hemenway. Of course, it made me want to give it all up and become a farmer (though it seems that most things make me want to give it all up and become a farmer...). Very inspiring and lots of good information. I still think I need some help in overall garden design to make everything work well on my small lot, but he inspired me to make some small changes this year and see how the garden grows.
Buy it here.
5 stars.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
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?
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.
3 stars: 4 for interest, 2 for writing.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
De Bono's Thinking Course. This is a book I originally picked up years and years ago. I have read it a few times over the years and still find it really interesting. De Bono is an interesting writer - I read another book by him and couldn't get far (I Am Right, You Are Wrong). I think he needed serious editing, but maybe I was too young? I might try again. Anyway, the Thinking Course is well edited and easy to read. I have wanted to set up a "thinking club" for years after reading his suggestions - and I am starting one in Denver! I find it a very practical guide to improving my thinking.
De Bono's website is just "off" enough to seem strange. Check it out here.
5 stars out of 5.
(Couldn't find an image of the Thinking Course book to use in this post.) Buy it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)