Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Thought-provoking for anyone who helps other make important decisions, 09 Nov 2008
Though there is little in this book that is completely new, it draws together many of the key current ideas on how people make decisions. In particular it shows that people may make very different decisions depending on how information about the decision is presented.

It is illustrated throughout with excellent examples, which brings the book to life.

There is material in this book that I will apply directly in the work that I do in the pensions field. However it is useful in any field where people have difficult decisions to make that may have a huge impact on their life (for example what medical treatment to have, how to invest life savings, what mortgage to take out).

Its key overall theme is that there is no neutral way to present information. We should strive to present it in a way that leads people to make what we believe is the decision that is in their best interest. Paternalism, but with freedom of choice.

This is an excellent book and well worth reading.


Useful analysis of factors affecting decision making, 08 Aug 2008
In this lovely, useful book, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein examine choices, biases and the limits of human reasoning from a variety of perspectives. They often amuse by disclosing how they have fallen victim to the limitations of thought that they are describing. The fact that these educated, articulate professionals can fool themselves so often demonstrates how tough it is to think clearly, a point the authors emphasize and even repeat. Humans fall prey to systematic errors of judgment, but you can harness this problematic tendency productively, including by helping others make better decisions. Some of the authors' suggestions may not be practical, but many are and all are interesting. getAbstract recommends this book to anyone who wants to know how to shape responsible decisions.

Applying behavioural economics, 31 Jul 2008
Whilst I don't know if this book is quite as significant as is being made out, it's a nice and straightforward primer on behavioural economics and some of its applications.

The first section sets the scene for why nudges - policy interventions that encourage rather than mandate certain types of behaviour - may be necessary. So it builds up the argument for why we aren't the rational self-maximizers that economics has tended to assume we are. This section includes a useful run-through of some of the key heuristics and biases that have been identified and what kind of outcomes they result in. This does provide a pretty good overview of some of the major factors like anchoring, availability, representativeness, loss aversion and so on. It also stresses the importance of the design of choice, or choice architecture, and that in many cases there is no option to be 'neutral' - some kind of structure of choices has to be offered.

The second section is about financial issues, so much of this is familiar ground if you know much about recent pension reform. Still the points are worth reiterating. If you auto-enrol people into a pension most tend not to opt-out. Whereas if you don't auto-enrol many don't join. This, combined with what non-savers say themselves, suggests that non-savers aren't making a rational choice not to save. People also adopt naive diversificaton strategies - the equity content of their asset allocation (if they have made an active choice) will be heavily influenced by the allocations of the funds on offer (and what stocks are popular at the time) and what's more people don't tend to shift their initial allocation. Also it seems pretty clear less in more in fund choices - too many options puts us off choosing.

The section on health has a bit of a US focus, but there is interesting stuff in there. The example of the Part D prescription drugs system is useful if only to demonstrate why a random choice for non-choosers is a bad idea. Also the section on organ donations is worth a read - I think I still favour the assumed consent approach, but the idea of mandatory choice (ie having to state your position on your driving liscence) is at least worth thinking about. Also in this section are some fairly interesting suggestions for nudging people to reduce energy consumption. These are definitely worth a look since they involve, for example, being able to make peer group comparisons. I think this would work on two levels - firstly simple self-interest, wouldn't you be annoyed to know you are spending more on energy than comparable households? Secondly I think it would give people smug points for being more energy efficient.

The fourth section I probably found the least interesting, as it deals with ideas I'm not that impressed by, such as school vouchers. Having said that the idea of privatising marriage is intriguing, if unlikely to happen. Basically they argue that the state should restrict itself to civil partnerships and the legal rights that flow from them, but that 'marriages' could be arranged by other groups. That way churches could choose whether or not they want to carry out same-sex marriages. Equally other organisations could carry them out anyway. That way, the authors argue, no-one's values get compromised but neither are anyone's rights denied.

The final section sketches out some further ideas for nudges, as well as combatting some of the counter arguments that have been put forward. This latter chapter is well worth a read as the authors do a pretty good job at arguing back at some of the half-decent arguments there are out there that challenge them. Some good pro-nudge points here include the one I've already mentioned that often there isn't a neutral option - so the absence of a nudge is a kind of nudge itself. Also it is important that nudges are made explicit, so there is no sense that Government (or whoever else is doing the nudging) is being underhand.

Thaler and Sunstein argue that their approach offers a real 'third way' since it seeks an alternative to both state mandated paths on the one hand and complete laissez-faire on the other. This they call Libertarian Paternalism. That's obviously an Americanism, since in the UK libertarianism of any stripe is not a strong theme in our political culture. As such I don't expect the label to catch on here. However overall the book does provide quite a few ideas for how we could achieve some beneficial behavioural changes without being too heavy-handed. And if you want to get into behavioural economics this probably isn't a bad place to start.

engaging and thought-provoking , 28 Jul 2008
Everyone seems to be talking about this book, and the Tories like it a lot (which may not necessarily be a good sign). The book shows how people often behave in irrational ways and offers some gentle 'nudging' techniques for making them behave more responsibly and sensibly. There are some very entertaining illustrations and examples - I love the story about the urinals at the airport (but I won't go into any more detail here or else I'll spoil it for you.) Sometimes, however, the strategies seem to be a little less subtle than the authors suggest - for example, the idea that there should be a waiting period before people get married. Surely that's a little too much interference? Nevertheless, the book is an excellent and stimulating - and optimistic - read. I recommend it along with a very thought-provoking and entertaining book I've just read - Making Time, which is about understanding and controlling time in our livesMaking Time: Why Time Seems to Pass at Different Speeds and How to Control It.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Thought-provoking for anyone who helps other make important decisions, 09 Nov 2008
Though there is little in this book that is completely new, it draws together many of the key current ideas on how people make decisions. In particular it shows that people may make very different decisions depending on how information about the decision is presented.

It is illustrated throughout with excellent examples, which brings the book to life.

There is material in this book that I will apply directly in the work that I do in the pensions field. However it is useful in any field where people have difficult decisions to make that may have a huge impact on their life (for example what medical treatment to have, how to invest life savings, what mortgage to take out).

Its key overall theme is that there is no neutral way to present information. We should strive to present it in a way that leads people to make what we believe is the decision that is in their best interest. Paternalism, but with freedom of choice.

This is an excellent book and well worth reading.


Useful analysis of factors affecting decision making, 08 Aug 2008
In this lovely, useful book, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein examine choices, biases and the limits of human reasoning from a variety of perspectives. They often amuse by disclosing how they have fallen victim to the limitations of thought that they are describing. The fact that these educated, articulate professionals can fool themselves so often demonstrates how tough it is to think clearly, a point the authors emphasize and even repeat. Humans fall prey to systematic errors of judgment, but you can harness this problematic tendency productively, including by helping others make better decisions. Some of the authors' suggestions may not be practical, but many are and all are interesting. getAbstract recommends this book to anyone who wants to know how to shape responsible decisions.

Applying behavioural economics, 31 Jul 2008
Whilst I don't know if this book is quite as significant as is being made out, it's a nice and straightforward primer on behavioural economics and some of its applications.

The first section sets the scene for why nudges - policy interventions that encourage rather than mandate certain types of behaviour - may be necessary. So it builds up the argument for why we aren't the rational self-maximizers that economics has tended to assume we are. This section includes a useful run-through of some of the key heuristics and biases that have been identified and what kind of outcomes they result in. This does provide a pretty good overview of some of the major factors like anchoring, availability, representativeness, loss aversion and so on. It also stresses the importance of the design of choice, or choice architecture, and that in many cases there is no option to be 'neutral' - some kind of structure of choices has to be offered.

The second section is about financial issues, so much of this is familiar ground if you know much about recent pension reform. Still the points are worth reiterating. If you auto-enrol people into a pension most tend not to opt-out. Whereas if you don't auto-enrol many don't join. This, combined with what non-savers say themselves, suggests that non-savers aren't making a rational choice not to save. People also adopt naive diversificaton strategies - the equity content of their asset allocation (if they have made an active choice) will be heavily influenced by the allocations of the funds on offer (and what stocks are popular at the time) and what's more people don't tend to shift their initial allocation. Also it seems pretty clear less in more in fund choices - too many options puts us off choosing.

The section on health has a bit of a US focus, but there is interesting stuff in there. The example of the Part D prescription drugs system is useful if only to demonstrate why a random choice for non-choosers is a bad idea. Also the section on organ donations is worth a read - I think I still favour the assumed consent approach, but the idea of mandatory choice (ie having to state your position on your driving liscence) is at least worth thinking about. Also in this section are some fairly interesting suggestions for nudging people to reduce energy consumption. These are definitely worth a look since they involve, for example, being able to make peer group comparisons. I think this would work on two levels - firstly simple self-interest, wouldn't you be annoyed to know you are spending more on energy than comparable households? Secondly I think it would give people smug points for being more energy efficient.

The fourth section I probably found the least interesting, as it deals with ideas I'm not that impressed by, such as school vouchers. Having said that the idea of privatising marriage is intriguing, if unlikely to happen. Basically they argue that the state should restrict itself to civil partnerships and the legal rights that flow from them, but that 'marriages' could be arranged by other groups. That way churches could choose whether or not they want to carry out same-sex marriages. Equally other organisations could carry them out anyway. That way, the authors argue, no-one's values get compromised but neither are anyone's rights denied.

The final section sketches out some further ideas for nudges, as well as combatting some of the counter arguments that have been put forward. This latter chapter is well worth a read as the authors do a pretty good job at arguing back at some of the half-decent arguments there are out there that challenge them. Some good pro-nudge points here include the one I've already mentioned that often there isn't a neutral option - so the absence of a nudge is a kind of nudge itself. Also it is important that nudges are made explicit, so there is no sense that Government (or whoever else is doing the nudging) is being underhand.

Thaler and Sunstein argue that their approach offers a real 'third way' since it seeks an alternative to both state mandated paths on the one hand and complete laissez-faire on the other. This they call Libertarian Paternalism. That's obviously an Americanism, since in the UK libertarianism of any stripe is not a strong theme in our political culture. As such I don't expect the label to catch on here. However overall the book does provide quite a few ideas for how we could achieve some beneficial behavioural changes without being too heavy-handed. And if you want to get into behavioural economics this probably isn't a bad place to start.

engaging and thought-provoking , 28 Jul 2008
Everyone seems to be talking about this book, and the Tories like it a lot (which may not necessarily be a good sign). The book shows how people often behave in irrational ways and offers some gentle 'nudging' techniques for making them behave more responsibly and sensibly. There are some very entertaining illustrations and examples - I love the story about the urinals at the airport (but I won't go into any more detail here or else I'll spoil it for you.) Sometimes, however, the strategies seem to be a little less subtle than the authors suggest - for example, the idea that there should be a waiting period before people get married. Surely that's a little too much interference? Nevertheless, the book is an excellent and stimulating - and optimistic - read. I recommend it along with a very thought-provoking and entertaining book I've just read - Making Time, which is about understanding and controlling time in our livesMaking Time: Why Time Seems to Pass at Different Speeds and How to Control It.


Initial Impressions - not so great..., 11 Aug 2003
I've owned this book for a matter of days but have been disappointed. I'm a psychology degree student. Most recent essay - "Consciousness". However, terms like "Access Consciousness; Phenomenal Consciousness; Monitoring Consciousness and Self-Consciousness" are not included. The term "pseudoseizure" is omitted...to name just a handful of words I've tried to look up. I was also disappointed by some of the definitions, finding them too vague. Perhaps I need to give this reference book a chance, but for now, I'm not impressed.
Perhaps I was expecting too much...?

The Ideal book for any student or teacher, 20 Jun 2001
This book is a fantastic book for anyone studying or anyone interested in psychology. It helps find the meanings to many complex words used in psychology,etc. Coming from a student of psychology i have found this book very helpful for essay work. This book has helped me find new words and the layout is easy to read and easy to find any key words

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Thought-provoking for anyone who helps other make important decisions, 09 Nov 2008
Though there is little in this book that is completely new, it draws together many of the key current ideas on how people make decisions. In particular it shows that people may make very different decisions depending on how information about the decision is presented.

It is illustrated throughout with excellent examples, which brings the book to life.

There is material in this book that I will apply directly in the work that I do in the pensions field. However it is useful in any field where people have difficult decisions to make that may have a huge impact on their life (for example what medical treatment to have, how to invest life savings, what mortgage to take out).

Its key overall theme is that there is no neutral way to present information. We should strive to present it in a way that leads people to make what we believe is the decision that is in their best interest. Paternalism, but with freedom of choice.

This is an excellent book and well worth reading.


Useful analysis of factors affecting decision making, 08 Aug 2008
In this lovely, useful book, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein examine choices, biases and the limits of human reasoning from a variety of perspectives. They often amuse by disclosing how they have fallen victim to the limitations of thought that they are describing. The fact that these educated, articulate professionals can fool themselves so often demonstrates how tough it is to think clearly, a point the authors emphasize and even repeat. Humans fall prey to systematic errors of judgment, but you can harness this problematic tendency productively, including by helping others make better decisions. Some of the authors' suggestions may not be practical, but many are and all are interesting. getAbstract recommends this book to anyone who wants to know how to shape responsible decisions.

Applying behavioural economics, 31 Jul 2008
Whilst I don't know if this book is quite as significant as is being made out, it's a nice and straightforward primer on behavioural economics and some of its applications.

The first section sets the scene for why nudges - policy interventions that encourage rather than mandate certain types of behaviour - may be necessary. So it builds up the argument for why we aren't the rational self-maximizers that economics has tended to assume we are. This section includes a useful run-through of some of the key heuristics and biases that have been identified and what kind of outcomes they result in. This does provide a pretty good overview of some of the major factors like anchoring, availability, representativeness, loss aversion and so on. It also stresses the importance of the design of choice, or choice architecture, and that in many cases there is no option to be 'neutral' - some kind of structure of choices has to be offered.

The second section is about financial issues, so much of this is familiar ground if you know much about recent pension reform. Still the points are worth reiterating. If you auto-enrol people into a pension most tend not to opt-out. Whereas if you don't auto-enrol many don't join. This, combined with what non-savers say themselves, suggests that non-savers aren't making a rational choice not to save. People also adopt naive diversificaton strategies - the equity content of their asset allocation (if they have made an active choice) will be heavily influenced by the allocations of the funds on offer (and what stocks are popular at the time) and what's more people don't tend to shift their initial allocation. Also it seems pretty clear less in more in fund choices - too many options puts us off choosing.

The section on health has a bit of a US focus, but there is interesting stuff in there. The example of the Part D prescription drugs system is useful if only to demonstrate why a random choice for non-choosers is a bad idea. Also the section on organ donations is worth a read - I think I still favour the assumed consent approach, but the idea of mandatory choice (ie having to state your position on your driving liscence) is at least worth thinking about. Also in this section are some fairly interesting suggestions for nudging people to reduce energy consumption. These are definitely worth a look since they involve, for example, being able to make peer group comparisons. I think this would work on two levels - firstly simple self-interest, wouldn't you be annoyed to know you are spending more on energy than comparable households? Secondly I think it would give people smug points for being more energy efficient.

The fourth section I probably found the least interesting, as it deals with ideas I'm not that impressed by, such as school vouchers. Having said that the idea of privatising marriage is intriguing, if unlikely to happen. Basically they argue that the state should restrict itself to civil partnerships and the legal rights that flow from them, but that 'marriages' could be arranged by other groups. That way churches could choose whether or not they want to carry out same-sex marriages. Equally other organisations could carry them out anyway. That way, the authors argue, no-one's values get compromised but neither are anyone's rights denied.

The final section sketches out some further ideas for nudges, as well as combatting some of the counter arguments that have been put forward. This latter chapter is well worth a read as the authors do a pretty good job at arguing back at some of the half-decent arguments there are out there that challenge them. Some good pro-nudge points here include the one I've already mentioned that often there isn't a neutral option - so the absence of a nudge is a kind of nudge itself. Also it is important that nudges are made explicit, so there is no sense that Government (or whoever else is doing the nudging) is being underhand.

Thaler and Sunstein argue that their approach offers a real 'third way' since it seeks an alternative to both state mandated paths on the one hand and complete laissez-faire on the other. This they call Libertarian Paternalism. That's obviously an Americanism, since in the UK libertarianism of any stripe is not a strong theme in our political culture. As such I don't expect the label to catch on here. However overall the book does provide quite a few ideas for how we could achieve some beneficial behavioural changes without being too heavy-handed. And if you want to get into behavioural economics this probably isn't a bad place to start.

engaging and thought-provoking , 28 Jul 2008
Everyone seems to be talking about this book, and the Tories like it a lot (which may not necessarily be a good sign). The book shows how people often behave in irrational ways and offers some gentle 'nudging' techniques for making them behave more responsibly and sensibly. There are some very entertaining illustrations and examples - I love the story about the urinals at the airport (but I won't go into any more detail here or else I'll spoil it for you.) Sometimes, however, the strategies seem to be a little less subtle than the authors suggest - for example, the idea that there should be a waiting period before people get married. Surely that's a little too much interference? Nevertheless, the book is an excellent and stimulating - and optimistic - read. I recommend it along with a very thought-provoking and entertaining book I've just read - Making Time, which is about understanding and controlling time in our livesMaking Time: Why Time Seems to Pass at Different Speeds and How to Control It.


Initial Impressions - not so great..., 11 Aug 2003
I've owned this book for a matter of days but have been disappointed. I'm a psychology degree student. Most recent essay - "Consciousness". However, terms like "Access Consciousness; Phenomenal Consciousness; Monitoring Consciousness and Self-Consciousness" are not included. The term "pseudoseizure" is omitted...to name just a handful of words I've tried to look up. I was also disappointed by some of the definitions, finding them too vague. Perhaps I need to give this reference book a chance, but for now, I'm not impressed.
Perhaps I was expecting too much...?

The Ideal book for any student or teacher, 20 Jun 2001
This book is a fantastic book for anyone studying or anyone interested in psychology. It helps find the meanings to many complex words used in psychology,etc. Coming from a student of psychology i have found this book very helpful for essay work. This book has helped me find new words and the layout is easy to read and easy to find any key words

A practical, holistic manual for workplace coaches , 24 Jan 2008
Ten years ago, coaches were essentially consultants who prescribed specific behaviors for clients struggling in the workplace. These days, coaches have much more experience and expertise; the best of them relate to their clients "co-actively," as partners rather than as authority figures. In fact, Laura Whitworth, Karen Kimsey-House, Henry Kimsey-House and Phillip Sandahl contend that such coaching can facilitate fundamental changes in many aspects of a client's life, not just at work, and they outline the skills coaches need to accomplish this. The book includes a CD that explains the basic principles of their philosophy, and an appendix with forms and exercises for coaches and clients. getAbstract recommends it to managers and human resource professionals who want to brush up the softer side of their coaching skills.

A great introduction to coaching, 09 Oct 2007
This book serves as a great introduction to coaching. It is the basis for the coaching training provided by the Coaches Training Institute. However, this book is useful for those people who want to make changes in their own lives, as well as for people looking for a career in coaching. The style is accessible, with many examples and exercises to practice. With the second edition, there is a resources CD that contains forms (for those of you who don't want to mark your books!) as well as audio recordings of coaching sessions, which really bring the book to life. If you want to find out about becoming a coach, or just want to use the skills to improve your own life, this book is a great start.

Essential, 04 Oct 2006
I used this book to complement my in-person training with the Coach Training Institute. It's an invaluable reference tool, taking you through the key cornerstones, contexts, principles and skills of Coactive Coaching. I would highly recommend underlining, highlighting & scribbling on it as part of your continued professional development!
[...]


A great model for coaching, 20 Aug 2003
For ANYONE looking to understand the power of coaching and how it works, this is THE book to own. Co-active coaching provides a beautiful model that's broad enough to use with all of your coaching clients and deep enough to enable truly powerful coaching. The book is based on the cirriculum of The Coaches Training Institute coach training program, and even though I earned my CPCC (certified professional co-active coach)certification several years ago, I continue to dog-ear, underline, and highlight this book every time I take it from my bookcase. It gets better with each new read!

A fairly interesting taster for aspiring coaches, 22 Feb 2002
This was the first book I read on the road to becoming a full time coach. It didn't help me take on my first client, but it wet my appetite for coaching and has some excellent tools that I use on a daily basis. It is a reader teaser, it flirted with this eager aspiring coach without ever quite satisfying him. A salad when I wanted a steak. Realistically, I think it is a text book for a course. Worth buying for the tools and an overview of the methods of another of the big US coaching colleges if you are looking for an accreditation course.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Thought-provoking for anyone who helps other make important decisions, 09 Nov 2008
Though there is little in this book that is completely new, it draws together many of the key current ideas on how people make decisions. In particular it shows that people may make very different decisions depending on how information about the decision is presented.

It is illustrated throughout with excellent examples, which brings the book to life.

There is material in this book that I will apply directly in the work that I do in the pensions field. However it is useful in any field where people have difficult decisions to make that may have a huge impact on their life (for example what medical treatment to have, how to invest life savings, what mortgage to take out).

Its key overall theme is that there is no neutral way to present information. We should strive to present it in a way that leads people to make what we believe is the decision that is in their best interest. Paternalism, but with freedom of choice.

This is an excellent book and well worth reading.


Useful analysis of factors affecting decision making, 08 Aug 2008
In this lovely, useful book, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein examine choices, biases and the limits of human reasoning from a variety of perspectives. They often amuse by disclosing how they have fallen victim to the limitations of thought that they are describing. The fact that these educated, articulate professionals can fool themselves so often demonstrates how tough it is to think clearly, a point the authors emphasize and even repeat. Humans fall prey to systematic errors of judgment, but you can harness this problematic tendency productively, including by helping others make better decisions. Some of the authors' suggestions may not be practical, but many are and all are interesting. getAbstract recommends this book to anyone who wants to know how to shape responsible decisions.

Applying behavioural economics, 31 Jul 2008
Whilst I don't know if this book is quite as significant as is being made out, it's a nice and straightforward primer on behavioural economics and some of its applications.

The first section sets the scene for why nudges - policy interventions that encourage rather than mandate certain types of behaviour - may be necessary. So it builds up the argument for why we aren't the rational self-maximizers that economics has tended to assume we are. This section includes a useful run-through of some of the key heuristics and biases that have been identified and what kind of outcomes they result in. This does provide a pretty good overview of some of the major factors like anchoring, availability, representativeness, loss aversion and so on. It also stresses the importance of the design of choice, or choice architecture, and that in many cases there is no option to be 'neutral' - some kind of structure of choices has to be offered.

The second section is about financial issues, so much of this is familiar ground if you know much about recent pension reform. Still the points are worth reiterating. If you auto-enrol people into a pension most tend not to opt-out. Whereas if you don't auto-enrol many don't join. This, combined with what non-savers say themselves, suggests that non-savers aren't making a rational choice not to save. People also adopt naive diversificaton strategies - the equity content of their asset allocation (if they have made an active choice) will be heavily influenced by the allocations of the funds on offer (and what stocks are popular at the time) and what's more people don't tend to shift their initial allocation. Also it seems pretty clear less in more in fund choices - too many options puts us off choosing.

The section on health has a bit of a US focus, but there is interesting stuff in there. The example of the Part D prescription drugs system is useful if only to demonstrate why a random choice for non-choosers is a bad idea. Also the section on organ donations is worth a read - I think I still favour the assumed consent approach, but the idea of mandatory choice (ie having to state your position on your driving liscence) is at least worth thinking about. Also in this section are some fairly interesting suggestions for nudging people to reduce energy consumption. These are definitely worth a look since they involve, for example, being able to make peer group comparisons. I think this would work on two levels - firstly simple self-interest, wouldn't you be annoyed to know you are spending more on energy than comparable households? Secondly I think it would give people smug points for being more energy efficient.

The fourth section I probably found the least interesting, as it deals with ideas I'm not that impressed by, such as school vouchers. Having said that the idea of privatising marriage is intriguing, if unlikely to happen. Basically they argue that the state should restrict itself to civil partnerships and the legal rights that flow from them, but that 'marriages' could be arranged by other groups. That way churches could choose whether or not they want to carry out same-sex marriages. Equally other organisations could carry them out anyway. That way, the authors argue, no-one's values get compromised but neither are anyone's rights denied.

The final section sketches out some further ideas for nudges, as well as combatting some of the counter arguments that have been put forward. This latter chapter is well worth a read as the authors do a pretty good job at arguing back at some of the half-decent arguments there are out there that challenge them. Some good pro-nudge points here include the one I've already mentioned that often there isn't a neutral option - so the absence of a nudge is a kind of nudge itself. Also it is important that nudges are made explicit, so there is no sense that Government (or whoever else is doing the nudging) is being underhand.

Thaler and Sunstein argue that their approach offers a real 'third way' since it seeks an alternative to both state mandated paths on the one hand and complete laissez-faire on the other. This they call Libertarian Paternalism. That's obviously an Americanism, since in the UK libertarianism of any stripe is not a strong theme in our political culture. As such I don't expect the label to catch on here. However overall the book does provide quite a few ideas for how we could achieve some beneficial behavioural changes without being too heavy-handed. And if you want to get into behavioural economics this probably isn't a bad place to start.

engaging and thought-provoking , 28 Jul 2008
Everyone seems to be talking about this book, and the Tories like it a lot (which may not necessarily be a good sign). The book shows how people often behave in irrational ways and offers some gentle 'nudging' techniques for making them behave more responsibly and sensibly. There are some very entertaining illustrations and examples - I love the story about the urinals at the airport (but I won't go into any more detail here or else I'll spoil it for you.) Sometimes, however, the strategies seem to be a little less subtle than the authors suggest - for example, the idea that there should be a waiting period before people get married. Surely that's a little too much interference? Nevertheless, the book is an excellent and stimulating - and optimistic - read. I recommend it along with a very thought-provoking and entertaining book I've just read - Making Time, which is about understanding and controlling time in our livesMaking Time: Why Time Seems to Pass at Different Speeds and How to Control It.


Initial Impressions - not so great..., 11 Aug 2003
I've owned this book for a matter of days but have been disappointed. I'm a psychology degree student. Most recent essay - "Consciousness". However, terms like "Access Consciousness; Phenomenal Consciousness; Monitoring Consciousness and Self-Consciousness" are not included. The term "pseudoseizure" is omitted...to name just a handful of words I've tried to look up. I was also disappointed by some of the definitions, finding them too vague. Perhaps I need to give this reference book a chance, but for now, I'm not impressed.
Perhaps I was expecting too much...?

The Ideal book for any student or teacher, 20 Jun 2001
This book is a fantastic book for anyone studying or anyone interested in psychology. It helps find the meanings to many complex words used in psychology,etc. Coming from a student of psychology i have found this book very helpful for essay work. This book has helped me find new words and the layout is easy to read and easy to find any key words

A practical, holistic manual for workplace coaches , 24 Jan 2008
Ten years ago, coaches were essentially consultants who prescribed specific behaviors for clients struggling in the workplace. These days, coaches have much more experience and expertise; the best of them relate to their clients "co-actively," as partners rather than as authority figures. In fact, Laura Whitworth, Karen Kimsey-House, Henry Kimsey-House and Phillip Sandahl contend that such coaching can facilitate fundamental changes in many aspects of a client's life, not just at work, and they outline the skills coaches need to accomplish this. The book includes a CD that explains the basic principles of their philosophy, and an appendix with forms and exercises for coaches and clients. getAbstract recommends it to managers and human resource professionals who want to brush up the softer side of their coaching skills.

A great introduction to coaching, 09 Oct 2007
This book serves as a great introduction to coaching. It is the basis for the coaching training provided by the Coaches Training Institute. However, this book is useful for those people who want to make changes in their own lives, as well as for people looking for a career in coaching. The style is accessible, with many examples and exercises to practice. With the second edition, there is a resources CD that contains forms (for those of you who don't want to mark your books!) as well as audio recordings of coaching sessions, which really bring the book to life. If you want to find out about becoming a coach, or just want to use the skills to improve your own life, this book is a great start.

Essential, 04 Oct 2006
I used this book to complement my in-person training with the Coach Training Institute. It's an invaluable reference tool, taking you through the key cornerstones, contexts, principles and skills of Coactive Coaching. I would highly recommend underlining, highlighting & scribbling on it as part of your continued professional development!
[...]


A great model for coaching, 20 Aug 2003
For ANYONE looking to understand the power of coaching and how it works, this is THE book to own. Co-active coaching provides a beautiful model that's broad enough to use with all of your coaching clients and deep enough to enable truly powerful coaching. The book is based on the cirriculum of The Coaches Training Institute coach training program, and even though I earned my CPCC (certified professional co-active coach)certification several years ago, I continue to dog-ear, underline, and highlight this book every time I take it from my bookcase. It gets better with each new read!

A fairly interesting taster for aspiring coaches, 22 Feb 2002
This was the first book I read on the road to becoming a full time coach. It didn't help me take on my first client, but it wet my appetite for coaching and has some excellent tools that I use on a daily basis. It is a reader teaser, it flirted with this eager aspiring coach without ever quite satisfying him. A salad when I wanted a steak. Realistically, I think it is a text book for a course. Worth buying for the tools and an overview of the methods of another of the big US coaching colleges if you are looking for an accreditation course.

The Private Life of The Brain, 01 Sep 2003
Greenfield's book is accessible to the general reader with an interest in the field. She herself is a neuropharmacologist, but approaches this book with an open mind. her multidisciplinary approach makes for compulsive reading.
She is tackling an area that is undoubtedly an intellectual landmine. She does it with humour, and delivers an argument both persuasive and personal, both touching and scientific.
You may not agree with every point she makes, but you will definitely be glad that you gave her the chance.

One of the many things that i enjoyed about this book is the fact that it is not huge. Many books within the realm of popular science are far too dense. It is a relatively slim volume that gets striaght to the point. There is an appendix and a detailed set of end notes for those that are interested.
Fans of Antonio Damasio's The Feeling Of What Happens should enjoy this book.

How the workings of the brain makes us who we are., 20 Sep 2001
Susan Greenfield takes us on a wondrous journey of the brain and the chemical processes that produce thoughts and emotions. By making it relevant to our own experiences of others and ourselves she provides an understanding of how the workings of our brains make us who we are. I particularly liked the way Dr. Greenfield uses her own personal experiences to bring alive some of the beautifully written explanations.

She has connected the science of the brain and mind to the behaviour of ourselves in a way that is accessible and understandable to the non-neuroscientist (I don't even have biology GCSE). As an engineer who thinks in pictures I would have benefited from some diagrams to help me understand the structure of the brain and particularly the different fountains of modulating amines.

The excellent "notes" for each chapter gave both further qualification of the narrative and good sources of further reading. I intend to obtain at least 4 further texts on the basis of these.

I identified with her struggle as a woman in scientific research and the limiting caution of research funding bodies, both of which she underplays hugely.

A thoroughly fascinating book. If you are interested in people and science, read this book.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

Thought-provoking for anyone who helps other make important decisions, 09 Nov 2008
Though there is little in this book that is completely new, it draws together many of the key current ideas on how people make decisions. In particular it shows that people may make very different decisions depending on how information about the decision is presented.

It is illustrated throughout with excellent examples, which brings the book to life.

There is material in this book that I will apply directly in the work that I do in the pensions field. However it is useful in any field where people have difficult decisions to make that may have a huge impact on their life (for example what medical treatment to have, how to invest life savings, what mortgage to take out).

Its key overall theme is that there is no neutral way to present information. We should strive to present it in a way that leads people to make what we believe is the decision that is in their best interest. Paternalism, but with freedom of choice.

This is an excellent book and well worth reading.


Useful analysis of factors affecting decision making, 08 Aug 2008
In this lovely, useful book, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein examine choices, biases and the limits of human reasoning from a variety of perspectives. They often amuse by disclosing how they have fallen victim to the limitations of thought that they are describing. The fact that these educated, articulate professionals can fool themselves so often demonstrates how tough it is to think clearly, a point the authors emphasize and even repeat. Humans fall prey to systematic errors of judgment, but you can harness this problematic tendency productively, including by helping others make better decisions. Some of the authors' suggestions may not be practical, but many are and all are interesting. getAbstract recommends this book to anyone who wants to know how to shape responsible decisions.

Applying behavioural economics, 31 Jul 2008
Whilst I don't know if this book is quite as significant as is being made out, it's a nice and straightforward primer on behavioural economics and some of its applications.

The first section sets the scene for why nudges - policy interventions that encourage rather than mandate certain types of behaviour - may be necessary. So it builds up the argument for why we aren't the rational self-maximizers that economics has tended to assume we are. This section includes a useful run-through of some of the key heuristics and biases that have been identified and what kind of outcomes they result in. This does provide a pretty good overview of some of the major factors like anchoring, availability, representativeness, loss aversion and so on. It also stresses the importance of the design of choice, or choice architecture, and that in many cases there is no option to be 'neutral' - some kind of structure of choices has to be offered.

The second section is about financial issues, so much of this is familiar ground if you know much about recent pension reform. Still the points are worth reiterating. If you auto-enrol people into a pension most tend not to opt-out. Whereas if you don't auto-enrol many don't join. This, combined with what non-savers say themselves, suggests that non-savers aren't making a rational choice not to save. People also adopt naive diversificaton strategies - the equity content of their asset allocation (if they have made an active choice) will be heavily influenced by the allocations of the funds on offer (and what stocks are popular at the time) and what's more people don't tend to shift their initial allocation. Also it seems pretty clear less in more in fund choices - too many options puts us off choosing.

The section on health has a bit of a US focus, but there is interesting stuff in there. The example of the Part D prescription drugs system is useful if only to demonstrate why a random choice for non-choosers is a bad idea. Also the section on organ donations is worth a read - I think I still favour the assumed consent approach, but the idea of mandatory choice (ie having to state your position on your driving liscence) is at least worth thinking about. Also in this section are some fairly interesting suggestions for nudging people to reduce energy consumption. These are definitely worth a look since they involve, for example, being able to make peer group comparisons. I think this would work on two levels - firstly simple self-interest, wouldn't you be annoyed to know you are spending more on energy than comparable households? Secondly I think it would give people smug points for being more energy efficient.

The fourth section I probably found the least interesting, as it deals with ideas I'm not that impressed by, such as school vouchers. Having said that the idea of privatising marriage is intriguing, if unlikely to happen. Basically they argue that the state should restrict itself to civil partnerships and the legal rights that flow from them, but that 'marriages' could be arranged by other groups. That way churches could choose whether or not they want to carry out same-sex marriages. Equally other organisations could carry them out anyway. That way, the authors argue, no-one's values get compromised but neither are anyone's rights denied.

The final section sketches out some further ideas for nudges, as well as combatting some of the counter arguments that have been put forward. This latter chapter is well worth a read as the authors do a pretty good job at arguing back at some of the half-decent arguments there are out there that challenge them. Some good pro-nudge points here include the one I've already mentioned that often there isn't a neutral option - so the absence of a nudge is a kind of nudge itself. Also it is important that nudges are made explicit, so there is no sense that Government (or whoever else is doing the nudging) is being underhand.

Thaler and Sunstein argue that their approach offers a real 'third way' since it seeks an alternative to both state mandated paths on the one hand and complete laissez-faire on the other. This they call Libertarian Paternalism. That's obviously an Americanism, since in the UK libertarianism of any stripe is not a strong theme in our political culture. As such I don't expect the label to catch on here. However overall the book does provide quite a few ideas for how we could achieve some beneficial behavioural changes without being too heavy-handed. And if you want to get into behavioural economics this probably isn't a bad place to start.

engaging and thought-provoking , 28 Jul 2008
Everyone seems to be talking about this book, and the Tories like it a lot (which may not necessarily be a good sign). The book shows how people often behave in irrational ways and offers some gentle 'nudging' techniques for making them behave more responsibly and sensibly. There are some very entertaining illustrations and examples - I love the story about the urinals at the airport (but I won't go into any more detail here or else I'll spoil it for you.) Sometimes, however, the strategies seem to be a little less subtle than the authors suggest - for example, the idea that there should be a waiting period before people get married. Surely that's a little too much interference? Nevertheless, the book is an excellent and stimulating - and optimistic - read. I recommend it along with a very thought-provoking and entertaining book I've just read - Making Time, which is about understanding and controlling time in our livesMaking Time: Why Time Seems to Pass at Different Speeds and How to Control It.


Initial Impressions - not so great..., 11 Aug 2003
I've owned this book for a matter of days but have been disappointed. I'm a psychology degree student. Most recent essay - "Consciousness". However, terms like "Access Consciousness; Phenomenal Consciousness; Monitoring Consciousness and Self-Consciousness" are not included. The term "pseudoseizure" is omitted...to name just a handful of words I've tried to look up. I was also disappointed by some of the definitions, finding them too vague. Perhaps I need to give this reference book a chance, but for now, I'm not impressed.
Perhaps I was expecting too much...?

The Ideal book for any student or teacher, 20 Jun 2001
This book is a fantastic book for anyone studying or anyone interested in psychology. It helps find the meanings to many complex words used in psychology,etc. Coming from a student of psychology i have found this book very helpful for essay work. This book has helped me find new words and the layout is easy to read and easy to find any key words

A practical, holistic manual for workplace coaches , 24 Jan 2008
Ten years ago, coaches were essentially consultants who prescribed specific behaviors for clients struggling in the workplace. These days, coaches have much more experience and expertise; the best of them relate to their clients "co-actively," as partners rather than as authority figures. In fact, Laura Whitworth, Karen Kimsey-House, Henry Kimsey-House and Phillip Sandahl contend that such coaching can facilitate fundamental changes in many aspects of a client's life, not just at work, and they outline the skills coaches need to accomplish this. The book includes a CD that explains the basic principles of their philosophy, and an appendix with forms and exercises for coaches and clients. getAbstract recommends it to managers and human resource professionals who want to brush up the softer side of their coaching skills.

A great introduction to coaching, 09 Oct 2007
This book serves as a great introduction to coaching. It is the basis for the coaching training provided by the Coaches Training Institute. However, this book is useful for those people who want to make changes in their own lives, as well as for people looking for a career in coaching. The style is accessible, with many examples and exercises to practice. With the second edition, there is a resources CD that contains forms (for those of you who don't want to mark your books!) as well as audio recordings of coaching sessions, which really bring the book to life. If you want to find out about becoming a coach, or just want to use the skills to improve your own life, this book is a great start.

Essential, 04 Oct 2006
I used this book to complement my in-person training with the Coach Training Institute. It's an invaluable reference tool, taking you through the key cornerstones, contexts, principles and skills of Coactive Coaching. I would highly recommend underlining, highlighting & scribbling on it as part of your continued professional development!
[...]


A great model for coaching, 20 Aug 2003
For ANYONE looking to understand the power of coaching and how it works, this is THE book to own. Co-active coaching provides a beautiful model that's broad enough to use with all of your coaching clients and deep enough to enable truly powerful coaching. The book is based on the cirriculum of The Coaches Training Institute coach training program, and even though I earned my CPCC (certified professional co-active coach)certification several years ago, I continue to dog-ear, underline, and highlight this book every time I take it from my bookcase. It gets better with each new read!

A fairly interesting taster for aspiring coaches, 22 Feb 2002
This was the first book I read on the road to becoming a full time coach. It didn't help me take on my first client, but it wet my appetite for coaching and has some excellent tools that I use on a daily basis. It is a reader teaser, it flirted with this eager aspiring coach without ever quite satisfying him. A salad when I wanted a steak. Realistically, I think it is a text book for a course. Worth buying for the tools and an overview of the methods of another of the big US coaching colleges if you are looking for an accreditation course.

The Private Life of The Brain, 01 Sep 2003
Greenfield's book is accessible to the general reader with an interest in the field. She herself is a neuropharmacologist, but approaches this book with an open mind. her multidisciplinary approach makes for compulsive reading.
She is tackling an area that is undoubtedly an intellectual landmine. She does it with humour, and delivers an argument both persuasive and personal, both touching and scientific.
You may not agree with every point she makes, but you will definitely be glad that you gave her the chance.

One of the many things that i enjoyed about this book is the fact that it is not huge. Many books within the realm of popular science are far too dense. It is a relatively slim volume that gets striaght to the point. There is an appendix and a detailed set of end notes for those that are interested.
Fans of Antonio Damasio's The Feeling Of What Happens should enjoy this book.

How the workings of the brain makes us who we are., 20 Sep 2001
Susan Greenfield takes us on a wondrous journey of the brain and the chemical processes that produce thoughts and emo