If you are looking for the short version, another Brit gave us the same message: No, you can't always get what you want But if you try sometime, you ju...moreIf you are looking for the short version, another Brit gave us the same message: No, you can't always get what you want But if you try sometime, you just might find You get what you need
For the most part, obliquity seems to be pursuing goals that come from the heart rather than the pursuit of fame or fortune.
The book's set up: if you follow obliquity, it will get you the true measure of success. So as long as you are doing it for the right reasons, you will get wealthy, which was really the goal all along.
In my mind, the first half of the book can be skipped. Then the book strings together some interesting ideas, but doesn't delve to deeply into any of them. One that organizations pay consultants to justify decisions they already made. This made a lot of sense to me. And I would say when this happens, the bigger the consultant's fee, the worse the news. The book is filled with these insights - interesting, but so what?
Another topic that I appreciated was the idea that there are two types of problems: closed problems (like Sudoku or chess) and open problems (what's the best solution to global warming?). Again -- makes sense. But not a lot of guidance once you've identified what kind of problem you have on your hands. And I would imagine that all problems that involve people are open problems.
The second half of the book is better than the first. I would say that it gets exponentially better. In fact, if I was the editor, I would have cut the first half the book and told John Kay to further explore the ideas in the second half of the book.
This is where the book begins to explore the ideas of what it means to set a larger goal and staying open to several ways to getting there. However, it doesn't go deep enough to really stand for a big idea. It still skirts around the idea of obliquity. I guess the book's message - to get there slant. But we never get there. I was always left thinking -- so what?
Rather than a review of 13 Bankers, I am wrestling with understanding the response to the book. It makes me feel like I’m missing something and did no...moreRather than a review of 13 Bankers, I am wrestling with understanding the response to the book. It makes me feel like I’m missing something and did not get the secret decoder ring. Unlike most books that explore the 2008 financial collapse, this book looks back to the political viewpoints of Jefferson and Hamilton. In a nutshell, Jefferson didn’t trust big government. In addition to that, he didn’t trust any highly centralized power and this included the banks. In contrast, Hamilton did trust a centralized government with powers to encourage the finance system. For Jefferson this is not tenable because you have two powers interconnected which leads to unchecked powers. So if I’m even close – then that’s step one of the decoder ring. That’s the basic argument. The problem is now fitting those arguments into today’s inauthentic political discourse. How does one take this fundamental argument and transform it into good guys and bad guys? Many reviews acknowledge Johnson’s solid historical analysis of financial regulations and then dismiss him as a crazy conspiracy theorist. See an example here: http://www.economist.com/node/15716841 So rather than taking on Johnson’s arguments, he’s labeled as a conspiracist. I haven’t finished the book – but since he’s invoked Jefferson, I presume his solution is more democracy. However, his first solution seems to be that America needs another Andrew Jackson or Franklin D. Roosevelt. And here is where I think my disappointment might develop. More democracy means more process. And process is slow, difficult and demands people to work together. This is the discussion America needs to have – rather than “finding” and labeling the good guys and the bad guys. Instead, by discussing the leaders of these complicated political movements, the argument simplifies the solution to a single person – a super hero. I will update upon completion of the book.
Final thoughts: The book does provide a thorough examination of financial regulation. Rather than pointing to a single politician, the book calls for greater regulation. It argues that markets are not all knowing and are not self-correcting. (less)
Reading this book, I realized how depressing flat monotonous happiness can be. Sort of like when the sun is out every day and there's never a cloud in...moreReading this book, I realized how depressing flat monotonous happiness can be. Sort of like when the sun is out every day and there's never a cloud in the sky. You begin to look for the clouds and hope for rain.
I like curmudgeons. It takes a special someone to pull it off. Not a negative person. Not an angry person. A curmudgeon. There's a freedom in being stubborn in your ideas.
Straightforward decorating advice. Keep things clean and simple. Use white to make things look spacious.
Lots of top ten tips. Most of the DIY project...moreStraightforward decorating advice. Keep things clean and simple. Use white to make things look spacious.
Lots of top ten tips. Most of the DIY projects are not things that I would do.
I would like to make the easy-care slipcover for my couch, but first I need to make curtains for the kitchen. And similar to the books suggestion for a tie on to towels, I would like to make a tie on towels for the stove.
Philosophically I like the book's simple decorating tips. Practically the tips are too simple to be useful when starting a project. (less)
This is tough. It's easy to say -- "I'm okay with people not liking me." Or "Oh, bec. I'm not a good girl, that's why people don't l...morework in progress.
This is tough. It's easy to say -- "I'm okay with people not liking me." Or "Oh, bec. I'm not a good girl, that's why people don't like me." I know, bec. for the most part I don't care what people think of me. And yet I find myself doing some of these things. Reading this book, I suddenly observed "good girl" interactions everywhere. On one occasion, I was distracted and slow to answer a question from another female. The other woman got upset and left the room. I had just met her and started thinking -- do I play the "good girl" to keep the peace or do I let the situation play out. She came back into the room and asked me what was wrong. I said that I had been in a work session all day and now that it was 10 minutes to the end of the session my mind was on leaving. This seemed to upset her even more. I've decided to think she was at the end of a long day also. However, this interaction will be in my thoughts the next time we work together.
Good girls give their power away to keep the peace. Reading the book, I kept thinking - what's the solution? And the simple conclusion seems to be - don't give your power away. And yet, I think there can be real consequences. We all know girls can shun an uncooperative girl. But it's more than that piece. There are real consequences for speaking your voice - take the Heidi/Howard Roizen example. The same business case study was given to students only the names were changed. More students liked Howard and wanted to work for him. Students of both genders were harsher in their perception of Heidi. Not so likable and more importantly less likely to be hired. http://changetheratio.tumblr.com/post...
Without practice - women aren't that good at speaking their voice. Not caring what other people think of you is a lot different than staying true to your voice.
While women continue to excel in school, they are not breaking the glass ceiling at the workplace.
Simmons presentation is difficult for me - bec. her presentation made things black and white. And every good girl knows how to play the grey. And even in her black and white delivery, she seems to miss discussing the real consequences and then how to address them. The book provides many examples of Good Girls. Once it's pointed out, it's all too easy to see. (less)
I liked the parable format. Business-self-help books are often cheesy. And the parable model, rather than putting on airs, seems to embrace the campy...moreI liked the parable format. Business-self-help books are often cheesy. And the parable model, rather than putting on airs, seems to embrace the campy storytelling so it's actually interesting. I think the other thing this book does is rather than focus on a set of tools - it acknowledges that the tools rely on relationships and relationship building.
All of that worked for me. So for a personal rating - I'd give it a 4. But I realize not all of this would translate for other readers. So a public rating would be a 3. And goodreads won't let me give it a 3.5. (less)
There’s a generalization that people make that really gets me. It’s the idea that people naturally prefer or practice competition over collaboration o...moreThere’s a generalization that people make that really gets me. It’s the idea that people naturally prefer or practice competition over collaboration or cooperation. Usually this is said as a way to dismiss any attempt to address inequalities in America and to explain why capitalism is the only choice. And socialism or any hybrid economic system is doomed. Doomed! There are several reasons the acceptance of individual competition over striving for the group’s overall well-being seems to be a social norm rather than an innate human trait. And even if it was an innate human trait, I believe we can rise above it. While working together is a shared value in my family, living in Japan showed me it could be a bigger social norm. There are other reasons I question the all-out assumption that competition trumps collaboration, but let’s go with those two.
When I picked up Predictably Irrational, I was worried that the book was going to give me absolute arguments similar to the one I outlined above. It’s the way it is because people practice it that way. Instead, I believe if I brought this observation to Ariely he would say something like: Why do you think that is? How are the innate human traits reinforced by society to make something more commonly practiced?
Ariely describes his interest in understanding individuals and their behavior in groups based on a fire accident. Ariely suffered third degree burns from an explosion. The recovery period isolated Ariely. And that isolation brought him a new perception of people. I believe that it can also happen when you live in another country. Living in Japan, I frequently felt separate from those around me. And while my feelings of isolation were not as deep as Ariely, there many occasions where I felt like I was observing people around me with new eyes. In other words, I take Ariely to be the kind of person who could acknowledge that people are both competitive and collaborative. And he would be equally interested in what social norms brought out one behavior more so than the other.
That said – his tests (usually of MIT, Harvard or Stanford students) often left me with more questions. For example when given three choices – with one being a decoy choice – 75% of students took the bait and chose the one researchers wanted them to choose. And I would think – what’s happening with that other 25%. Because in my mind – 25% is still a lot of people. What were they thinking?
Another section discusses how people see themselves as mostly honest. When given the opportunity to cheat, they mostly self-regulate even with intentional leeway to cheat more and not get caught. However the further people are from money the more likely they are to cheat. For example, if you take an expense account and have a procedure of receipts and involve another person (an assistant who submits them), these buffers (from the actual cash) lead to a situation where people are more likely to cheat on their expense accounts. In July 2010, my house was flooded. I experienced five feet of water in my basement. FEMA and then later the SBA visited me. And there was a procedure much like Ariely describes. If anything, I underestimated the cost of the damages. This may be because I was warned that if I was found to be lying, I would have to return the money. But at several times I was encouraged to really be sure that I was certain of my reporting because the estimate could go down, but it could never go up. And I should include things that could later be taken out. Perhaps those conversations were a bit like signing an honesty code. However, I do the same thing – underreport my expenses – with my expense account at work. Perhaps that's just me being part of the (figurative) 25%.
What I appreciate about Ariely’s presentation of research is that he doesn't box himself into saying this is the way humans behave. Rather – if you consider these conditions – asking people to sign an honor code – you encourage this kind of behavior – greater rates of honesty. (less)
Very straightforward nonprofit book. But don't let it's simplicity fool you. Really great tool for tough decision making. I will definitely come back...moreVery straightforward nonprofit book. But don't let it's simplicity fool you. Really great tool for tough decision making. I will definitely come back to this book. (less)
Lately, I've been interested in the question - can people change? What can they change? And how do they change? This book seems to suggest that we can...moreLately, I've been interested in the question - can people change? What can they change? And how do they change? This book seems to suggest that we can change. While it explains that people can lean toward one or another type (nervous, outgoing, prone to anger), we have the ability to change our reaction. The anger or anxiety will still come. But we can pay attention to our feelings and become better stewards of them, which will improve our overall quality of life.
I'll admit that I avoided this book. A couple of years ago I started Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships and couldn't get into it. It was painfully boring. However, the ideas in this book come up quite frequently. And at some point, I decided that I needed to read the book to distinguish what Goleman's original framework is and what's been popularized by the people who support EQ.
Past ideas of having a good cry or letting the anger out - Goleman argues are not necessarily accurate.
He states that some babies are born anxious and others are born outgoing. Anxious babies can be coached to be less anxious by mothers who encourage them to explore the world. It also says that not attending to all of an anxious baby's concerns could be helpful. At this point, I began to think -- really?
I guess one thing that I'm taking away is that distraction is probably a better technique than I ever gave it credit for. If you catch the loop of negative thoughts - do something to interrupt it - exercise, take 20 minutes, meditate, clear your mind, play a game, talk to friends, this is good for your overall well-being.
Some take-aways that I appreciated: - Ask people what they think before you have a professional looking model. Create something out of cardboard or du...moreSome take-aways that I appreciated: - Ask people what they think before you have a professional looking model. Create something out of cardboard or duct tape (everyone's favorite). People feel more free to make recommendations or give honest input when they see it's a work in progress.
- When people provide feedback, there's no penalty. Create an atmosphere where it's okay to disagree. Humor is key. Too bad I'm not funny.
- Success hides problems. (This makes a lot of sense to me)
- When going somewhere big, find the small piece to focus on. It makes it easier to prioritize and complete projects. It also allows for a flexibility.
- Create mixed tables. Sims calls it cross-functional teams or teams with a variety of people attached to the project.
- Don't ask people what they want; they don't know. Create something, get feedback, adjust, get feedback, adjust. As interest grows, users will have feedback and major changes will be made.
I liked this book for it's acknowledgement that big vision needs a starting place. And that starting place should be a low risk. The bigger the roll out, the more difficult it is to respond to feedback and alter the direction.
As for the writing, too often, I read something in the current business genre that feels like an extended blog. The idea may not actually warrant a book, but somewhere along the way it became one. This is a quick and easy read that for the most part fills the book with content.
In some ways, I think this book comes at things from an opposite place of Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto (another book that trumped my assumption of being an extended blog masquerading as a book). In the Checklist Manifesto, Gawande writes about how to execute complicated procedures often in emergency situations. Checklist attempts to take what we do know and organize it in a manner for greatest success. Little Bets is taking what we don't know and organizing it for greatest success. (less)
When I started this book, I found the poisons dominated the story and felt there were not characters to follow. I was going to abandon it, but stuck w...moreWhen I started this book, I found the poisons dominated the story and felt there were not characters to follow. I was going to abandon it, but stuck with it and am glad that I did.
It's an interesting look at the early stages of forensic medicine. Also when they describe common household products, it's interesting to note that we have always been living with poisons - a little arsenic in this, a little mercury in that. A little silver nitrate to turn the skin blue - okay he did that to be part of the circus. There are plenty of examples of where the cure was worse than the disease or ailment. Mercury for constipation -- what were they thinking!
Historically I've always thought of Prohibition as people making their own home-brews. And those that made a drinkable product or liked some risk created organized distribution for the product. This book really helped me see Prohibition in a new light. It's the strange American dichotomy of Puritan and sinner. Somehow, bec. drinking alcohol is a choice (like most of our vices are perceived to be), it's okay for the U.S. government to encourage a more toxic alcohol. If people drink it, that's their fault. We've made it illegal. Prohibition comes across as a total disregard for poor people. The wealthy can afford the more expensive and safer drinks. Let poor people drink methanol.
Towards the end - I'm back to feeling like we have drifted from the people and are too closely following the poisons. But there's a good stretch in the middle. (less)
Before starting, I read quite a few reviews that described it as an extended magazine entry. And I went in skeptical; I was curious how much one could...moreBefore starting, I read quite a few reviews that described it as an extended magazine entry. And I went in skeptical; I was curious how much one could say about checklists. I see lists as a great way to get things done. As long as they are simple and directed, they can focus my attention and keep me on task. So I went in a list enthusiast, but still skeptical.
This book argues checklists help us be more effective with complex tasks, by focusing us on what needs to be done and is often overlooked in emergency situations. Gawande recognizes that lists should not create bureaucratic nightmares. They are there to increase accuracy and prevent errors. Efforts should be made to test and refine them. What are things people are likely to remember (don't add them to the list) and what are things people are not likely to remember (put them on the list). This process means experts in the field need to make the checklists. By creating a space for everyone to check in with the process, the checklist can empower all team members and allow them to speak up when things are not working. This empowerment is the true value of the book.
While complex tasks (medicine and architecture) used to be handle by a single master, this book argues that our modern world is too complex for a single master. Instead, a checklist guides the decision making process of a team. If a step can not be accomplished, people need a space to speak up or be authorized to make the best decision. (Example of authorizing people to make decisions - Walmart's decision to let staff do whatever needed to be done during Hurricane Katrine) When possible, the team should discuss events that are not accomplished as planned. However such discussion is not always possible.
He acknowledges some tasks lend themselves to check lists (surgery preparation, airplane takeoffs, building buildings) and some do not (raising children). He argues - quite rightly - that children are unique. You can't create a checklist to deal with all children.
Basically Gawande believes what Einstein said about simplicity - everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. And I think there is a strong satisfaction to finding a simple solution.
I liked the different examples. Because I felt it helped open the possibility of checklists, while also maintaining perspective on the challenges. The exploration of different checklists will either appeal to you as a reader or you will feel it is going over the same information. I liked it...
**Follow Up Thoughts** When I read the book, I realized that you can't raise kids with a checklist. But you could help kids manage their time and responsibilities with checklists. I think some kids would be very drawn to the routine of a daily checklist. So a checklist could be a positive teaching tool. (less)
I did not read Three Cups of Tea. It seemed - from a distance - like a schmaltzy look at attempting large social change. That doesn't interest me, bec...moreI did not read Three Cups of Tea. It seemed - from a distance - like a schmaltzy look at attempting large social change. That doesn't interest me, because I feel the terms are simplified to tell a story. And in that simplification, things are presented in a way that is too good to be true. This simplification loses how challenging it is to create lasting social change.
Jon Krakauer gave money to Greg Mortenson early on to support building schools in Afghanistan with an emphasis on reaching girls. Krakauer has three main concerns with Mortenson: 1) his story is not true and likely falsified to make a better story and therefore a better fundraising appeal, 2) he mismanages funds, co-mingling his personal and business expenses and then lets the non-profit entity, CAI, pay for them, 3) he has not built nor sustained the number of schools he claims to support.
This has stirred a lot of controversy including a 60 Minutes segment and an explosion of discussion on blogs. Krakauer also feels that Mortenson has rejected attempts to make CAI more transparent and accountable because ultimately he does not want to change his practice. Krakauer then goes on to guess why Mortenson does not want to be more transparent. It's this lack of transparency that I believe is the biggest problem - it hurts Mortenson but it hurts other organizations engaged in this work. And by this kind of work - I mean more than efforts in Afghanistan - I mean social change that seems insurmountable.
Supporters of Mortenson argue there are cultural misunderstandings that have lead to confusion which justify Mortenson's version of events. My concern is the US's consumption of celebrity driven activities and causes.
For me, this is a good example of the cult of celebrity. People wanted Mortenson's story to be true. I think some people still want it to be true. It helps them believe change is possible and feel that they have contributed to that change. And small projects are a bit like the question - "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a project does not receive a lot of attention and no one is around to see it, does it make an impact? The answer is yes - but will it be funded?
That is an imperfect comparison - but I do believe that people struggle with understanding social change as it is happening. We seek simplified stories that make big steps toward progress appear possible in our lifetime.
I just started this book. And a couple of times, I thought - wow, I should give a copy to (fill in name). I definitely think it'll be a book to read a...moreI just started this book. And a couple of times, I thought - wow, I should give a copy to (fill in name). I definitely think it'll be a book to read and then re-read.
I'm not sure the "going deeper" parts work for me. But I will go back and re-visit them. And I think they give me a place to experiment with. (less)
Reading this book in 2010, I find much of the information familiar. I am surprised by Bush's attempt to focus his team on Afghanistan over Iraq. Accor...moreReading this book in 2010, I find much of the information familiar. I am surprised by Bush's attempt to focus his team on Afghanistan over Iraq. According to this book, Bush wanted something the team could define as success. Afghanistan seemed anything but an easy success. I was surprised how early on the focus was primarily Afghanistan and that with a different team how different things could have been. (less)
I agree with other reviews that suggest the book was rushed to print. The book would have benefited from a stronger organization. The book had three p...moreI agree with other reviews that suggest the book was rushed to print. The book would have benefited from a stronger organization. The book had three parts: 1) Family members that have recently been caught in scandal, 2) the influence of the Family on Uganda's politics, particularly the focus on homosexuality and 3) the increasing voice of Christianity in the US military. For me, the first section in particular could have benefited from more editing. I'm torn on a rating 3 for organization and 4 for content. I went with four. (less)
Of all the books that I read about the 2008 economic collapse, I find this one the most depressing. The Big Short looks at specific events leading up...moreOf all the books that I read about the 2008 economic collapse, I find this one the most depressing. The Big Short looks at specific events leading up to 2008.
The book is a classic description of how those in power did not see what was happening. At some point, it becomes those in power did not want to see what was in front of them. And Michael Lewis concludes (through his cast of characters) that they were either stupid or criminal. This conclusion is repeated throughout.
It's easy to be cynical reading this story. Even as it becomes evident that things are not as they seem in the housing market, those "in the know" focus on how to make money and not "fixing" the problem. A few futile efforts are described. Ben & Charlie try to alert friends who work at the New York Times. Their friends tell them to go to the SEC where they get no response. Was that enough? Again and again the story suggests that the normal channels for addressing fraud in the market were not functioning. A market sprung up where there was no regulation and then refused to become transparent. It's this mix of intention and lack of intention that I found so depressing. In other books, I felt there were clear bad guys. This book does not make things so tidy.
Wal-Mart is a competitive culture that has gone unchecked. The culture permits or encourages illegal practices.
For me the book makes the case that th...moreWal-Mart is a competitive culture that has gone unchecked. The culture permits or encourages illegal practices.
For me the book makes the case that the negative practices outweigh the positive things Wal-Mart did. Also the positive practices seem to be in Wal-Mart's past.
Fishman describes it as neither good nor bad but a new practice that needs new policy.
The book describes how sprinklers are made. Last summer, I bought a sprinkler - and it broke on the third use. This summer I bought a sprinkler and it doesn't function quite like I'd like it to. I actually resent buying sprinklers because I expect them not to work. This is the Wal-Mart effect. The problem is neither of these sprinklers were purchased at Wal-Mart. However, my expectation that they won't work (and the confirmation that they don't) are all part of the Wal-Mart effect. (less)
What frustrates me is the main premise has a contradiction that is never addressed. He begins the book with some research on monkeys that demonstrated...moreWhat frustrates me is the main premise has a contradiction that is never addressed. He begins the book with some research on monkeys that demonstrated an innate interest in solving puzzles. He then goes on to describe his big premise which is that we are are in the midst of a major motivational shift. First our motivation was our biological drives. Then came a period of motivation from structure and oversight. And now we want autonomy to determine our own motivation. But Pink's presentation on the monkeys demonstrates that 'even' they are intrinsically motivated to solve puzzles. His premise that since we've shifted to more creative tasks - a new age has arrived. We need to be more aware of intrinsic motivation and create the climate for it to flourish. I think it artificially makes us 'more' different than past generations. And he does acknowledge that past generations were successful in the old model. I don't think we've changed that much. Sometimes we like to be rewarded for accomplishing simple tasks efficiently and other times we like to be challenged by something creative. And therefore the basic analysis seems incomplete. I do agree that motivation and goal setting is a tricky business that is often misunderstood. And negative results occur from seemingly good intentions - rewarding people to do something they want to do for an intrinsic reason. It's difficult for me to let go of this flaw. By overstating the shift, the book plays into the sense of "oh no the world is getting more complex so we have to get more creative".
So while the book covers some good ideas about motivation, I am cautious about the presentation. (less)
While I agree with him on the big picture, the specifics this book explores don't resonate with me. For example, if you own slaves, how should you tre...moreWhile I agree with him on the big picture, the specifics this book explores don't resonate with me. For example, if you own slaves, how should you treat them? His point is that the Bible is concerned with pressing human concerns reflecting the time it was written. If it was a book written by God, he suggests it would take on topics that don't appear or are misrepresented in the Bible. Math, curing cancer, etc. I actually don't think this. Ultimately the content has to concern the audience. Another argument he makes is the first 4 of the 10 commandments are strangely about how people should think about God. I will admit this always bothered me. He also suggests other religions and philosophies have better guidelines and are better written. I'm not a religious scholar - but I do believe plenty of religions have uneven writing. Some is more interesting than other parts. Even when the Bible talks about things like the golden rule - it doesn't do so in a particularly eloquent manner. Just because something isn't well said, doesn't make it untrue. Somethings really hit home - stem cell research and theories are interpretations of facts. You may not like the interpretation, but the facts are individually still true. That people feel they can pick and choose what they have faith in is disturbing. (less)
In my opinion, School Choice is a divisive reform. It's created an atmosphere in education reform where people try to figure out - are you one of them...moreIn my opinion, School Choice is a divisive reform. It's created an atmosphere in education reform where people try to figure out - are you one of them? Or are you one of us? Diane Ravitch takes on past and current education fads, including School Choice, merit pay, and NCLB. When talking about her philosophy for education reform, people complain she doesn't offer any solutions. She doesn't offer any simple turnkey solutions. In fact if she wants you to take away one thing from her writing, I suspect that's it: school reform is not one turnkey solution. Instead she offers a path to focus on: strong curriculum, good teachers, and community involvement. None of them are reducible to easy solutions. None of them seem possible in this politically contentious period, particularly strong curriculum. None of them can be reduced to a simple edict. And when people attempt to simplify them - paying teachers for performance - Ravitch examines the assumption with experience and research. Her alternative to the current fad thinking is a more democratic model. This part of her solution reminds me how much of the democratic tradition we've lost compounding the challenge of reform. (less)
Loading...
