Some Book Reviews

I have meant to get some of these reviews up a while ago, but I have been struggling to keep my blogging time lately (the wife and I are expecting twins in May 2010 and I have been busy trying to get ahead on my research). Anyway, I'll sort of do short reviews here and if you have specific questions, leave a comment and I can go in more detail. 

Cluetrain Manifesto: 4 out of 5 and a nice historical read. (Amazon) (Overview Video)

I really didn't know what to expect from this book. It is sort of seen as one of, if not the, seminal work that heralded in the details of the Information Age. The problem is that it was written in 2001 and so I was worried that it would be too old and all the ideas would be common knowledge now. I would say that my guess was about half right. All the references to the intranet did get a little old and the big players of that day are not the big players today (reading it one would have thought Sun Microsystems was responsible for it all). The 95 theses are the heart of the book and do have a multitude of ideas, but I think 50 would have been plenty. Further, the book gets a little too ambitious at times for my taste. All the ideas about business being redefined entirely were a bit much. But, what I loved was their vision in 2001. They clearly saw where this was going and tried to warn people that they must change their ways or be run over. They were speaking to business, and many businesses have been run over already, but I think there are many relevant points for education as well. Certainly enough that it is worth your time to read this relatively small book packed with an outstanding vision. 

The Bottom Billion: 4.25 out of 5 - a must read for social activists. (Amazon) (Overview Video)

I enjoyed this book, although it will be more economically focused than most people will like. Further, the other thing that annoyed me slightly was the author's heavy reliance on his own work (as if he has all the answers). But, outside of the economic focus and the self-referencing, I enjoyed this book quite a bit. The author identified traps that countries fall into and can't get out of; they get stuck in a repeating pattern away from development that includes civil wars, natural resource traps, logistical problems, and bad neighborhoods. These traps keep countries from developing and the rest of the world is not helping out all that much because they are not addressing these fundamental traps with their aid. It's a provocative argument and one that I have trouble disagreeing with in general (although specific points are debatable). As I was reading it though, certainly I thought there were lessons for U.S. states as well. We don't have coups on a regular basis for sure, but the landlocked issues, the bad neighborhood issues, the natural resource issues (hello, Kentucky ... coal!) and even the problems with federal aid sort of seem to cross over not just from The Bottom Billion, but to our bottom 100 million here in the U.S. as well. Anyway, the take away is the idea that uninformed social activism really isn't all that helpful. There are real barriers to development that once removed allow societies to enter the global marketplace. Pouring in aid that doesn't address these barriers makes folks in the Western world sleep better at night, but doesn't fundamentally alter the futures of those folks stuck in the bottom billion. 

The Assault on Reason: 2 out of 5 - not worth it at all (Amazon) (Overview Video)

This book was an utter disaster, so don't bother with it. I enjoyed Gore's arguments on climate change, so I thought I would give him another spin on larger democratic issues ... my mistake. It was basically a Bush bashing book. Now, I dislike George Bush and his time as President as much as the next guy, but this was beating a dead horse. Not just a little beating the dead horse ... hours and hours of doing it. I totally understand Al Gore's resentment of George Bush (yes, the election probably was stolen from Gore), but that's the breaks and there is no use in ruining your reputation on a personal vendetta (although he would never admit that and takes pains to make it seem impartial). Anyway, I don't want to spend more time on it because I still thank Al Gore for making us aware of climate change. So, keep your positive picture of him and don't read this book.

Earth: The Sequel: 3.5 out of 5 - Details on the Energy Revolution (Amazon) (Overview Video) 

When I say details ... I mean a heck of a lot of them. I literally think this book introduces you to over 150 new companies that are all trying to make money on the new energy revolution. The crazy thing is that none of them are profitable. The crazier thing is that all of them have good ideas. The market is not going to support all of these good ideas, but it will support some of them - even without the market reflecting the true cost of coal and oil. If Congress gets their act together this upcoming year and lets the market be more reflective of the truth, then the market may well support a lot of these new companies. The book doesn't have any breakthrough ideas on which energy source may be the leader of the revolution, but it does give you a whole lot more data on how those companies are likely to emerge (and if you are smart, you can start to think about how you can get involved/make money from this). So, why the low rating? It was not exactly an easy read. There was too much detail and it really took a lot of energy to listen to details on the 129th company. But, if you are legitimately interested in understanding how the Green Revolution is likely to play out, then pick up a copy. 

Nudge: 2 out of 5 - I'm nudging you against it (Amazon) 

I really disliked this book, but I think a lot of you will like it. I am skeptical generally of behavioral control, or behavioral economics as it is being called ... call it my own libertarian streak (this is not unlike the part of me that disliked Outliers). Libertarian is important here, because the authors call their ideological background libertarian paternalism. Here's my rub, though. In order for this framework to work and nudges to be necessary, people must be stupid (of, okay, let's say underinformed). What kind of ideology starts with the proposition that people are stupid, they will always be stupid, so some of us (who knows who gets to pick) need to nudge them into doing things that we think are best for them (if they knew what we knew, they would make the same decision too). How incredibly undemocratic. The collective will rarely make the right decision and some group of elite need to make the right decisions (and build choice architecture). Who gets to make the decisions ... well, law professors, I guess. Anyway, you get what I took from it. They make a benign case, of course, but the natural endpoint is a scary place for me. 

Innovator's Solution: 4.5 out of 5 - A wonderful business book (Amazon) (Overview Video)

I normally don't like business books, so I'll call this one an innovation book within the context of business. I liked this one because there was so much to take away. The basic idea is that there are a set of good business practices that allow small companies to compete with the big boys if you are in a disruptive marketplace (i.e. not just improving on an existing product, but creating a new new product niche). But, all those good business practices are just good business practices to me anytime. It's a model that puts innovation at the forefront and I really think that organizations, especially educational organizations, must always be innovators. Pretty much every few pages there was another good idea that I can apply to my own business. Anyway, get on the disruptive innovation curve and pick up a copy, I don't think you will regret it.  

Comments

[WDL]

Justin,

In your Nudge review, you said "In order for this framework to work and nudges to be necessary, people must be stupid (or, okay, let's say underinformed)." I'll go with underinformed too. I haven't read the book yet, but I'll add the caveat, "underinformed in most areas." Very few people have the time or desire to be well informed on a broad array of topics. The exception being the all-wise and all-knowing professorate of course..lol. But I argue that the general populace's naivety would be the reason why politicians are able to use arguments that don't hold water to persuade, or nudge, masses of people to support them and/or their ideas.

Your thoughts?

-WDL

[Justin B.]

I think you sort of made my point for me in noting that politicians nudge us all the time, frequently in the wrong direction. Politicians are stupid too, it turns out, so if the very people we elect to represent us are stupid and frequently have bad intentions/ideas, then who has the good ideas (besides professors, of course).

For me, the mistake they make is to assume that they are articulating anything new. Nudging happens all the time, it is part of the marketplace of ideas. Sure we would all love for that to be a better marketplace (healthier, more fiscally sound, more environmentally friendly), but to get a better marketplace requires regulation ... meaning government must intrude in our lives ... not making the decision for us, but telling us the decision that is best in their eyes. Obviously, regular readers will know that I'm somewhat okay with the Obama administration nudging me from time to time. But, I was not okay at all with the Bush Administration nudging me (toward supporting the war, for instance, or toward using more oil or toward giving money to Christian charities on my tax return). They also don't really say where it stops ... from okay stuff like nudging away from smoking, to in-between stuff like nudging toward better mortgages to scary stuff like nudging away your malpractice rights in medical mistakes. It's all fair game in their eyes, I think.

So, I think it is (and should be) an open competition for nudging instead of their recommendation of a predetermined nudging scheme (a choice architecture in their language). There is a reason democracy is messy, its so that no one set of ideas comes to dominate. If an idea is good and if a policy is good, people will follow and behave appropriately. If it is not, then it's not. I know that eating KFC (like I did tonight) is a bad decision all around - but the idea of tofu/[insert vegetable here] is not a winner in the marketplace. I can live with that.

I don't know ... you can probably tell I am sort of fishing. But, it just didn't sit right with me at all because I know too many idiots in too many positions of power.