Very nicely written, about what choice is and that there is a presumption of more choice than actually exists. From a legal and psych perspective more than a philosophical perspective. I thought his criticism of market economy was weak in spots but overall book very thoughtful and thought provoking. ( )

A genuine must-read book will help you interpret society in new and revealing ways. ( )

This is probably my fault for attempting to read this during a busy family weekend, but I found much of the discussion and topics raised to be better addressed in other books I have read. The odd use of photographs as well as the cursory attention paid to some of the issues made this a rather non-compelling read. ( )

Slightly more philosophical/political than many other popular books looking at the implications of behavioral psych, like our vulnerability to framing effects and habits. Among other things, Greenfield argues that because fish don’t know what water is—that is, our aspirations and beliefs are formed in contexts that shape what we think of as possible—we can’t limit condemnation of discrimination only when the targets “feel” discriminated against. This is an easier argument for me to accept with respect to my own preferences than some of those of others—he picks the very fraught example of the burqa; while my own intuitions tell me that it’s oppressive, I think the first step is to give women a bunch of other, real opportunities (yes, choices) in their lives. He’s best at challenging the idea that everything is okay if it was the result of “choice,” the common right-wing response to many problems today. Among other things, “if you’re given a choice between being pushed down an open elevator shaft or pushed down a staircase and you rationally pick the latter, it doesn’t mean you weren’t pushed, aren’t going down, and won’t get hurt on the way to the bottom.”

Greenfield diagnoses an equivocation on the meaning of “personal responsibility” that has worked to the benefit of individualizing rhetoric. One meaning is doing the right thing because you take responsibility; the other is that anything you choose is therefore fine (and this latter meaning does not offer any substantive theory of what the right thing might be). The latter meaning doesn’t work because of the many, many externalities we regularly impose on each other; if I don’t wear a helmet on my motorcycle, the damage I suffer in an accident will also result in costs to others.

Another issue: humans are generous in interpreting our own bad actions as the result of circumstances and not character, and stingy in interpreting the bad actions of others. Greenfield wants us to give the same empathy to other people as we regularly accord automatically to ourselves, which seems right. Especially since many of our “choices” are not particularly under our control in any meaningful sense, we should pay more attention to structural conditions under which choices are made. This also implies that the so-called “nudgers” are overselling the ability of small nudges such as structuring cafeterias to encourage healthy food choices to work in a world where, for example, big food companies have powerful incentives to keep fighting to provide us with fat, sugar, and salt. If we’re already subject to influences, especially directed influences, then nudges are just bringing a knife to a gun fight; we need more regulation. ( )

There is a cartoon in the middle of the book that shows two fish in a bowl, presumably a father and son. The line underneath states: "You can be anything you want to be--no limits." The main point of the book is that we are free to choose, but only within our own fishbowls, constraints which are made up of context: biology, culture, etc. Power, economics and the free market, and even brain chemistry put strong contraints on our options. A fascinating read.

Some things that stood out for me:

The reason advertising works so well in a free market is because we all take (necessary) mental shortcuts when shopping, delegating most of our decisions to our subconscious.

Our collective "choice" to allow Wal-marts to take over isn't a choice in the meaningful sense. It is a sum of many small decisions on where to buy one or two things that cause the small stores to eventually go out of business.

The rhetoric of personal responsibility is often a cover for the avoidance of shared responsibility. When things go wrong, the person at the end of the causal chain usually isn't the only one to blame, but in our society, that is what ends up happening.

Intellectual empathy is understanding the limitations others face. People who make bad choices should at least be given the opportunity to tell their stories. ( )