The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds

The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds

Forty years ago, Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky wrote a series of breathtakingly original papers that invented the field of behavioral economics. One of the greatest partnerships in the history of science, Kahneman and Tversky’s extraordinary friendship incited a revolution in Big Data studies, advanced evidence-based medicine, led to a new approach...

DownloadRead Online
Title:The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds
Author:Michael Lewis
Rating:
Edition Language:English

The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds Reviews

  • Brina

    Being a baseball lover, one of my favorite books is Michael Lewis' Moneyball where he follows the low budget 2002 Oakland A's during their remarkable, division winning season. I found this book informative while also exploring the business of baseball. What made this book special is that Lewis made baseball interesting for people who are not usual fans of the sport. Lately I kept seeing reviews of Lewis' new book The Undoing Project appear on my Goodreads feed. While economics usually bores me,

    Being a baseball lover, one of my favorite books is Michael Lewis' Moneyball where he follows the low budget 2002 Oakland A's during their remarkable, division winning season. I found this book informative while also exploring the business of baseball. What made this book special is that Lewis made baseball interesting for people who are not usual fans of the sport. Lately I kept seeing reviews of Lewis' new book The Undoing Project appear on my Goodreads feed. While economics usually bores me, I decided to read this book anyway. If Lewis is capable of making baseball appeal to non sports fans, then he can also make behavioral economics and psychology accessible to a person like myself who is either finds the subject matter dull or tedious. As with the other Lewis books I have read, I was not disappointed.

    Rather than jumping straight into theories on economics or psychology, Lewis chooses to open The Undoing Project with a reference to Moneyball, followed up with a chapter on how a psychologist with no sports background became an NBA general manager in charge of selecting potential players in the draft. Sports is not the first thing the average person evokes when discussing economics, yet, opening with a discourse on basketball immediately makes a difficult subject accessible to the average person. Yet, Lewis is not just discussing basketball. He offers psychological scenarios as to what people think of when they think of an NBA player. Usually that person is over six feet tall and athletic. Yet, in this situation, the general manager was also searching for players with good character and who respond favorably to a battery of questions. Lewis with this chapter put me in a positive mind frame to read about an otherwise tedious subject matter.

    Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman were the least likely of friends. Both were among the pioneers of the new nation of Israel, Kahneman surviving the atrocities in Europe and Tversky born a sabra (native Israeli). Tversky was always the most popular and the life of a party whereas Kahneman was a natural introvert who barely felt comfortable in their own skin. After participating in wars at the formation of the Israeli state, both their paths eventually lead them to the psychology department at the brand new Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Kahneman leaned toward behavioral psychology whereas Tversky favored the mathematical aspect of the science. Despite being polar opposites in personality, their brilliant minds lead them to each other, and by the 1960s they began to collaborate on a series of game changing papers. The duo began to think as one mind and often could not remember who came up with each idea. The partnership was a match made in heaven, and for Kahneman, Tversky, and the science behind psychology, four decades of Undoing Freudian psychological theories would ensue.

    Lewis alternates biographies of Kahneman and Tversky with the scientific data of their findings that eventually lead Kahneman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. The majority of economists, according to Lewis, look down upon psychologists as inferior to them; however, Kahneman and Tversky over the course of their joint careers published findings that could not be ignored by either field. Listing four heuristics, the psychologist team set out to change the way people think about a series of outcomes. Lewis cites various positive and negative gambling scenarios and writes in a way that even those not versed in economics can understand his writing. The psychologists may have posed their original questions to graduate students and doctors, but in this book, these questions became accessible to the average reader. I was especially interested in knowing that these findings benefitted medical doctors, NBA general managers, the US free lunch program, as well as the Israeli Air Force training program. The most commonly cited finding in a variety of forms was A over B, C over A, then why in the end do people select B over C or A. These behavioral findings that were revolutionary in the 1970s are now the basis of a widely studied field called behavioral economics, which was the result of this unique partnership.

    Michael Lewis himself has an advanced degree in economics. He actually had the opportunity to teach Tversky's son without knowing who he was. He has made a variety of timely economic issues accessible to the average reader in a way that is both engaging and even humorous. I found myself being enthralled in behavioral theories and actually would be interested in reading Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow even if normally this is not a topic that interests me. While Moneyball is a special book, Lewis' writing on economics and other money matters has explained complex issues in a way that is engaging and informative. A gifted writer and economist in his own right, I look forward to reading more of Lewis' works in the future.

    5 stars

  • Jan Rice

    After reading about this book, I pre-ordered it, six months before its release date.

    It's about the work of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who published

    in 2011 and his late collaborator, Amos Tversky.

    had a big impact on me.

    Moreover,

    's author is Michael Lewis, of

    and

    fame. That's about all I knew of him. Around the book's release date there was a flurry of publicit

    After reading about this book, I pre-ordered it, six months before its release date.

    It's about the work of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who published

    in 2011 and his late collaborator, Amos Tversky.

    had a big impact on me.

    Moreover,

    's author is Michael Lewis, of

    and

    fame. That's about all I knew of him. Around the book's release date there was a flurry of publicity interviews. I watched several, including the long one with Charlie Rose. Michael Lewis could hold his own and articulate his subjects' work.

    Besides being a writer of best-selling nonfiction, some of which have been made into popular movies, Michael Lewis has an undergraduate degree in art history and a Master's in economics. He's worked as a trader, then resigned to write his first book,

    , published back in 1989 just after he'd turned 29. He became a financial journalist and has written for an array of well-known magazines, including a stint as a senior editor at

    .

    This book,

    , focuses on the biographies of Kahneman and Tversky, not only on their ideas and work.

    That's not why I read it. That that's what Lewis had to do to appeal to his usual wide readership made me a little cynical. In the book, Daniel Kahneman becomes "Danny." The ups and downs of their relationship and the whys and wherefores of their collaborative creativity are a large part of the book. In my mind's eye I foresee a movie turning the two men into marketable personalities such as Oliver Sacks became in the movie

    . I wonder how "Danny" is feeling about that. Yet that may be the price of cluing more people into their work.

    is a best-seller, and Lewis' role here is as a popularizer.

    He uses biography with its temporal correlate as one of his organizing principles, proceeding through ideas to some extent in the order they were hatched, but that doesn't necessarily help in the reader's grasping and ordering the ideas. That's one of my complaints. You won't necessarily be impacted by the ideas. You won't necessarily see that they apply to you, although they do. For that, read Kahneman's own book,

    . Lewis says Kahneman is a star in the classroom, a contention supported by the fact that he's a star in that book, a genius of a teacher.

    Kahneman has a subsection in his own book called "CAN PSYCHOLOGY BE TAUGHT?" which I transmuted into the broader question, "Can people be led to look at themselves?" and, on the basis of his book, I answered "Yes."

    Another of my complaints about

    is the first chapter, which is completely dedicated to basketball. Although Lewis touches on the ideas he's going to bring out later in the book, the chapter is not that comprehensible to those who don't follow basketball. I guess it's another nod to his general readership.

    Now for the good part.

    Despite the way the book is organized, the overload of biography, and that opening chapter, Michael Lewis is able to write clearly and succinctly about the cognitive illusions that bias our decisions. Having been previously introduced to those concepts, I experienced the book as a refresher course, and directly upon plunging in, breathed a sigh of relief as I felt my perspective clearing under its influence.

    The book covers the usual territory: heuristics, bias, the weakness of expert judgment relative to algorithms, the cognitive illusions to which humans are subject. Heuristic: the term coined to reflect quick and dirty rules of thumb that, to a degree, work, except when they don't and lead us astray. For example, the "availability" heuristic: the more easily something comes to mind, the more important and right we think it is.

    And, yes, it's science, not theory, that is, all research-based.

    Rather than going into a lot of detail to describe it, though, I can attach a link or two, and then use most of my space here to describe some fun parts.

    For example, knowledge is prediction. What do you think about that?

    In the basketball chapter, Lewis describes how expert intuition failed to predict; hence the relative success of algorithms in giving an advantage to the team depending on them instead of conventional expert judgment.

    Transitioning from basketball to baseball, here's an informative 2003 review of

    by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, who figure in

    . Surprisingly, when Michael Lewis wrote

    , he'd never heard of Kahneman and Tversky or their work. He cites this review in his introduction. (The picture is of Billy Beane, not Lewis.)

    Michael Lewis uses the technique of embedding the stories of various individuals whose careers and lives were impacted by Kahneman and Tversky's work. That technique I find useful, maybe because I, too, find their work impactful

    Richard Thaler

    , one of the authors of

    article I linked, is an economist who was having trouble finding his way in a field then based on the assumption that people were rational. The assumption had entailed that although people did err, they were essentially rational; their errors thus could be assumed to be randomly distributed--outweighed and meaningless. Instead, people's behavior was characterized by systematic error. If error was systematic, it could not be ignored.

    That sounds like such a thrill; really gets my iconoclastic juices flowing.

    There are so many examples of ways our thinking and decisions are shaped; framing for example: for people, perception of a "loss" depends on framing, which is manipulable. Two monkeys are satisfied when each is rewarded by a cucumber, but let one get a banana and all hell breaks loose. You earn a certain amount that you think is reasonable for work on a project--an amount that is greater than others in your group. Now say you earn the exact same amount but discover your peers received twice as much. Suddenly the previously sufficient amount is grossly inadequate.

    That's just one example but one with which I'd become familiar since framing (or "reframing") had entered the therapeutic lexicon.

    Another personage whose life and work surfaces in the book is Donald Redelmeier, a physician, who, as a result of having come across Kahneman and Tversky's work on judgment under uncertainty as a teenager, came to oversee decision-making in a trauma center as a preventive for systematic errors.

    Let me not forget to mention that people are geniuses of rationalization. We can't predict what's going to happen, but, once something does happen, we connect the dots to make whatever it was appear to have been inevitable. An "occupational hazard" of historians, thus, is to connect observed facts into a confident-sounding theory while neglecting the unobserved (or unobservable) facts. A similar hazard for social science experimenters is to take results that contradict the hypothesis and rationalize them, rather than discarding the hypothesis as flawed. Thus it is that talking heads of all sorts can often cover up their errors in prediction and simply keep on talking.

    At one point Kahneman and Tversky were enamored of something called Decision Theory, thinking that presidents and prime ministers could be educated and aided in logic like emergency room physicians--until coming up against the fact that powerful people--usually men--mostly had no interest at all in knowing about their mistakes. Here is a

    review of

    that tells a little more about that, shares an additional quote from the book, and makes the frightening connection to the Age of Trump:

    That article makes reference a Social and Behavioral Science Team in the Obama White House. Yes, most but not

    leaders wish to remain oblivious to their gaps in making good decisions: former President Obama had a team in place to aid the government in using the new cognitive knowledge for the common good of the American people, and it remained in place until the last minute. Here's a link to an article about it from the January 23, 2017, issue of

    :

    But, now,

    Sad, what we are losing! Two steps forward and, it appears, a giant step backward.

    But we can still learn. Little simple things that make a difference.

    Such as (from the same

    article):

    In the Kahneman vernacular, just denying Obama is a Muslim played on the availability heuristic. Even though the content--the words--deny the charge, by repeating it they made it come to mind easier and thus seem more true and relevant. The second option, stating that Obama is a Christian, interfered. It threw a little bit of a monkey wrench into promulgation of the problematic belief.

    This stuff is useful. If this is how our minds work (if that's the sort of thing that is working on our minds, anyway) then what constitutes free will is grasping that knowledge and using it for the sake of better thinking.

    -----------------

    And here's a new review of

    from April 20, 2017, in which the reviewer is concerned about the potential for unconscious manipulation, that is, that cognitive science is being used to manipulate rather than to remove the sources of bias.

    But he may be missing the degree to which cognitive science concerns how things are (not pushing how things should be)--that we're

    swimming in a sea of pressures and biases--that reason isn't what we think it is.

    When I was reading and reviewing this book, I was critical of Michael Lewis' focus on relationship issues. I even thought that focus was in the service of an eventual movie. But subsequently an aspect of the relationship (and its eventual breakdown) is what has stayed with me.

    The two principals had an extraordinarily intense and creative working relationship that they described as instantaneous sharing of ideas and uncritical acceptance as though two people were sharing one mind. Then they moved to another country. One of them got divorced and remarried. They no longer worked at the same university. One of them was more charismatic and impressive and got disproportionately rewarded by the world, so that he became convinced he was the more valuable partner and even began to take sole credit for work they had done together. Yet the other may have been the main source of their new ideas.

    What changes people? What frees them and lets them be who they are supposed to be? What saves them or activates them and really makes the difference? Something like what was going on with Kahneman and Tversky! But it can't be applied mechanically or as a technique. And it has nothing to do with being "nice."

    ...I don't think I'm in

    the territory of cognitive psychology anymore.

    Richard Thaler has just won the Nobel in Economics.

  • Trish

    This nonfiction is unlike others Michael Lewis has offered us. In this he tries the trick of explaining confusion by demonstrating confusion, but near the end of this work we appreciate again Lewis’ distinctive clarity and well-developed sense of irony as he addresses a very consequential collaboration in the history of ideas. Lewis did something else he’d not done before as well. By the end of this book I was bawling aloud, in total sync with what Lewis was trying to convey: why humans do what

    This nonfiction is unlike others Michael Lewis has offered us. In this he tries the trick of explaining confusion by demonstrating confusion, but near the end of this work we appreciate again Lewis’ distinctive clarity and well-developed sense of irony as he addresses a very consequential collaboration in the history of ideas. Lewis did something else he’d not done before as well. By the end of this book I was bawling aloud, in total sync with what Lewis was trying to convey: why humans do what we do.

    Daniel Kahneman is a psychologist who won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics. What is remarkable about that statement is also what is remarkable about Lewis’ attempt to explain it. Lewis made us feel the chaos and the unlikelihood of such a success, in this case, of ever finding that one person who complements another so perfectly that the two literally spur one another to greater accomplishment. From a vast array of possible choices, opportunities, and directions come two psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who together add up to more than the sum of their parts.

    One thing became clear about the groundbreaking work done by Kahneman and Tversky: despite the curiosity, drive, and iconoclastic talent each possessed, their moments of greatest crossover relevance came as a result of the involvement of the other. This could push the discussion into an examination of

    , but Lewis resists that thread to follow what he calls a “love story” to the end, to the breakup of the two men. Once the closest of friends and collaborators, the reason for their breakup is at least as instructive as anything else Lewis could have chosen to focus on, and it makes a helluva story, full of poignancy.

    Kahneman was an idea man, throwing up new psychological insights constantly, beginning with his early work recruiting and training Israeli soldiers for the front line. Tversky was a widely admired mathematical psychologist, iconoclast, and skeptic who challenged accepted thinking and in so doing, provided new ways to look at old problems. Just by asking questions he could lead others to find innovative solutions. Both Israelis were teaching at the University of Michigan in the 1960s but their paths didn’t overlap until later, back in Israel. In one of the classes he taught at Hebrew University Kahneman challenged guest lecturer Tversky’s discussion on how people make decisions in conditions of uncertainty.

    In this instance Kahneman became the iconoclast, the skeptic, pulling the rug from underneath Tversky. The challenge got under Tversky’s skin, but instead of falling prey to anger, Tversky was galvanized. Colleagues who saw him at this time recall his unusually intense period of questioning. After a period of time, the men came together again and thus began one of the richest and most rewarding periods of intellectual collaboration in modern times.

    Together, both men were able to isolate some important pieces in the thinking sequences of humans who were presumed to maximize utility in rational, logical decision trees. It took many years to isolate what struck them as incomplete or incorrect in the accepted thinking of others, but what they concluded revolutionized the thinking in several disciplines, including economics (and baseball).

    Lewis’s earlier book

    discussed how an algorithm assigning different weights to individual characteristics of baseball draft picks could by-pass the errors human tend to make when looking over a list of potential players. This is related, in a distant way, to the illogic discovered in the decision trees Kahneman and Tversky discussed, and unfortunately Lewis decides to revisit the breakthrough in his own understanding at the beginning of this book. Describing that tangential result of the men’s essential discovery unnecessarily complicates and obfuscates Lewis’ central thrust in this book—the relationship between two men who supercharge their achievements when they are together. Once Lewis settles into the real subject of his book, his writing becomes familiarly crystalline, filled with science and emotion, describing a singularly fascinating tale.

    Particularly interesting is Lewis’ attention to how ideas develop. Lewis tries in several instances to get to the moment of insight, and then to the moments of greater insight which might lead finally to upturning accepted beliefs about how one thinks the world must work. Happiness and regret both came under the microscopes of these men and it was hugely insightful for them to discover that regret was the more impelling emotion. People often made decisions to minimize regret rather than maximize happiness. This led to the ‘discovery’ that the value of positive ‘goods’ decreased after a certain level of attainment, while the value of negative ‘bads’ never lost their bite. Which could be another way of describing the apparently supreme need to minimize loss rather than maximize gain. Which led to the discovery that people often gamble against what had been perceived as their own interests.

    The two men were opposites of one another, Kahneman a heavy smoker whose office was messy and disordered, and Tversky, who hated smoking, with an office so well-organized it looked empty. For a period of almost twenty years, during the years of their greatest output, they could often be found together, talking, or writing one another if apart. They published hugely influential papers and became the toast of several continents. The closeness of the two men appeared to have no discrepancy until gradually over time, Tversky became better known and more popular in scientific and academic circles. The equilibrium of the relationship was thus unbalanced and a period of estrangement led the men in different directions.

    The entire story, in Lewis’ hands, is wonderfully moving. If you can thrash your way through the thicket of ideas at the entrance to the main repository of ideas in this book, prepare yourselves to be utterly delighted.

  • David

    This is a great story about two genius psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. They did groundbreaking research that led to improved understanding of how we make decisions. Although their personalities were total opposites, they found themselves enthralled with one another, and collaborated closely for fifteen years.

    Kahneman grew up in France just before and during World War II. His father helped his family narrowly escape from the grips of the Nazis over and over again. After the war,

    This is a great story about two genius psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. They did groundbreaking research that led to improved understanding of how we make decisions. Although their personalities were total opposites, they found themselves enthralled with one another, and collaborated closely for fifteen years.

    Kahneman grew up in France just before and during World War II. His father helped his family narrowly escape from the grips of the Nazis over and over again. After the war, he moved to Israel, where he enrolled in the psychology department at Hebrew University. He found that there were no highly qualified professors, so he really taught himself. Then he joined the Israeli army, where his psychology training was put into use. He was ordered to figure out which candidates for officer training school were most likely to succeed. So, he designed strange tasks for the candidates to perform, and evaluated their test results.

    Amos Tversky, on the other hand, was born in Israel. His personality was totally the opposite of Kahneman's; he was outgoing, popular, and always the optimist. He volunteered for paratrooper school, and became a platoon commander. He received a high award for bravery, by saving the life of a fellow soldier, at great risk of his own life. While handing Tversky the award, Moshe Dayan said to him,

    During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Tversky again was in the heart of the battle, and he did some brave, but very stupid things.

    While both Kahneman and Tversky were academic research psychologists, they found themselves working on practical problems of real interest to their country. They were required to design tests and tasks that would help determine the future careers of young soldiers, and also help to make other difficult decisions for the country. Just after that war, Tversky gave soldiers questions about what motivated them during battles. It was not love of country; it was more obvious--soldiers fought for their friends and families.

    At a certain point in their careers, the unlikely pair of psychologists got together and began collaborating. Their capabilities complemented one another. Kahneman was "the idea man", and Tversky was the genius mathematician. Neither of them could say, "this was my work", because it was always a true collaboration. They worked on decision theory, and the biases and prejudices that keep people from making optimal decisions. The book describes their experiments and results, and makes for some very interesting reading. They showed how people do not really understand probability; people are not very good at evaluating the odds of some event happening, or evaluating which of two events is more likely to happen.

    The book relates how relatively simple algorithms can yield better, more reliable medical diagnoses than experienced doctors. This is also true in many other fields where "experts" think they have unique gifts for making decisions. The first chapter in the book discusses how this is even true for the case of recruiting basketball players into NBA teams.

    Michael Lewis' book is fascinating throughout, and goes through the logic of many of the insights and discoveries that this pair of psychologists made. I did find it a little strange that no mention was made of the fantastic, best-selling book by Daniel Kahneman,

    . I whole-heartedly recommend Kahneman's book to anybody seriously interested in psychology. Michael Lewis' book is better suited for the general public, it is easier reading, but not as in-depth. I have read a few other books by Michael Lewis (

    ,

    ) and also saw the recent movie made from his book

    .

    is just as good as Lewis' other books, and I recommend it just as highly.

  • David Rush

    I will be bold, and confidently tell you what this book is all about...Humans making decisions are inherently handicapped by systematic biases that make them think they are being logical, but often, or possibly usually, are not.

    And Mankind longs for certainty but we live in an inherently uncertain word.

    (Kindle Locations 2619-2620).

    There, no need to read any more or my review.

    BUT, I do ramble on, so here goes…

    The two psychologis

    I will be bold, and confidently tell you what this book is all about...Humans making decisions are inherently handicapped by systematic biases that make them think they are being logical, but often, or possibly usually, are not.

    And Mankind longs for certainty but we live in an inherently uncertain word.

    (Kindle Locations 2619-2620).

    There, no need to read any more or my review.

    BUT, I do ramble on, so here goes…

    The two psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman starting in the 1960’s, discovered when people make decisions in times of uncertainty, they are influenced by biases in place of statistical thinking, and sometimes flying in the face of statistics, make decisions quite confidently. Sometimes with deadly results.

    There are tons of cool psychology terms like heuristic, availability heuristic, representativeness heuristic. I am not going to define heuristic for anybody, until I actually figure it out, and that may be my first criticism, Lewis mentions something about “rules of thumb” and somehow I’m supposed to understand what “heuristic” means. I think I picked it up from context, but I don’t want to embarrass myself by mis-defining it.

    OK, refocus! SO, we humans live in an uncertain world, but in general we bend our thinking and our memory so we are more certain of things than we ought to be. And Daniel Kahneman was uniquely qualified to investigate this kind of thing.

    (Kindle Locations 245-247).

    And they go on to identify and the multitude of ways people reassure themselves they are right.

    (Kindle Locations 2506-2507).

    (Kindle Locations 2531-2533).

    As it relates to the last US presidential election the key insight is that people simply don’t make decision because of factual analysis…

    (Kindle Locations 3359-3361).

    And of course one big argument is between this thinking and economist (and their related political parties) who claim people will act logically in their own self interests. Thereby letting the invisible hand of capitalism solve all our problems.

    (Kindle Locations 3429-3432).

    (Kindle Locations 3437-3438).

    Too bad it is just a crock of, well something.

    People don’t make decisions because of the “utility” of how it will improve their life. The point is people make decisions because of the story line they construct in their head. The story generated either from memory or from cultural outside influences. Which definitely explains the whole business of advertising. Too bad we are running the world because of the stories

    (Kindle Locations 2569-2575).

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    I have to point out that any smart person reading this or the book itself will think "HEY!, that is not me!", "I am logical and make logical decisions".

    And it does get fuzzy, because a lot of their evidence is from psychological test with a bunch of hypothetical situations. So, sure, maybe in real life we would straighten up and not let our natural biases rule us. And I bet a lot of people believe that. But seeing some of the real life choices I've seen or heard about...I'm gonna stick with Amos and Danny.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    There is a bunch more, and some pretty shocking examples of how susceptible “experts” are to all these same biases.

    On a final note, most of what I said above is from the first ¾ of the book. And the last part is about “The Undoing Project” that is not covered as well, to the point I wonder why Lewis chose that title. Unless he is saying A & D are "undoing" the thinking of the conventional world? Or more probably it was some wordplay and only refers the undoing of their friendship, maybe.

    Conclusion 1: Great points on how screwed we are as a civilization and how making good decision is an uphill battle.

    Conclusion 2: Even though they were both brilliant psychologist and I’m just a poor schlub reading about them, I think they are so into discounting traditional psychology they miss a big part of being human. I don’t think either of them give much credence that we are anything more than decisions making machines. Not much for the unconscious or subconscious or any non-measurable part to living. So my irrational notion there is something more to life than the measurable, keeps me from being more enthusiastic about this book, and I wish Lewis had addressed that.

WISE BOOK is in no way intended to support illegal activity. Use it at your risk. We uses Search API to find books/manuals but doesn´t host any files. All document files are the property of their respective owners. Please respect the publisher and the author for their copyrighted creations. If you find documents that should not be here please report them


©2018 WISE BOOK - All rights reserved.