This book is quite insightful, especially for a Southeast Asian media professional like myself. I recommend this book to everyone, even to those who work in the upper regions of the power sturcture of the media conglomerates critiqued in the collection.

For starters, it is a wonderful overview of how the media economy is shifting all over the world. The US market is saturated, as the book said, and the rest of the world is ripe for picking, especially my country, the Philippines.

This book is a tool to launch our own media analysis of what's happenning in our own countries. And from an analysis, we launch a critique, and from a critique, we launch steps to face the situation.

This book, published by New Media, is invaluable. I first read about it in an issue of Utne Reader. I took down the title and hunted it down in Amazon. I found it, bought it, and consumed it. I loved it because it gave me useful insights to work with.

This is a book I will dog-ear in my attempts to understand what to do in my field, and how to start my own media conglomerate from scratch. I already have my ideas, which I hope aren't just soundbites in my head.

The reading is fun and educational at the same time. Learning has never been easier. My goal was acheived!.

Wow, a book that you can actually apply. So many theory related books out there deny us of what we really need to know - The how to part.

Of course, Robert Mager is a legend in this field and this book lends credence to his knowledge, expertise and years of experience.

This book will walk you through the steps of how to identify a fuzzy, make it a goal and then apply the techniques to demonstrate achievement.

This book covers the five critical steps for conducting a Goal Analysis in complete detail with plenty of examples and exercises.

Even if you are not in this field, you could read this book and apply it to your own life so you can change from a wandering generality to a meaningful specific!

Highly Recommended.

Frank asks: why to people help others, and retaliate against others who harm them, even when they can expect no future personal, material gain from so doing? His answer is that there are emotional rewards to helping those who deserve our aid and hurting others who deserve our ire. Our behavior towards others is regulated by the passions: empathy, spite, shame, remorse, guilt, compassion, and the other social emotions.

He then asks: why are those who behave in this emotional way not displaced (e.g., by having more offspring, or by acquiring more earthly possessions) by others who are purely selfish, and who help and hurt only when a dispassionate calculation indicates that it is in their material interest to do so? He answers this by noting that our emotions "precommit" us to keeping our promises and carrying out our threats, so that we gain in the long run by not being able (or willing) to make the dispassionate calculation. We gain because others will trust our promises and respect our threats. Frank calls the the "commitment model."

This idea that it is "rational" to be "emotional" is, of course, a commonplace today, and has been popularized by neuroscientist Alberto Damasio's fine book, Descartes' Error, and more recently, philosopher Martha Nussbaum's UPheavals of Thought. Experiments using behavioral game theory more than amply confirm the centrality of emotions in decision-making even in the company of strangers (see papers on prosocial emotions on my web site: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gintis).

A thornier question is: why can a purely selfish type (otherwise known as a sociopath) not simply mimic the behavior of a committed altruist when it suits his purposes, and not otherwise? If this were possible, and there were no other counteracting tendencies, sociopaths would surely drive out committed altruists. Here Frank is less convincing. He says simply that it is very hard to fake the emotions, just as it is difficult for a small bullfrog to fake his size by mimicking the deep-throated croaks of his larger bretheren. This is true, but some people do this very successfully. Why do they not prosper? Moreover, there is no obvious developmental constraint in humans opposing the evolution of excellent emotional cheats.

Perhaps the payoffs to faking commitment are not that high. Surely this would explain why it is "difficult to fake emotions": they payoff to doing is low or negative, so the capacity for faking has not evolved to a high level in humans. More recent research, using models of gene-culture coevolution, indicate that this may well be the case. See, for instance, Herbert Gintis, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Altruism: Genes, Culture, and the Internalization of Norms", Journal of Theoretical Biology 220,4 (2003):407-418, and Robert Boyd, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles and Peter J. Richerson, "Evolution of Altruistic Punishment", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100,6 [mar] (2003):3531-3535.

He aims to show that human emotions are created by natural selection to increase the individual's chances of survival. What appear to be a person's irrational reactions and inclinations often promote mutually beneficial trade and, thus, promote that person's long-run welfare. The explanation of how emotions achieve this remarkably beneficial outcome is the core of this fine book.

Of all the many serious books that I've read over the years, this one is surely among the most fun! It's fantastic reading.