This book is 100% great - it goes in to evey aspect you could want to know about the relationship of Law and medicine. Areen is a great author and continues to teach at Georgetown Law Center in D.C. - I have read this book twice - and it's just great.

The authors pull concepts and recommendations from three Y2k disciplines: program management, business management, and technology management. This is possibly the first time all three disciplines have been presented in a manner such that a company president can understand the real business threat due to lack of Y2k readiness.

Y2K risk management and contingency planning is the hottest Y2K topic right now. Readers need to know about this book, and fast! For example, agencies of the federal government have until April 30 to submit their year 2000 contingency plans in the event of system failures. Why isn't _Y2K Risk Management_ part of the Amazon Millennium Store? According to all the reviewers, this is THE book to read for anyone who needs to mitigate Y2K business and legal risks, and develop a sound contingency plan.

In my presentations on the impact of Year 2000 in healthcare I am often asked to recommend resources. There are only two recommendations I will give and one of them is "Y2K Risk Management" by Steve Goldberg, Steven Davis and Andrew Pegalis. I equate this book to "just in time information." It is precise and right on the money in terms of the final preparations for January 1, 2000. I use it, our Risk Manager uses it and it is appropriate reading for all involved in Y2K preparedness. If I had only one choice, with the time remaining, this book would be it.

The authors have done a good job in helping teachers to make the transition from the rigid, standardised "schools as machines" to varied, creative "brain-compatible", learned-centred education. Charts, comparison tables, drawings, framed key ideas and activities, headings... all help to make the book easy to read, understand and use. After contrasting "Industrial-Age" with "Information-Age" beliefs and education, a very basic anatomy and physiology of the brain is given.

To be brain-compatible, teachers must consider these findings from brain research: "Emotions are critical to succesful learning. Our brains are poorly designed for rote learning. Multisensory input is desired by our brains. Learning involves the whole body. Threat, high anxiety, and a sense of helplessness can impair learning. Our brains are 'plastic' and can continue to develop throughout our lives..." (p.35)

Elaborate rehearsal through multiple opportunities (role playing, creative writing, cooperative learning tasks, multisensory experiences) helps the formation of long-term memory. "Think-Pair-Share" and "10-2" (10 mins.' sharing followed by 2 mins.' student processing) are strategies that help assimilation. (p.41)

Mental models or beliefs with regard to students, teaching, intelligence, power and control directly affect our teaching styles and student learning. Tools, strategies and surveys are given for collaborative learning, community building in the classroom, conflict resolutions, inquiry, integrated instruction, and brain-compatible assessment, which both measures achievement and provides motivation.

This is a simple introductory book making good use of secondary sources. Once convinced of its value, readers can explore the website links and other books in the bibliography, which should be updated already with many new relevant titles and some new editions of the books listed.

Judy Stevens and Dee Goldberg have delivered a gift to those of us who love children. Their insightful theories and sage wisdom are the compass that every parent, educator and child caregiver should heed in order to perserve and encourage the natural enthusiasm children have for learning. If all those who teach our children used these principles, we wouldn't need to "teach to testing," be burdened by mountains of assessment paperwork and witness the dimming sparkle in the eyes of students. Teaching would be rewarding again, learning would become the thrilling adventure it should be and parenting would be joyful rather than burdensome. I think anyone interacting with children and anyone personally planning to continue learning as an adult should read this book. Gee, doesn't that cover just about everyone?

"Seduced by Science" is an important contribution to the science vs. relgion debate. The author states and re-states his position many times with good effect, which is that we are better served by keeping religion and science separate. Science is effective because it is narrow; its methods give excellent results when they can be empirically validated. Religion, Godlberg argues, needs to stress its core message: humility, faith, and values.

The author takes on scientific hubris very directly and challenges some of the leading physicists of our time, who claim that they can understand the "mind of God" if only enough money is spent on multi-billion dollar projects such as the supercollider. He also argues with clarity and simplicity that there are limits to the claims that we are nothing more than our physical components, our genes, DNA, etc.

As well Professor Goldberg argues effectively that religious leaders should not jump on the scientific bandwagon to prove that the Bible is a scientific text, or that the Big Bang proves some point in the Creation story. He simply repeats that religion and religious leaders should stick to religions' core values, which I stated above.

My only real disaagreement with the author is that it is somewhat simplistic to say that religions must stress their core teachings. There are so many religions, and so many sub-groups within religions, that religion is not a unity. The various religions send mixed signals about their core teachings, often promote fear of God, and God Itself is so difficult to define, especially as defined by organized religions. Science has capitalized on these disagreements by putting on a united front, where at times scientists claim that they can explain everything, even to the point of meaning in life. In fact, there are wide disagreements among scientists on many issues, such as interpretations of quantum mechanics.

What I liked most about this book are the excellent references in the footnotes. I have learned about many fine books on the science vs. religion debate, such as "Pythagoras' Trousers," "Higher Superstition," and several John Polkinghorne's most recent books.

Most investment books are a waste. They are either full of get-rich-quick schemes or lose their readers in complicated Wall Street jargon. This one is easy to understand. It has the basics for a novice investor, as well as more sophisticted help for experienced mutual fund buyers. The book is valuable because it tells you how to pull together a fund portolio that makes sense. Not just how to buy a fund, but what kind of fund to buy. Any dummy could have made money investing over the past couple of years. Now, with the markets so volatile, it is harder. A book like this one can really help.

Before I read this book, I thought I'd never figure out how to invest our money to put it to work for us. We were saving quite a bit, but had no idea where to put our money. But Which Mutual Funds? helped us define our needs, both short- and long-term, and then get down to investing. It really helped us that Goldberg takes an actual family through everything they should think about and know. I finally know how to tell which mutual funds meet our goals. It's not rocket science any more. The book broke everything down into easy, understandable pieces. It helped me pick better funds in my 401(k) plan--I was way too conservative before. And now my husband and I have started investing every month automatically in three different funds we think will go the distance. Everything's not a big question mark any more. We know how much we need to retire comfortably and we're right on track--investing what we need to invest every month to get there. Kudos to Goldberg for unlocking the mysteries of investing!

No mutual fund book is going to be a page turner, but this one really keeps things interesting and simple. It covers the basics, as promised, in the first 100 pages. Even people who know nothing about investing can learn what they need to know here. I was more interested in the advanced investing chapters, and the book excelled here, too. Little did I know that I owned several funds with the same investment style, and that's why I had done so poorly. This book helped me make a lot more money.

I am about to read the book and I noticed a previous review with bad data. Doing a quick search on the internet, I discovered that the Yoruba, Ibo, and Mende societies are/were not matriarchal.

Yoruba - Less so than other societies, but definitely patriarchal. Patrilineal. Ruled by hereditary kings.

Ibo - Polygynous. Women not much more than property.

Mende - Patrilineal. Monotheistic. Ruled by male chiefs.

In doing a quick search, I couldn't find sufficient data on the Sherbro or Asante, but I suspect I would just find the same thing.

The "gender-bender"'s bitching aside, Goldberg's arguements and research have been put forth by other scholars without a peep from "scholars" like Mr. SanFran..because the authors have been women. More essential reading then his personal interpretations, the summations of "matriarchal" cultures are fabulously iconoclastic, whether your intellectual sparing partner is an old school Merlin Stone "When God was a Woman"-er, or a 90's Gimbutas-ite, or your anarchist utopian roomate... Despite the..uh..genderbenders comments, goldbergs conclusion is NOT that we SHOULD be under patriarchy, but coming to terms with what partiarchy is, and how much of human history and physiology we're up against when we work against it. He hardly makes note of some of the reasonable reasons for certain universal sex roles, any more than he argues for them or against them; again, thats not what this book is about. Sorry Mr.-bender..

I read the earlier edition of this book a few years back, and now read the current version again.

Steven Goldberg's book advances a simple yet convincing theory: patriarchy and male dominance is universal among all known societies throughout history of which there is direct evidence. This universality begs an explanation, and that explanation is found in the difference in the hormonal systems of the two sexes, starting with the hormonal musculinization of the male at the fetal stage.

Simple and convincing to some, this theory is anathema to the politically correct crowd, especially the "feminists." Thus the earlier version of the book had a dubious honor of being the book rejected (by publishers) the most times that was eventually published. After publishing, furious critics came out and slam the book, predictably.

Also predictable, however, was that the critics were mostly political debaters cloaked behind the veritable titles of professors and such, who attempted to discredit Goldberg's theory by rhetoric and muddled logic. Goldberg gave several examples of these professorial arguments and they were downright .... One would burst out in laughter, for example, after reading the "haggis" argued by professor Fausto-Sterling, or the evasiveness of the Lowontin, Rose and Kamin trio, to mention just two.

Goldberg spends a lot of energy to answer his critics and in doing so, he literally elevate it into a science. This book is thus also a good course in debunking muddled logic-the confusion of a physical law and a statistical claim, the confusion of cause and effect, the "glancing blow" of attacking the excess to discredit the core, the "red herring", and all forms of misrepresentations and flawed logic can find examples in the critics' arguments.

If one accepts the scientific method of inquiry, one has to give credence to Goldberg's theory. As the author wrote: "Empirical analysis in sensitive areas invariably elicits fear, fear that acceptance of its conclusion will compel an unpalatable moral or political position...such fear is never relevant to the correctness of the feared theory..."

My criticism of this book is on the writing style. Goldberg wrote out his theory and arguments in a style similar to that of a mathematical proof. As a result, the book is littered with long and windy sentences, covering multiple situations, conditions and pre-established fact, in order to make a point. It requires considerable concentration to follow his long and complex sentences. Perhaps because Goldberg is in a position of answering his critics, he is extremely careful in laying out his arguments, and clarifying what he says, what he means, and what he does or does not argue or imply. In a nutshell, the book is quite tedious to read.

The concluding part "The Meaning of Male and Female" with a lone chapter is a refreshing exception. It is polished, thoughtful, and it brings the reader back to the real life of the office and the family living room to illustrate how the stereotypical roles of the sexes have worked to the advantage of society and, indeed, to the survival of the specie.

This book is not exactly pleasure reading and is not for the casual reader. However, except for the ideologically predisposed, it settles the issue of sexual difference in behavioral tendencies.

I'd read about this book earlier and wondered about it, so I was rather pleased when it appeared in my college library. I'd hoped that behind the inflammatory cover there would be a well-written and thought-provoking discussion of the biological differences between women and men.

Time constraints didn't allow me to read the entire book, but I was unimpressed by what I did read. My assumption when I'm forced to skim a book or only partly read it is that the treatment of smaller arguments is indicative of the treatment of the large arguments- that is, if a small argument is well-made, then the author will have taken the same care with the argument or theory on which the book is based. The example that sticks in my mind is Goldberg's example of how men are more likely to be great writers than women: he says that Jane Austen, George Eliot, and the Brontes were indeed great writers, but we can't truly compare them to great male writers such as Homer and Virgil.

Yeah, darling. Uh-huh.

Actually, that's a ridiculous statement. To properly compare writers, thay have to be from rather similar backgrounds and time periods; the proper female counterpart to the classical writers would be Sappho. Unfortunately only fragments of her work have survived, but both her contemporaries and modern-day scholars agree that Sappho produced what was, quite possibly, the best writing- both in technique and in sentiment- of Ancient Greek. Ever.

Therefore the question to ask is not how Austen, Eliot, and the Brontes measure against the classics, but how they measure against male writers working at the same time- writers like Balzac, Flaubert, and Tolstoy, against whom they stack up very nicely. Had Goldberg brought up this sort of argument at my college, every single person there would have pointed this out to him. Including the science majors.

There's a great book out there that carefully and insightfully explores the biological nature of the differences between the sexes. This isn't it. My opinion of Steven Goldberg dropped like a brick after reading that passage: if he didn't know that it's a poor comparison, he's incompetant; if he did, he purposely misrepresented the facts for his own benefit. I also could argue with many of his assumptions- that women lack the same levels of agression as men, that they can't compete with men physically (I also have arguments with The Frailty Myth, but it's more recent and takes into account the female athletes of the 90s; it's an interesting read), and so forth.

I can usually get a feeling early on, not just of how well a book is written, but of why it written. This book was written in the early seventies, and the feeling I get from this book can be summed up in two words: running scared.

This book is a joy to read, if what you like is painstaking, step-by-step logic, with Mr. Goldberg proving the strongest possible case -- that patriarchy is not merely highly probable but inevitable -- using the fewest possible determiners. He dismantles feminist arguments -- putting them forward as reasonably as possible, trying to make sense of them when they themselves do not make sense, and then carefully illustrating the fallacies therein. And not only the fallacies, but the distortions of evidence . . .