

Pikkukuvaa napsauttamalla pääset Google Booksiin.
Ladataan... Elogio del desorden armarios atiborrados, despachos desordenados y planes improvisados pueden hacer del mundo un lugar mejor (alkuperäinen julkaisuvuosi 2006; vuoden 2007 painos)Tekijä: Eric Abrahamson, David H. Freedman
TeostiedotTäydellinen sekasotku epäjärjestyksen piilevät hyödyt (tekijä: Eric Abrahamson) (2006)
![]() - Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta. A good book which develops the good idea of finding value into mess, in different areas of our life. Unfortunately, the book suffers from the typical "American business-oriented essay" approach: so it talks about disorder but it ends up being too much ordered and predictable in its own structure. I like this book because it speaks to me! I am - can be - messy at times, and it seems like my desk is in a state of clutter. But there is a method to this madness. I always move from item to item and seem to find what I want. It's when everything is in perfect order that I get lost. This book is very good in helping us understand the importance of a slight amount of mess in our lives - as long as it is not completely chaotic. A bit of mess helps us all become explorers. Towards the end, the book becomes a bit repetitive. But, the last two chapters are important - they warn us of excessive disorder. The chapters and sections on the kinds of people is delightful. This book probably wouldn't rate "amazing" for most. However, at the time that I read it, I was in the greatest state of obsessive compulsiveness with regard to cleanliness, organization and planning in my life. Reading this book showed me that it might be time to lighten up and that sometimes, a little last minute change or a book left on the table rather than the shelf wouldn't kill anyone. I'm still not ready to leave my house w/o making my bed though. That still bothers me all day long. 200
Forget what everyone from your first boss to your mother taught you. The authors of A Perfect Mess are here to say that "moderately disorganized people, institutions, and systems frequently turn out to be more efficient, more resilient, more creative, and in general more effective than highly organized ones." Even better, they have proof--in this compelling and comical tour of humanity's guilt-ridden love affair with accidents, messes, and randomness
A groundbreaking book that sheds new light on ideas of order - and shows how chaos, disorder, and mess make our world a better place! Like Freakonomics, here is a book that combines counterintuitive thinking with stories from everyday life to provide a striking new view of how our world works. Ever since Einstein's study of Brownian Motion, scientists have understood that a little disorder actually makes systems more effective. But most people still shun disorder - or suffer guilt over the mess they can't avoid. No longer! With a spectacular array of anecdotes and case studies of the useful role mess can play, here is an antidote to the accepted wisdom that tight schedules, neatness, and consistency are the keys to success. Drawing on examples from business, parenting, cooking, the war on terrorism, retail, and even the meteoric career of Arnold Schwarzenegger, coauthors Abrahamson and Freedman demonstrate that moderately messy systems use resources more efficiently, yield better solutions, and are harder to break than neat ones. Kirjastojen kuvailuja ei löytynyt. |
Suosituimmat kansikuvat
![]() LajityypitMelvil Decimal System (DDC)650.1Technology Management and auxiliary services Business Personal success in businessKongressin kirjaston luokitusArvio (tähdet)Keskiarvo:![]()
Oletko sinä tämä henkilö?
|
anyhow, i am glad i have continued because of the neat take-down of New Urbanism between pages 202 and 206.
"What a dense, stylish urban environment and its predominantly residential outer rings do not provide...are what most of the 36 percent of Americans who are currently raising children...want"
'They're building ephermeral cities for the nomadic rich'
.....
why this book has inspired current reading notes and others have not, i do not know.
.....
page 159 reminds me that sarbanes-oxley required precise tracking of financial documents and that when i lived in nyc i was, for the most part, a sarbanes-oxley temp. pretty much every job i had was for a company that had been in the news for being bad.
......
---oh my gosh, not a review, just stuff i want to think about. is very messy...is not meant to be clever, like here is a book about mess and here is my messy mess. i hope no one could even consider that i would do such a george herbert-ass thing! here is a poem about an altar; i have made the words look like an altar! or whatever.----
i started reading this book when it came out, but it is so very, very *2oo6* that i couldn't take it. it's 2021 now, so back at it.
i need some help figuring out this 2006-iness quality. is this a publishing trend? the dubner&levitt gotcha! school of writing: "we know you think you know that [whatever] is true, but allow us to present very specific small sets of numbers that will reveal your idiot ways." the gladwell-inspired self help from sociologists for professional professionals. like, they arent jared diamond but aspire to the diamondesque and in the more peripheral texts (this one!) are sure to quote him.
was all this the efflourescence of the Fast Company era? a repudiation of it? both?
i really don't and really didn't dislike Freakonomics as much as it may seem. d&l relied overmuch on a narrative formula, but that was ok...it is just that the book was so popular that it seemed like everyone started relying on that same formula (the jonah whoever boston globe guy who was always writing those "you no doubt think people in cities are smart but ACTUALLY cities make you dumb because you never have to look down and wade through a creek to get somewhere"
2006 was about the time i decided to focus on just a few authors instead of the whole hot wide world of new nonfiction. just for a little while, i thought, i will only pay attention to new releases from thomas frank, paul krugman, sarah vowell, chuck klosterman, jon krakauer. david brooks was on the list, but his interests diverged from mine (no hard feelings, go with god etc). at any rate, it was a good decision because i'm not not enjoying this book. (