Negative Positive
Title: Naval gazing
Review: I partly agree with the other review in that this book is essentially a glorified exercise in naval gazing and irrelevant to most people. However, that alone isn't a reason to attack the book. I do take away points because the book is too much a knee-jerk defense of rational choice against a knee-jerk attack on rational choice. If you haven't read Green and Shapiro's book critiquing rational choice, you'll feel like you're missing half the story. Some of the defenses of rational choice are a bit superficial in and of themselves (alleging that Green and Shapiro don't provide a sufficient alternative). If you're heavily invested in this debate, this book is probably worth owning, but even for other political scientists it's probably a bit superfluous.
Is the review positive or negative? 