Hugh Beyer (Author of User-Centered Agile Methods)

Hugh Beyer wants to read Claimed by the Alpha: A Spicy MM Romance (Cedar Ridge Wolf Shifters Book 1) by Riley Sloane	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
Sep 30, 2025 02:32PM · like · preview book See a Problem? We’d love your help. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of Claimed by the Alpha by Riley Sloane. Problem: Details (if other): Thanks for telling us about the problem. Not the book you’re looking for? Preview — Claimed by the Alpha by Riley Sloane <iframe sandbox id="wrongBookKindlePreviewScreen">
Hugh Beyer rated a book did not like it Never Landing by Sam Burns (Goodreads Author)	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
May 06, 2025 07:24PM · like · preview book See a Problem? We’d love your help. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of Never Landing by Sam Burns. Problem: Details (if other): Thanks for telling us about the problem. Not the book you’re looking for? Preview — Never Landing by Sam Burns <iframe sandbox id="wrongBookKindlePreviewScreen">
Hugh Beyer rated a book did not like it Caulky (Four Bears Construction, #1) by K.M. Neuhold (Goodreads Author)	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
Mar 15, 2025 08:02PM · like · preview book See a Problem? We’d love your help. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of Caulky by K.M. Neuhold. Problem: Details (if other): Thanks for telling us about the problem. Not the book you’re looking for? Preview — Caulky by K.M. Neuhold <iframe sandbox id="wrongBookKindlePreviewScreen">
Hugh Beyer rated a book it was amazing Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
Fantastic book, loved it, get it, read the hell out of it. I don't always love BK. I read "The Lacuna" some time back and just ended up pissed--anyone who's romanticizing Soviet communism in this day and age isn't paying attention. So I was had some t ...more
Aug 03, 2024 11:23AM · like · see review
Hugh Beyer has read Recipe for Two (Family Kitchen #2) by Tia Fielding (Goodreads Author)	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
Jul 29, 2024 06:59PM · like
Hugh Beyer rated a book it was amazing Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will by Kevin J. Mitchell	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
I read this as a counterpoint to Sapolsky's Determined which takes the opposite point of view, as a response to a kinda-sorta challenge from my brother in law. The best thing about the book is it starts with the big issue I thought Sapolsky overlooked ...more
Feb 14, 2024 07:13AM · 3 likes · like · see review · preview book See a Problem? We’d love your help. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of Free Agents by Kevin J. Mitchell. Problem: Details (if other): Thanks for telling us about the problem. Not the book you’re looking for? Preview — Free Agents by Kevin J. Mitchell <iframe sandbox id="wrongBookKindlePreviewScreen">
Hugh Beyer rated a book really liked it Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will by Robert M. Sapolsky	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
I read this basically as a challenge from my brother in law, along with "Free Agents" by Kevin Mitchell, which takes the opposite view. I think Sapolsky is fascinating but has two major problems: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he cheats ...more
Feb 13, 2024 04:55PM · 2 likes · like · see review · preview book See a Problem? We’d love your help. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky. Problem: Details (if other): Thanks for telling us about the problem. Not the book you’re looking for? Preview — Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky <iframe sandbox id="wrongBookKindlePreviewScreen">
Hugh Beyer liked T.J.’s update Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars T.J. shared a note and highlight from Wolfsong (Green Creek, #1) by T.J. Klune (Goodreads Author) See all T.J.’s notes and highlights for this book “Mom! Mom. You have to smell him! It’s like … like … I don’t even know what it’s like! I was walking in the woods to scope out our territory so I could be like Dad and then it was like … whoa. And then he was all standing there and he didn’t see me at first because I’m getting so good at hunting. I was all like rawr and grr but then I smelled it again and it was him and it was all kaboom! I don’t even know! I don’t even know! You gotta smell him and then tell me why it’s all candy canes and pinecones and epic and awesome.” Did I know when I wrote this that—next to packpackpack—it would be the most repeated line by readers? No, of course not. You never really know what’s going to resonate with readers, but this little speech by Joe is one I hear most often. “Candy canes and pinecones and epic and awesome” has become a mantra of sorts for those in the Green Creek fandom, and though I don’t always understand why some things are popular, you won’t hear me complaining. I wanted to write about a kid having such a huge reaction that he didn’t know how to get his words out properly. He is so excited here that he can ...more
Feb 09, 2024 04:10PM
Hugh Beyer rated a book really liked it Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will by Robert M. Sapolsky	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
I read this basically as a challenge from my brother in law, along with "Free Agents" by Kevin Mitchell, which takes the opposite view. I think Sapolsky is fascinating but has two major problems: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he cheats ...more
Feb 09, 2024 03:33PM · 2 likes · like · see review · preview book See a Problem? We’d love your help. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky. Problem: Details (if other): Thanks for telling us about the problem. Not the book you’re looking for? Preview — Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky <iframe sandbox id="wrongBookKindlePreviewScreen">

Hugh Beyer wants to read

Claimed by the Alpha: A Spicy MM Romance (Cedar Ridge Wolf Shifters Book 1)
by Riley Sloane

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Hugh Beyer rated a book did not like it

Never Landing
by Sam Burns (Goodreads Author)

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Hugh Beyer rated a book did not like it

Caulky (Four Bears Construction, #1)
by K.M. Neuhold (Goodreads Author)

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Hugh Beyer rated a book it was amazing

Demon Copperhead
by Barbara Kingsolver

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Fantastic book, loved it, get it, read the hell out of it.

I don't always love BK. I read "The Lacuna" some time back and just ended up pissed--anyone who's romanticizing Soviet communism in this day and age isn't paying attention. So I was had some t Fantastic book, loved it, get it, read the hell out of it.

I don't always love BK. I read "The Lacuna" some time back and just ended up pissed--anyone who's romanticizing Soviet communism in this day and age isn't paying attention. So I was had some trepidation about this book. But it blew my socks off.

The book is a sort of re-imagining of David Copperfield in modern Appalachia, but don't let that put you off if Dickens isn't your thing. If you've read Dickens there's a certain "Where's Waldo" amusement in recognizing the correlations between the books. But it's not at all necessary to enjoying "Copperhead" on its own terms.

Perhaps the main thing about the correlation with Dickens is how damn fucking well it works. Goodreads is probably going to bowdlerize my language, but I'm not apologizing for it. In The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined Pinker suggests that the modern realistic novel is an important cause of the decline of violence and the rise of empathy over the last two centuries, and Dickens is a primary case in point. He wrote, and intentionally wrote, to highlight the social injustices of his time with the result that he (among others) prompted the British ruling class to give up power and put themselves out of business--something that happens pretty much never.

It's not entirely news that we live in a new Gilded Age, but its still disconcerting that the tropes and issues Dickens used in the mid-19th century transfer so well to contemporary America. May we have the collective wisdom of the 19th century British.

For the rest, it's good plotting, great characters, yadda yadda. BK is a fantastic writer and all that can be taken for granted, even when I'm disagreeing with her. Two points, maybe, stand out:

It's really hard to write a book about a character who gets kicked around by life at every turn, who's narrative job is to tell you how hard he has it, without making that character sound whiny. BK makes it look easy--largely, perhaps, because her character never does whine. His attitude is more, "yeah, I did that", even when those around him are telling him it's not all his fault.

He's also got a healthy relationship to adolescent snark. Adolescent snark is the default mode for young characters these days, ever since "Catcher in the Rye" and it's not a bad thing overall--kids are snarky--but if it's all that's going on you don't have a real character, you've got a cardboard cut-out. DC has real relationships to the adults and other kids in his world so the snark exists in a context of moral and interpersonal relevance.

The other thing is, I have to say the ending is masterful. At the end of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values Pirsig talks about assembling a bicycle and says that the process is one of bringing your mind into harmony with the machine you're assembling. (I promise, in context it's not as precious as it sounds.)

At the end of DC, BK isn't promising a big reveal or amazing plot twist. She's taking you where the story needs to go, and where you've known it's probably going for a while. And she moves with sure deliberation, advancing her plot and changing your expectations in parallel, bringing them into congruence, until she ends the book at the exact moment they align.

I should mention I listened to this on Audible read by Charlie Thurston, and his reading is fantastsic. ...more

Hugh Beyer has read

Recipe for Two (Family Kitchen #2)
by Tia Fielding (Goodreads Author)

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Hugh Beyer rated a book it was amazing

Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will
by Kevin J. Mitchell

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

I read this as a counterpoint to Sapolsky's Determined which takes the opposite point of view, as a response to a kinda-sorta challenge from my brother in law.

The best thing about the book is it starts with the big issue I thought Sapolsky overlooked I read this as a counterpoint to Sapolsky's Determined which takes the opposite point of view, as a response to a kinda-sorta challenge from my brother in law.

The best thing about the book is it starts with the big issue I thought Sapolsky overlooked--what is free will, and what is meant by an agent that has free will. That's hugely helpful and produces interesting insights along the way--such as, it's hard to talk about an action if you don't have an agent causing that action. Without that, you just have rocks banging into each other. When we talk about an action we assume intent and purpose.

For that, Mitchell defines an organism not as a physical entity--because the physical elements can and do get swapped out over time--but as a collection of coordinated processes that perpetuate themselves over time, keeping themselves separate from the universe at large. That then gives us a locus for intent--the organism wants to perpetuate itself, and ultimately, can make decisions about how best to do so.

Mitchell reviews the evolutionary process from single-cell organisms through the development of nervous systems and eventually the human brain. This is long but interesting in itself and, more important for his argument, is useful to show in some detail how choice and decision-making are instantiated in the meatware of the brain. He's also got a good bit about how choice and creativity can come out of this meatware, through elements that propose choices semi-randomly and other elements that evaluate and choose--rather like how random mutation and natural selection work together in evolution itself.

This also creates a use for the concepts of randomness at the quantum level and of chaotic systems. Fundamental randomness means the system isn't predictable, even in theory; and the brain being a chaotic system means even without the randomness we wouldn't be able to predict any particular outcome. Because he considers the organism to be exactly the emergent, interacting processes rather than the physical neurons, this provides a way to talk about choice and free will that's based on the material brain without being bound by it.

But his weakest argument, I think, is when he talks about those elements as providing "space for" free will even within a system bound by physical laws. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Randomness is still randomness, and doesn't make for will of any sort. Randomness feeding a decision-making apparatus still produces a result based on that apparatus which, predictable or not, doesn't obviously mean it is capable of choosing differently than it did.

He does make a convincing argument that all these mechanisms, as a complex, chaotic system in the technical sense, produce an organism whose behavior can't be predicted. The only way to know what it will do is to let it go and see what it did do. Is that free will? Maybe?

It's similar to an argument CS Lewis (and Milton) made about God's foreknowledge. If God foresees all, does that eliminate free will? No, says Lewis. To see someone do something is not to make them do it, even if you see it in advance. Even if time is laid out like the Bayeux Tapestry, God is just looking at it, not making all the decisions along the way.

Maybe deterministic reality is like that--yeah, it could be laid out like the tapestry, every event fixed in eternity. But every event only happens as it did/does/will because of the choices made by the causal agents along the way, and those choices were the embodiment of their will. To see something happen is not to make it happen. ...more

Hugh Beyer rated a book really liked it

Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will
by Robert M. Sapolsky

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

I read this basically as a challenge from my brother in law, along with "Free Agents" by Kevin Mitchell, which takes the opposite view. I think Sapolsky is fascinating but has two major problems: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he cheats I read this basically as a challenge from my brother in law, along with "Free Agents" by Kevin Mitchell, which takes the opposite view. I think Sapolsky is fascinating but has two major problems: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he cheats.

When I say he doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't mean he's wrong on what he does talk about. I mean he never defines or grapples with the core of his subject: if you're writing about free will, you kind of have to know what you mean by "will" and "free", and also "I"--the agent which is presumed to exercise free will. He never addresses these questions at all, even a little bit.

Instead he proposes a definition of free will, which is: a neuron that fires without any upstream cause of that firing. The problem with this definition is that it is neither necessary, nor sufficient, nor hard to satisfy (as he admits in the book). It also ends up being tautological.

To start with the tautology: If there's an "I" which is going to will something, it's either manifest in the meatware of the brain or it's not. If it's not in the meatware, you have to hypothesize some sort of ghost in the machine, whether it's a soul, spirit, mind, or whatever. And that immaterial actor has to be able to affect the physical world. But there's only two ways such a spirit can affect the real world--either by breaking physical laws, or manipulating chance. Sapolsky rejects the first out of hand (which is fair) and never even considers the second. Which leaves him claiming that physical effects can have only physical causes. Q.E.D., I guess.

He does address randomness at the quantum level, but claims without evidence that it can't possibly have any affect at the macro level. This despite admitting that quantum effects do play a part in photosynthesis. (Oops.) And Mitchell goes into some detail about how the brain is designed to amplify random effects in some situations, and how even simple organizes capitalize on randomness in their behavior. So you can't claim random effects are irrelevant.

Which matters because Sapolsky has posed a challenge and instantly failed it--but, because his challenge is neither necessary nor sufficient, one might argue it doesn't matter. An organism acting randomly is very different from an organism acting out of free will. One can have any amount of random action but if those actions don't matter--if they aren't chosen--if they don't fulfill a purpose--they don't reflect the chosen actions of a causal agent. ("Action" and "causal agent" aren't Sapolsky's terms--they're Mitchell's, who has a much more complete treatment of these issues.)

The other locus of will, if not in some spiritual entity, would be in the meatware of the brain, as a epiphenomenon of the brain itself. Sapolsky does talk about this and about chaos theory in general but dismisses the whole topic with the claim that it's all based on physics in the end anyway. Which is true but doesn't really deal with the core insight of complex systems--that an examination of the hardware parts is not sufficient to understand the system as a whole.

That's the core of the book's argument, as I see it. Sapolsky does spend a bunch of time talking about how much any possible free will is constrained by the organism's history--what happened one second before, one minute before, one decade before, one millennium before (a formula he repeats many times)--which is true, but anyone in a twelve-step program will tell you it's not news. Any concept of free will has to deal with the fact that will is not free, in that it is always constrained by context, personality, habit, upbringing, genetics, and so forth. But he acknowledges that these constraints don't, in themselves, eliminate free will altogether so it's not clear why they deserve so much attention.

The end of the book is a plea for a more humane treatment of people who, presumably, can't help what they do. I'm not sure I needed to hear quite so much of the horrors of capital punishment (being already convinced) and I'm not sure those descriptions really advanced his argument except in a sensationalist way. I think his problem with the whole tail end of the book is that he wants to argue against retribution as a motive without having armed himself with the necessary machinery to address the argument properly. If retribution is in the wetware--which he demonstrates--choosing against retribution is a choice against an unchangeable nature, for no purpose.

More interesting, to me, is to take the opposite tack. Assume, for the moment, free will. Yet people don't choose their history, their genes, or their upbringing. They don't choose their personalities. I'm certainly stuck with a bunch of qualities which I didn't choose and probably wouldn't, if I had the choice. If a person is a self-centered, narcissistic sociopath (okay, ya, I'm thinking about politics right now), did they choose that? If they didn't, how do you judge them? Can we judge them for not doing the work required to become less self-centered and narcissistic? And what do we mean by "choice" in that context?

I haven't finished Mitchell's book yet, but he starts by addressing many of the above issues, so I have hope. ...more

Hugh Beyer liked T.J.’s update

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

T.J. shared a note and highlight from

Wolfsong (Green Creek, #1)

by T.J. Klune (Goodreads Author)

See all T.J.’s notes and highlights for this book

“Mom! Mom. You have to smell him! It’s like … like … I don’t even know what it’s like! I was walking in the woods to scope out our territory so I could be like Dad and then it was like … whoa. And then he was all standing there and he didn’t see me at first because I’m getting so good at hunting. I was all like rawr and grr but then I smelled it again and it was him and it was all kaboom! I don’t even know! I don’t even know! You gotta smell him and then tell me why it’s all candy canes and pinecones and epic and awesome.”

Did I know when I wrote this that—next to packpackpack—it would be the most repeated line by readers? No, of course not. You never really know what’s going to resonate with readers, but this little speech by Joe is one I hear most often. “Candy canes and pinecones and epic and awesome” has become a mantra of sorts for those in the Green Creek fandom, and though I don’t always understand why some things are popular, you won’t hear me complaining. I wanted to write about a kid having such a huge reaction that he didn’t know how to get his words out properly. He is so excited here that he can ...more

Hugh Beyer rated a book really liked it

Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will
by Robert M. Sapolsky

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

I read this basically as a challenge from my brother in law, along with "Free Agents" by Kevin Mitchell, which takes the opposite view. I think Sapolsky is fascinating but has two major problems: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he cheats I read this basically as a challenge from my brother in law, along with "Free Agents" by Kevin Mitchell, which takes the opposite view. I think Sapolsky is fascinating but has two major problems: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he cheats.

When I say he doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't mean he's wrong on what he does talk about. I mean he never defines or grapples with the core of his subject: if you're writing about free will, you kind of have to know what you mean by "will" and "free", and also "I"--the agent which is presumed to exercise free will. He never addresses these questions at all, even a little bit.

Instead he proposes a definition of free will, which is: a neuron that fires without any upstream cause of that firing. The problem with this definition is that it is neither necessary, nor sufficient, nor hard to satisfy (as he admits in the book). It also ends up being tautological.

To start with the tautology: If there's an "I" which is going to will something, it's either manifest in the meatware of the brain or it's not. If it's not in the meatware, you have to hypothesize some sort of ghost in the machine, whether it's a soul, spirit, mind, or whatever. And that immaterial actor has to be able to affect the physical world. But there's only two ways such a spirit can affect the real world--either by breaking physical laws, or manipulating chance. Sapolsky rejects the first out of hand (which is fair) and never even considers the second. Which leaves him claiming that physical effects can have only physical causes. Q.E.D., I guess.

He does address randomness at the quantum level, but claims without evidence that it can't possibly have any affect at the macro level. This despite admitting that quantum effects do play a part in photosynthesis. (Oops.) And Mitchell goes into some detail about how the brain is designed to amplify random effects in some situations, and how even simple organizes capitalize on randomness in their behavior. So you can't claim random effects are irrelevant.

Which matters because Sapolsky has posed a challenge and instantly failed it--but, because his challenge is neither necessary nor sufficient, one might argue it doesn't matter. An organism acting randomly is very different from an organism acting out of free will. One can have any amount of random action but if those actions don't matter--if they aren't chosen--if they don't fulfill a purpose--they don't reflect the chosen actions of a causal agent. ("Action" and "causal agent" aren't Sapolsky's terms--they're Mitchell's, who has a much more complete treatment of these issues.)

The other locus of will, if not in some spiritual entity, would be in the meatware of the brain, as a epiphenomenon of the brain itself. Sapolsky does talk about this and about chaos theory in general but dismisses the whole topic with the claim that it's all based on physics in the end anyway. Which is true but doesn't really deal with the core insight of complex systems--that an examination of the hardware parts is not sufficient to understand the system as a whole.

That's the core of the book's argument, as I see it. Sapolsky does spend a bunch of time talking about how much any possible free will is constrained by the organism's history--what happened one second before, one minute before, one decade before, one millennium before (a formula he repeats many times)--which is true, but anyone in a twelve-step program will tell you it's not news. Any concept of free will has to deal with the fact that will is not free, in that it is always constrained by context, personality, habit, upbringing, genetics, and so forth. But he acknowledges that these constraints don't, in themselves, eliminate free will altogether so it's not clear why they deserve so much attention.

The end of the book is a plea for a more humane treatment of people who, presumably, can't help what they do. I'm not sure I needed to hear quite so much of the horrors of capital punishment (being already convinced) and I'm not sure those descriptions really advanced his argument except in a sensationalist way. I think his problem with the whole tail end of the book is that he wants to argue against retribution as a motive without having armed himself with the necessary machinery to address the argument properly. If retribution is in the wetware--which he demonstrates--choosing against retribution is a choice against an unchangeable nature, for no purpose.

More interesting, to me, is to take the opposite tack. Assume, for the moment, free will. Yet people don't choose their history, their genes, or their upbringing. They don't choose their personalities. I'm certainly stuck with a bunch of qualities which I didn't choose and probably wouldn't, if I had the choice. If a person is a self-centered, narcissistic sociopath (okay, ya, I'm thinking about politics right now), did they choose that? If they didn't, how do you judge them? Can we judge them for not doing the work required to become less self-centered and narcissistic? And what do we mean by "choice" in that context?

I haven't finished Mitchell's book yet, but he starts by addressing many of the above issues, so I have hope. ...more

Hugh’s Year In Books

Hugh Beyer’s Followers (3)

Hugh’s Bookshelves

Hugh’s Friends (33)

Hugh Beyer

Goodreads Author

Combine Editions
Hugh Beyer’s books

rss
Hugh’s Recent Updates

See a Problem?

Preview — Claimed by the Alpha by Riley Sloane

See a Problem?

Preview — Never Landing by Sam Burns

See a Problem?

Preview — Caulky by K.M. Neuhold

See a Problem?

Preview — Free Agents by Kevin J. Mitchell

See a Problem?

Preview — Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky

See a Problem?

Preview — Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky

Hugh’s Friend Comments

	User-Centered Agile Methods 3.90 avg rating — 21 ratings — published 2010 — 7 editions	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
	Contextual Design: Evolved by Karen Holtzblatt, Hugh Beyer (Goodreads Author) 4.29 avg rating — 17 ratings — published 2014 — 8 editions	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
	Contextual Design by Hugh Beyer (Goodreads Author), Karen Holtzblatt really liked it 4.00 avg rating — 4 ratings — published 1997	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Hugh’s Year In Books

Hugh Beyer’s Followers (3)

Hugh’s Bookshelves

Hugh’s Friends (33)

Hugh Beyer

Goodreads Author

Combine EditionsHugh Beyer’s books

rssHugh’s Recent Updates

See a Problem?

Preview — Claimed by the Alpha by Riley Sloane

See a Problem?

Preview — Never Landing by Sam Burns

See a Problem?

Preview — Caulky by K.M. Neuhold

See a Problem?

Preview — Free Agents by Kevin J. Mitchell

See a Problem?

Preview — Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky

See a Problem?

Preview — Determined by Robert M. Sapolsky

Hugh’s Friend Comments

Combine Editions
Hugh Beyer’s books

rss
Hugh’s Recent Updates