What do you think?
Rate this book
Person to Person: Change Your Life and Fix the World
What if we could step out of the culture of blame and victimhood into a reality that gave us freedom and agency to pursue our dreams? What if there was a way out of the isolation and polarization that so many of us find ourselves in, toward authentic connections with others, across all divisions and borders? What if we lived in a world that revolved around quality of life, rather than economic winners and losers?
In Person to Person, Joeri Torfs and Pim Ampe describe this world and chart a clear path toward it. Grounded in research and rooted in reality, the world they describe is neither a utopia nor a fantasy. Person to Person presents an environment that incentivizes goodness, fairness, sustainability, and freedom. It begins with the individual and moves toward our collaborative relationships. Finally, Person to Person proposes a financial environment that would enable this Quality of Life world to flourish—one that is already underway.
Alongside the book's theory, we meet Jake, Leon, Lana, and Alex: four fictional college students who illustrate the Person to Person concepts as they interact in their dorm rooms and on campus. Their narratives remind readers that all of us—in spite of our pitfalls, in view of our potential—have the power to make a better world that is richly satisfying, deeply connected, and truly free.
In Person to Person, Joeri Torfs and Pim Ampe describe this world and chart a clear path toward it. Grounded in research and rooted in reality, the world they describe is neither a utopia nor a fantasy. Person to Person presents an environment that incentivizes goodness, fairness, sustainability, and freedom. It begins with the individual and moves toward our collaborative relationships. Finally, Person to Person proposes a financial environment that would enable this Quality of Life world to flourish—one that is already underway.
Alongside the book's theory, we meet Jake, Leon, Lana, and Alex: four fictional college students who illustrate the Person to Person concepts as they interact in their dorm rooms and on campus. Their narratives remind readers that all of us—in spite of our pitfalls, in view of our potential—have the power to make a better world that is richly satisfying, deeply connected, and truly free.
- GenresNonfiction
494 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 5, 2022
483 people want to read
About the author
Joeri Torfs & Pim Ampe
1 bookJoeri Torfs has spent his career as an entrepreneur, software developer, and IT enterprise architect, building structure from chaos and regularly challenging the status quo. He is driven by knowledge and learning, and advocates freedom, self-agency, and sustainable collaboration.
Pim Ampe is a therapist with extensive experience in the mental health and welfare sector. She works in a variety of therapeutic positions, specializing in Dialectical behavioral therapy and solution focused therapy, as well as serving as a prosocial facilitator. Pim’s life purpose is to help people increase their quality of life by expanding their ability to adapt and self-manage in the face of life’s challenges.
Pim Ampe is a therapist with extensive experience in the mental health and welfare sector. She works in a variety of therapeutic positions, specializing in Dialectical behavioral therapy and solution focused therapy, as well as serving as a prosocial facilitator. Pim’s life purpose is to help people increase their quality of life by expanding their ability to adapt and self-manage in the face of life’s challenges.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 24, 2024
There are some really good ideas in this book but I was left feeling a little worn out and disappointed by the end of it.
A year or two ago I listened to a brilliant podcast with one of the authors and I remember being intrigued by their views on collaboration and non-hierarchical systems of getting stuff done. I was struck by the thoughtfulness and the desire to change the world for the better - so I'll preface my criticisms of the book by saying that I think the authors are good people, their ideas definitely have merit but this book really didn't do it for me.
(the podcast link is here if anyone is interested https://www.nextstageradicals.net/blo...)
The central premise of the book is that private property is a source of conflict and greed and war in the world, and also that freedom to choose how we live our life is critical to living a good life. I agree strongly here. The book suggests that if we move beyond hierarchies and power we can collaborate better, innovate better and have a better quality of life beyond the 'consume' culture we live in.
I should also say that there is no way Torfs and Ampe are anarchists, but their ideas are very close to anarchism (a belief in human freedom, a desire to remove hierarchy, a recognition of the impact of private property). I would say they are free market libertarians, and quite close to that confused culture of so called an-caps, but I'd say their disavowal of private property doesn't put them in that oxymoron group. They are definitely anti-state (they don't directly say it), however, they seem to think human benevolence will replace the useful things a state provides, yet seem rooted to the notion that nothing will be done unless someone profits from it.
The book is split into three sections and each section has a number of chapters. The chapters are typically structured around providing an overarching theme, then entering into a fictional story featuring four young adults in higher education, then going back to describe how what the kids did worked. These chapters end with practical advice but I feel the book is heavy on tools and not enough theory. I recognise that may be more important for some than others, but even though the authors say, 'hey this is what we think / did. We're sharing, try this out,' the tone of the book seems rather prescriptive and functional, like a manual.
I must also mention the young adults in the story. They are all at a college in America, they come together, work through some challenges, create a start up and then go all blockchain on making as much cash as they can. It's written well to illustrate a point, but it is disastrously written to tell an engaging story about people you care about. I found I intensely disliked all four of these incredibly annoying and mostly entitled young people, who actually don't create any real value in the world and kind of find ways to get well off. They are impossible to read and I never think 'well done'. There is an incredible smugness to them that makes me dislike them and anyone they bump into in what feels a rip off scheme by the end.
The first section of the book is essentially a coaching section and I assume written by the therapist of the pair of authors. There is nothing I haven't read before. It asks to consider different domains and reflect as to how they help one life a happy life. I can't remember anything meaningful from it.
The second section of the book is definitely the most useful section of the book addressing how people co-operate and work without hierarchy. Some may find the language almost Maoist with the number of meetings and what they cover but there are definitely some great ideas here. Commitment Sessions where collaborators reaffirm why they are there, address any tensions in helpful and supportive ways and hold each other accountable seem like a great tool (with tweaks). Collaboration Points are a way of distributing any income or profit and are a way of addressing some of the criticisms of not having a boss with questions like, "I did more work than you," and "my work is more valuable than yours" and so on. Collaboration Points feel like a good way of addressing that sometimes some work is more unpleasant or dangerous than others and it is a vehicle for addressing some of the 'everyone just gets the same' critiques of anarchism. The authors use this as a way of rewarding effort and value.
The authors also have a concept of 'Quality of Life' points (the reader is asked to 'do what they like with them') but I can see them forming part of the Collaboration Points discussion. For instance a care giver who looks after a relative, allowing someone else to earn Collaboration Points should get a share. Likewise, being a good friend, a good listener, a shoulder to cry on in the office has value far beyond tasks and market value. Likewise, market value is a TERRIBLE way of assuming worth, because we know the market values some things far more than it should do and devalues other work. So they are a good idea, but still flawed.
What is also notable is the notion of basic needs in a collaboration and how these needs should be baselined as a minimum before looking at Collaboration Points. Since these points are tied to voting power, present and future income and 'investment tokens' the huge flaw in this approach is that it bakes in inequality from the start.
In the fictional narrative, the son of an extremely wealthy property owner and venture capitalist is sharing a room with a poor student. At the end of the first month they share Collaboration Points, and the rich kid 'buys' points off the poor kid so he can draw cash and this is presented as a GOOD IDEA. NO! Essentially, the privilege and wealth one party has brought to the collaboration has meant that moving forward in this venture he will always have a head start on the rest of the group and more power. It is the typical failing of free marketeers - they don't notice the stacked deck reinforces inequality.
The third section of the book can be skipped even if there are good ideas in here. It's several hundred pages of how to set up a blockchain property-less financial investment system. There is definitely something worth studying here, but it feels like a passion of the enterprise architect author and won't be relevant to 99% of people seeking to find ways to collaborate better. The author is at pains to say essentially turning property into assets which are shared (an anarchist idea of the 'utility' of a thing being more useful than it's value) and instead of rent people pay back investments (essentially rent is adding value to yourself) and this gives the 'lowly' person a way into investing.
Sadly, in the examples given, once again rich kid dad makes the most money and inequality is reinforced. There is an example of buying a home off an old lady and it's written so badly it reads like they are scamming her out of her home. So much of this model will encourage inequality and encourage the spread of profit made by unearned income which kind of deviates from one of the messages in here. Neither is there any address of the ecological harm of NFT's and whilst saying, 'yes this tech can be good or bad' it's hard not to think about how much 'get rich quick' and 'valueless profit' this tech has enabled. There is a really ugly section in the book where these 'nice kids' get upset about billionaires not paying tax, and instead of thinking, that's shit, the clever authors present a way of the 'non-hierarchical' kids doing the same. I assume all these kids drove on the roads and accessed public services in their 'how can we get rich scheme'.
The book would have been better if it was split into two or three books because the whole thing is disjointed, tiring to read and feels like a combination of two people's passion. I won't forget the ideas here, but it's hard to recommend.
A year or two ago I listened to a brilliant podcast with one of the authors and I remember being intrigued by their views on collaboration and non-hierarchical systems of getting stuff done. I was struck by the thoughtfulness and the desire to change the world for the better - so I'll preface my criticisms of the book by saying that I think the authors are good people, their ideas definitely have merit but this book really didn't do it for me.
(the podcast link is here if anyone is interested https://www.nextstageradicals.net/blo...)
The central premise of the book is that private property is a source of conflict and greed and war in the world, and also that freedom to choose how we live our life is critical to living a good life. I agree strongly here. The book suggests that if we move beyond hierarchies and power we can collaborate better, innovate better and have a better quality of life beyond the 'consume' culture we live in.
I should also say that there is no way Torfs and Ampe are anarchists, but their ideas are very close to anarchism (a belief in human freedom, a desire to remove hierarchy, a recognition of the impact of private property). I would say they are free market libertarians, and quite close to that confused culture of so called an-caps, but I'd say their disavowal of private property doesn't put them in that oxymoron group. They are definitely anti-state (they don't directly say it), however, they seem to think human benevolence will replace the useful things a state provides, yet seem rooted to the notion that nothing will be done unless someone profits from it.
The book is split into three sections and each section has a number of chapters. The chapters are typically structured around providing an overarching theme, then entering into a fictional story featuring four young adults in higher education, then going back to describe how what the kids did worked. These chapters end with practical advice but I feel the book is heavy on tools and not enough theory. I recognise that may be more important for some than others, but even though the authors say, 'hey this is what we think / did. We're sharing, try this out,' the tone of the book seems rather prescriptive and functional, like a manual.
I must also mention the young adults in the story. They are all at a college in America, they come together, work through some challenges, create a start up and then go all blockchain on making as much cash as they can. It's written well to illustrate a point, but it is disastrously written to tell an engaging story about people you care about. I found I intensely disliked all four of these incredibly annoying and mostly entitled young people, who actually don't create any real value in the world and kind of find ways to get well off. They are impossible to read and I never think 'well done'. There is an incredible smugness to them that makes me dislike them and anyone they bump into in what feels a rip off scheme by the end.
The first section of the book is essentially a coaching section and I assume written by the therapist of the pair of authors. There is nothing I haven't read before. It asks to consider different domains and reflect as to how they help one life a happy life. I can't remember anything meaningful from it.
The second section of the book is definitely the most useful section of the book addressing how people co-operate and work without hierarchy. Some may find the language almost Maoist with the number of meetings and what they cover but there are definitely some great ideas here. Commitment Sessions where collaborators reaffirm why they are there, address any tensions in helpful and supportive ways and hold each other accountable seem like a great tool (with tweaks). Collaboration Points are a way of distributing any income or profit and are a way of addressing some of the criticisms of not having a boss with questions like, "I did more work than you," and "my work is more valuable than yours" and so on. Collaboration Points feel like a good way of addressing that sometimes some work is more unpleasant or dangerous than others and it is a vehicle for addressing some of the 'everyone just gets the same' critiques of anarchism. The authors use this as a way of rewarding effort and value.
The authors also have a concept of 'Quality of Life' points (the reader is asked to 'do what they like with them') but I can see them forming part of the Collaboration Points discussion. For instance a care giver who looks after a relative, allowing someone else to earn Collaboration Points should get a share. Likewise, being a good friend, a good listener, a shoulder to cry on in the office has value far beyond tasks and market value. Likewise, market value is a TERRIBLE way of assuming worth, because we know the market values some things far more than it should do and devalues other work. So they are a good idea, but still flawed.
What is also notable is the notion of basic needs in a collaboration and how these needs should be baselined as a minimum before looking at Collaboration Points. Since these points are tied to voting power, present and future income and 'investment tokens' the huge flaw in this approach is that it bakes in inequality from the start.
In the fictional narrative, the son of an extremely wealthy property owner and venture capitalist is sharing a room with a poor student. At the end of the first month they share Collaboration Points, and the rich kid 'buys' points off the poor kid so he can draw cash and this is presented as a GOOD IDEA. NO! Essentially, the privilege and wealth one party has brought to the collaboration has meant that moving forward in this venture he will always have a head start on the rest of the group and more power. It is the typical failing of free marketeers - they don't notice the stacked deck reinforces inequality.
The third section of the book can be skipped even if there are good ideas in here. It's several hundred pages of how to set up a blockchain property-less financial investment system. There is definitely something worth studying here, but it feels like a passion of the enterprise architect author and won't be relevant to 99% of people seeking to find ways to collaborate better. The author is at pains to say essentially turning property into assets which are shared (an anarchist idea of the 'utility' of a thing being more useful than it's value) and instead of rent people pay back investments (essentially rent is adding value to yourself) and this gives the 'lowly' person a way into investing.
Sadly, in the examples given, once again rich kid dad makes the most money and inequality is reinforced. There is an example of buying a home off an old lady and it's written so badly it reads like they are scamming her out of her home. So much of this model will encourage inequality and encourage the spread of profit made by unearned income which kind of deviates from one of the messages in here. Neither is there any address of the ecological harm of NFT's and whilst saying, 'yes this tech can be good or bad' it's hard not to think about how much 'get rich quick' and 'valueless profit' this tech has enabled. There is a really ugly section in the book where these 'nice kids' get upset about billionaires not paying tax, and instead of thinking, that's shit, the clever authors present a way of the 'non-hierarchical' kids doing the same. I assume all these kids drove on the roads and accessed public services in their 'how can we get rich scheme'.
The book would have been better if it was split into two or three books because the whole thing is disjointed, tiring to read and feels like a combination of two people's passion. I won't forget the ideas here, but it's hard to recommend.
June 9, 2022
This odd book pulls in many different directions, from a memoir segment on trespassing; self-help tips for improving quality of life, building a community, and navigating cryptocurrency and the blockchain; and interludes with a fiction friend group. While the ideas about lifestyle and community building intrigued me, I personally do not have strong interest in Web3. However, I appreciated the way this new field of technology was explained.
Out of all the segments in the slightly too long book, the sections featuring the four college kids was the most charming and relatable. The authors have such a good handle on the mannerisms of quirky liberal arts students turned YouTubers that the kids could have a stand-alone series, as long as the authors removed the pedantic dialog. I look forward to future YA content written by Greta Myers, the ghost writer behind the book.
Out of all the segments in the slightly too long book, the sections featuring the four college kids was the most charming and relatable. The authors have such a good handle on the mannerisms of quirky liberal arts students turned YouTubers that the kids could have a stand-alone series, as long as the authors removed the pedantic dialog. I look forward to future YA content written by Greta Myers, the ghost writer behind the book.
Want to read
May 27, 2022Any book that's positive is great Gave me interesting ideas to consider won in sweepstakes
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews