This book is easy enough to follow (if you read certain paragraphs twice and can keep up with the typically philosophical endless repetition of the same words in one sentence) and does, I feel give you a good introduction into the subject. I was a total fresh-face to the subject when I started reading this, and whilst I did feel I was being well informed about the field, there were two things that threw me a little. The first was that Thomas Pink made it clear that he dissented from the views of most philosophers today about free will. On the whole I liked this, since his conclusion was that free will does exist, and we all like to believe that! But the biggest thing was the image of the Free Will Problem I had once I had finished the book. Is it just me, or do philosophers seem to have opened up a field to examine something we think we know by common sense (ie, that we DO freely make decisions), and made it immensely complicated, in doing so reaching the conclusion that decisions are not freely made (ie, the Hobbesian view)? And this book comes along and engages with the Hobbesian view, changing it so that free will is possible, but ultimately resting it's conclusion on what we knew by common sense in the first place? I did come away feeling that the free will problem was something of an unecessary problem. The only way in which is seems to become a valid problem to me is in the medieval context of "how can we have free will if God knows what all our future actions are going to be"? But this subject isn't really engaged, which is understandable given the book's scope. I enjoyed the book, but I must admit I find the field of Free Will Philosophy a lot less interesting now that I've read it.