I am optimistic that this book was just a poor representation of good ideas. It seems to pick a different definition of causality for each example, in order to sensationalize the story. It reduces large scale correlations in the aggregate to stories with individual characters. This makes each concept come across as someones uninformed opinion based on anecdote, rather than thoroughly researched science. They don't attempt to convince the reader that they're motivated by anything other than an engaging story. I don't feel that I can take any of the facts they presented as true without further reading.