Rating: Summary: Don't discuss this book in front of women! Review: Wright details things we really don't want to believe about our animal natures. Incisive examination of the divergent evolution of male and female mating strategies, combined with a biography of Darwin.
--Richard Brodie, author, Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Mem
Rating: Summary: This book can change the way you think about everything. Review: As a medical student, I am constantly trying to find explanations for eveything. Because our existence is too complex to explain its every detail,
a way of thinking is what may lead to answers. This is what I found
in Richard Wright's book, The Moral Animal.
I write this more because I am trying to find a way to study this new discipline,
especially through my chosen field of medicine. I am ready to dedicate my
career to it. Evolutionary psychiatry can be a real approach to the myriad
of problems facing people today. I offer my potential.
Rating: Summary: How evolution shapes our emotional and moral lives. Review: Wright summarizes current research on primate evolution from a novel perspective -- he interprets how we *feel* in evolutionary terms -- especially moral feelings such as guilt, righteous anger, etc. His conclusions are sensible but not profound. The most important message of the book is simply the "copernican" shift that places evolutionary game theory, rather than our inherited primate emotions, at the center of our moral universe
Rating: Summary: nasty and nice finally explained Review: For most of my life, I've been trying to understand the reasons behind why we animials behave the way we do. This book has changed my life. After an extensive and enjoyable study of the text my new understanding on Evolutionary Psychology allows me to accurately conclude scientific explainions for my own emotions, including observed emotions of other animals. Powerful, confronting and liberating. Please read.
Rating: Summary: indispensable Review: "The theory of natural selection is so elegant and powerful as to inspire a kind of faith in it [...]; there is a point after which one no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question." I fully subscribe this quotation from the Appendix of The moral animal, and there resides the beauty of this theory and the study of evolution, animal behavior, evolutionary psychology, and so on. Things look rather easy under this prism.
The first part of the book is dedicated to the man-woman relationship: to the nature of the reproductive, sexual and romantic relationships. Kin selection is at the core of the argument, which goes all around the differential parental investment between human males and females, and its consequences. Humans, as a slightly polygynous species (high MPI: male parental investment), show different strategies between sexes about how to maximize their contribution to the next generation. While reading it I was feeling that Wright's review of sexual strategies fits too well to a male's mind (at least mine) and I wondered what would happen if the book was written by Ms Roberta Wright, instead of the author, would she use the same tone? Maybe slight differences would arise. However, real or not, I like what he says (sorry, it is too long to explain here in detail, so you better read it). When you, male-reader, read these chapters you might feel a strong desire to increase your number of wives or sexual partners. Don't worry, it is a transitory side-effect. It passes. Sorry, I ignore how you, female-reader, feel about. Sometimes Wright's position seems to be too conservative, he seems to praise in excess the moral of English Victorian society. This is also transitory, since he is only playing.
Second part of the book is dedicated to social cement, this is: inclusive fitness, parental-offspring conflict and reciprocal altruism; family and friends; social bounding. Good revision.
Part three is also about the social bounding but from the strife perspective. Basically it courses on the importance that status hierarchy (in tandem with reciprocal altruism) has for the human animals, mainly among males, who are more likely to obtain reproductive benefit of the struggle. The role played by self-deception in order to convince others to believe what is in our interest is very well treated here: according to Wright "human brain is a machine to win arguments, a machine for convincing others that its owner is right-and thus a machine for convincing its owner of the same thing. [...] Like a lawyer, the human brain wants victory, not truth; and, like a lawyer, it is sometimes more admirable for skill than for virtue." A good dose of cynicism, isn't it?
As a summary, five are the theories employed to explain human behavior: kin selection, parental investment, parental-offspring conflict, reciprocal altruism, and status hierarchy. These processes interact between them in a varied environment producing a variety of flexible strategies. "The whole point of the human brain is behavior flexibility."
These three parts are wonderful, completely worthy reading. When I say wonderful, I don't mean that you need to agree with all the exposed in order to enjoy it, but is a wide review of the Darwinian explanation of all the main arenas of human behavior and it is very well written. Is particularly successful the use he makes of Charles Darwin biography, as an example. Wright explains Darwin's life and behavior through these theories. At the beginning I regarded it as a bit megalomaniac in excess, but later I found it really brilliant. And what the hell! I am (all of us?) megalomaniac enough and Darwin is for me an admired figure. Good idea. Well performed.
After reading this, cynicism and moral relativism are inevitable. You have the necessity of reconsidering our moral codes, rewriting them from a more conscious knowledge of the nature of our acts and motivations. Then we reach the (inevitable) fourth part: the moral realm. I think that Robert Wright could not escape from this part of the book (and for sure he did not want to escape), but it is also inevitable it to be the weakest part of the book, and by far the least interesting. You will find cynicism (already present, and in a better way in previous chapters), utilitarism, nihilism, the naturalistic fallacy, brotherly love, free will, and of course religion. His main point is that we must be conscious of our nature, that using the evolutionary prism we can dissection the origin of our impulses, desires, feelings, and then better control it for the biggest well (utilitarism, brotherly love). It is ok, but you better take more time to think about the kind of moral codes that you consider the best for future (and also Mr Wright can continue thinking about).
I think that one of the most important points when working with the Darwinian perspective is the naturalistic fallacy. Wright, Dawkins, or Williams among others can argue that even we have been made by Natural Selection, we must rebel now against its law in the moral realm. They argue about the selfishness, even evilness, of such process, stressing our ability to break with it and decide from our own moral perspective. This implies understanding that for something being natural it doesn't mean to it be good. Ok, I agree, but the power of the naturalistic fallacy is inmense, and the lawyer residing in your mind will be waiting any occasion to use it for your own (selfish) benefit. The natural fallacy provides a perfect way to justify many of our undesired acts: "I am sorry, but I couldn't avoid it".
While the three first parts of the book are a brilliant review of scientific theories, the fourth one is clearly weaker.
However, the book is so superbly written that I felt a strong curiosity for the author (in the book I missed a better introduction of who he is, where does he research, and so on). I checked internet and found about his following book, which seems to have less acceptation among readers. I found that he is a strange character, not an evolutionary psychologist but a kind of freelance of writing books and opinion articles (maybe I am making a mistake). In any case I invite you to visit his website www.meaningoflife.tv, where you will find interviews to remarkable scientist and philosophers, but where you mainly will learn about Mr Wright's personal inquietudes. You can also visit www.nonzero.org.
To finish with this long review, it seems that Natural Sciences are reaching quite far into the understanding and explanation of human nature and behavior. People involved in social sciences such as philosophy, psychology, cultural anthropology, or sociology should look at this perspective, the New Darwinian paradigm if they don't want to find themselves completely out of fashion, soon. The moral animal is a wild work that serves as a wonderful introduction (much more than a mere introduction indeed) to evolutionary psychology, or human sociobiology.
Read it, indispensable.
Rating: Summary: Comforting for some, no doubt, but superficial.... Review: This well-written account of some of the theories which make up the field known as "evolutionary psychology" makes for interesting reading. Some of it is genuinely enlightening as it deals with some of the possible mechanisms which may have led to the evolution of certain forms of human behaviour.
Unfortunately though, as often as not, the appeal is more that of an intellectual game as we watch scientists trying to make the facts support their own prejudices.
It is all too easy to assume that human behaviour and the behaviour of other animals has the same roots, simply because it sometimes looks the same. But there is no acknowledgement here of what most of us should be able to see from direct observation and introspection, i.e. that much of modern human behaviour is the product of pervasive neurosis. For example, those of us who dress fashionably do so as much to compensate for feelings of inadequacy as to attract a mate. This motive is not present in the mating displays of the peacock, for example.
The height of stupidity is reached when Wright reports on an experiment which was used as evidence that we only feel guilt for misdeeds which others know about. This conclusion was reached because the people involved only offered to try to make up for accidentally breaking something after the deed was discovered. The desire to hide one's culpability can hardly be taken as evidence that one feels no guilt. And who hasn't been in a similar situation and doesn't know from personal experience that secret guilt is possible?
Read Wright by all means, but if you want to truly understand human nature, and can stand the intensely confronting insights, read Jeremy Griffith's "A Species in Denial" as well.
Rating: Summary: Evolutionary Psychology Review: This was one of the best pop-sci books I've read since Matt Ridley. Wright gives explanations and implications of numerous aspects of viewing social psychology as being evolutionarily crafted. He isn't just rattling off idea, but also exploring them and the kinds of contradictions and coherencies they create with current understanding of various psychology issues.
Darwin biography, and analogies of ideas to aspects in Darwin's life are prominent features of the book.
Background knowledge isn't needed to understand and enjoy the book, though a base knowledge of evolutionary and biological principles will certainly help.
Rating: Summary: A great book but it loses steam. Review: One of the best books written on Darwinism in recent years. Although not as ground breaking as when it was originally published, it is still a very good summary of current research. The book provides great insight into the human brain and sheds light on why we behave the way we do. Although some may view the first section as sexist, you need to leave your prejudices at the door. There are some unpleasant ideas presented, and although they may, at first, rub you the wrong way, upon contemplation they make a lot of sense. The first three sections (Sex, Romance & Love; Social Cement; Social Strife) are all well written and it is interesting how the author returns to the personal life of Charles Darwin to explain the main ideas and to put them into context. The fourth and final section (Morals of the Story) is where the book loses steam. It becomes more abstract and it seems that authour, at times, is stretching to make his point. He may be correct in some of his ideas, but I found the final section more philosophical and preachy than the previous sections which relied more on science. A great book that thouroughly deserves a 5-star rating. A must for your science library.
Rating: Summary: Fresh perspective on the complex origins of human nature Review: The author chooses Darwin to serve as an illustration of the principles of evolutionary psychology, developing a compelling biographical narrative and thereby broadening the appeal of his book. My only quibble is that the final chapters seemed unnecessarily defensive, as if the author imagined that the only readers that would hang on that long would be hecklers.
Rating: Summary: Good Science, Bad Philosophy Review: This book has a lot in common with many Stephen King novels: it starts off intriguing, becomes more and more engrossing, and then concludes with some improbable and disappointing final chapters. Essentially, "The Moral Animal" can be clearly divided into two sections. The first three quarters are a clearly stated, honest presentation of natural selection via the very interesting approach of using Darwin himself and the events of his life as the primary example of its workings. In doing so, the book serves not only as a presentation of Darwinism, but also as a biography of Charles Darwin. Great idea. But the last quarter or so of the book then departs dramatically from the topic of using natural selection to explain many interesting modern behaviors such as sex, hate, and friendship, and focuses instead on deriving an ethical system from the science (much of which the author has already admitted is unproven) of the preceding chapters. It begins by threatening a sort of evolutionary fatalism, stumbles into an endorsement of blanket altruism (titled "Utilitarianism" here) as an alternative to that fatalism, and then deteriorates into a bland attack on free will in favor of determinism. Not such a great idea. The odd thing is that the scientific part of the book clearly details human motivation in all things to be purely selfish. The logical ethical approach, then, would be to question the popular condemnation of selfishness and examine selfishness as a legitimate foundation of a moral system, not to try to pound the square peg of evolutionary selfishness into the round hole of traditional Judeo-Christian altruism. It seems likely that in writing this book the author set out to find evidence for his own well-established ethical views, instead of conducting scientific research and then deriving an ethical system logically from his findings. He'd probably dismiss this kind of criticism as the desperate self-deception of someone clinging to a false sense of free will. Nevertheless, I encourage you to use your free will to check out a copy from the library, read the first three quarters, and send the rest back determinedly.
|