Rating: 
Summary: Who are we?
Review: Wright's response to that all-important question is that "all influences on human behaviour,
environmental as well as hereditary, are mediated biologically" [p. 311]. Quite simply,
humans are part of the animal kingdom. The roots of our behaviour lie deep in our
evolutionary past. We may like to think our position in Nature is unique. Wright reminds us
that all life is linked by a common hereditary mechanism. We have many traits that contrast
us from other animals, but there are too many similarities to deny our place is drastically
removed from them. Wright's fine synopsis supporting this picture draws on the work of
many researchers and presents it in an imaginative and intelligible book. Although recent
works have embellished this book, nothing has yet replaced it. Darwin's 1859 publication of The Origin of Species started the erosion process of humanity's
self-constructed pedestal of near divinity. Since then, research in human behaviour has
grown more intense. The first major step, although not one based on natural selection, was
Sigmund Freud's studies of the roots of human behaviour. Not until the 1975 publication of
E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" was Darwin's idea firmly applied to the human condition.
Wilson's effort met with a storm of abuse, tempering use of the title as a scientific discipline.
Wright has chosen "evolutionary psychology" from among the plethora of substitutions that
have emerged [giving a discomforting credibility to psychology as a discipline]. However, it
isn't the phrase that's important. The concept of who we are, summarized in the opening
quote is the issue. Wilson's triumph is in the wealth of superior research that has gone into
validating his thesis. Wright draws on researchers who've made careful studies and taken significant steps in
exposing those genetic roots. William Hamilton, George C. Williams and Robert Trivers,
building on Darwin's foundation, have confirmed Wilson's proposal in various ways. The
key term in the quote, "mediated" defies those who rant about "genetic determinism." Wright
carefully denies there are specific genes "for" any specific behaviour pattern. The many
researchers he cites concur that humans are too complex for such simple answers. Genes
combine and interact, but the results of their activity remain rooted in biological adaptations.
Wright sees sex and the strategies in pursuit of it as the foundation of most of our behaviour.
Competition, status, even obtaining food and shelter are all related to how we handle
questions of sex and passing of genetic information. Males and females ARE different, but the
ways in which they differ emerge in a new light in Wright's analysis. Feminists will [have!] rail against Wright's non-egalitarian picture of gender relationships.
This isn't surprising, given that the feminist movement has firmly detoured around biology
[the most vivid example being the "denial" of DNA]. Wright effectively counters narrow
views by arguing that a better understanding of our biological roots will enable us to improve
those relationships. Further, he argues that a host of legal questions will require revision in
light of the new knowledge. A "gene for burglary" will not be an accepted defense, but new
forms of law must result from an improved comprehension of what makes a human. If
nothing else in this book gives it merit, the idea that cultural "norms" must be cogently
addressed is a valuable contribution in bringing biology and other unrelated disciplines to a
new level of communication. Rewards, punishments, fame and failure are manifestations of
our ideas of morality. Wright's discussion of those values makes this work a "must read" for a
wide variety of people. Buy it, read it and pass it to others. It makes a fine present.
Rating: 
Summary: No Morality Here
Review: Wright contends that we act as though morality exists, but in reality it is an illusion. Right and wrong are simply constructs which have evolved from human experience. There is no such this as objective right and wrong which apply to all people. We don't kill our new born children for the fundamental reason that it would be bad for our species. These are 'moral impulses' but nothing more. As a result, Wright provides no foundation for determining moral behavior and in turn leaves the reader with no means of identifying better or worse behavior. All actions are reactions to the environment, and therefore he promptly does away with personal accountability and responsibility. Furthermore, Wright doesn't clearly deal with the counter examples of war, euthanasia, abortion, homosexuality, suicide, or cannibalism. If his theory about morality merely being an evolutionary construct is true, he would need to show how these fit into furthering the species. In short, this book provides no hope or foundation. It merely describes why people act as though morality exists, but does not even say people 'should' act this way. In fact, there is no basis for even suggesting the preservation of humanity is a 'good' thing because there is no way of knowing what 'good' is. Like so many social scientists, Wright can describe what 'is' but he can never prescribe what 'ought' to be. We are left with disjointed observations and no conclusion or synthesis. An empty and sad book.
Rating:
Summary: Massively informative and enlightening
Review: Wright's accessible book about evolutionary psychology is well worth reading. I don't usually read nonfiction, so I found this daunting at first, but the further I delved, the more I couldn't put it down. Exploring sex, love, friendship, and more through the lens first created by Charles Darwin, Wright uses Darwin's own life to explain and elaborate on the principles he puts forth, all of which are easy to understand and fathom. I found myself taking more and more notes as I went on. It was almost like being back in the classroom! This is a book that begs to be read again and again, and the reader desires this too! I can understand why some readers would think this almost justifies misogyny, but it doesn't. Rather, it explore its roots and explains why it's so prevalent and tenacious.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Information and Easy to Read
Review: The author clearly explains the science of evolutionary psychology. This book should be required reading, if not in high school, then certainly in college. The author shows how much of our behaviors are linked to our genetic heritage and he often uses the life of Charles Darwin as an example to prove his point. This book is a must read for anyone attempting to better understand human behavior.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting account of how we became who we are.
Review: The Moral Animal has a rather clever premise, namely that psychological evolution in humans has a Darwinian basis some of the tenants of which can be intuited, and that Darwin himself and the events of his life can be used as a type-test of validity. Most of Wright's proposals seemed entirely possible and all were interesting. Most interesting was the way that much of Darwin's history did in fact seem to bear out the author's point of view, although I suspect this was due in large part to Wright's careful selection of the details of Darwin's life used as evidence of his thesis! One of the more curious of the book's proposals was that humans grieve by degree, and that they tend to grieve more intensely the loss of those who are approaching reproductive age. The author states that in a survey of individuals in Canada who were asked to rank their probable sense of loss according to the age of the deceased, it was found that the subjects would grieve less for the very young or the very old. It was found that the curve that arose from the data was a near fit for maturation curves of modern Canadians and an exact fit for that of the San people of South Africa. Wright pointed out that the San are living a life more like that in which the human animal evolved. He proposed that the loss of an individual who would just be starting to contribute to the gene pool would be a more significant loss than either the youngest or oldest individuals. Interesting. I'm not certain I would agree however. Having dealt with a number of grieving individuals over the years, I know that irrespective of the age of the deceased, the degree of loss that "might be felt" is often not the degree of loss that actually is felt. I also know from the experience of losing my beloved Great Dane Courageous recently, that humans are capable of intense grief over a non human member of their family, a creature definitely not capable of passing on their genetic heritage. I suspect the human psyche is far more complex than Wright's simple ABC of genetic fitness would have one believe. The book is definitely worth reading, as it brings up a wide variety of interesting points about human behavior and some very plausible explanations for it.
Rating: 
Summary: Should be mandatory reading for any progressive school
Review: First I read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. That book attempts to explain how human societies have evolved to the point that we're at now (i.e. why certain geographically based groups conquered and exploited other geographically based groups). And he claims that it basically comes down to geographical chance, meaning that any of the geographically based groups that happen to be in the right place at the right time would have eventually conquered and exploited other geographically based groups. But it doesn't explain WHY the natural action for any geographically based group at the right place and the right time is to conquer and exploit other geographically based groups. The Moral Animal basically does just that. Robert Wright attempts to explain why we act the way we act, in light of the fact that our actions were shaped and formed by the process of natural selection (evolutionary psychology). Some of the basic instincts he covers are: Why do we feel love? Why do we feel hate? Why do we trust people? Why are we nice to people? Why is it easier to do evil than good? Why is it better to do good? When is it OK to do evil? For academics, the Moral Animal covers lots of ground in the relatively new field of evolutionary psychology, but is probably not founded in fact enough to be legitimately referenced; there are a lot of 'what-ifs'. But for your average person like myself, the Moral Animal helps explain that the extremely complex range of emotions and actions that we experience was normal for the ancestral environment, but may not make much sense in the modern environment; hence, all the confusion we experience in our daily life. Notes: Very well written, fact filled enough to be very informative, but still an easy read and entertaining. Like any theory, you need to take it with a grain of salt. I took it out from the library but will buy a copy for my bookshelf.
Rating:
Summary: Spelling "culture" in caps does not an argument make.
Review: Strejo's political commitments have clearly biased her against Wright's book. Wright's interpretations of his data are contentious, speculative and quite possibly incorrect, but the data themselves are not faulty or "unscientific." Wright goes to great lengths to show when and where his interpretations generate falsifiable predicitions. "CULTURE!" people, like "strejo" all too often fall back on the the volume theory of truth.
Rating:
Summary: What a Piece of Work is This
Review: This is a book that stands out in what is becoming a crowded field. It was first published in 1994, and brings together a number of strands of Darwinian thought into what is now called evolutionary psychology. The author is a writer, not a scientist, and this book is not science, but journalism. It is reporting on science, but does such a grand job of synthesis, in prose so good and with an intelligence so sparkling, that it emerges as a work of art and as an intellectual edifice in its own right. To explain human behavior, emotion, and cognition, evolutionary psychologists take the following concept as central: Whatever behaviors caused humans (and pre-humans before them) to reproduce successfully are the behaviors that came to be preserved in modern man. The above statement hides a few difficulties, but basically, those who would explain a particular behavior, such as murderous male jealousy, do it by asking how it could have helped those humans or pre-humans that exhibited such a behavior in their environment (which is usually postulated to be a small band of more-or-less close kin living by hunting and gathering) to reproduce more successfully than their fellows. When E.O. Wilson made some modest speculations about possible genetic influence on human behavior in Sociobiology: the New Synthesis back in 1975 he unleashed a storm of criticism that basically only died down when people stopped using the word "sociobiology". Well, sociobiology is back, but now it is called "evolutionary psychology". Moreover, it is legitimate science-but still hated, at least in some quarters. There are lots of reasons to dislike evolutionary explanations of why humans are the way they are. The full-blown theory tends to show us in an unpleasant light, and if you prefer to think of the human as the paragon of animals, then Wright will make you uncomfortable, at least: "In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse. The title of this book is not wholly without irony."[p13] But to some this new explanatory paradigm is more than merely unsettling: it threatens to undermine those convictions-about love, God, free will, our own goodness-that get us through our lives. To some these investigations seem like a vast and gratuitous effort at making us look silly where it doesn't make us out to be merely robots. So be it: there are those, and I'm one of them, who find it fascinating (and scary and disorienting) to be in on this new view of the oldest subject of all, ourselves. I enjoyed tremendously Wright's device of using Charles Darwin as an exemplar of many of his points, weaving the thread of Darwin's life into the texture of the book. Some may find this distracting, but in fact using a staunch Victorian (and so being able to contrast his culture to our own) in what is basically a book that, among other things, wants to try and get at what we mean by moral behavior, is excellent for illustrating important points. The only gripe I have with the author is that he very often takes as true that which is only probable. In explaining behavior that he claims is rooted in a male's constant seeking of status, for example, Wright will confidently draw conclusions in complicated situations where that impulse may indeed operate, but perhaps not as straightforwardly as he uses it. To hide difficulties is not good science, but good science often means hedging any definite statement with a cluster of qualifiers. Perhaps, unless he wanted a longer, duller book, Wright was wise to simplify. I firmly believe he remained true to the underlying concepts of the science. Wright has read much, but also digested much. The book is a joy to read, full of great thinking, clear strong writing, wit, and learning. Its conclusions are exciting and important, if not always comforting.
Rating:
Summary: "not the whole story" is not the whole story either
Review: The Moral Animal changed my life. Being my first introduction to evolutionary psychology, it allowed me to look at myself and the world from a new, uncomfortable, and shocking perspective. Be warned, this book pushes one toward materialism and if you can't handle any attacks on your desire to continue to believe in the Cosmic Santa Claus, you may want to click away to the "Inspirational" or "Christian" areas of Amazon. Having said all that, however, this is not a perfect book. Or rather, while the book itself is quite well organized and written, there are things to argue with in it. For me, I think it's quite possible to question the epistemelogical foundations of some of Wright's arguments. In other words, I can easily imagine someone repeatedly asking Wright, "Yeah, but how do we KNOW that's the case?" while reading this book. Nonetheless, it's an extremely thought provoking book and I'd recommend it to anyone. Finally, let me just say that I'm not sure that some of the reviewers below have read this book. If they had, they would have had their worn out responses answered quite forcefully. I especially found the call to reject Darwinism and Wright's argument, "even if it is true," disturbing. I sometimes wonder if organizations like the Christian Coalition enlist their supporters to post such responses (regardless of whether or not they've read the darn book) on websites like Amazon in the same way that Amnesty International asks its supporters to write letters against things they disapprove of...
Rating:
Summary: A nice intro to evolutionary psych
Review: Wright combines a biography of Charles Darwin, a thoughtful review of Victorian culture, and general speculations on human nature with sound description of basic twentieth century research in evolutionary psychology, the scientific followups in Darwinism having to do with human nature. A well-written page turner in popular style that is not horribly simplistic, this book can unlock secrets of human behavior for those who really don't know what to make of it, especially in the areas of sex and competition. Beyond Wright's scholarship lie the moral questions: nature disposes us to make trouble for one another, so what? How should we behave? As conscientious Victorians should perhaps? Repressing the animal? Like other books on morals, Wright sees the problems much more clearly than the solutions, but at least he sees the problems clearly. This is a very illuminating and troubling book.
| 
