Not in Our Genes

Rating:
Summary: Not In Our Genes
Review: A breath of fresh air in a fetid miasma of assumption and association, anecdotes and lies. The politics of the radical left are obviously clear, yet this is an honest response to the radical right who have claimed for years to be neutral. This finally lays to rest the false dichotomy of the nature vs nurture debate. The attack on the cultural determinism which for many years has given ammunition to the "common sense" view of the world, is attacked with equal venom as that of the genetic determinists of Richard Dawkins and other chauvinists. Deserves to be printed more times than lira.

Rating:
Summary: Glad I read it
Review: As a lecturer and writer in critical psychology, this book is a key resource in highlighting the way in which psychological enquiry is shaped by the context in which such enquiry takes place. In particular, it shows the weaknesses of the myth of the objectivity of science as applied to psychology. This shouldn't be too surprising, as only someone with their head deeply in the sand, or determined to justify certain practices by recourse to claiming objectivity, could have missed the volume of work on the lack of objectivity in psychological science.

Rating:
Summary: More agenda than science
Review: I did not read this book cover-to-cover, partly because I got disgusted with what becomes an obvious agenda by at least one author who should know better (Lewontin). They take the worst of the eugenics movement to exemplify its "leaders" and often argue by anecdote. They also fail to provide refuting data to many claims - intelligent readers will see they are not refuting very much, just "banging up" some ideas on the premise they are not perfectly measureable. I was really dissappointed that Dr. Lewontin played down the role of genes so much given that he also authored a textbook on genetics. If genes can determine so much behavior (mating, song singing, etc.) in biology, why is it so hard to believe that genes cause human intangible traits such as behavior or intelligence? Furthermore, why is it so incredible to suppose there could be racial differences in either? It's certainly got some good parts and points, but it is OBVIOUS these authors are out to prove their agenda rather than objectively discuss the issues.

Rating:
Summary: Glad I read it
Review: I hadn't read much at all dealing with this subject matter but am glad I read the book. It points out the flawed nature of (some) science research in this area. In this the authors did a good job. However they didn't really influence me that much as to what extent our genes are responsible for what we become. I may reread the book

Rating:
Summary: Not in our Genes? Not hardly.
Review: I read this book for a college human nature class and found it highly enlightening. I have long been an opponent to the rigid structure of the nature v. nurture argument, and have thus far found few (if any) serious intellectual scientific works to clearly articulate other possible explanations for why we are the way we are. Kudos to the authors of Not in our Genes for presenting a possible alternative to the norm. Read it and see whatcha think.

Rating:
Summary: A Thoughtful Book Which Moves Against Conformist Thinking
Review: Lewontin, Rose and Kamin -- an evolutionary geneticist, neurobiologist and a psychologist -- provide the scientific and historic basis which allows one to drive a Mack truck through the holes in the arguments of biological determinism. Although their credentials are weighty and their science precise, the book is not only very readable - it's downright entertaining. After all, reading about the alleged "data" collected by those bent on proving that biology is god through identical twin studies is downright hysterical and should be a cautionary tale known to every student of science. The references provided by the authors should also provide further good reading. This is a book to own and share.

Rating:
Summary: Attacking a Straw Man
Review: This book does a fine job of dispelling the view the genes solely determine cognitive ability. The problem is that virtually no researchers in the fields of differntial psychology or psychometrics are arguing this position. According to respected experts (e.g., Thomas Bouchard, Arthur Jensen, and Linda Gottfredson), the answer to the question "nature or nurture?" is nature and nurture. The available evidence indicates that both play an important role. The authors of this book are therefore attacking a straw man for ideological reasons.

The critique of this issue in Hernstein's and Murray's "The Bell Curve" is much more valuable for anyone with an open mind. But if you've already been baptized into the cult of egalitarianism, read and enjoy.

Rating:
Summary: The Classic Critique of Sociobiology
Review: This book provides the best available introduction to the most outstanding objections to sociobiology. Even those sympathetic with the Dawkins/Pinker/Wilson camp should read it, if only to familiarize themselves with the arguments of their opposition.

One thing that's particularly notable about the book is that its basic points remain virtually intellectually unscathed after 20 years. Sociobiologists (and now evolutionary psychologists) have responded to its valid scientific critique of their discipline (faith?) not by addressing the arguments themselves, but by attacking the politics of some of this critique's proponents.

Still, it would be nice to see an updated edition. Also, both Steve Rose's Lifelines and he and Hilary Rose's Alas, Poor Darwin make good companions to this book.

Rating:
Summary: The Classic Critique of Sociobiology
Review: This book provides the best available introduction to the most outstanding objections to sociobiology. Even those sympathetic with the Dawkins/Pinker/Wilson camp should read it, if only to familiarize themselves with the arguments of their opposition.

One thing that's particularly notable about the book is that its basic points remain virtually intellectually unscathed after 20 years. Sociobiologists (and now evolutionary psychologists) have responded to its valid scientific critique of their discipline (faith?) not by addressing the arguments themselves, but by attacking the politics of some of this critique's proponents.

Still, it would be nice to see an updated edition. Also, both Steve Rose's Lifelines and he and Hilary Rose's Alas, Poor Darwin make good companions to this book.