Rating: 
Summary: If ever a wiz, a wiz there was, if ever a wiz there was
Review: Matt Ridley has written a very good book on the origins of human behavior. It's worth reading two or three times just to keep all the information straight, unless you're one who just downloads what you read into your file cabinet of a mind. Well,... not I, this was difficult. In that other reveiwers here have gone into an adequate description of the book I'd like to assume a different tack. Why did Ridley follow up "Genome" with "Nature via Nurture?"It seems that he's gone to great lengths to establish a postulate that genes are enabling forces that engage nature in some sort of a closed feed-back loop whereby they're switched on and off by yet other genes in response to the influences of outside events. This is fascinating and makes perfect sense. Yet we also learn of genes that govern our ability to pair-bond/ to form loving relationships, genes for agression vs timidity, genes for criminal behavior, genes for fear and courage, for intensity vs calmness, and a myriad of other behavioral traits, abilities and characteristics. Can these traits be changed by outside events? We find that restraint is the lynchpin of culture, and it's that which separates us from the apes. We also learn that specialization and division of labor are unique to humans relative to animals who have to do everything for themselves. This all has a plausible ring to it does it not? Again and again we're told of all the different ways that genes/nature are coupled with nurture/environment until we become intellectually dizzy with all the permutations of information derived from history, science and societal differences. We learn of the countless ways genes can and do interact. It's a full bucket of information! Then we get to the twin studies and the hereitability of traits and behavioral characteristics. This is fascinating. Identical twins have a far greater incidence of hereitible traits than fraternal twins. And, even if they've been separated at birth they show remarkable similarities in every way when they're reintroduced 35 years later, even when brought up in entirely different surroundings. Somehow the environmental side of the equation failed to switch those genes on and off in a way that would have radically changed their behavior in the interim. However, it's not politically correct to say this. After all, political correctness has always been the province of those on the Left who have made the claim that the perfect socialist man will result if inflenced with the proper environmental stimuli, from birth or otherwise. Ridley points out that this form of societal organization has resulted in gulags and mass murder, but that logic hasn't seemed to have affected the collective worldveiws of those who have what the author Thomas Sowell refers to as "the vision of the annointed." In any event, Ridley brings all of these competing theories into play while nudging his premise toward the middle of the political road. He does it well! The book "Taboo", by a track and field guy whose name escapes me, goes into great length on the dominance that some racial groups have in certain sports and in certain track and field events. Thomas Sowell has written repeatedly about how different nationalities have become adept at different tasks or trades in different areas of the world. And, J.Philip Rushton has written extensively on this subject in his book, "race, evolution and behavior." Whether one agrees with these gentlemen or not their work deserves discussion. While Ridley eschews this radioactive info he does go into the work of Jane Goodall with the Chimps in Gombi. I believe that Ridley is acutely aware of this point of view, but that he's doesn't want to be pegged as a radical in favor of genetic determinism (and I don't believe that he is a radical). However, he knows that when one goes too far in favor of "nurture" as a deciding behavioral factor that one can be caricatured and more easily dismissed by the political enemies of ones position. I'm hopeful that research will soon tell us what it is that makes it so common for humans to blind themselves from accepting new information into their old theories of how the world works; to tell us, how a man might change his belief system and subsequently his behavior patterns. When this feedback loop is established mankind will take a quantum leap forward. Ridley is a magnificent narrator in this endeavor and I look forward to his continuing tale with eager anticipation. The excitement is evident as new information flows into this on-going debate, and I agree with Ridley as he says, "it's the most profound intellectual moment in the history of mankind", truly a magic time to be alive!
Rating:
Summary: If ever a wiz, a wiz there was, if ever a wiz there was
Review: Matt Ridley has written a very good book on the origins of human behavior. It's worth reading two or three times just to keep all the information straight, unless you're one who just downloads what you read into your file cabinet of a mind. Well,... not I, this was difficult. In that other reveiwers here have gone into an adequate description of the book I'd like to assume a different tack. Why did Ridley follow up "Genome" with "Nature via Nurture?" It seems that he's gone to great lengths to establish a postulate that genes are enabling forces that engage nature in some sort of a closed feed-back loop whereby they're switched on and off by yet other genes in response to the influences of outside events. This is fascinating and makes perfect sense. Yet we also learn of genes that govern our ability to pair-bond/ to form loving relationships, genes for agression vs timidity, genes for criminal behavior, genes for fear and courage, for intensity vs calmness, and a myriad of other behavioral traits, abilities and characteristics. Can these traits be changed by outside events? We find that restraint is the lynchpin of culture, and it's that which separates us from the apes. We also learn that specialization and division of labor are unique to humans relative to animals who have to do everything for themselves. This all has a plausible ring to it does it not? Again and again we're told of all the different ways that genes/nature are coupled with nurture/environment until we become intellectually dizzy with all the permutations of information derived from history, science and societal differences. We learn of the countless ways genes can and do interact. It's a full bucket of information! Then we get to the twin studies and the hereitability of traits and behavioral characteristics. This is fascinating. Identical twins have a far greater incidence of hereitible traits than fraternal twins. And, even if they've been separated at birth they show remarkable similarities in every way when they're reintroduced 35 years later, even when brought up in entirely different surroundings. Somehow the environmental side of the equation failed to switch those genes on and off in a way that would have radically changed their behavior in the interim. However, it's not politically correct to say this. After all, political correctness has always been the province of those on the Left who have made the claim that the perfect socialist man will result if inflenced with the proper environmental stimuli, from birth or otherwise. Ridley points out that this form of societal organization has resulted in gulags and mass murder, but that logic hasn't seemed to have affected the collective worldveiws of those who have what the author Thomas Sowell refers to as "the vision of the annointed." In any event, Ridley brings all of these competing theories into play while nudging his premise toward the middle of the political road. He does it well! The book "Taboo", by a track and field guy whose name escapes me, goes into great length on the dominance that some racial groups have in certain sports and in certain track and field events. Thomas Sowell has written repeatedly about how different nationalities have become adept at different tasks or trades in different areas of the world. And, J.Philip Rushton has written extensively on this subject in his book, "race, evolution and behavior." Whether one agrees with these gentlemen or not their work deserves discussion. While Ridley eschews this radioactive info he does go into the work of Jane Goodall with the Chimps in Gombi. I believe that Ridley is acutely aware of this point of view, but that he's doesn't want to be pegged as a radical in favor of genetic determinism (and I don't believe that he is a radical). However, he knows that when one goes too far in favor of "nurture" as a deciding behavioral factor that one can be caricatured and more easily dismissed by the political enemies of ones position. I'm hopeful that research will soon tell us what it is that makes it so common for humans to blind themselves from accepting new information into their old theories of how the world works; to tell us, how a man might change his belief system and subsequently his behavior patterns. When this feedback loop is established mankind will take a quantum leap forward. Ridley is a magnificent narrator in this endeavor and I look forward to his continuing tale with eager anticipation. The excitement is evident as new information flows into this on-going debate, and I agree with Ridley as he says, "it's the most profound intellectual moment in the history of mankind", truly a magic time to be alive!
Rating:
Summary: Brisk, clear, reassuring, fascinating
Review: Matt Ridley's new book deftly and cleverly explores the age-old debate, assimilates reams of evidence, and reassures us that it isn't an "or" but an "and" intersecting nature/nurture. The writing style is crackerjack, the organization sound, the pace unflagging, and the author's command of the subject clear.
Rating: 
Summary: A good read
Review: Ridley has a unique talent for exposing technical subjects in a consise and entertaining manner, keeping an eye for detail. I highly recommend this book. It is not as fascinating as Ridley's previous book "Genome" but still a very good read. The book is riddled with scientific discoveries you would like to share with your friends. Written as a true best seller it keeps the pace and does not suffer from the verbosity of other popular science books (e.g., Pinker). On the downside, it will appear less "scientific" than other pop. science books.
Rating: 
Summary: Science, or lecture on morality?
Review: Ridley laced his summaries of research with his personal values, more specifically fidelity, monogamy, anti-homosexuality, and the existence of moral absolutes. However, despite his unfounded and unsubstantiated claims, for which he uses circular reasoning and poor justification, the research summaries are interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Science, or lecture on morality?
Review: Ridley laced his summaries of research with his personal values, more specifically fidelity, monogamy, anti-homosexuality, and the existence of moral absolutes. However, despite his unfounded and unsubstantiated claims, for which he uses circular reasoning and poor justification, the research summaries are interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Cogs, GOD and individuality
Review: Ridley opens this superb summation of the impact of genetics and environment with a literary allusion. How can J.D. Salinger and Charles Dickens ever be compared? Easily - they both write in the same language. A few terms used today won't appear in Dickens' work, just as words common in the Victorian era have been abandoned. The root language remains the same, but is in constant flux. Ridley uses this metaphor to disabuse us of the ideas that either genes or environment are the sole drivers of our development. Rather than separating those two elements, Ridley wants to integrate them. From the literary metaphor, he moves on to a vivid overview of the latest finds in genetics and how environment can impact their operation. Ridley's incomparable command of language is applied in explaining arcane concepts. Ridley relates hard science with a touch of humour. In avoiding jargon, he introduces catchphrases aiding explanation. Instead of weaving scientific terminology into his descriptions, he provides unforgettable little terms to guide the reader. Genes, he notes, are merely "cogs" in a complicated machine - the organism. In explaining how these cogs interact to produce bodies and minds, he conceives the Genome Organizational Device [work out the acronym]. All these tools of Ridley's trade turn puzzling mechanisms into easily comprehended biological functions. Of the many facets introduced by this book, Ridley's summation of the causes and impact of schizophrenia is the most informative. Not long ago, he notes, "the gene" causing this disturbing affliction seemed to have been isolated. Ridley wants to "throw the whole concept of 'cause' into confusion". He devises a schema to present a string of "witnesses", each presenting a "position" on schizophrenia. After historical, ideological and biological "testimony" is presented as individual views, Ridley concludes with a updated explanation for each. Perhaps all the factors cited have impact in some way. When brought together in an unfortunate individual, schizophrenia in one of its many forms is the result. Ridley's aim is to end a war - a conflict he finds both misconceived and misdirected. Peacemaking is not his aim. Rather he wishes to integrate the two sides and initiate a fresh approach to a contrived problem. Are genes or environment more important in driving how we behave? Ridley eschews either and both in isolation. His descriptions of gene interaction, using something he terms promoters, are shown to be both innate and relying on external signals. He shows how researchers investigating genetic roots of behaviour are confronted with new examples of how genes perform their feats under direction from nature, and vice versa. Ridley finds the combatants in the "nature versus nurture" wars are merely troops of the species Homo stramineous - "straw men". It's to their mutual benefit to enter into a treaty written in his reasonable tone, based on updated knowledgeable and relying on his exhaustive portrayal of what's going on in our bodies. As he states in conclusion, "even the fiercest warriors in this battle" have stumbled on the ideas he presents. They have failed to reach a settlement, for which this book provides an unshakeable foundation. [stephen a. haines, Ottawa]
Rating: 
Summary: Overwhelming the general reader
Review: So the Nature versus Nurture controversy has been brewing for years, so what? So illustrious men have been involved, so what? That this book was written by the same person who wrote "Genome: The autobiography Of A Species In 23 Chapter", is incredible. In "Nature Via Nurture" the author spends a lot of time sermonizing, knocking down straw men, taking issue with or agreeing with the great men of the past, throwing out names of people supposedly recognized by the cognoscenti, and successfully flying over the heads of the general reader.
Rating:
Summary: Confusing...
Review: Surely the author doesn't expect anyone to understand this? By putting "via" between "nature" and "nurture", the author has broken one of the golden rules of getting people's attention. Surely it must be one or the other? "Nature versus nurture" has always been one of the most preferred dichotomous platitudes. It may be considered clever in certain circles to insinuate further levels of complexity over and above the basic "black or white" framework we all know and love, but it won't win any popularity contests! Due to my confusion, I give this book 2 stars out of 5.
Rating:
Summary: Moral: Emphasize Nature
Review: The history of this debate, recent findings, and anecdotes are fantastic. These make up the bulk of the book, and as a parent and teacher I learned a lot. However, his conclusions don't match well with what he is presenting. For example, his central premise explicitly puts nature and nurture on the same footing, but it is the gene that is the star of this book. Nurture is relegated to an ingredient in nature's machinery. This is 1 of his 7 moral lessons we are supposed to derive from the book: "snobs should emphasize nurture". He mentions the ostracism those on the nature-side face ...Perhaps the non sequiturs are his way of trying to avoid the same.
|
