You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
Very interesting concepts within, some very artful explanations, but not interesting enough or unique enough (at least as present day science is concerned, there's a lot more resources out there than perhaps when it was first published) to make up for what a massive massive douche Richard Dawkins is. There are other spectacular science writers that don't feel the needs to bring religion into their concepts, or talk about welfare and get political out of nowhere in the middle of a point about evolution or genetics. Using a pedestal of science to make these kind of unrelated comments is disappointing, to say nothing of some of their social implications, based very much in ignorance. And it undoubtedly drives away part of an audience that might otherwise benefit from some of the science explained so well in some chapters. What a completely unlikeable ass. He spends half of his footnotes waxing poetic about his critics if they make even the slightest negative comment about his writings or opinions, in a way that is eventually tiresome, doesn't add much to the book, and comes across as very petty and snide If it's your first time reading this book don't read the most recent additions unless you want to listen to him basically responding to every single person who's ever said anything unkind about him -- And I'm not saying that Richard Dawkins didn't get attacked by people in ridiculous ways for ridiculous reasons. But I am saying that his response is at times childish and extremely arrogant. I started this book knowing that he had written The God delusion as a response to religious outlash against this book. I'm not religious, and I very much see the world through a scientific lens, but I was still surprised and disappointed to find that rather than a science book that was attacked and then responded to with a book about religious problems, the selfish Gene very much made the first attack by making snide comments about religion in chapters where religion had no relevance whatsoever. Dawkins clearly has beef and was using this book as an opportunity to air some of his annoyances. How much better for us all if he could have restrained himself like a good scientist.
Looks at the idea that humans are just a way for our genes to propagate themselves. We can't really tell who is in charge.
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
I have many things to say about this book, and I felt almost as if I was rushing through the pages at the end just to get through to write a thorough review. Starting with the positive aspects: I felt the additions made in the 40th anniversary edition made the actual purpose of the book much easier to understand and dissuaded the reader from taking the title or abstractions of concepts too literally. I feel that these additions were needed for the book to be fully well-rounded in this aspect. I also feel like someone educated enough to build off of the concepts presented in the book, say a student in academia, would be able to easily get valuable information from the book. Dawkins also manages to sneak some humorous bits in there every once in a while, which is nice to see in an informative book.
Although Dawkins attempted to make the book accessible to everyone, I don’t think there is enough depth in the right places and often too much depth in the wrong places for the uninitiated to grasp the entire picture. This, along with some palpable arrogance (as well as eugenic and sexist tones) which makes the book an uncomfortable read at times, I think detracts from the information presented and can be read as quite inflammatory, especially when presented to the uninitiated.
While a biology student may be able to comprehend that labeling genes as “good” or “bad” is not to be taken literally, I don’t think newcomers to the topic will be able to grasp the decades of scientific history with eugenics in academic spaces, even with the endnotes and preface. It again is a mixture of complex concepts (like eugenics) and overly simplified wording. It’d almost make the book better and more informative if it wasn’t written specifically for the uninitiated, at least while keeping all concepts covered intact.
While some chapters, such as chapter 12, are really well worded, written, and executed; other chapters, like chapter 9, seemed like they dragged on for quite honestly very few good reasons.
Despite the described, I think if you go into this book purely seeking knowledge, you will find it. I have quite a bit highlighted and I felt I was able to pick up on aspects of the writing which I can apply to my own view of the world, even if they are things Dawkins wouldn’t agree with. Serves to remind you that even the ones we disagree with on the practical applications of understandings, we may have similar underlying understanding of the world all the same.
Although Dawkins attempted to make the book accessible to everyone, I don’t think there is enough depth in the right places and often too much depth in the wrong places for the uninitiated to grasp the entire picture. This, along with some palpable arrogance (as well as eugenic and sexist tones) which makes the book an uncomfortable read at times, I think detracts from the information presented and can be read as quite inflammatory, especially when presented to the uninitiated.
While a biology student may be able to comprehend that labeling genes as “good” or “bad” is not to be taken literally, I don’t think newcomers to the topic will be able to grasp the decades of scientific history with eugenics in academic spaces, even with the endnotes and preface. It again is a mixture of complex concepts (like eugenics) and overly simplified wording. It’d almost make the book better and more informative if it wasn’t written specifically for the uninitiated, at least while keeping all concepts covered intact.
While some chapters, such as chapter 12, are really well worded, written, and executed; other chapters, like chapter 9, seemed like they dragged on for quite honestly very few good reasons.
Despite the described, I think if you go into this book purely seeking knowledge, you will find it. I have quite a bit highlighted and I felt I was able to pick up on aspects of the writing which I can apply to my own view of the world, even if they are things Dawkins wouldn’t agree with. Serves to remind you that even the ones we disagree with on the practical applications of understandings, we may have similar underlying understanding of the world all the same.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Sexism
Moderate: Ableism
Eugenic narratives
Informative, confident, with delightful smatterings of arrogant shade throwing. My mind was a bit warped at the end of this book and I'm inclined to read The Extended Phenotype because I'm loving the implications for hope we engage with genetics and culture
Discusses the universality of self-replication, with compelling content about memetics and phenotypic extension.
Not the first book I've read about sociobiology/evolutionary psych/game theory, but would recommend as someone else's first
Not the first book I've read about sociobiology/evolutionary psych/game theory, but would recommend as someone else's first
I’m more of a MLS person myself, but this was a very insightful read
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The Science and Inquiry Book Club selection for August. Also the inaugural selection - yippie!
-- -- --
Key concepts for me:
+The universe is populated by stable things
+"In sexually reproducing species, the individual is too large and too temporary a genetic unit to qualify as a significant unit of natural selection."
+"The individual is a survival machine built by a short-lived confederation of long-lived genes."
+Evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS), instead of group selection
+Stable polymorphism (stable ratio of genes in gene pool)
--
-- -- --
Key concepts for me:
+The universe is populated by stable things
+"In sexually reproducing species, the individual is too large and too temporary a genetic unit to qualify as a significant unit of natural selection."
+"The individual is a survival machine built by a short-lived confederation of long-lived genes."
+Evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS), instead of group selection
+Stable polymorphism (stable ratio of genes in gene pool)
--
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Key takeaways:
- Great job writing about a complex topic and making it accessible. Many excellent metaphors were used throughout the book that nicely demonstrated concepts in a way that was easy to understand not just what was happening, but also why and how.
- I liked the section that talked about faith, but I think for a very different reason than Mr. Dawkins intended. He argues that faith is a handicap causing people to ignore evidence, and have such strong beliefs that they are willing to kill or be killed. Of course I would argue my faith is based on evidence and that the blind faith he describes is not the way that I approach my belief system. The part I found especially compelling was where he described faith as something that causes all kinds of evil in the world. I agree that I have seen that in many people, however my faith has pushed me to be more nice, kind, honest, and selfless than I would otherwise have been. I think my faith has been a net benefit to the world, at least in recent years, as my faith has evolved greatly.
- Great job writing about a complex topic and making it accessible. Many excellent metaphors were used throughout the book that nicely demonstrated concepts in a way that was easy to understand not just what was happening, but also why and how.
- I liked the section that talked about faith, but I think for a very different reason than Mr. Dawkins intended. He argues that faith is a handicap causing people to ignore evidence, and have such strong beliefs that they are willing to kill or be killed. Of course I would argue my faith is based on evidence and that the blind faith he describes is not the way that I approach my belief system. The part I found especially compelling was where he described faith as something that causes all kinds of evil in the world. I agree that I have seen that in many people, however my faith has pushed me to be more nice, kind, honest, and selfless than I would otherwise have been. I think my faith has been a net benefit to the world, at least in recent years, as my faith has evolved greatly.