Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.84 AVERAGE
3.84 AVERAGE
Even on his worst day, Matt Ridley is worthwhile, but the Red Queen is not his best work. (Origins of Virtue is!) In the Red Queen, I wish he didn't take such a long time making and remaking the same arguments. In this sense, this book reads more like Guns Germs and Steel than the concise and clear brilliance we have come to expect from Matt Ridley.
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
Solid introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Would recommend this to anyone who wants an updated version of the Selfish Gene. I would really like to see an updated edition to this, with current research added to breathe life back into this book. But for someone seeking an introduction to this field, this would be the place to start.
Evolutionary biology perspective on sex, mating and reproduction. Very Darwinian. Fairly interesting, especially when he's talking about people, and not, say, peacocks. He has some bias against feminists (don't get me started) and is just plain wrong about homosexuality (the book was written 10 years ago, so the research just didn't exist at the time - I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt). But otherwise very enjoyable - though not as enjoyable as Jared Diamond, perhaps.
Got to it from Nick Szabo recommendation. Was not disappointed
informative
slow-paced
Ridley gives a very comprehensive analysis of his journalistic endeavor to examine as many aspects of human sexuality and its link to evolutionary selection as possible. Using dozens of fascinating examples from the animal and plant kingdoms he uses these broad frames of reference to search for answers to why humans select sexual partners.
It's more complex than the simple transfer of genes from one generation to the next. It has as much to do with keeping pace with our main competitors; parasites via selection of disease free partners, as it has to do with intellectual stimulation or novelty.
Of course some of Ridley's examples are outdated, like the fact that there is no genetic disposition towards aggression, but he addresses this in his conclusion that he will probably be proven wrong as the science continues to prove new hypotheses.
A very interesting read that not only looks at sex and evolution but as the title says it also includes the ongoing continuing and intriguing debates about nature vs nurture and cooperation vs competition. Ridley leaves these as evenly weighted arguments and does not end up favoring one over another
It's more complex than the simple transfer of genes from one generation to the next. It has as much to do with keeping pace with our main competitors; parasites via selection of disease free partners, as it has to do with intellectual stimulation or novelty.
Of course some of Ridley's examples are outdated, like the fact that there is no genetic disposition towards aggression, but he addresses this in his conclusion that he will probably be proven wrong as the science continues to prove new hypotheses.
A very interesting read that not only looks at sex and evolution but as the title says it also includes the ongoing continuing and intriguing debates about nature vs nurture and cooperation vs competition. Ridley leaves these as evenly weighted arguments and does not end up favoring one over another
I tried to keep listening, but could not. It states sex is purely for reproduction, and while yes, it used to be and remains to be for many animals, this is an outdated take for humans and some other mammals. It is also disregarding of the fact there are several more sexes other than female and male. It also plays into incorrect assumptions about male and female nature, stating that males are "more aggressive" and other such common assumptions.
Too busy to complete. Saving for the summer.