Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.84 AVERAGE
3.84 AVERAGE
informative
medium-paced
I am glad to say I learned some things from this book. I learned things I didn't know about fungi, about insects, about a variety of birds, I learned that lemmings have three sex chromosomes, and I learned neat things about a variety of other animals.
Unfortunately I don't feel I actually learned a great deal about human sexuality. This might be due in part to the fact that I just took a child development class, it might be due to the age of the book (I got it quite a number of years ago and only now decided to actually read it. Oops!), it might also be due to the fact that the book is written by an old, white dude with a very narrow viewpoint.
Excerpt from Chapter 9:
"Incidentally, in this chapter on what makes people sexually attractive to one another, I am going to take almost all my examples from white Europeans, and from northern Europeans at that. By this I am not implying that white European standards of beauty are absolute and superior but merely that they are the only ones I know enough about to describe. There is no room for a separate investigation into the standards of beauty that black, Asian, or other people employ."
I feel like he's just excusing what he already knows to be bad form. If you're presenting something as scientific study just... do better. Research. Learn something and then share that information with your readers. Ugh.
There's a fair amount of misogynistic and anti-feminist nonsense right along with the racism and heteronormativity.
There's one line from the Epilogue that I am on board with though:
"Half the ideas in this book are probably wrong."
I love science and I am glad I finally read this book I was just hoping for something a bit better.
Unfortunately I don't feel I actually learned a great deal about human sexuality. This might be due in part to the fact that I just took a child development class, it might be due to the age of the book (I got it quite a number of years ago and only now decided to actually read it. Oops!), it might also be due to the fact that the book is written by an old, white dude with a very narrow viewpoint.
Excerpt from Chapter 9:
"Incidentally, in this chapter on what makes people sexually attractive to one another, I am going to take almost all my examples from white Europeans, and from northern Europeans at that. By this I am not implying that white European standards of beauty are absolute and superior but merely that they are the only ones I know enough about to describe. There is no room for a separate investigation into the standards of beauty that black, Asian, or other people employ."
I feel like he's just excusing what he already knows to be bad form. If you're presenting something as scientific study just... do better. Research. Learn something and then share that information with your readers. Ugh.
There's a fair amount of misogynistic and anti-feminist nonsense right along with the racism and heteronormativity.
There's one line from the Epilogue that I am on board with though:
"Half the ideas in this book are probably wrong."
I love science and I am glad I finally read this book I was just hoping for something a bit better.
Third attempt. I know what it's got to say so what's the point in slogging through.
A really good book that tells the usefulness of sex biologically.
A clear representation of sexual selection and why it normally doesn`t give completely outrageous forms.
Ending on human sexuality with parental care and how sexual selection could have shapen the human brain though neoteny.
A clear representation of sexual selection and why it normally doesn`t give completely outrageous forms.
Ending on human sexuality with parental care and how sexual selection could have shapen the human brain though neoteny.
I have no idea how the author has managed to make so much fit his topic but thats exactly how it feels. Lets see what we can twist and turn to fit; how often we can say the same thing and how many references we can use to prove it. I don't feel as If I followed half of it and I have a science based degree. That part i did follow seemed full of spurious links.
Ya había leído What makes us human y me había gustado mucho como una revisión de la genética y la psicología humana. Esperaba algo interesante de este libro, aunque con psicología evolucionista uno siempre sabe que tendrá algunos momentos de escepticismo al leer. Eso fué exactamente lo que obtuve.
Lo que si es que Matt Ridley tiene una agradable manera de escribir, buen sentido del humor y excelentes ejemplos. Una lectura amena aunque no se esté del todo de acuerdo con él.
Lo que si es que Matt Ridley tiene una agradable manera de escribir, buen sentido del humor y excelentes ejemplos. Una lectura amena aunque no se esté del todo de acuerdo con él.
Painfully dry and academic, while clearly written from an opinionated perspective. Maybe it is just that the evolutionary development of reproductive methods doesn't interest me as much as that of morality, but I found this book dull.
I found the ideas about natural selection fascinating, although I have a problem with a lot of the assumptions regarding natural selection. Definitely a worth while read though.
Would you like to more thoroughly understand why people are the way they are and why they do the crazy shit they do? If so, this book would be a great place to start. It's one of those ridiculously insight inducing reads. It's also one of those books that you absolutely can not judge by its cover. Or by its first and last chapters. Curious? Than by all means read on.
One of the things that put me off of the book (before I actually read it) was the title The Red Queen. I'm dreadfully embarrassed to admit that I assumed it had something to do with menstruation. Not that there's anything wrong with menstruation. I just wasn't particularly motivated to commit a decent chunk of my "one wild life" to a long form exploration of that particular subject.
When I actually read the book, I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't about menstruation at all. The title is actually a clever reference to Lewis Carroll's Red Queen from Through the Looking-Glass, a character who has to keep running to stay in the same place. Matt Ridley's hypothesis is that sex is essentially an organisms strategy for outwitting its constantly mutating internal predators (e.g. parasites, viruses etc.), a process he likens to an arms race. The point being, that in any sort of arms race, both sides work their asses off just to maintain their relative positions against the other. Essentially running in place. Hence "The Red Queen" analogy.
Another reason I was reluctant to read the book, before a I actually read the book, was that I was sort of convinced that sexual selection (as opposed to natural selection all red in tooth and claw) was the lesser feature of Darwin's dangerous idea. After actually reading the book, I have essentially experienced a 180 degree change in perspective. I now view sexual selection as possessing awesome explanatory power.
The Red Queen bravely attempts to address dozens of difficult questions regarding the otherwise mysterious workings of human nature and culture. Far form perfect. Provisional and dated. But nevertheless less brilliantly written and entertaining as all get out. The Red Queen offers an extraordinarily generative approach for interpreting the human condition and how it has evolved.
I highly recommend actually reading this book.
One of the things that put me off of the book (before I actually read it) was the title The Red Queen. I'm dreadfully embarrassed to admit that I assumed it had something to do with menstruation. Not that there's anything wrong with menstruation. I just wasn't particularly motivated to commit a decent chunk of my "one wild life" to a long form exploration of that particular subject.
When I actually read the book, I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't about menstruation at all. The title is actually a clever reference to Lewis Carroll's Red Queen from Through the Looking-Glass, a character who has to keep running to stay in the same place. Matt Ridley's hypothesis is that sex is essentially an organisms strategy for outwitting its constantly mutating internal predators (e.g. parasites, viruses etc.), a process he likens to an arms race. The point being, that in any sort of arms race, both sides work their asses off just to maintain their relative positions against the other. Essentially running in place. Hence "The Red Queen" analogy.
Another reason I was reluctant to read the book, before a I actually read the book, was that I was sort of convinced that sexual selection (as opposed to natural selection all red in tooth and claw) was the lesser feature of Darwin's dangerous idea. After actually reading the book, I have essentially experienced a 180 degree change in perspective. I now view sexual selection as possessing awesome explanatory power.
The Red Queen bravely attempts to address dozens of difficult questions regarding the otherwise mysterious workings of human nature and culture. Far form perfect. Provisional and dated. But nevertheless less brilliantly written and entertaining as all get out. The Red Queen offers an extraordinarily generative approach for interpreting the human condition and how it has evolved.
I highly recommend actually reading this book.
informative
slow-paced