Amazon.com
E.O. Wilson defines sociobiology as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior," the central theoretical problem of which is the question of how behaviors that seemingly contradict the principles of natural selection, such as altruism, can develop. Sociobiology: A New Synthesis, Wilson's first attempt to outline the new field of study, was first published in 1975 and called for a fairly revolutionary update to the so-called Modern Synthesis of evolutionary biology. Sociobiology as a new field of study demanded the active inclusion of sociology, the social sciences, and the humanities in evolutionary theory. Often criticized for its apparent message of "biological destiny," Sociobiology set the stage for such controversial works as Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene and Wilson's own Consilience.

Sociobiology defines such concepts as society, individual, population, communication, and regulation. It attempts to explain, biologically, why groups of animals behave the way they do when finding food or shelter, confronting enemies, or getting along with one another.Wilson seeks to explain how group selection, altruism, hierarchies, and sexual selection work in populations of animals, and to identify evolutionary trends and sociobiological characteristics of all animal groups, up to and including man. The insect sections of the books are particularly interesting, given Wilson's status as the world's most famous entomologist.

It is fair to say that as an ecological strategy eusociality has been overwhelmingly successful. It is useful to think of an insect colony as a diffuse organism, weighing anywhere from less than a gram to as much as a kilogram and possessing from about a hundred to a million or more tiny mouths.

It's when Wilson starts talking about human beings that the furor starts. Feminists have been among the strongest critics of the work, arguing that humans are not slaves to a biological destiny, forever locked in "primitive" behavior patterns without the ability to reason past our biochemical nature. Like The Origin of Species, Sociobiology has forced many biologists and social scientists to reassess their most cherished notions of how life works. --Therese Littleton Book Description
View a video on Professor Wilson entitled "On the Relation of Science and the Humanities"

Harvard University Press is proud to announce the re-release of the complete original version of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis--now available in paperback for the first time. When this classic work was first published in 1975, it created a new discipline and started a tumultuous round in the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Although voted by officers and fellows of the international Animal Behavior Society the most important book on animal behavior of all time, Sociobiology is probably more widely known as the object of bitter attacks by social scientists and other scholars who opposed its claim that human social behavior, indeed human nature, has a biological foundation. The controversy surrounding the publication of the book reverberates to the present day.

In the introduction to this Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition, Edward O. Wilson shows how research in human genetics and neuroscience has strengthened the case for a biological understanding of human nature. Human sociobiology, now often called evolutionary psychology, has in the last quarter of a century emerged as its own field of study, drawing on theory and data from both biology and the social sciences.

For its still fresh and beautifully illustrated descriptions of animal societies, and its importance as a crucial step forward in the understanding of human beings, this anniversary edition of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis will be welcomed by a new generation of students and scholars in all branches of learning. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (10)

As good as science can be
This book caused a lot of controversy in the 70's because it states that humans are animals and that their societies can be investigated and understood by biology. Apparently since Darwin called humans animals no other scientist had caused such anger among the ones who "think" of themselves as the reason for the existence of the Universe.

Very thought provoking!
This book covers nearly the whole gamut of animal behavior and from many species.It was very detailed and I loved its philosophical bent.I didn't necessarily agree with all of Wilson's conclusions but this work was very absorbing.If you have any interest in animal or human behavior read this book!

The Tests of Time
Dr. Wilson's "Sociobiology," together with "The Insect Societies" and "On Human Nature" (that three volume set is essential to any thinking man's library) is sufficient to challenge and focus any perspective on Evolution and Society.These volumes, even after 30 yrs., simply do not allow themselves to be ignored.Someone without both concentration and some technical background will have a tough time with "Sociobiology."Dr. Wilson presents a very detailed argument, quite reminescent of "Insect Societies."That said, the writing style is engaging and clearly directed at the non-professional reader.The Point:I gave copies of all three volumes to my children when they left home for the university.

Good read, but more like ascience textbook
Having been a science major, this book at times reminded me of reading a biology textbook. At other times though, the author does use his literary skills and story telling ability and keeping things humourous; especially when he tells of the murder, deception, treachery, intrigue and chemical warfare of his beloved ants.

There is A LOT of theory in this book. He will typically describe an organisms behavior or behavioral trends and then desrcibe the competing hypothoses for these trends, phenomena or divergance from these typical trends.

Like I said though, this book is technical. Don't attempt reading it unless you have completed 2 courses of undergrad biology and calculus, as well as chemisty (most of the chemicals used by ants and the like involve simple organic compounds I was a chem major myself.)

In other words, this is not like On Human Nature or Journey to the Ants: This is more like a 3rd or 4th year advanced biology course textbook.

Recommended by a dissenter
Great read!Well written, well thought out but I disagree strongly with parallels drawn with human societies.Would recommend this wholeheartedly for every thoughtful reader. ... Read more

Amazon.com
Scientists tend to be a bit insecure about their position in society. Nowhere is this more evident than in the decades-old sociobiology debate, and behavioral scientist John Alcock tries to shore up his side against the sometimes hysterical opposition in The Triumph of Sociobiology. Inevitably, the book is somewhat defensive and apologetic, but the author explains himself and his field well and will convince most readers that studying the evolution of behavior is no more controversial than any other aspect of evolution. Between charming, engaging tales of field study and intriguing analyses of the chief arguments against sociobiology, Alcock disarms the reader's natural discomfort with the topic and makes his case clearly.

Humans have not always had all the cultural accouterments of Hutus or Englishmen. At one time not so many million years ago, our ancestors could make only rudimentary tools while surely communicating in a far less sophisticated manner than we do currently. The immense increase in brain size over the last million or so years must have had profound consequences for our capacity to learn and acquire our culture. If you accept the less-than-revolutionary assumption that brains are necessary for learned behavior, then past selection on hominids that varied in their capacity for culture is a certainty.

But doesn't sociobiology justify rape, racism, and genocide? Not so fast, says Alcock. Just because behavior has a natural explanation, that doesn't make it moral. It would seem that those who want to prevent this sort of behavior would be keenly interested in understanding why it manifests, but often the opposite case pertains. Through gentle dissection of the differences between scientific and ethical knowledge, Alcock shows that we can use them to complement each other. The Triumph of Sociobiology takes time and care to examine all the claims made against the field, both political and scientific, and ends up making a strong case for deeper research. --Rob LightnerBook Description
In The Triumph of Sociobiology, John Alcock reviews the controversy that has surrounded evolutionary studies of human social behavior following the 1975 publication of E.O. Wilson's classic, Sociobiology, The New Synthesis.Denounced vehemently as an "ideology" that has justified social evils and inequalities, sociobiology has survived the assault.Twenty-five years after the field was named by Wilson, the approach he championed has successfully demonstrated its value in the study of animal behavior, including the behavior of our own species.Yet, misconceptions remain--to our disadvantage. In this straight-forward, objective approach to the sociobiology debate, noted animal behaviorist John Alcock illuminates how sociobiologists study behavior in all species.He confronts the chief scientific and ideological objections head on, with a compelling analysis of case histories that involve such topics as sexual jealousy, beauty, gender difference, parent-offspring relations, and rape.In so doing, he shows that sociobiology provides the most satisfactory evolutionary analysis of social behavior today. "A clear, evocative, and accurate account of the history and content on the subject, inviting to the student and the general reader alike."--Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (10)

A good book, with caveats
First let me say that I found this book interesting and convincing; I considered giving it 5 stars.

Second, let me say that if you are looking at this book because you read the highly popular book "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" and you are hoping that this similarly named book is similar in presentation and content, beware -- it is not.Carl Zimmer's book on evolution is a beautifully illustrated, highly readable book for the masses; this book is not.If you are not already well-versed on the mechanics of evolution, or for some reason can't accept them, then it seems unlikely that you will truly understand this book.

Third, I consider the title of this book slightly inappropriate for the book's content.Better titles might be
- In Defense of Sociobiology
- Sociobiology: the Maligned Science
A constant theme throughout the book is that detractors of sociobiology have judged the discipline unfairly.Alcock makes an excellent case for this, particularly in the chapter near the end on practical applications of the discipline.Still, this is probably the most defensive book I have ever read -- quite a lot of text is devoted to what opponents of sociobiology say and why they are wrong, so understand what this book is: a defense of the discipline in the face of harsh, even abusive criticism.Of course, Alcock explains a lot about sociobiology in the process of defending it.

If you're OK with that, and you have the appropriate background and interest to read about how natural selection appears to have shaped the behavioral mechanisms of birds and beetles, then you will find this a good read.

The controversy over sociobiology is evident in discussions about why some men rape women.Sociobiology explores, via the scientific method, the possibility that there could be a genetic influence -- i.e. that in our ancient ancestral males, genes that increased the likelihood of rape might have been more likely to be passed on to future generations.The problem many people have with this is that they feel that an argument that there is anything in our genome which would contribute to the likelihood of a man raping a woman is in effect a justification of rape, a declaration that rape is natural and therefore morally excusable.Alcock does an excellent job of dealing with this subject in his chapter on practical applications, and in fact turns the tables by explaining the harm in pretending that there is no such influence if in fact there is.

Alcock makes repeated mention of "blank slate theorists" -- those who believe that the human brain is not genetically predisposed to any behavior, instead being "programmed" by its environment.To me it seems incredible that anyone could think that humans are exempt from genetic influences on behavior.

Take human obesity, for example.In the environment of our ancient (pre-human, no doubt) ancestors, it was a highly useful adaptation to be able to detect the presence of sugars and fats in vegetable matter and to preferentially eat such tissues.It is easy to imagine how individuals with such genes would be more likely to survive to pass on their genes.

Fast-forward to the 21st century, when we are less active physically but have stores chock full of foods with very high concentrations of fats and sugars.Our taste buds direct us to such foods.The result? -- maladaptive behavior, poor eating habits that lead to obesity, diabetes, and a host of other problems.Isn't it clear...
- that genes influence our behavior?
- that those influences may be maladaptive in the modern environment?
- that genomic influences on our behavior do not imply moral correctness?
If you were trying to combat obesity in the population through education, would you shy away from talking about these genetic contributions for fear that people would consider it natural and good to eat lots of sugars and fats?Or would you help people understand these tendencies in hopes that they would understand that what feels good is not necessarily good for them and ultimately exercise more control in their dietary choices?

And given that human reproductive systems come online at about age 13 but many modern cultures don't condone sex at that age, would acknowledging that there is a genetic basis for sexual desire at that age effectively condone teenage sex and make it more rampant?Should we deny that there is any such genetic foundation, instead treating teenage sexual desire as a cultural artifact -- the "in thing" -- so as not to imply its moral correctness?Would that help?

I'm making up these examples and I'm not a sociobiologist, so take them with a grain of salt, but hopefully they illustrate the point: what would it mean if there were genetic influences that contribute to behaviors that we consider objectionable?

This book, for those with sufficient background, is a good treatment of sociobiology itself and the controversy around it.

Biology, Yes.Social, Triumphant? No
First, the good news.Judging from the cases reported in this book biologists have done some good field work that can help frame the study of sociobiology and answer some questions about competition.Mating is a social act because it involves two individuals.Therefore the studies in this bookwhich are mostly about reproduction are, strictly speaking, about a social aspect of biology.

But Alcock has limited his universe of discourse to only the physical acts associated with reproduction. He looks only at the competitive aspects of sociobiology. At one point he declares that 'fitness' is 'reproductive fitness' - i.e. success in reproduction. Fitness is an individual quality, not one of a population.(This is a peculiar view and one that feminists might naturally object to because if one digs deeply one sees that itoften assumes implicitly that fitness pertains only to males and that males reproduce without much help from females.) Thus any behaviors that do not increase one's number of offspring are irrellevant in reckoning fitness. (leading me to wonder how many offspring the writing of this book resulted in for the author. And if none, what its use might have been to the author. Or its reading to us?) Alcock's is alimited definition of fitness that can only be made by a person who lives in a country filled with peopleand livestock who never starve.A country bereft of any other interesting biology.Social behavior in the absence of want reduces exactly to this: copulation and production of offspring.

But all species evolve in an environment with physical limitations.If predation and emigration and disease fail to control population density, then famine will do so.Social behavior of many animals that have escaped predation has evolved to take periodic shortage into consideration. William's thought experiment that Alcock cites to dismiss population-based ideas about fitness seems not to take this idea into account.(One can in a short afternoon prove mathematically that cooperation can arise evolutionarily in species exposed to periodic food scarcity.) Since the whole of Alcock's view of sociobiology is based on the frequently false assumption of plentitude, it manages to illuminate just part of the world of sociobiology.And it happens to be the UNSOCIAL part.

The triumph of sociobiology, presumably, is that it is scientific. But Alcock's defenses againstGould's argument thatsociobiology is 'just stories' are not completely persuasive. For example, the single example of social behavior in the book that did not deal with some aspect of mating and competition for mating rites involved some insects that live on the surface of the water.They tend to congregate in groups. Why? The researchers tested the hypothesis that 'the reason' had to do with safety. The researcher did a bunch of experiments with some of these bugs and some predatory fish and discovered that the bigger the group of bugs, the higher the 'strike rate'and plots a straightline over the data which does not fit very well.The conclusion? I forget. The analysis is unconvincing. Here is an alternative analysis:

If one assumed that the bugs assembled in a circle, and that the probability of observation were related to the diameter of the circle, then the strike rate would go up with the square root of the group size. Plot this relationship on the chart and the fit is better.The resulting story is that an individual probability of loss to predation, in this case, is something like inversely proportional to the square root of the number in the group.Good, so it's predation.

Not so fast. As Wilson points out early in his book on Sociobiology, finding an explanatory model does not necessarily prove that it is the right one.He even cites the grouping example as one of these problems.Another explanation is that it makes mating more convenient, for example. In predatory animals it produces opportunities for cooperation and increases the likelihood of success in hunting.How big a role does each mechanism play? How dependent is this upon species?Diet? Animal size? Alcock's writing seems to get not much closer to the answer than Wilson was 25 years earlier, even though it implicitly claims to do so.

There are a lot of interesting observations in this book. And as a book of interesting observations in biology it is pretty good. To the extent that we wish to define all social action as being competitive in nature, the book is about sociobiology.

But the ultimate role of science is to inform those outside its prestigious circles.And sociobiology, if it is to play any role in informing our knowledge of human social interaction must take into account the forces that give rise ot cooperative behavior outside of the direct realm of copulation.If sociobiology as a science can play a helpful role in the world it cannot be only in helping us understand the role of competitive forces, but also the role of cooperative ones.And in denying a biological basis of cooperative forces, Alcock goes much further in undermining the reputation of sociobiology than Wilson ever did.In illuminating the cooperative aspects of sociobiology, "Triumph ..." is a dismal failure.Read Wilson's Sociobiology, and go from there.

proximate and ultimate causes
Has sociobiology triumphed? I am afraid yes, in all its forms. Doesn't matter whether you call it sociobiology or evolutionary ecology, animal behavior, evolutionary psychology, etc., the underlying principle, the neo-Darwinian perspective to explain the evolution of organisms, including their social behavior has become paradigm. There is no more debate as it happened in the 70s and 80s. Actually this book doesn't refer much to such debate. This book is basically a review of the state of the art of animal social behavior from the neo-Darwinian perspective. In that sense the book largely succeeds in making you understand what the state of this art is.

Perhaps the best quality of this book is that it helps to clearly distinguish the meaning and differences of proximate and ultimate causes. Once you understand the division it will change the way you see your everyday life. You will be more indulgent with apparently stupid human behaviors, but also stronger to get free of the iron claw of the proximate causes.

Alcock's narrative is clear and comprehensible, and you don't need any strong background in biology to understand the contents. If you happen to have such background you won't find yourself bored with redundancies.

Chapters eight and nine, dedicated to human culture and the practical applications of sociobiology have some wonderful parts. For instance, I was especially delighted reading about the effect of eye-contact-policies by checkout workers in a big supermarket chain and the too-positive response of male clients.

At the end you will find an interesting list of selected references. I find it a really good selection, and I also liked that is a short list, only the most interesting books from the field.

This was a necessary book, and Alcock did it well. I recommend you read it!

Clarity and common sense
The main characteristic of this work is the laudable clarity with which Alcock explains some difficult ideas--even this novice achieved a distinct feeling that he had assimilated a valuable method for understanding human behavior. In a field whose rivals such as theology, Marxism, deconstructionism, and such pseudo-sciences as psychoanalysis, which are governed by an unquenchable thirst for obscure jargon and a perverse interest in counter-intuitive concepts, Alcock shows that ordinary language can be used to explicate a powerful scientific theory that can be understood by anyone ready to reject the politically correct dogmas that are so forcefully projected by the mass media and the relics of the past, such as Stephen Jay Gould.

The book is well organized, and gives a clear picture of where the methods and findings of sociobiology stand today.It covers many interesting case studies that are good examples showing how it is a scientific field, with all the trappings of fresh insights, tested hypotheses, voluminous data, clearly stated methods, and all the excitement that comes with a field progressing rapidly through the research of hundreds of honest investigators.

Alcock is perhaps at his strongest when he responds to the attacks on the field in a measured and powerful cadence of common sense.Understanding human behavior is a field that everyone believes himself to be expert in, but is unfortunately filled with a baggage of historical nonsense and politically inspired biases.It is at once "the proper study of man" and the playground of charlatans.Seeing the progress that the science of sociobiology has made in the last thirty years, generates a feeling that must be much like that experienced by the people of the late 18th century, who saw chemistry replace alchemy.

What it is and isn't
A short introduction to what sociobiology is (the search for evolved adaptations in behavior) and equally what it is not. A useful antidote to the misrepresentations of sociobiology that abound in some areas (Gould, Angier, most to the popular press). Interesting examples and up to date. ... Read more

Amazon.com
E.O. Wilson defines sociobiology as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior," the central theoretical problem of which is the question of how behaviors that seemingly contradict the principles of natural selection, such as altruism, can develop. Sociobiology: A New Synthesis, Wilson's first attempt to outline the new field of study, was first published in 1975 and called for a fairly revolutionary update to the so-called Modern Synthesis of evolutionary biology. Sociobiology as a new field of study demanded the active inclusion of sociology, the social sciences, and the humanities in evolutionary theory. Often criticized for its apparent message of "biological destiny," Sociobiology set the stage for such controversial works as Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene and Wilson's own Consilience.

Sociobiology defines such concepts as society, individual, population, communication, and regulation. It attempts to explain, biologically, why groups of animals behave the way they do when finding food or shelter, confronting enemies, or getting along with one another. Wilson seeks to explain how group selection, altruism, hierarchies, and sexual selection work in populations of animals, and to identify evolutionary trends and sociobiological characteristics of all animal groups, up to and including man. The insect sections of the books are particularly interesting, given Wilson's status as the world's most famous entomologist.

It is fair to say that as an ecological strategy eusociality has been overwhelmingly successful. It is useful to think of an insect colony as a diffuse organism, weighing anywhere from less than a gram to as much as a kilogram and possessing from about a hundred to a million or more tiny mouths.

It's when Wilson starts talking about human beings that the furor starts. Feminists have been among the strongest critics of the work, arguing that humans are not slaves to a biological destiny, forever locked in "primitive" behavior patterns without the ability to reason past our biochemical nature. Like The Origin of Species, Sociobiology has forced many biologists and social scientists to reassess their most cherished notions of how animals work. --Therese Littleton Book Description
View a video on Professor Wilson entitled "On the Relation of Science and the Humanities"

... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Impressive
Wilson really is one of the "twentieth centuries greatest thinkers."This is a dense and demanding publication requiring a scientifically literate audience.It covers basic concepts from altruism, selfishness, and spite; including communication, aggression, social roles, sex, and parenting from "invertebrates" to vertebrates.

Now, in 2007, this is really more of a 'classic'.For intro students, I'd first recommend getting your footing with "Animal Behavior" by Alcock, and *then progressing into more technically written publications like this one.

must read if intrested in zoology or evolution
an excellent book. although alot of parts may be hard to understand it is relatively easier than the unabridged version.

get this if your intrested in biology ... Read more

Book Description
Co-Winner, 1987 Lakatos Award in Philosophy of Science sponsored by the London School of Economics & Political Science.

Vaulting Ambition is the first extensive and detailed evaluation of the controversial claims that sociobiologists have made about human nature and human social behavior. It raises the "sociobiology debate" to a new level, moving beyond arguments about the politics of the various parties involved, the degree to which sociobiology assumes genetic determinism, or the falsifiability of the general theory.

Sociobiology has made a great deal of noise in the popular intellectual culture. Vaulting Ambition cuts through the charges and counter-charges to take a hard look at the claims and analyses offered by the sociobiologists. It examines what the claims mean, how they relate to standard evolutionary theory, how the biological models are supposed to work, and what is wrong with the headline-grabbing proclamations of human sociobiology. In particular, it refutes the notions that humans are trapped by their evolutionary biology and history in endlessly repeating patterns of aggression, xenophobia, and deceitfulness, or that the inequities of sex, race, and class are genetically based or culturally determined. And it takes up issues of human altruism, freedom, and ethics as well.

Kitcher weighs the evidence for sociobiology, for human sociobiology, and for "the pop sociobiological view" of human nature that has engendered the controversy. He concludes that in the field of nonhuman animal studies, rigorous and methodologically sound work about the social lives of insects, birds, and mammals has been done. But in applying the theories to human beings-where even more exacting standards of evidence are called for because of the potential social disaster inherent in adopting a working hypothesis as a basis for public policy - many of the same scientists become wildly speculative, building grand conclusions from what Kitcher shows to be shoddy analysis and flimsy argument.

While it may be possible to develop a genuine science of human behavior based on evolutionary biology, genetics, cognition, and culture, Kitcher points out that the sociobiology that has been loudly advertised in the popular and intellectual press is not it. Pop sociobiology has in fact been felled by its overambitious and overreaching creators.

Philip Kitcher is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, and Director of its Center for the Philosophy of Science. He brings a unique combination of training in philosophy, mathematics, and biology to this thorough treatment of sociobiology. Kitcher is the author of an equally searching book on "Scientific" Creationism, Abusing Science, published by The MIT Press in 1982 and available in paperback. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Difficult to navigate.
I bought this book to do a term paper containing the subject of sociobiology.I did not have time to read it page-to-page; and I was disappointed in 1) the abbreviated index (very slight); and 2) the the silly chapter names, like:"A Bicycle is Not Enough; From Nature Up; The Rules of the Games..." You get the picture--I could not find anything!This book is very difficult to navigate.Forget it.

I do not recommend anyone purchase this; it is old and difficult.

Outdated in Detail, Still a Telling Critique in Broad Outline
Edward O. Wilson's great work Sociobiology unleashed a furor of vitriolic criticism from mainstream social scientists, who preferred purely cultural models of human behavior, and from politically progressive crusaders who believed that the appropriate socialization processes could overcome the selfishness and mean-spiritedness inculcated by the possessive individualism fostered by modern capitalism. Both groups were deeply offended by the attempt to give biological explanations for human behavioral propensities. The ensuing steamy controversy is reviewed admirably by Ullica Segerstrale in her book, Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Philip Kitcher's Vaulting Ambition may well be the only contribution to this debate that remains of scientific interest today, although Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin probably deserve a place with their famous paper, "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205 (1979):581-598. Sociobiology has come a long way since this book, however. Kitcher mentions but does not deal with Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman's seminal work, Cultural Transmission and Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), and does not mention the equally great Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson, Culture and the Evolutionary Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985). The important contributions ofEvolutionary Psychology were still some years away, in the form of Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (eds.) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Similarly, most of the great evolutionary anthropological works of the behavioral ecologists had yet to be written in 1985. For this reason, Kitcher's book is outdated. But some of its broad arguments remain cogent today, and this book is well worth reading by anyone interested in the topic.

The basic critique is summed up in the Postscript (p. 435): "Sociobiology has two faces. One looks toward the social behavior of nonhuman animals. The eyes are carefully focused, the lips pursed judiciously. Utterances are made only with caution. The other face is almost hidden behind a megaphone. With great excitement, pronouncements about human nature blare forth." Kitcher's point is that the sociobiology of non-human animals is carefully integrated into the research scholarship of animal behaviorists, where it is subject to minute scrutiny. There, Kitcher recognizes that evolutionary theory has had great impact. He would be much more impressed today, I suspect, since the evolutionary game-theoretic approach now dominates the field. In human sociobiology, by contrast, there were a few high-profile books that captured the attention of the public, but did not engage in the painstaking gathering of experimental and field data that would turn speculation into scientific fact.

The scientific basis for sociobiology is immeasurably advanced over its state two decades ago. While the great public debate was in progress, researchers like Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, Boyd and Richerson, Cosmides and Tooby, Daly and Wilson, Boehm, Hawkes, Kaplan, Wiessner and many others have established the biological foundations of human behavior as a fruitful field of study. Nevertheless, debates based on highly speculative assertions rage in the popular science press, fueled by the considerable expository skills of Robert Wright, Stephen Pinker, Mat Ridley, and others. Moreover, modern-day sociobiologists, who are more likely to call themselves "evolutionary biologists," continue to exhibit two traits which are major subjects of attack by Kitcher. The first is to see every human characteristic as a biological adaptation with a genetic basis, and the second is to consider biological adaptations as aspects of human nature that are basically immutable through cultural intervention. Neither of these is reasonable. On the first count, human characteristics are the product of gene-culture coevolution, not genes alone, and the cultural elements are often dominant. For instance, in human society, increased longevity and wealth has led to a decrease in family size (the so-called "demographic revolution"), which is directly fitness-reducing by definition. Our species is, indeed, the only known species to which the Malthusian population mechanism does not apply in full force. To call this behavior a biological adaptation is absurd. On the second count, while sociobiologists are doubtless correct in asserting that there are genetic differences between men and women that lead to consistent behavioral differences, it is likely that egalitarian institutions and gender-neutral cultural norms can promote a high degree of gender equality in modern societies.

Kitcher's critique of E. O. Wilson (p. 181ff) on this count is very telling. Kitcher notes that sociobiologists have pointed to the failure of the Israeli kibbutzim as an example of the immutability of the sexual division of labor. He suggests, quite rightly, that there are many alternatives to the kibbutz besides the patriarchal family. And so there are!

There is also one extremely important difference between the politics of sociobiology today and yesteryear. Kitcher takes it as axiomatic that sociobiology is profoundly conservative, racist, sexist, and intolerant of diverse life-styles (e.g., homosexuality). I have my doubts about this characterization of the sociobiologists of the period, but there can be no question but that this is how they were perceived by the public and their intellectual enemies. This is no longer the case. While dyed-in-the-wool Marxists still rant about the conservatism of contemporary sociobiology, by and large its proponents have shed this image and are widely appreciated for creative insights in promoting racial and gender equality, tolerance of diversity, and opposition to senseless violence.

Kitcher asserts there is no general sociobiological theory (p. 118), so there is no overarching critique of sociobiology, but only piecemeal critique of each of its many assertions. This critique was doubtless correct, although I now think that gene-culture coevolutionary theory is an encompassing framework for contemporary sociobiology (others believe that Evolutionary Psychology holds this position).

The later chapters of the book are less successful. Kitcher's critique of Lumsden and Wilson,Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) is correct, but his time would have been better spent dealing with a better book; e.g., the Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman book published in the same year. Kitcher's critique of the "Panglossian" tendency of sociobiology is mostly wrong, and certainly out of date. Of course, the idea that natural selection leads to optima is generally fallacious, but this has little to do with sociobiology. Finally, Kitcher's defense of traditional philosophical approaches to ethics (altruism, free will, morality), is interesting and spirited, but I think it is just wrong. Philosophers would do well, I believe, to take an evolutionary approach to ethics, rather than the Platonic, axiomatic approach that they tend to take.

A Critique of Sociobiology
In a field of much debate and little substance, this is one of the most useful and cogent critiques of sociobiology of Lumsden and Wilson, with a very detailed examination of the limitations in their mathematical modelling. ... Read more

Book Description
"In his new preface E. O. Wilson reflects on how he came to write this book: how The Insect Societies led him to write Sociobiology, and how the political and religious uproar that engulfed that book persuaded him to write another book that would better explain the relevance of biology to the understanding of human behavior." ... Read more

Customer Reviews (27)

head or tail? can you control the human nature using so complex technology?
Wilson's take-on the human nature sometimes approaches to reductionism and biological determism but he draws a delicate line leaving HN unpredictable and complex enough not to be manipulated.This book is probably the best in trying to explain the human behavior (sex, altruism,religion..etc) in relation with genetic and cultural evolution. The latter started to evolve for some 10.000 years since human first became hunter gatherer while the former has lasted millions years. taking on each main topic briefly Wilson have targeted layman and thus simplified the matter to be easily digestible.
I found Steven Pinker's Blank Slate highly influenced by Wilson. Blank Slate is a good book if readers would like to read similar books.

An important book, if a bit outdated nowadays...
An oldie but a goodie. Published in 1978, On Human Nature completes Wilson's self-declared "trilogy" (The Insect Societies, 1971, and Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1975) that proposes the scientific search for genetic explanations for social behavior in animals, including humans.

Then and now, Wilson has been criticized by both religious and atheistic folks for reducing human behavior to the cold and limiting science of genetics. However, I didn't read it that way at all. Over and Over Wilson emphasizes the complexity, and that these are merely tendencies that are indeed influenced by environment (nurture). Consider that men tend to be faster than women, but that a female Olympic runner will always beat the average man in a race.

Some people in my book club had difficulty with some of the science, but I didn't at all (partially due to a minor in anthropology, and a cultivated layman's interest in science), so I doubt the average skeptic would have difficulty reading and fully understanding this book.

While this book was rather groundbreaking when it first came out, further developments in evolutionary psychology make it look rather dated, as do passages like these:

"There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind's rare altruistic impulses. The support for this radical hypothesis..."

Hmmm, not so radical these days. This one's even better:

"...note that it is already within our reach to build computers with the memory capacity of a human brain. Such an instrument is admittedly not very practical: it would occupy most of the space of the Empire State Building and draw down an amount of energy equal to half the output of the Grand Coulee Dam. In the 1980's, however, when new "bubble memory" elements already in the experimental stage are added, the computer might be shrunk to fill a suite of offices on one floor of the same building."

Tee hee hee.

But most of Wilson's book still have powerful and provacative messages for today's readers. The preface and first four chapters prove to be a bit of a slow setup, but the next four: "Aggression", "Sex", "Altruism", and "Religion" vividly suggest naturalistic explanations for moral and ethical tendencies in each of these areas. Wilson deals with all the juicy issues: racism, male-female roles, good-n-evil, etc. This is great stuff to memorize for debates with absolute moralists. The chapter on "Religion" is sort of a precursor to Daniel Dennet's new book Breaking the Spell. Although Wilson's ultimate conclusion is clear: no amount of naturalistic explaining of religious belief will stop people from believing. Here's a bold statement coming from a scientific humanist:

"The predisposition to religious belief is the most complex and powerful force in the human mind and in all probability an ineradicable part of human nature."

Wilson spends a good amount of time explaining and giving examples of an interesting concept called "hypertrophy" or as it is defined in the Glossary:

"The extreme development of a preexisting structure. The elephant's tusk, for example, represents the hypertophic enlargement and change in shape through evolution of a tooth that originally had an ordinary form. In this book it is suggested that most kinds of human social behavior are hypertrophic forms of original, simpler responses that were of more direct adaptive advantage in hunter-gatherer and primitively agricultural societies."

It is fascinating, to say the least, to read about the enslavement of women compared to an elephant's tusk (hypertrophy via genetic tendency plus extreme cultural exaggeration). Almost as cool as seeing human self-sacrifice compared with that of bees and wasps.

Thought provoking in every page
It is rare that I read a book which makes me stop and think at every page. Littered with deep insights and interesting information, and still an easy read. E.O. Wilson projects a briliant mind that knows how to express and communicate his thoughts to any reader. Being a scientist myself (Physics), this book was a great vehicle to learn on sociobiology. Wilson has an incredible ability to provide just enough facts to support his ideas in a clear and economical style. I wish more scientist would know how to write like him. A pleasure from beginning to end.

Thinking about how we think.
Since the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, a whole slew of fields have arisen in the life sciences that relate various aspects of life, its meaning, history and its manifestations, to genetics.Correspondingly, there has been a growth of related literature.This classic by E. O. Wilson is one such work.Probably one of the more widely read authors in the life sciences, this is one of the more influential and widely read books by him.In short, this book provides explanations for various human behaviors by examining how they help to advance the gene pool of both the individual manifesting the behavior, and the species itself.As such, culture, religion, language, government, and free will itself are all brought under the domain and hence pressures of human evolution.The book is itself quite easy to read for both scientists and non-scientists.Yet it is difficult to read in that at times the book mixes commentary with opinion with fact.Not a standard textbook this is.It reads more like an introduction to a new way of thinking... about how humans think!In all a recommended book for anyone who ever pondered the meaning of it all.

Thought-provoking, enduringly valuable, & highly recommended
If Edward O. Wilson's On Human Nature sounds familiar, it's because this printing represents the 25th anniversary of the original classic that gave birth to the field of evolutionary psychology. Adding a new preface to this edition, Wilson reflects on how he came to write the book which would led to a political, religious and scientific uproar. A seminal, groundbreaking, informative, thought-provoking, enduringly valuable, and highly recommended read.
... Read more

Amazon.com
How do scientists separate their politics from their work--or is such a distinction even possible? These questions frame the two levels of sociologist Ullica Segerstrale's analysis of the sociobiology controversy, Defenders of the Truth. From E.O. Wilson's 1975 publication of Sociobiology to his 1998 release of Consilience, he has consistently been the often-unwilling center of the vitriolic debate over human nature and its scientific study. Heavy hitters like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and John Maynard Smith have lined up to attack and defend the scientific, political, and moral interpretations and implications of Wilson's synthesis, and Dr. Segerstrale tells a compelling story of their battles on multiple fronts. The author knows her science, having trained extensively in biochemistry before turning to sociology. While she distances herself from assessing the validity of the various claims, Segerstrale is clearly sympathetic to Wilson, who seems almost naïve at times when his ideas are interpreted ideologically rather than scientifically.

That, of course, is the heart of the contention surrounding sociobiology. The political left, well-represented among evolutionary biologists, has long considered any genetic influence on human behavior anathema--such theories are believed to support racist policies, even in the unlikely event that they were not merely reflections of racist attitudes. To their credit, many scientists held more complex beliefs, but some used the ideological argument as a back door to introduce their own neo-Darwinian scientific theories. The struggle for understanding has been eclipsed for some time by the struggle for political and academic survival and dominance, and Segerstrale reports and scrutinizes both with humor, intelligence, and aplomb. The end of the controversy--if there can be one--is far off, but a careful reading of Defenders of the Truth will give insight into the forces influencing our scientific self-examination. --Rob Lightner Book Description
For the last twenty-five years, sociobiologists have come under continuous attack by a group of left-wing academics, who have accused the former of dubious and politically dangerous science.Many have taken the critics' charges at face value.But have the critics been right?And what are their own motivations?This book strives to set the record straight.It shows that the criticism has typically been unfair.Still, it cannot be dismissed as "purely politically motivated".It turns out that the critics and the sociobiologists live in different worlds of taken-for-granted scientific and moral convictions.The conflict over sociobiology is best interpreted as a drawn-out battle about the nature of "good science" and the social responsibility of the scientist, while it touches on such grand themes as the unity of knowledge, the nature of man, and free will and determinism. The author has stepped right into the hornet's nest of claims and counterclaims, moral concerns, metaphysical beliefs, political convictions, strawmen, red herrings, and gossip, gossip, gossip.She listens to the protagonists - but also to their colleagues. She checks with "arbiters". She plays the devil's advocate. And everyone is eager to tell her the truth - as they see it.The picture that emerges is a different one from the standard view of the sociobiology debate as a politically motivated nature-nurture conflict.Instead, we are confronted with a world of scientific and moral long-term agendas, for which the sociobiology debate became a useful vehicle.Behind the often nasty attacks, however, were shared Enlightenment concerns for universal truth, morality and justice.The protagonists were all defenders of the truth - it was just that everyone's truth was different.Defenders of the Truth provides a fascinating insight into the world of science.It follows the sociobiology controversy as it erupted at Harvard in 1975 until today, both in the US and the UK.But the story goes more deeply, for instance in its account of the circumstances surrounding W.D. Hamilton's famous 1964 paper on inclusive fitness, and in the connections of the sociobiology debate to the Human Genome project and the Science Wars.General readers and academics alike will find much to savour in this book. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (20)

Planters and Weeders
This book succeeds on three levels.

First, as others have noted, it is indeed a real page-turner.(I actually read several chapters ALOUD to a friend on a long drive.)

Second, this is an excellent history of one of the most important controversies of 20th Century American culture.History will not record this controversy as a turning point in science.Wilson made no great discovery.His distinguishing characteristic was the simple willingness to think and speak freely.

However, in a hundred years, what has been called the "Triumph of Sociobiology" will be seen as a crucial event in the intellectual history of the United States.This book is the first draft of that history.

Those reviewers who believe that the author is biased should remember that the author is, above all, a sociologist of science -not a biologist.She has far more in common with T.S. Kuhn than with any of the biologists she profiles.I am not convinced that she takes the work of ANY of these scientists at face value.If, at the end of the book, sociobiology appears ascendant, that may be because Wilson's camp has won the battle of public opinion.

Finally, this book succeeds as a case study in scientific epistemology.The author -ever the social scientist- metaphorically divides scientists into two categories: "planters" and "weeders."

"Planters" are risk-tolerant.They interpret evidence to support highly-speculative hypotheses -hypotheses that often turn out to be wrong.They provide the building blocks of science.The believe they are doing "good science."

"Weeders" are fundamentally skeptical.They interpret evidence in the strictest possible manner, in search of certainty.By eliminating the rotten wood, they keep the ediface of "science" standing.They also believe they are doing "good science."

In my view, both of these viewpoints are helpful to the ecology of human knowledge.Planters generate needed diversity; weeders enforce conformity.Each should appreciate the systemic value of the others' function; the tragedy here -in my view- was that neither side did.

The author, however, would disagree with me.She seems to suggest that such partisan zeal makes for good scientists, if not for good science.Maybe, she suggests, objectivity in the process of science is an OBSTACLE to the production of knowledge.Maybe we are doomed to (and blessed with) a perpetual sociobiology controversy, since fairminded people like myself can only muster the will to write book reviews.

This is perhaps the most interesting insight in this book, and alone worth the price of admission.

Terribly biased, but the best we have
Ullica Segerstrale was perhaps the only outsider to carefully follow the landmark debate over sociobiology first-hand, sitting in on meetings and interviewing the participants. Thank goodness she was willing to write it all down. Too bad she was such a blatant partisan.

Most books have endorsements on the back cover from other authors. This one only features an endorsement from Segerstrale herself. And the featured reviews on Amazon are hardly from disinterested parties -- Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is a well-known sociobiologist herself, who receives extensive favorable treatment in this book.

The book was well-written and interesting, but the reader must work to subtract Segerstrale's overwhelming bias from every quote and conclusion. Such questions of scientific fact do have right and wrong answers. It's too bad Segerstrale consistently gets them wrong and then feels she has to distort the positions of her opponents to mask this fact.

Masterful, Thorough, and Insightful
I won't reiterate the obvious: This book explains the internecine and trans-Atlantic Sociobiological Wars in marvellous detail from a sociologist's perspective. Anyone interested in the politics of the ultra-left, Marxists, and the academic left will be surprised how much politics plays into their scientific and pedagogical endeavors (although I continue to see it in play every day). Everyone interested in the Modern Synthesis and its continuing genesis will be grandly entertained and substantively enlightened by Stegerstrale's account.

I have read a number of books on the Modern Synthesis, but none brings out the nuances of, and the motives behind, this long, often trivial, debate. Sadly, those who would benefit the most are the very people who decry the MS in its entirety -- the Creationists. Alas, that's everyone's problem. As E. O. Wilson himself claims, at least the sociobiological "myth" begets results; what does the Creationist view beget but real wars.

Who is the custodian of biological truth?
Ullica Segerstråle is a sociologist who, as a student, decided to move from undergraduate training in biochemistry and organic chemistry to do her doctoral work in the sociology of science, choosing the arguments about "sociobiology" and "genetic determinism" as her theme. This proved to be a remarkably prescient choice of research topic, as it allowed her to observe at first hand the remarkably vicious battles between different groups of biologists from the middle 1970s onwards about the proper development of Darwinism and evolutionary theory.Defenders of the Truth is the fruit of her observations, and its title reflects the almost religious fervour with which each side maintains that it is the custodian of The Truth, the other being doctrinaire, unscientific, racist etc. As tends to happen in these disputes, both liked to compare their opponents with Nazis.

As Segerstråle started her study at the very beginning of the controversy, she was present at some of the more dramatic confrontations, such as the debate between Edward O. Wilson and Stephen J. Gould when Wilson gave his presentation only after beingdrenched with water by members of a group calling itself the International Committee against Racism. Not only that, but as she had been attending meetings of a somewhat less disreputable group, the Sociobiology Study Group, she was able to recognize one of Wilson's assailants as someone she had seen at such a meeting. This eye-witness character gives her book much of its vividness, but in addition she interviewed many of the participants subsequently, and studied the scientific bases of their positions. All of this adds up to a remarkably impressive achievement.

It is interesting to compare Defenders of the Truth with The Darwin Wars, another book written on the same subject at about the same time by Andrew Brown. The two books cover much the same ground, but Brown's is much shorter (about half the length, if one allows for the smaller amount of text on each page), and is written from the point of view of a journalist rather than that of an academic sociologist. He shares Segerstråle's concern with seeing both sides of the dispute, with getting his facts right, and with presenting the different points of view in a fair way. Both books are excellent, and both are essential reading if one is interested in the subject. Neither mentions the other, but they were being written at the same time, and published at much the same time, so neither author is likely to have had access to the other's work while writing.

Why Do Marxists Hate Sociobiology?
Segerstrale gives an excellent account of the debates over the Sociobiology controversy. Basically, they were over issues raised by an ad hoc Sociobiology Study Group at Harvard that was organized by Marxist professors Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. No details are available on the actual origins of that group but by going on the attack they succeeded in setting the agenda for the debates to follow in succeeding years. They later associated themselves with Science for the People, a group still in existence. Writing a quarter century later, Segerstrale observes that "For a surprisingly long time, ... the favorite target of SftP seems to have been sociobiology and Wilson." But the key can be found in Segerstrale's description of a meeting between Lewontin and Chomsky that took place at a Sociobiology Study Group meeting in 1976. At this meeting, which she attended as an observer, it turned out that Chomsky and Lewontin held differing views on development of history, having read different works of Marx. Chomsky's Marx spoke of an unchanging "species nature" ofhumans while Lewontin's Marx saw a socially shaped and historically changing nature. Because of this ideological fine point Chomsky refused to write a review attacking Wilson simply because Wilson did not seem threatening to him. Lewontin's view of course is the heart of what is called their "materialist theory of history." "Darwinism is the theory of biological evolution, Marxism, of social evolution" is how it was taught to Soviet children. To a true Marxist natural selection stops and the materialist theory of history takes over as soon as there is a human society. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness" is how Marx himself puts it. This pedantic sentence is also a key to Mao's Cultural Revolution and to Pol Pot's re-education camps. Mao's aim was to change the nature of his subjects brought up in a capitalist environment by immersing them in a socialist means of production. To this end, he closed the universities and sent those professors to work on collective farms. Pol Pot saw this but did not think Mao had it quite right. For one thing, he did not think it would work if they had had too much capitalist education. Hence, he set an admission limit of eighth grade for his re-education camps and ordered those with more than eighth grade education shot right away. But all this ideology is directly contradicted by sociobiologists' claim that human nature has an inherited component and that this inherited component is a product of natural selection over millennia. It was clear to Lewontin,if not to the rank and file of the protesters, thatthis claim would severely undermine the materialist theory of history. And this is the source of the urgency that motivated them to organize the Sociobiology Study Group. Their efforts were international. In the UK their leader was Steven Rose whose task it was to neutralize Dawkins. Their charges against Wilson were basically red herrings that succeded in diverting attention from their main concern, namely that sociobiology cuts the ground right out from under their materialist theory of history. Marx had locked them into a Lamarckian view of human nature and they acted upon it. This kind of Lamarckism has been characterized by Steven Pinker as a belief that an infant's mind is a "blank slate" upon which experience writes a life story. The attack on Wilson that opened in 1975 and is still going on is described well by Segerstrale. Most of the charges they succeded in putting on the agenda were lies and distortions that are essentially red herrings to cover up their true concern which is defending the materialist theory of history against the onslaught of sociobiology. Even under attack, Wilson published a book "On Human Nature" in 1978 which clearly lays out his views on the subject. It won a Pulitzer prize and is still in print, in its tenth printing. It is a truly humane book and should be read by anyone as an antidote to the Marxist propaganda against Wilson.
... Read more

Book Description
Unique in both scope and organization, this book presents an intriguing yet challenging introduction to the world's great ideas concerning the nature of human nature — with a sampling of different approaches. The selections are drawn from religious writings, academic treatises, nonfiction, fiction, etc. — enabling readers to encounter the great thinkers through their own words.Organizes selections into intellectually coherent topics— Religious/Mythic Views, The Mind, The Social Setting, The Human Animal? — and then subtopics — e.g., The Role of Reason, The Limits of Reason, People Are Basically Nasty, People Are Basically Good, Animals as “Human,” and Vice Versa, Sex and Gender, etc. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Great Reading
I have taken two classes with Professor Barash and thoroughly enjoyed them both.This book is an excellent compilation of a wide range of sources reflecting on the human condition, no easy task to achieve.From Dostoyevsky to Darwin, from the Bible to the Bhagavad Gita, Barash demonstrates an impressive knowledge of writing and literature across many fields.This book has definitely opened up my mind to some new ideas and filled up my wish list with some new books.Thanks Professor Barash!

A respectable collection!
I am taking a class with the editor this summer, and it is a whole lot of fun! ... Read more

Book Description
Provocative in content, this book is the only one of its kind to evaluate Marx's work in light of recent theories in sociobiology. Huaco identifies several dynamic aspects of Marx's socio-cultural model and uses current research concerning the genetic basis of certain human behaviors to determine their validity. Specifically, he examines issues surrounding ownership relations, surplus transfer and economic exploitation, class struggle, and the development of high culture. In addition to arguing that innovation and competition are necessary to prevent a stagnant economy, Huaco contends that stopping surplus transfer will not eliminate poverty as Marx maintained. Instead of retaining surplus, society can develop ways to recover surplus that will put an end to poverty and the social problems that stem from it. Sociologists and other scholars interested in socio-economic theory will find this thought provoking work stimulating. ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (1)

A classical critique of sociobiology
In this book, Marshall Sahlins de-constructs the interpretation of human societies done by certain of the most eminents sociobiologists. He shows that certain elements of human nature and civilisation are not reductibleto biological principles. He thus stresses the importance of anthropologyas a science that contributes to understand the variety and unity of humancultures. ... Read more

Book Description

Much of the evolutionary biology that has grabbed headlines in recent years has sprung from the efforts of sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists to explain sexual features and behavior--even differences between how men and women think--as evolutionary adaptations. They have looked to the forces of natural selection to explain everything from the mimicry of male mockingbirds to female orgasms among humans. In this controversial book, Richard Francis argues that the utility of this approach is greatly exaggerated. He proposes instead a powerful alternative rooted in the latest findings in evolutionary biology as well as research on the workings of our brains, genes, and hormones.

Exploring various sexual phenomena, Francis exposes fundamental defects in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, which he traces to their misguided emphasis on "why" questions at the expense of "how" questions. Francis contends that this preoccupation with "why" questions (such as, "Why won't men ask for directions"?) results in a paranoiac mindset and distorted evolutionary explanations. His alternative framework entails a broader conception of what constitutes an evolutionary explanation, one in which both evolutionary history, as embodied in the tree of life, and developmental processes are brought to the foreground. This alternative framework is also better grounded in basic biology.

Deeply learned, consistently persuasive, and always engaging, this book is a welcome antidote to simplistic sociobiological exegeses of animal and human behavior.

Customer Reviews (8)

Some good deconstruction of Evolutionary Psychology; some strawman takedowns of evolutionary psychology; a thought-provoker
Francis takes an in-depth look at the difference between what he calls (riffing on John Maynard Smith) the difference between why-biology (or teleological explanations) and how-biology (or non goal-oriented changes). Riffing on Aristotle, this can be seen as the difference between final cause and proximate cause explanations. Or adaptationism, especially in a hard-core form, and neutralist stances.

The book is overall a mixed bag, almost infuriatingly so at times.

The last chapter, "Darwin's Temptress," is far and away the best. He goes after Evolutionary Psychology quite well, notably exposing weaknesses in the thinking of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

By the end of this chapter, I was almost ready to give the book a four-star rating. BUT, before the start of this chapter, I was quite ready to give it a two-star rank instead.

As noted in my review of David Buller's "Adapting Minds," I distinguish between Ev Psych the quasi-metaphysical theory of biosocial development and ev psych the more legitimate study of evolutionary origins and causes of human mental attributes and differences in their development.

Francis, in a challenging book with plenty of high points and low points alike, does not. Hence the three-star rating.

Let me look at the high points of the final chapter before pointing out what I see as the more notable errors of reasoning earlier on.

In discussing Dennett, Francis points out how he has shifted his embrace of "stancing" from seeing it as a viable bridge between folk psychology and more materialist approaches to study of the mind in his earlier books, to being more disingenuous about it later. By "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," Francis says "his stance stance had become disingenuous ... let[ting] him claim allegiance to the materialist natural scientists, without actually having to act like one." I think there's a fair amount of insight there.

Francis also notes that the algorithmic view of the mind (whether fully modular or not) championed by Dennett (and Tooby/Cosmides, et al) is clearly a top-down, design-driven version. I had always disagreed with this algorithmic idea; I now understand why.

He faults both Dennett and Dawkins for being such hard-core adaptationists that their support for design as the explain-all almost goes full circle back to Bishop Paley and his untenable watchmaker analogies.

Dawkins gets faulted in other ways. Most notable of these is defending Paley's emphasis on design to the point of dismissing Hume's CRUSHING destruction of the argument from design in general. Dawkins goes so far as to overlook Hume's contribution to antimetaphysical thought in general; Francis points out his claim that not until Darwin was it intellectually reasonable to be an atheist.

Having read much of Hume, I'd have to call Dawkins' claim pure rubbish.

But, somewhat unfortunately, 10 chapters in the book come before this one.

Here's a few problems.

First, on page 49, Francis clearly only allows teleological explanations in evolutionary biology to operate at one, overarching level. He doesn't say why teleology, or even quasi-teleology, couldn't operate at, say, the individual genus level.

Second, on page 50, he says how-biology can be seen as both a competing counterexplanation to why-biology and a complementary explanation, specifically re sex change among certain fish. But, especially as we get closer to his take on evolutionary psychology and its dealing with the human mind, his emphasis seems to be ENTIRELY on the competing rather than complementary half of that sentence.

While decrying that many evolutionary psychologists seem to have social or political axes to grind, he neglects that people as strongly opposed not just to Ev Psych, but a fair degree to ev psych as well, including perhaps people like himself, have their own axes to grind.

Along with this (and this book is three years old, but not THAT old) he seems dismissive of people such as feminist psychologist, philosophers, etc., who report sex-based human mental differences of a nature, both depth and breadth, along with the number of them, that they can't all be dismissed as socially conditioned.

A few more specific critiques.

Page 140ff, he claims that, in songbirds at least, ev psychers all seem to claim that the hippocampus' function is primarily about spatial memory. Well, I don't know about songbirds, but I've NEVER seen that claimed about the hippocampus in mammals.

Page 161. A sexually dimorphic trait need not be *antagonistic* against the sex that doesn't have it. Rather, it just needs *enough additional evolutionary pressure* in the sex that does have it. Since the body naturally switches off one copy of each chromosome pair in the non-sex chromosomes, it's easy to postulate that functioning control genes for the actual coding gene(s) for a sexual dimorphism, say antlers in males, could cause the male copy of the particular chromosome to always turn on in males and the female copy to always turn on in females. I'm not a geneticist, so I don't know HOW likely that is; but, from the point of logic, there's nothing to contraindicate it.

Page 168. It's a straw man to call Dennett a "reformed behavioralist ... a behavioralist with a computationalist veneer." Given that his academic study is in philosophy, not psychology, referring to him as ANY sort of behavioralist in trying to trace out the intellectual history of both Ev Psych and ev psych is less than enlightening. Given that this philosophy study, at the graduate level, took place in England with the analytic philosophy muse Gilbert Ryle, the computationalist label is certainly understandable, but it should be further seen as removing himself from the behavioralist fallout as it played out.

Page 168 footnote: Calling Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a "regrettable book" is ridiculous. Thought-provoking? Yes. Often wrong? Yes. Sometimes right? Also yes. Regrettable? Not a chance.

Page 169: Saying that Ev Psych (I'll do Francis the favor of assuming he's talking about my capitalized version) makes Jerry Fodor look like a "shrinking violet," and that he in turn did the same to Noam Chomsky is one of the more ax-grinding strawmen of the book.

Interesting biology spoiled by arrogance and short-sightedness
This book is very interesting in parts but is spoiled by the author's attitude towards adaptationists, especially evolutionary psychologists, whom he descibes as paranoid. His own attempts to put down those who look for adaptations and to replace their theories with conclusive proof that the 'how' (developmental) biology is all we need as an explanation sometimes goes too far. Of course the evolutionary history and contemporary physiology of a species constrains its subsequent evolution but his tone is at times arrogant and even catty.

The biological information he provides about animals, brains, hormones etc is very interesting and certainly a very important part of our growing understanding but in at least one context - the female orgasm - he has made some of the very same mistakes he criticizes in evolutionary psychologists ie only looking at humans and not considering the social aspects of human behavior.

The second chapter on the female orgasm is very reminiscent of the attitude of the Victorians, including Darwin himself, who could see the reason for the evolution of the brain and intelligence in the human male but not in the female. Their conclusion was that female intelligence and brain size had therefore evolved only by being dragged along on the 'coat-tails' of the male. Hence its inferiority and faulty working.

Francis states that the need for the male to experience orgasm is obvious but this is clearly untrue as the males of most species have been reproducing perfectly well without such a reward mechanism. There is evidence of orgasm in males and females of at least other mammals so the origin probably goes back tens of millions of years and there is no reason to presume it was purely a male adaptation. An argument could be made that it was an adaptation in females.

The size of the human clitoris has only been discovered in recent years and has been found to be largely internal, enveloping the urethra and vagina, and the whole female sexual response is only starting to be properly investigated so it is far too early to conclude that the clitoris is a mere equivalent of the male nipple. And according to Natalie Angier in 'Woman, an Intimate Geogaraphy' the glans of the clitoris has twice as many nerve fibres as that of the penis. That, along with the response in parts of the female anatomy that males do not possess such as the sensitivity and swelling of the vulva and the uterine contractions, should make us consider the female sexual response and orgasm in its own right and not only see the external clitoris as a vestigial penis, period.

Just as men saw, and see, female intelligence as inferior or faulty so we now are expected to accept the same reasoning for the female sexual response. If we look at human societies and human civilization we have a very powerful reason for the 'faulty reward mechanism' that is the female orgasm. The simple fact is that females are regularly punished for their sexuality, from female genital mutilation to purdah, claustration, 'honor' killings, arranged marriages etc to the general ostracism of females who show overt sexual behavor, including in the modern Western world, and we can only conclude that males prefer their wives - ie the women who achieve reproductive success - to be relatively sexually naive. Reproductive success of human females has therefore been largely dependent on human females not being too sexual - just as they had to not be too intellectual. Rather than sexual response and orgasm being a reward that brings reproduction, for human female sexuality the opposite has been the case and it should not surprise us in the least if social and psychological factors constrain human female sexual experience. How on earth could it be otherwise?

So this book is a mixture of some very interesting biology but is spoiled by the author's tone at times and a fault that runs through much that is written on any subject, including sociobiology, evolutionary psychology or developmental biology, and that fault is male bias - taking the male as the model. This clearly is an illogical and unscientific stance to take.

an important, early book... needs better editing... read it anyway!
I read this book because I am interested in explanations of differences and similarities in females and males that can be SUBSTANTIATED (repeatable experimental results and accurate predictions). This book talks about experimental results, observations, and explanations of sexual behavior and sexual change in fish, frogs, hyenas, baboons, and (somewhat) humans.

I gave this book 4 stars because I think it could have been further edited for clarity. Its strengths are that it cites lots of fascinating experimental results and shows where popular explanations for sex differences ARE and ARE NOT substantiated.

Its weakness is that it could have been better edited before release to a popular audience. My pet peeves were: straightening out the missequenced footnotes in Chapter 2 ("Orgasm"), and summarizing the author's key points in each chapter in ONE PLACE, versus repeating them in the middle of long discussions that are tortuous to follow.

The discussions include both EVIDENCE and DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS and it's easy to get a bit lost on what the author is arguing FOR, factually, vs. FOR, explanation wise. It reminds me of listening to (or reading the book by) a brilliant professor who's going just a LEETLE fast for (me) the student.

NEVERTHELESS... It's GOOD STUFF. I think this is a critically important, early book in the emerging field of evolutionary developmental biology and I recommend reading it ANYWAY. It cites EVIDENCE and demonstrates critical thinking to counter/filter/evaluate sex difference evidence and interpretations now and in the future.

NOTE: An easier to follow book regarding how organisms evolve is "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" (reviewed separately), but this book doesn't address the sex evolution issues.

NOTE: An example of a book clearly explaining and summarizing competing scientific explanations vs. evidence is "Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe" (reviewed separately), but this book is about physics not biology.

The Problem with Teleological Thinking
When I was a graduate student I cut my teeth on books by George C. Williams and Ernst Mayr, as well as having several important aspects of scientific methodology drummed into my head.I learned that the individual phenotype was the target of selection, because it was the visible manifestation of the organism in the real world.I was also taught, emphatically, that you had to follow the evidence, not let your hypotheses run wild.You just did not extrapolate beyond your data!J. Henri Fabre (the 19th Century French entomologist) took that last idea to an extreme and denied the utility of even solid theory, thus refusing to accept Darwin's ideas on the basis that they were too speculative.In that Fabre was wrong (as he was in his insistence that insects were totally automatons.)Still one can easily go too far in the other direction and (unfortunately) some biologists, especially sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, have done so.

Richard C. Francis in his new book "Why Men Won't Ask for Directions" has made several pointed criticisms of teleological answers to why question (as opposed to how questions) in biology. In some ways I think that he has been a little too hard on the sociobiologists, who have certainly added to our knowledge- particularly in regard to how social insect societies work- and have brought up some important aspects of human behavior, but the points he makes are well taken.A few more strident evolutionary psychologists have indeed gone off on a teleological binge! Some of their "just so" stories are no more convincing to me than the creation story involving a god or gods making species. Evolution is not purposeful. It is in essence a tinkerer (more like a farmer using bailing wire to fix a tractor), not a designer (an engineer drawing up plans for a ne