Customer Reviews

Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life: A Psychologist Investigates How Evolution, Cognition, and Complexity are Revolutionizing our View of Human Nature

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For those who have ever read E. O. Wilson's classic book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition (or maybe On Human Nature: Revised Edition), then I suppose you could consider Professor Kenrick's book somewhat of an updated version. It's a real primer on evolutionary psychology. Having been familiar with evolutionary psychology, I thought that there might not be anything very interesting in Prof. Kenrick's book, but I was dead wrong. In fact, I think quite the opposite now. To be honest though, I didn't really get into the book until about half-way; however, once I got to about Ch. 7, I was hooked. Several things that I really enjoyed were: 1) Kenrick's discussion of the need to update Abraham Maslow's famous Hierarchy of Needs, 2) the `reproductive religiosity model' which looks at the difference between Conservatives and Liberals as a difference in mating strategies, and 3) the brief, but important, discussion on the connection between dynamical systems theory and evolutionary psychology.

I realize that there are some people out there who continue to insist that evolutionary psychology is bogus and consequently not their cup of tea, but I would challenge them to read Prof. Kenrick's book and find a better - more rational - theory of human nature than evolutionary psychology. I would also venture to say that Kenrick is definitely one of the better spokespersons for it. By the end of the book I was really at home with his laid-back, breezy, and humorous style of writing. I also appreciated the brevity with which he covered the topics; he covered many issues. For instance, Modularity of the Mind (Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind), the Prisoner's Dilemma (SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed), Decision Making (Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious), and our Basic Human Needs (The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice).

Lastly, as far as an answer to the Meaning of Life question, Prof. Kenrick has really hit the nail on the head when he writes, "I am not suggesting that we all ought to go forth and multiply, ignoring the problem of overpopulation, or that you rush out to make five hundred new Facebook "friends." What I am suggesting instead is that you let yourself enjoy the natural pleasures of taking care of the intimate associates you already have. You can regard time spent with family and friends as a distraction from the central task of life, or you can slow down and let your brain's social mechanisms savior the experiences." I think that's pretty sound advice. I highly recommend this book.

Here is a quick run-down of the chapters: Ch. 1 - Standing in the Gutter: How did an innocent young student accidentally fall in with a band of intellectual revolutionaries?; Ch. 2 - Why Playboy is Bad for Your Mental Mechanisms: When is beauty bad for you?; Ch. 3 - Homicidal Fantasies: Why have most of us had at least one fantasy about committing murder; Ch. 4 - Outgroup Hatred in the Blink of an Eye: Why can't we all just get along; Ch. 5 - The Mind as a Coloring Book: Why doesn't cultural variation support the blank-slate view of the mind? Ch. 6 - Subselves: The three faces of thee; Ch. 7 - Reconstructing Maslow's Pyramid: Where are the missing bricks in the classic pyramid of needs?; Ch. 8 - How the Mind Warps: Why do men and women forget different people and regret different things?; Ch. 9 - Peacocks, Porsches, and Pablo Picasso:Why do men go out of their way to avoid a Consumer Reports Best Buy?; Ch. 10 - Sex and Religion: When is godliness just another mating strategy?; Ch. 11 - Deep Rationality and Evolutionary Economics: Why are behavioral economists only half right when they say that our economic choices are irrational?; and Ch. 12 - Bad Crowds, Chaotic Attractors, and Humans as Ant: Why your parents were right about the company you keep.

I bought Sex, Murder and the Meaning of Life by Douglas Kenrick anticipating a good read. I was sorely disappointed. Knowing nothing about the intricacies of evolutionary psychology, the topic of his book, I had no axes to grind in contrasting it with behaviorism, psychoanalysis, social psychology or any other pedagogy. I was open to any conclusions Kenrick might advance if they were adequately supported by scientific testing and experimentation. While some of the book did, indeed, provide this, sadly, too much of it did not.

The book opens with the results of some of Kenrick's own experimental results combined with that of other evolutionary psychologists, particularly in the field of the differing motivations men and women experience when it comes to sex and aggression. Men are looking for physical sex that leads to feelings of intimacy and women are looking for intimacy that might lead to sex. Further, Kenrick's experiments show that women think of killing fellow human beings almost as much as men do, 68% to 76%. Interesting so far, with some reservations about the quality of the data.

But from there, everything goes down hill. Kenrick starts drawing wild conclusions from additional data that is far more circumspect in its meaning. He claims that male creative accomplishment, such as in the fields of poetry or music is purely an endeavor to enhance the chances of having sex with women. He simply ignores that only a very small percentage of men even persue such activities, let alone are good at them. He ignores that most creative men get married and have children. This, he claims shifts their evolutionary motivation to that of monogamous relationship building and successful child rearing, which insures the passage of their DNA on to another generation, their grandchildren. Yet despite being married with children, creative men don't stop creating and keep producing their art into their dotage. Kenrick does not address this counter evolutionary paradox, let alone attempt an explanation, only one of many such inconsistencies that go unaddressed in his book.

He also stops examining women's evolutionary motivations through much of the book after the first two or three chapters or, worse, simply ascribes to them the same evolutionary imperative (having lots of sex) as men, without any experimental evidence to support the position.

I was very disappointed in Kenrick's work and found that I had to force myself to read the last few chapters. His claims and conclusions had become so wild and unsupported by that point that they had devolved into nothing more than the types of assertions made by a bevy of drunks at the bar. I expected a more scholarly and well-supported approach to the topic of why we humans do what we do. Kenrick did not provide that here. I have an extensive home library of books I have bought and read over the years. I ended up giving Kenrick's book away. I felt it was largely worthless, not worthy of a place on my bookshelf, one that I would have been better not buying.

This book is one of those nice hybrids of biography and scientific research. Kenrick is a well known social psychologist and one of the founders of evolutionary psychology. In this book, he talks about personal experiences that led him to ponder different aspects of the meaning of life, and the rather clever experiments he conducted to understand those questions. For example, in one chapter, he describes the vividly painful "flashbulb" memory of hearing about his brother's death alongside a much more pleasant flashbulb memory (of a three-way kiss with two attractive women). That leads into a series of interesting experimental findings on the different kinds of holes in men's and women's memories. In a later chapter, he opens up with Catechism lessons from nuns and the conflict between being a Catholic teenager and his prurient interests in the beautiful girls in church. He moves from there to some fascinating studies on the links between sex and religion (for example, in one study, he and his colleagues found that seeing a lot of good-looking members of your own sex increases your tendency to say you believe in God).

His first chapter talks about how people are often hostile to thinking about humans as animals, and quotes Oscar Wilde's statement that "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." The general outline of the book starts out in the gutter, with chapters on sex, violence, and racial prejudices, and moves toward the stars, with later chapters on economic decision-making, artistic creativity, self-actualization, religion, and culture.

Along the way, Kenrick does a nice job of weaving together ideas from evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, and complexity theory to show how all these things are connected, and how they all help us understand the meaning of life. In the last chapter, he talks about how going on Oprah Winfrey's show and thinking about his relationships with two sons (one an adult, one a young child), led him to think about what all this research says about how to live a more meaningful life.

The book delivers on the author's promise to combine Steven Pinker, Anthony Bourdain, and Douglas Adams. It's funny, profound, and intellectually engaging.

Thirty or so years ago, some folks in the field of psychology began looking at insights from biology, wondering if human behavior might be best explained using a Darwinian adaptationistic model. Our author, Robert Kenrick, was a student at the time and has since gone on to work in the frontiers of this new field - evolutionary psychology. And while applying Darwinian reasoning to human behavior is not nearly as taboo as it was years ago, there is still much resistance to the idea that such things as artistic impulses, altruism, impulses to violence, etc, have their roots in the genetic adaptations of our pre-human ancestors.

But here is a book that offers a defense and overview of this field of evolutionary psychology. In very entertaining prose, Robert Kenrick gives us chapters exploring the latest theories and knowledge about how humans behave in different situations, and why evolutionary accounts of why we do so make sense. About a quarter of the book - sprinkled throughout various chapters - is a bit of autobiography, both about Kenrick's very atypical (for an academic) upbringing, and his trials, tribulations, and excitements as a student in the then-taboo field of evolutionary psychology. Most of the book's chapters are devoted to recounting studies that Kenrick and others have done exploring such questions as to what extent humans can differentiate faces of races that aren't their own, when and why males get violent when there seems to be little to gain from doing so, and other human quirks.

Here is a taste. Chapter 2 ("Why Playboy is Bad for Your Mental Mechanism") explores who men and women tend to be attracted to, and in particular, who they notice in crowded rooms. First off, it should come as no surprise that men notice hot women in crowded rooms, but it may be more surprising to note that women do too (men, for mating reasons; women, probably for comparison reasons). And both men and women not only notice, but remember the faces of, the attractive women they pick out in the crowd. Women, on the other hand, will also notice handsome men in crowds, but do not generally remember their faces later. And why is Playboy bad for your mental mechanism? Because looking at too many attractive women seems to decrease physical attraction to women who fall short of that standard of beauty - the ones that exist somewhere other than Playboy.

Another interesting chapter is Chapter 4 ("Outgroup Hatred in the Blink of an Eye"), which demonstrates that, and why, we are often good at facial recognition of our own "group" but bad at recognizing faces of the "other." Most of us, I think, know about studies that show humans having a harder time distinguishing between faces of other races than faces of their own race. But, there is more. We also tend to be more acutely aware of negative facial expressions (particularly threatening ones) on the faces of other races than those of our own, to the point where we sometimes impute negative (again, threatening) emotions onto those faces that are not really there. Why? The evolutionary explanation is roughly that, over evolutionary history, one faced much more danger from those in the "outgroup" than those in the "ingroup" and, likely, our ancestors that were sensitive to negative facial expressions of those not in their group were probably better able to survive than those who weren't.

Chapter 6 ("Subselves") is devoted to arguing against the old behavioristic idea that human action, and particularly, social action, was explainable in very general terms - that we act roughly the same way with the same motives whether talking to our children, a potential mate, a friend, or someone we are trying to impress socially. Kenrick champions a modular model of the mind, arguing that we have evolved seperate 'modules' to deal with separate social situations that each have a 'logic' different from the others. Courting a potential mate involves different skills and a different mentality than holding onto a mate we already have, and what, and why, we do for children is quite different than what, and why, we will do for a neighbor we are trying to impress. And short of some really vague heuristic like "everything we do, we do so that we can survive and get our genes passed on," these different modules and their ways of behaving aren't really reducible to one standard rule-set. (Anyone interested in further discussion of the idea of the modular mind might also check out Kurzban's Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind. There is FAR more to the story than I've given here.)

While Kenrick - and other evolutionary psychologists - take delight in showing us those areas of human behavior that just don't seem to make any sense from a 'rational' perspective, Kenrick finishes by discussing why seemingly irrational behavior actually seems a bit more rational when we think about our evolutionary histories. The idea, after all, behind evolutionary psychology is that our impulses, drives, and even reasoning ability, is the product of evolutionary history, which is quite slow-acting. Thus, we are 'hardwired' for a world that existed thousands upon thousands of years ago, and evolution hasn't quite caught us up to the world of today. So, when males get into bar fights when there is seemingly nothing to gain from it, this is because the male mind is the product of a world where defending one's reputation was a way to gain mating success. And when humans value protection from loss more than equivalent gain, this is because we evolved in a world where losing what one had could push one into starvation, famine, etc, while gaining an equivalent amount had a comparatively diminished utility.

One thing to note is that Kenrick doesn't devote much time to defending the view that our brains and modules therein are evolutionary adaptations. He assumes that the interested reader already agrees with him on this point. Readers interested in a defense of applying principles of evolution to psychology might want to read Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature or the first few chapters of Evolutionary Psychology: A Beginner's Guide (Beginners Guide (Oneworld)).

Really, this is a very good book. The critics below are correct that the author never really gets around to tying everything together to the "meaning of life" part of his title, other than to say that knowing these things about humans can enhance our view of what it means to be human. But, I was not really looking for that. I was looking for a good and readable summary of the latest in evolutionary psychology. And that is what I got.

When a baseball player steps up to the plate and wags his bat at the wall past outfield, it's a sign. Next pitch is a homerun. When someone, in this case, Douglas Kenrick, entitles a book Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life it's the literary equivalent of holding a bat straight out to the centerfield wall.

The introduction begins, "You and I have probably never met, but you might be shocked to learn how well we know one another and how intimately our lives are connected." Kenrick goes on to say, "this is a book about the biggest question we can ask: What is the meaning of life?" However, he explores questions regarding the choices people make and how evolution may play into those decisions, without really addressing the meaning of life, or the other question he brings up, "How can I live a more meaningful life?" Instead, as if he were ready for critic's comments, Kenrick states, "Despite what you might have read in Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink, first impressions can be misleading. If you do a blink-style speed-read of this book, you might think it is mostly about me...But if you keep reading, I am pretty sure you'll discover that this book is really about you, your family, and your friends and about the important decisions you confront every day."

It feels like Kenrick is putting the onus on the reader. If you think the book is about me, obviously you are not a close reader, obviously you skimmed my book. Balance those sentences with the powerful title and warning signs may begin to flare. In my experience, books are skimmed because they are not engaging. Let's look at the sentences with some modifications. "If you do a blink-style speed-read of this book, you may think I am not an engaging writer. But if you keep reading, I'm pretty sure you'll discover that this book is worth it." It's hard to get past "but if you keep reading." As I thought about it, my main impulse was to say, "But if you keep reading, I'm pretty sure you'll discover that this book is not really engaging."

Stripped away, Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life is a book centered around the author and his interests. The writing trends toward creating a persona of a New York City kid turned intellectual but still with his folksy, blue-collar charm. It comes across feeling as fabricated as Hillary Clinton having a shot of whiskey with rural constituents. Someone may say a scientist researches their interests, and thus Kenrick's interests are really the foundation of his research. That may be the case, but I didn't find Kenrick's interests and research too interesting. Instead, the tone of the book is soapbox. He's not looking to help people have a more meaningful life, but is defending evolutionary psychology against critics. Moreover, he is supplanting structure with stories from his life.

Overall, I came away having learned some concepts of evolutionary and cognitive psychology, but it was at a cost. The cost was wading through a tiresome narrative from a writer who loves spinning yarns, but is not a good storyteller nor an engaging writer. The cost was being placed in the middle of a brawl between a defensive scientist and the status quo without a background in experimental design. The cost was a writer who was ready to turn on his reader in the first few pages of the introduction. With a title like Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life, the reader expects a homerun and deserves at least a double play. Kenrick displayed his personality with a catchy title, then left the crowd disappointed with a grounder skittering along the infield dirt.

A number of others have given detailed explanations of why they like or dislike this book so, I won't bother to do that here.

I really enjoyed this book it is a decent introduction to Evolutionary Psychology written in an accessible manner. Some have mentioned they didn't like the authors writing style and anecdotal references to his life story. That didn't bother me but sometimes people do offer anecdotal evidence to lend authority to their premise(s). The author could, indeed, be guilty of using this as a tool to convince the reader. But along side of the anecdotal materials are references to studies done by himself and others.

So is Evolutionary Psychology the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything... no but it is pretty compelling. Lets give it a decade or so more and see what comes of it. Time is the best test of good ideas.

Sex, Murder and the Meaning of Life by Douglas T. Kenrick

"Sex, Murder and the Meaning of Life" is a book about the study of the underside of human nature and then some. Using a modern form of psychology grounded in evolutionary biology, cognitive science and new research Mr. Kenrick provides the answers of some of the most interesting aspects of human nature. This 256-page book is composed of the following twelve chapters: 1. Standing in the Gutter: How did an innocent young student accidentally fall in with a band of intellectual revolutionaries?; 2. Why Playboy is Bad for Your Mental Mechanisms: When is beauty bad for you?; 3. Homicidal Fantasies: Why have most of us had at least one fantasy about committing murder; 4. Outgroup Hatred in the Blink of an Eye: Why can't we all just get along; 5. The Mind as a Coloring Book: Why doesn't cultural variation support the blank-slate view of the mind? Ch. 6. Subselves: The three faces of thee; 7. Reconstructing Maslow's Pyramid: Where are the missing bricks in the classic pyramid of needs?; 8. How the Mind Warps: Why do men and women forget different people and regret different things?; 9. Peacocks, Porsches, and Pablo Picasso: Why do men go out of their way to avoid a Consumer Reports Best Buy?; 10. Sex and Religion: When is godliness just another mating strategy?; 11. Deep Rationality and Evolutionary Economics: Why are behavioral economists only half right when they say that our economic choices are irrational? and 12. Bad Crowds, Chaotic Attractors, and Humans as Ant: Why your parents were right about the company you keep.

Positives:

1. As accessible a book that you will find. Ideal for the masses.

2. Engaging, humorous prose that makes for a fun read.

3. Considered to be one of the founding fathers of modern evolutionary psychology. Always good to ground your research on the best that science has to offer and the theory of evolution is one of the bedrocks.

4. Great use of real-life examples (some eye-opening revelations) that adds further flavor to the fascinating world of human nature. The use of self deprecation adds an amusing human element as well.

5. Does a good job of contrasting "old" views with modern views of human nature.

6. Interesting differences between men and women. Including the always interesting mating strategies.

7. A look at why mammalian mothers nurse their offspring.

8. The impact of economic threat to humans.

9. The psychological bias called outgroup homogeneity. What triggers prejudice.

10. A look at disgust.

11. A different way of explaining brain modules (subselves) and how the brain processes information.

12. Debunks some of the old views of psychology.

13. The domain-specific theory explained...the confederation of modular subselves.

14. Interesting look at homosexuality and the modular mind. Actually wanted more info on this but a good appetizer.

15. Inclusive fitness, good stuff.

16. A list of some subselves and their roles.

17. An updated Maslow's pyramid.

18. Life history theory and implications for human motives.

19. Psychology research provides interesting tidbits, "as people age, they tend to become increasingly concerned with the welfare of other people."

20. Cognitive psychology and what it is concerned about.

21. Wisdom, "Our brains seem to allocate resources in ways designed to best promote survival and reproduction".

22. What evolution is truly about.

23. Sexual attraction in humans, interesting.

24. Scientists and their interest in the genesis of religious beliefs, always a fascinating topic.

25. The reproductive religiosity model.

26. The psychology of economics.

27. The impact of social groups.

28. The bedrock principles of evolutionary biology and how they relate to the meaning of life.

29. Great references.

Negatives:

1. The book lacks depth. Most of the topics are covered superficially.

2. I'm an avid reader and I must say a lot of the topics covered in this book have been covered in other books and dare I say with more depth. That being said, if you are casual reader then by all means do read the book.

3. There is speculation. When you use the term, "My guess is this..."

4. I can do without some of the anecdotes pertaining to stereotypes.

5. A good book but ultimately I wasn't intellectually fulfilled.

In summary, this was a fun book to read. It covers many topics of interest and does so with humor while providing insight. This book is ideal for the masses; it covers some profound topics in an accessible manner. That being said if you are an avid reader of this genre I fear this book may disappoint you. It lacks depth and teases you with some interesting topics only to cover it superficially. If you are a casual reader, this book is perfect for you. On the other hand, those expecting a more technical and intellectual book will be disappointed.

Further suggestions: "Human" by Michael S. Gazzaniga, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, "The Believing Brain..." by Michael Shermer is superb, "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard, ""Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality" by Patricia S. Churchland, and "The Belief Instinct" by Jesse Bering.

Doug Kenrick writes with a style that makes it a pleasure to read his work.

There are plenty of interesting original experiments reported in Sex, Murder

and the Meaning of Life that make this a particularly valuable addition

to your collection about figuring out who we are.

Early on in the book is a discussion about why Kenrick tossed the Playboy's.

This discussion is one reason I find his writing so fascinating even when

I personally disagree with his assessment.

For example in one experiment Kenrick notes that men report being less

in love with their partner after having viewed centerfolds. Therefore

Kenrick suggests tossing the Playboy's in order to make the relationship

with the flesh and blood better.

And I would need a lot more than self report on something as critical as

the long term relationship. For years people thought viewing porn increased

the crime of rape. That is now a known fallacy. In fact current research

shows that pedophiles viewing child porn reduces the actual actions

between pedophile and child. The point of course is that self report in

the moment is not necessarily a good bet to be true for the long term.

In the moment, you are viewing the centerfold and then you are asked your

commitment level to your partner and say it is less controls. That makes

sense. Whether the upside of viewing beauty (motivation, impulse to action)

is worth the possible self report reduction in commitment is something

that would be worth pursuing long term.

On the flip side, women report that after viewing photos of dominant

men, they report less commitment to their partners. Thus it would

make sense to not let the female partner think about or enter the

proximity of socially dominant men would be the solution...but I suspect

that isn't going to happen. It also seems very possible that there

are achievement benefits to both partners for women to observe socially

dominant men.

If the outcome of life was to always be "comfortable" then Kenrick

would be correct. But if the goal was for people to achieve I suspect

he may not be.

Meanwhile Kenrick does another experiment where men shown images

of socially dominant men feel less desirable as partners as women

do shown images of beautiful women. These are wonderful experiments

but I suspect the results can provide impetus for motivation, drive

and achievement and further experimentation their to see how

performance is impacted would be fascinating as well.

In the very next chapter...just after questioning my author

on his perception of the results of his experiments, everything

changed. Kenrick's experiments with men and women and how they

report homicidal fantasies. It begins with 3/4 of men and 2/3 of

women reporting that they have had homicidal fantasies. I suspect

most of those who reported they don't...lie about other things as well.

What happens next is truly interesting. Women and men both fantasize

but in very different ways. Men report methodical point by point

planning and execution of their plans over significant amounts of

time. Meanwhile a woman's homicidal fantasy was typified by

"I wish he'd just drive off the cliff and die." Women and men

are very similar....while being different.

Ah, and who do men (85%) and women (65%) want to kill?

You guessed it. Men. Kenrick explores this subject in depth

and reports on his experiments are quite interesting as he

breaks down just what kinds of men and women we want to kill.

This was worth the price of admission.

The following chapter follows through with the touchy subject of

hatred and prejudice. Kenrick even handedly navigates a complex

subject and presents material that should be taught in high

school. What? Your feelings are normal.

Kenrick saves the discussion of Subselves for mid-book.

An extremely important metaphor for who we are is dealt

with brilliantly. Subselves is a controversial and complicated

discussion about who we are...and this chapter will enlighten

those who didn't study Ego States (John Watkins) in psychology.

And religion...want people in your church to express a greater

belief in God? Show them photos of attractive people of their

sex. It's something I never would have thought of putting to the

test but Kenrick figured it out and you'll want to know why.

Kenrick is an excellent writer who you feel you know after

reading the book. Honest, open, flawed and wise.

The book is absolutely a must read.

Kevin Hogan PsyD

Author of The Psychology of Persuasion

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is kind of like a unified field theory for psychology. It uses evolution, especially sexual selection, to explain almost every aspect of human behavior.

This particular book is a good intro, but also addresses some common arguments against EP, as well as introducing some very interesting new ideas that help extend it. For example, Kenrick redoes Maslow's hieararchy of needs in terms of EP. Fascinating. He also tries to extend EP to groups through the use of dynamical systems theory. That was a little less successful.

I hope that didn't make this sounds too dense and academic. Kenrick actually has a wonderful style that makes the content almost impossible to misunderstand. He also has a good sense of humor, ties in his own research very well, and makes very interesting use of his own bio. That last bit isn't essential to the book, but his moving from being basically a juvenile delinquent with a father in Sing Sing to one of the fathers of EP is pretty darn interesting.

I also like how he wrapped up the book by trying to bring some meaning to what is a fairly mechanistic, deterministic outlook. It's basically just recognizing who we are (i.e., social creatures), accepting that, and trying to get meaning out of that.

Highly recommended, but might be better for someone with at least some background in EP.

Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life by Douglas Kenrick is a very engaging review of the latest research in the field of evolutionary psychology (that is, explaining our actions from an evolutionary perspective). What could be a dry non-fiction book is light, humorous, and interesting, primarily because of the author's breezy writing style, and his willingness to include personal observations and life lessons in the material. A very thought-provoking and interesting introduction to a field of research that can be dry and confusing. Recommended.