|
|
84 of 108 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
This shouldn't be your first book on evolutionary psychology, October 18, 1999
Don't misunderstand. This book has a lot of interesting information about apes. But when the authors try to extrapolate human behavior from ape behavior, they blow it. If you want to learn about human evolutionary psychology, try "The Adapted Mind" by Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby or "The Moral Animal" by Wright. If you're trying to understand the evolutionary origins of human violence, read "Homicide" by Wilson and Daly. If you want to learn about chimpanzees, bonobos and other primates, start reading de Waal. And if you want to understand just why nature is so nasty, read "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. After you've read those, you may be able to correctly interpret this book, but after all that, why bother.The authors leave out a bunch of important information. There is no mention or analysis of Hamilton's inclusive fitness theory, Triver's reciprocal altruism theory or Axelrod's computer simulations of Triver's theory. The authors point out that homo sapiens is a patriarchal species, but fail to mention that, specieswide, women are much more sensitive than men to the socioeconomic status of their prospective mates and, unlike men, their sensitivity is directly proportional to their own status. (see "The Evolution of Desire" by Buss.) They never mention that, unlike the other apes and 97% of mammalian species, human males provide significant investment in their offspring, making husbands vulnerable to cuckoldry, which sometimes necessitates violent precautions and responses by the husbands and their genetic kin. The authors gloss over the critical importance of fitness variance within the male and female genders and differences between these two variances. The authors mention that, like orangutans, male elephant seals commit rape, but fail to mention that with the help of the females, about 5% of the males do about 80% of the breeding, increasing the odds of the other males' genetic death. They attribute the peaceful nature of bonobo society to massed female power but, unlike de Waal, fail to mention that males may accept this because females' extreme promiscuity thoroughly obscures paternity and almost certainly shrinks both male fitness variance and the difference in variance between males and females. And they reduce sperm competition to a footnote. The book has the tone of a feminist propaganda piece. The authors repeatedly attribute violent male behavior to stable and internal factors while attributing violent female behavior to external factors. (For a different view, see "When She was Bad" by Pearson.) They adopt a narrow definition of violence which makes men look bad and women look good. (The most general definition of violence is: Individual A is violent toward individual B if (1) A gains, (2) B loses, and (3) B cannot keep A from controlling if and how the transaction occurs.) And unlike most books written by professional social scientists, this book uses the vocabulary of morality to describe issues of gain and loss. But morality is simply a methodology and set of rules to manipulate, modify and control other people's behavior, in other words, a mechanism for doing violence to its victims. That's why feminists virtually always cast women's self-interest as universal moral imperatives.
|