Scan barcode
neuro_chef's review against another edition
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
5.0
This is another great book of what nature via nurture really means, driving many coffin nails through genetic determinism, including practitioners of Pop Evolutionary Psychology (with capital letters, as a philosophical mindset) who remain more genetic determinists than they let on while claiming to preach "nature via nurture."
Sapolsky is the real deal on "nature via nurture" - indeed, it should be noted that, with the exception of a totally genetically determined thing like Huntington's disease, he preaches "nature ONLY via nurture," or something along that general line.
Beyond that, he gets into the nuts and bolts of what we know today, and don't know, about non-coding areas of our DNA, which are NOT all simply "junk DNA." Rather, you have introns and exons for marking where a coding sequence of DNA starts and stops, and even more importantly, you have regulatory, or modulating, sections of DNA, which may tell a coding section only to switch on when there are more than 12 hours of daylight per day, which could be used to trigger mating behavior.
Here are some important page by page notes:
23 "More than 95 percent of DNA is non-coding. Sure, a lot of that is the junk-packing material DNA [a lot of which may be "quarantined" remnants of viral DNA, similar to what Norton Utilities does on your PC when necessary], but your average gene comes with a huge instruction manual about how to operate it, and the operator is often environmental."
23-24 "The startling second fact is that when you examine variability in DNA sequences among individuals, the non-coding regions of DNA are considerably more variable than are the regions that code for genes." Sapolsky admits much of this is due to junk DNA areas, but that much of the variability is attributable to regulatory area. Obviously, this has huge impacts on the nurture side of things.
42-44 Good discussion of imprinted genes, which differ from Mendelian biology in that only one is active, usually the one that comes from the parent of the same sex as a child. (Note: this does NOT mean these genes are limited in placement to our sex chromosomes.) The result? These imprinting genes battle for placental and fetal growth, as male and female genes have different "urges" for the placental and fetal rates of growth, due to male-vs-female differences in mammalian breeding strategy. Placental tumors can result if only the paternal gene is active, lack of placental implantation in the uterus when only the maternal gene is active.
61 Offspring of attractive males, in many species studies, survive less often than average.
63. In a study with ducks, with attractive males, it actually appears that the female invests more energy in the egg, laying a larger egg when impregnated by an attractive male. (The egg size is under female control.)
Both of these should put some question to old stereotypes about peacock tails being signs of fitness and so increasing mating, etc. At the least, they should caution us to look for more nuanced explanations.
83ff Limbic and autonomic nervous responses come on- and offline at different rates to one another. In relation to the frontal cortex, this may help explain why intermittent rewards can actually be more psychologically reinforcing than regular ones.
177. In many species, females in some way manipulate alpha-male type males into fighting over them, to go off and mate with more "nice guy" types.
184. Why our desire for revenge? It stems out of game theory, from games such as Prisoners' Dilemma, etc., which show the value of "tit for tat altruism" - if the game is played more than once, especially if one knows a "cheater" will be back in the mix again.
But, in a one-time game, especially where a competitor is informed he/she cannot inform players of future rounds about a cheater, including not being able to inform them through the action of punishing a cheater, then revenge as our self-appointed judge and executioner's pound of flesh seems a natural action, even if we the "cheated" have to expend yet more energy to make the cheater pay.
Hence our actions in today's civilized society, namely such as flipping people off for cutting us off in traffic, etc.
Sapolsky is the real deal on "nature via nurture" - indeed, it should be noted that, with the exception of a totally genetically determined thing like Huntington's disease, he preaches "nature ONLY via nurture," or something along that general line.
Beyond that, he gets into the nuts and bolts of what we know today, and don't know, about non-coding areas of our DNA, which are NOT all simply "junk DNA." Rather, you have introns and exons for marking where a coding sequence of DNA starts and stops, and even more importantly, you have regulatory, or modulating, sections of DNA, which may tell a coding section only to switch on when there are more than 12 hours of daylight per day, which could be used to trigger mating behavior.
Here are some important page by page notes:
23 "More than 95 percent of DNA is non-coding. Sure, a lot of that is the junk-packing material DNA [a lot of which may be "quarantined" remnants of viral DNA, similar to what Norton Utilities does on your PC when necessary], but your average gene comes with a huge instruction manual about how to operate it, and the operator is often environmental."
23-24 "The startling second fact is that when you examine variability in DNA sequences among individuals, the non-coding regions of DNA are considerably more variable than are the regions that code for genes." Sapolsky admits much of this is due to junk DNA areas, but that much of the variability is attributable to regulatory area. Obviously, this has huge impacts on the nurture side of things.
42-44 Good discussion of imprinted genes, which differ from Mendelian biology in that only one is active, usually the one that comes from the parent of the same sex as a child. (Note: this does NOT mean these genes are limited in placement to our sex chromosomes.) The result? These imprinting genes battle for placental and fetal growth, as male and female genes have different "urges" for the placental and fetal rates of growth, due to male-vs-female differences in mammalian breeding strategy. Placental tumors can result if only the paternal gene is active, lack of placental implantation in the uterus when only the maternal gene is active.
61 Offspring of attractive males, in many species studies, survive less often than average.
63. In a study with ducks, with attractive males, it actually appears that the female invests more energy in the egg, laying a larger egg when impregnated by an attractive male. (The egg size is under female control.)
Both of these should put some question to old stereotypes about peacock tails being signs of fitness and so increasing mating, etc. At the least, they should caution us to look for more nuanced explanations.
83ff Limbic and autonomic nervous responses come on- and offline at different rates to one another. In relation to the frontal cortex, this may help explain why intermittent rewards can actually be more psychologically reinforcing than regular ones.
177. In many species, females in some way manipulate alpha-male type males into fighting over them, to go off and mate with more "nice guy" types.
184. Why our desire for revenge? It stems out of game theory, from games such as Prisoners' Dilemma, etc., which show the value of "tit for tat altruism" - if the game is played more than once, especially if one knows a "cheater" will be back in the mix again.
But, in a one-time game, especially where a competitor is informed he/she cannot inform players of future rounds about a cheater, including not being able to inform them through the action of punishing a cheater, then revenge as our self-appointed judge and executioner's pound of flesh seems a natural action, even if we the "cheated" have to expend yet more energy to make the cheater pay.
Hence our actions in today's civilized society, namely such as flipping people off for cutting us off in traffic, etc.
klord3's review against another edition
4.0
This book was great fun. While I knew a lot of the information, I found it very entertaining. Robert Sapolsky is a fantastic popular science writer. I wish I read this book back when I first received it as a gift.
ottopivnr's review against another edition
4.0
Relatively current behavioral science explained in short, accessible pop science bursts.
Sapolsky's essays appear in many major magazines, and are digested here as a coherent gloss of current theories of human behavior. Very much in the vein of Steven Pinker. Thought provoking and a great source of conversation pieces.
Sapolsky's essays appear in many major magazines, and are digested here as a coherent gloss of current theories of human behavior. Very much in the vein of Steven Pinker. Thought provoking and a great source of conversation pieces.
sergejglockner's review against another edition
4.0
A very accessible science-oriented book! Dr. Sapolsky has collected an engaging series of his previous essays on humans and our behavior. This book is great for someone who's interested in understanding our biology but doesn't want to go read primary sources (ie journal articles). I'd put him up there with Oliver Sacks as one of the great science writers (and speakers). I was inspired to read this after attending a talk he gave. Thankfully my girlfriend loaned me her much loved copy. I look forward to reading more by him, especially Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers.
_nothankyou_'s review against another edition
4.0
I loved this book! Sapolsky is able to effectively filter and translate scientific findings and publications into a language everyone can understand and even enjoy. And if the reader's curiosity is sufficiently sparked, Sapolsky also kindly provides references at the end of each essay for further exploration on the various subjects.
His style of writing is not only engaging but personal. Often ideas presented in the book are related to his own experiences and perceptions, and he is not above occasionally poking fun at himself or his colleagues.
Highly recommend!
His style of writing is not only engaging but personal. Often ideas presented in the book are related to his own experiences and perceptions, and he is not above occasionally poking fun at himself or his colleagues.
Highly recommend!
sandyd's review
5.0
This was a fantastic, educational, funny, well-written book. Sapolsky is a neurolbiologist at Stanford who studies stress hormones and their effect on health. He does field work with baboons in east Africa.
In this collection of essays, originally written for magazines like Natural History, Discover, and Men's Health, he writes about our genes and how they interact with our environment. He explains things like why people who think nature always trumps nuture are wrong (or don't know how genes work), depression and PTSD how a susceptibility for that can be inherited (but not always developed), sexual attraction, dreams, cross-cultural religious patterns, Munchausen's by proxy, and more.
Since the essays were originally written for popular magazines, they are short and very readable. At the end of every essay, he's added a nice "further reading" section that tells you about the research about this issue, more technical works you may want to read, and more.
This is the kind of popular science we need to see a LOT more. It doesn't oversimplify the issues, but it doesn't bore the reader.
I could go on and gush about every single essay, but I'll stop here and just tell you to read the book if you're at all interested in your biology and your environment and health. Or recent scientific studies on any of these issues.
In this collection of essays, originally written for magazines like Natural History, Discover, and Men's Health, he writes about our genes and how they interact with our environment. He explains things like why people who think nature always trumps nuture are wrong (or don't know how genes work), depression and PTSD how a susceptibility for that can be inherited (but not always developed), sexual attraction, dreams, cross-cultural religious patterns, Munchausen's by proxy, and more.
Since the essays were originally written for popular magazines, they are short and very readable. At the end of every essay, he's added a nice "further reading" section that tells you about the research about this issue, more technical works you may want to read, and more.
This is the kind of popular science we need to see a LOT more. It doesn't oversimplify the issues, but it doesn't bore the reader.
I could go on and gush about every single essay, but I'll stop here and just tell you to read the book if you're at all interested in your biology and your environment and health. Or recent scientific studies on any of these issues.