![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I finally got around to reading Sex at Dawn. It's really nice to see a new take on evolutionary psychology, which I think most people reading this would agree is stuck in some fairly stupid ruts. Yet EP has to have some useful insights somewhere, unless you're going to argue that all human behavior is cultural, which seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Basic premise: There is a lot about human anatomy and behavior that doesn't make sense under the standard assumption that humans have been an inately monogamous or even polygynous species since early prehistory, and that these are cultural traits that only started with the emergence of agriculture 10k years ago and its new emphasis on property, inheretance and ownership. And I think they make a decent case overall, though as it is just a somewhat sensationalized pop-science book, I strongly reserve my judgement. But again, I doubt anyone reading this blog will object too strongly to their conclusions. If nothing else it's a hell of a lot less depressing and ugly than the standard conclusions.
Mostly I'm left with a sense of disappointment at the overall tone of the book. It regularly goes beyond informal to being simply catty and dismissive. And worse, there was an awful lot of anecdata in a couple of the sections. Which I guess is supposed to make things more accessible, by relating them to a specific story, but it just feels weak to me. I'd really like to see these ideas covered in a more rigorous fashion. It could still be aimed at a popular audience, but a writer like Jared Diamond or (dare I say it) Steven Pinker could give it a much better treatment.
All in all, I'd give it a C+. There isn't a lot new there if you follow such things, though it does put it all together in an interesting way. (Which is all you can really ask of popular science books.) It easily could have been a solid B or even higher with the right treatment.
Basic premise: There is a lot about human anatomy and behavior that doesn't make sense under the standard assumption that humans have been an inately monogamous or even polygynous species since early prehistory, and that these are cultural traits that only started with the emergence of agriculture 10k years ago and its new emphasis on property, inheretance and ownership. And I think they make a decent case overall, though as it is just a somewhat sensationalized pop-science book, I strongly reserve my judgement. But again, I doubt anyone reading this blog will object too strongly to their conclusions. If nothing else it's a hell of a lot less depressing and ugly than the standard conclusions.
Mostly I'm left with a sense of disappointment at the overall tone of the book. It regularly goes beyond informal to being simply catty and dismissive. And worse, there was an awful lot of anecdata in a couple of the sections. Which I guess is supposed to make things more accessible, by relating them to a specific story, but it just feels weak to me. I'd really like to see these ideas covered in a more rigorous fashion. It could still be aimed at a popular audience, but a writer like Jared Diamond or (dare I say it) Steven Pinker could give it a much better treatment.
All in all, I'd give it a C+. There isn't a lot new there if you follow such things, though it does put it all together in an interesting way. (Which is all you can really ask of popular science books.) It easily could have been a solid B or even higher with the right treatment.
no subject
I don't think all human behavior is cultural, but I do think that our enormous range of cultural variation suggests that our biological imperatives are highly adaptable to cultural veneers. Evolution is driven by reproduction, and any "good enough" solution stands a fair chance of being passed on. Any attempt to reverse-engineer our preferences by looking at "optimal" caveman strategies is risky at best (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/fallacies-of-evolutionary-psychology.html) and ridiculous at worst, like Aristotle and Hobbes trying to divine the best system of government through a state of nature argument.
When social scientists made racial claims based on phrenology or native climate, they were often received by an audience grateful to have its prejudices validated. I think I see a little of that happening with evo psych, at least as it's represented by its most vocal proponents. If you know of a good work of evo psych with strong and defensible academic foundations, I would love to read it and have my opinions refined.
no subject
no subject