|
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (平装)
by Robert Wright
| Category:
Evolutionary Psychology, Science, Non-fiction |
| Market price: ¥ 168.00
MSL price:
¥ 158.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
Pre-order item, lead time 3-7 weeks upon payment [ COD term does not apply to pre-order items ] |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
Well written and interesting, this book gives new insights into why we do what we do and how we got here. A great introduction to human behavioral evolution. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
1 Total 1 pages 8 items |
|
|
An American reader (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-29 00:00>
Robert Wright is an exponent of the "evolutionary psychology" movement - that is, the notion that our civilization and its institutions, manners, laws, customs and religions are all a part of the evolutionary process. We are the sum of our genes but we are much more than that - the moral animal. We worry about what others think about us, about what we do, about right and wrong and evil and love and good and bad.
Wilson has made similar arguments in his excellent works and this book is a supporting cast member in the long drama of evolutionary science. The book is not technical but it is extremely interesting - discussing such concepts as male, female, sex, family, groups, altruism - all with a focused eye and calm, measured vocabulary. He looks at our reasons for doing what we do, why we like certain people and more importantly, why we dislike others and live life as we do.
One problem common to many books of this type is the almost worshipful homage to Darwin. His thoughts on many subjects are treated as Scripture at times and his life is studied for what he offers in other realms besides natural selection. While Darwin may have brought about a synthesis of scientific thought at the time, it is fair to say that technically he was surpassed long ago. In the end, this is a book about the qualities that make us human and different than other animals on Earth. |
|
|
Ahimsa Arceiz (MSL quote), Japan
<2006-12-29 00:00>
"The theory of natural selection is so elegant and powerful as to inspire a kind of faith in it [...]; there is a point after which one no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question." I fully subscribe this quotation from the Appendix of The moral animal, and there resides the beauty of this theory and the study of evolution, animal behavior, evolutionary psychology, and so on. Things look rather easy under this prism.
The first part of the book is dedicated to the man-woman relationship: to the nature of the reproductive, sexual and romantic relationships. Kin selection is at the core of the argument, which goes all around the differential parental investment between human males and females, and its consequences. Humans, as a slightly polygynous species (high MPI: male parental investment), show different strategies between sexes about how to maximize their contribution to the next generation. While reading it I was feeling that Wright's review of sexual strategies fits too well to a male's mind (at least mine) and I wondered what would happen if the book was written by Ms Roberta Wright, instead of the author, would she use the same tone? Maybe slight differences would arise. However, real or not, I like what he says (sorry, it is too long to explain here in detail, so you better read it). When you, male-reader, read these chapters you might feel a strong desire to increase your number of wives or sexual partners. Don't worry, it is a transitory side-effect. It passes. Sorry, I ignore how you, female-reader, feel about. Sometimes Wright's position seems to be too conservative, he seems to praise in excess the moral of English Victorian society. This is also transitory, since he is only playing.
Second part of the book is dedicated to social cement, this is: inclusive fitness, parental-offspring conflict and reciprocal altruism; family and friends; social bounding. Good revision.
Part three is also about the social bounding but from the strife perspective. Basically it courses on the importance that status hierarchy (in tandem with reciprocal altruism) has for the human animals, mainly among males, who are more likely to obtain reproductive benefit of the struggle. The role played by self-deception in order to convince others to believe what is in our interest is very well treated here: according to Wright "human brain is a machine to win arguments, a machine for convincing others that its owner is right-and thus a machine for convincing its owner of the same thing. [...] Like a lawyer, the human brain wants victory, not truth; and, like a lawyer, it is sometimes more admirable for skill than for virtue." A good dose of cynicism, isn't it?
As a summary, five are the theories employed to explain human behavior: kin selection, parental investment, parental-offspring conflict, reciprocal altruism, and status hierarchy. These processes interact between them in a varied environment producing a variety of flexible strategies. "The whole point of the human brain is behavior flexibility."
These three parts are wonderful, completely worthy reading. When I say wonderful, I don't mean that you need to agree with all the exposed in order to enjoy it, but is a wide review of the Darwinian explanation of all the main arenas of human behavior and it is very well written. Is particularly successful the use he makes of Charles Darwin biography, as an example. Wright explains Darwin's life and behavior through these theories. At the beginning I regarded it as a bit megalomaniac in excess, but later I found it really brilliant. And what the hell! I am (all of us?) megalomaniac enough and Darwin is for me an admired figure. Good idea. Well performed.
After reading this, cynicism and moral relativism are inevitable. You have the necessity of reconsidering our moral codes, rewriting them from a more conscious knowledge of the nature of our acts and motivations. Then we reach the (inevitable) fourth part: the moral realm. I think that Robert Wright could not escape from this part of the book (and for sure he did not want to escape), but it is also inevitable it to be the weakest part of the book, and by far the least interesting. You will find cynicism (already present, and in a better way in previous chapters), utilitarism, nihilism, the naturalistic fallacy, brotherly love, free will, and of course religion. His main point is that we must be conscious of our nature, that using the evolutionary prism we can dissection the origin of our impulses, desires, feelings, and then better control it for the biggest well (utilitarism, brotherly love). It is ok, but you better take more time to think about the kind of moral codes that you consider the best for future (and also Mr. Wright can continue thinking about).
I think that one of the most important points when working with the Darwinian perspective is the naturalistic fallacy. Wright, Dawkins, or Williams among others can argue that even we have been made by Natural Selection, we must rebel now against its law in the moral realm. They argue about the selfishness, even evilness, of such process, stressing our ability to break with it and decide from our own moral perspective. This implies understanding that for something being natural it doesn't mean to it be good. Ok, I agree, but the power of the naturalistic fallacy is immense, and the lawyer residing in your mind will be waiting any occasion to use it for your own (selfish) benefit. The natural fallacy provides a perfect way to justify many of our undesired acts: "I am sorry, but I couldn't avoid it".
While the three first parts of the book are a brilliant review of scientific theories, the fourth one is clearly weaker. However, the book is so superbly written that I felt a strong curiosity for the author (in the book I missed a better introduction of who he is, where does he research, and so on). I checked internet and found about his following book, which seems to have less acceptation among readers. I found that he is a strange character, not an evolutionary psychologist but a kind of freelance of writing books and opinion articles (maybe I am making a mistake). In any case I invite you to visit his website www.meaningoflife.tv, where you will find interviews to remarkable scientist and philosophers, but where you mainly will learn about Mr Wright's personal inquietudes. You can also visit www.nonzero.org.
To finish with this long review, it seems that Natural Sciences are reaching quite far into the understanding and explanation of human nature and behavior. People involved in social sciences such as philosophy, psychology, cultural anthropology, or sociology should look at this perspective, the New Darwinian paradigm if they don't want to find themselves completely out of fashion, soon. The moral animal is a wild work that serves as a wonderful introduction (much more than a mere introduction indeed) to evolutionary psychology, or human sociobiology.
|
|
|
Lisa Leininger (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-30 00:00>
The Moral Animal is a fascinating book that will change your understanding of human behavior. Robert Wright insight into the subject matter is clearly the result of extensive research, looking at civilizations around the world, yet he writes in a style that is friendly and accessible to most readers. From discussions on male and female approaches to relationships to sibling rivalry to self-deception, The Moral Animal provides an in-depth look into how evolution can explain human interactions and what the driving motives are for their behavior in a way that allows for compassionate understanding of it. |
|
|
Brian Shea (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-30 00:00>
I suspect that most readers will measure Moral Animal in a way that's proportional to how seriously they take evolutionary biology itself. Those who don't see it as serious science will have plenty of negative judgments of the book.
I don't think this is fair, however. The author says from the beginning that the discipline is in its infancy and much remains to be confirmed by further study. Yes, he says, the evidence is still anecdotal. But any scientific discipline starts with individuals daring to ask crazy questions, conducting experiments, and accepting harsh criticism from their contemporaries.
The evidence, anecdotal or not, is so overwhelming that one would have to be stupid to ignore the patterns. Furthermore, the author makes a good point: why do critics accept without question that animal behavior is rooted in genetic and evolutionary programming, but exempt humans from the same phenomenon? Why would we be the only species on the planet that are immune to this?
The Moral Animal is a fascinating read into human behavior and leaves readers wondering not why those apes at the zoo are so much like us, but rather why we're so much like them. |
|
|
An American reader (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-30 00:00>
I read the celebrated Moral Animal some 10 years ago, re-read it and underlined it at least twice. Finally I had found a theory of human nature and psychology I could wholeheartedly believe in. I was looking for a great quote from that book last week, but had loaned out both copies. I ended up buying a new one, and re-read the whole thing.
The quote is: "...humans are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse."
Experienced science journalist Robert Wright compiled the findings of this new area, evolutionary psychology (EP), for the lay reader in 1994 - and Moral Animal is still a timely treatise. Matt Ridley's excellent Red Queen was another book introducing EP around the same year. Wright writes in an engaging manner, intertwining his pearls with biographical sketches of Charles Darwin. Disclaimer: For those who are offended by the very suggestion that our behavior evolved from apes - and that our behavior is an elaborate, sophisticated manifestation of language and socialization which evolved by natural selection along with a huge brain - you won't like this book.
I realize the following assessment of mine is anecdotal, but here goes: I have seen step-children treated differently than genetic children. I have seen how men and women preen, peacock-like, showing off their best (?) sides during courtships, and how they pair off in society according to commonly accepted determinants of status, differing depending on sex. I have read about and subsequently observed how people (unconsciously?) score each other during their social interactions, rating relationship values for the future. I have observed how cheating (generic sense) is more rampant in very large groups where peer-pressure ceases to be such an important deterrent. Finally, game theory concepts utilized in EP are widely adapted and used in self-help books. I could go on with other examples, but, in short, I'm a sucker for EP.
Subsequently, I have read about resistance in university humanities departments to EP - humans being so special and all. We are - in the sense that our intelligence has given us free reign over our world - but humans are still very imperfect. We are poorly designed in many ways (backs, knees, tendency to war, self-delusion) - exactly what one would expect from evolution. Cockroaches or certain scorpions, which can live without food and water for almost a year, are also impressive. There is every reason to believe that our (at times) poor behavior evolved in just as Rube-Goldberg a fashion as did our (very complicated and redundant) blood clotting mechanism.
Anyway, this book is superb. I will close, since I could end up nattering on for more pages than most would want to read. Consider moving "Moral Animal" to closer to the top of your TBR list. A Best Buy. |
|
|
Yan (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-30 00:00>
The Moral Animal was recommended to me for several years by an ex-roommate and I finally relented and picked it up. The book was worth the time, at least the first half of it or so. Wright has that pleasant and tone of a TNR writer/editor - the patient, polite moderate idealogue. Here we have what appears to be a pretty solid introduction to the thinking process of an evolutionary psychologist. Much of the 'insights' are intuitive, but of course it is the counterintuitive findings that are most interesting.
It is amusing that (as per usual) several reviewers misinterpreted (or underintepreted) Wright's personal leanings on the politics of his subject matter. This book, after all, was focused on how evolution has shaped the way we think and how we define right and wrong (and why). One of the central points is that derivation of a moral code from nature is fallacious. For some reason, several readers assumed that since Wright (in an attempt to humor the conservative readership of the book) makes interesting commentary concerning the logic of Victorian morality, that he is an adherent of that belief system. This is, of course, ludicrous.
If anything, Wright sometimes crosses the line of permissible subjectivity by over-promoting his fetish for utilitarianism (FYI, a Victorian moralist would hardly gush about a Peter Singer). It is perfectly fine to tie this perfectly reasonable system of thought into his discussion, but by the end of the book, Wright's text is bordering on preachy piousness. Furthermore, his decision to exploit Darwin's life as the ultimate experimental subject of his own science in the lab of history reveals much more about how Wright thinks than it does about Darwin. Appropriately, though, Wright employs tempting speculation in a speculative discipline.
Other than those lesser issues, The Moral Animal resonates with and engages the reader. This book is at once enlightening and dangerous - a lightning rod for cynicism. I would not recommend it to people who prefer to preserve their own ideas about human relationships and the virtues of social life. It is perfect, however, for those who love to have their ideas challenged, and will challenge the author in turn. Perhaps the most promising and optimistic notion one can leave the book with is that human beings are an experiment that is constantly being improved - nature works us over on the outside, but it is up to us to realize our limitless intrinsic potential. |
|
|
An American reader (MSL quote) , USA
<2006-12-30 00:00>
The Moral Animal is a very detailed and informational book on evolutionary psychology. For those who don't know what evolutionary psychology is, it's the study of the psychological advances in organisms through time. Sometimes you can get confused throughout the book because there are many terms to remember to fully understand it. Robert Wright's theories are mostly based on Darwinism and pro-biology. He believes that people should have many offspring so that they can thrive and have a better chance of survival. One idea that he brought to topic in his book that I thought he contradicted himself was when he said, "We aren't designed to stand on crowded subway platforms, or to live in the suburbs next door to people we never talk to, or to get hired for fired, or to watch evening news" (38).
He also distinguishes the difference between men and women by saying that women don't advertise their ovulation. Wright also states that men also sometimes give the females gifts and in return they get sex. Contrary with his theory that people should create more offspring, he gave reasons to why people should choose monogamy. He stated that people choose monogamy because a man that has multiple wives will have to care more for families, which makes more work for the man. I believe that as long as a father with multiple wives has enough income to sustain his families, he should continue to have multiple wives, unless the man is in the state of nature, and if he is, his family should be able to gather an abundant amount of food. Suffering brought up a term called "parental income", which is pretty much what it sounds like.
Wright believes that "parental income" is the income a parent makes to support their child, no matter if they are in the state of nature or not. I disagree with his idea on this point because if your in the state of nature, you won't really need to have a parental income because you'll mainly just be gathering supplies such as food and crafts. And since you don't have anyone around you except your family, you won't need to have a money system because there will be an abundant amount of compassion coming from everyone because they're in the state of nature. Wright also discuses brotherly love by introducing a biologist named J. B. S Haldane who said that you're more likely to care for someone who you are close to rather than a random person. I say that this is very evident and that you don't need to be a biologist to understand the fundamentals of brotherly love. Along with Brotherly love, he explains how children create a relationship with their parents. Metaphorically speaking, I say that the parents are a magnet that attracts the children (metal) to them. This creates love towards the children, and the children love the parents in return. Also that most children have trust within their parents. I believe that even though a child is abused by its parents, they still have trust within their parents, but not as much as they would have if they were never abused.
Next he explains how in a poor family, the female offsprings are the ones who will reproductively thrive than a boy who is born into a poor family. And for the boy to be reproductively, he has to be born into a wealthy family. If he had a sister, she wouldn't reproductively thrive as much as her brother.
What I found most importantly of all in his book was about reciprocal altruism and utilitarianism. Reciprocal altruism applies to all organisms and it's when a/an organism(s) wants to help other/another organism(s), and the other organism(s) agree to be helped. And Utilitarianism as what Wright says is: "The fundamental guidelines for moral discourse are pleasure and pain. Things can be called good to the extent that they raise the amount of happiness in the world and bad to the extent that they raise the amount of suffering. The purpose of a moral code is to maximize the world's total happiness"(332). If I would put it in words I would say that it's basically like an alternative to religion without a god and it's the psychological way of thinking about an alternative to religion. Overall this book was very informative on almost everything you need to know about evolutionary psychology and you should buy the book because Robert Wright uses many examples to explain his theory's that are very interesting. |
|
|
An American reader (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-30 00:00>
This book masterfully gives the casual reader the impression of learning something insightful and new about the origins of human psychology but, in the words of the author, it's all self deception. Any number of so-called insights can easily be dismissed if the reader were to think a little. For example, Wright talks a lot about the sex differences stressing the male tendency to lie to females to get sex. But he never considers that members of both sexes will often lie to get something that gives them pleasure or to gain social status or to gain material advantages. The capacity to deceive is a trait shared by all humans but there is no evidence presented that it's origins are in male sexuality. It's easy and even titillating to speculate that the origins of the characteristics of human consciousness lie in the sexual selection of our ancestors. But it's even easier speculate that sexual selection played a minor role. After all, the capacity of humans to deceive others is just a secondary effect of their capacity to form a detailed mental picture of the world and communicate with others through language. These traits gave early humans a big survival advantage quite apart from enhancing the sexual prowess of some males. My point is that speculation is not science and this book offers little more than speculation on the evolutionary origins of human psychology. I say it is sophistry because Wright tries hard and in many ways succeeds at selling his vision of evolutionary psychology but without actually showing us the evidence. Indeed, if his idea that human consciousness is basically self-deceptive, there is no point in looking for scientific truth about human nature in the first place. But this idea is consistent with the spirit of the book, which seems more intent on convincing the reader of its views rather than presenting a scientific, that is, evidence-based search for the truth about the origins of human consciousness.
(A negative review. MSL remarks.) |
|
|
|
1 Total 1 pages 8 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
