aashkevr's review against another edition
2.0
barely , barely a three. interesting ideas, but annoyingly uninformed about gender and obviously anti-feminist
smortimer's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting- but a bit redundant at certain parts. Would be good for a book club discussion!
wishanem's review
1.0
I was expecting to read something controversial and maybe challenging, but what I found was shallow, generalized, and often misleading. It was sensationalist, but the writing was dull. I'm not well educated with the field of Psychology, Biology, or Anthropology, so as a layman I was surprised by how many of the books arguments failed to convince me.
Here's, word for word, one of the most objectionable passages in the book:
"All men, criminal or not, are more or less the same. The ultimate reason why men do what they do, whether they be criminals, musicians, painters, writers, or scientists, is to impress women so they will sleep with them. Men do everything they do in order to get laid."
I would like to direct the authors' attention to every celibate man ever, as well as to every man who has ever turned out the opportunity to get laid. I'm not particularly offended by the authors' low opinion of men in general, but by their lack of sense in what they claim is an educational book.
Other ideas in this book (paraphrased):
The book says humans are adapted for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle because there hasn't been enough time or a stable enough environment for natural selection since the discovery of agriculture. But it also says all of humanity has the same essential culture, because culture is a direct result of biology. That's the sort of absurd belief that could only be developed by someone deeply immersed in academia. The book attempts to prove all human culture is the same by listing a couple debunked pieces of research on aberrant cultures, but they authors forgot to prove the sameness between all world cultures.
The book says anyone who didn't have children was a genetic failure. People who had more children were inherently more successful than those who did not. This ignores that helping children succeed might be a better strategy than just having tons of them. A non-reproductive person can (and historically often did) help their siblings and their siblings' children. A person with fewer children might have more successful children as a result. The genes responsible for an individual not reproducing or having fewer kids might still thrive.
The book says blonde women are universally considered the most beautiful. Except they aren't. That isn't even debateable.
The book says suicide bombers are mostly Muslim because their culture accepts Polygyny. The dearth of marriageable women makes suicide bombing an attractive option. Riddle me this, authors: why doesn't China have scads of suicide bombers? There are something like 30 million more single men than women in China, and yet suicide boming is basically unknown there.
Absolutely not recommended.
Here's, word for word, one of the most objectionable passages in the book:
"All men, criminal or not, are more or less the same. The ultimate reason why men do what they do, whether they be criminals, musicians, painters, writers, or scientists, is to impress women so they will sleep with them. Men do everything they do in order to get laid."
I would like to direct the authors' attention to every celibate man ever, as well as to every man who has ever turned out the opportunity to get laid. I'm not particularly offended by the authors' low opinion of men in general, but by their lack of sense in what they claim is an educational book.
Other ideas in this book (paraphrased):
The book says humans are adapted for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle because there hasn't been enough time or a stable enough environment for natural selection since the discovery of agriculture. But it also says all of humanity has the same essential culture, because culture is a direct result of biology. That's the sort of absurd belief that could only be developed by someone deeply immersed in academia. The book attempts to prove all human culture is the same by listing a couple debunked pieces of research on aberrant cultures, but they authors forgot to prove the sameness between all world cultures.
The book says anyone who didn't have children was a genetic failure. People who had more children were inherently more successful than those who did not. This ignores that helping children succeed might be a better strategy than just having tons of them. A non-reproductive person can (and historically often did) help their siblings and their siblings' children. A person with fewer children might have more successful children as a result. The genes responsible for an individual not reproducing or having fewer kids might still thrive.
The book says blonde women are universally considered the most beautiful. Except they aren't. That isn't even debateable.
The book says suicide bombers are mostly Muslim because their culture accepts Polygyny. The dearth of marriageable women makes suicide bombing an attractive option. Riddle me this, authors: why doesn't China have scads of suicide bombers? There are something like 30 million more single men than women in China, and yet suicide boming is basically unknown there.
Absolutely not recommended.
jeffgrann's review
4.0
Nice and provocative overview of evolutionary psychology. Lite on method, but kept enough detail to feel credible. Some of the more memorable messages for me were, human universals and the presumptions of the Standard Social Science Model. Not that this work is dated in any way, but I could see a publication effort modeled on this books chapters examining various topical issues or media coverage.
jeremychiasson's review
1.0
Evolutionary psychology at its worst. Pop Science at its worst. Steer clear, dear reader!
aelovejoy's review against another edition
3.0
Overall, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters was a good book. The different passages did not go into extreme detail, but simply answered the questions posed in the heading of the section and citing but not fully elaborating on studies conducted by the other psychologists or even themselves. I would recommend it to other psychology students with the warning that it is a book solely about evolutionary psychology, and that they should remember that anything said may be interpreted differently or be contradicted by other psychological perspectives. For a person who had not taken a psychology course and was merely interested, I would provide them with the same warning but still encourage them to read it.
mlannie's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Really interesting look into evolutionary psychology - gonna see blond bombshells a little differently now
anastasiabeaverhausen's review
3.0
This book was so repetitive, I kept having to pause and think, "wait, did I lose my spot and accidentally go back?" There was some good info in it and I did finish the book but it wasn't as interesting as I thought it was going to be.
More...