Scan barcode
stiansi's review against another edition
3.0
Whew! Aaaand breathe...! I managed to get through this slog of a book. A very thick, long, messy, and complicated work (stay tuned) Sapolsky is so fond of digressions that it becomes slightly jarring at times, not to mention his obsessive usage of footnotes (even David Foster Wallace would be envious of his propensity for footnotes!). These two annoyances do detract some enjoyment from the book. On top of that, the book tries to do a lot more than it initially purports to do. On the face of it, at least you are lead to believe initially that this is an excursion into the biology of human behaviour and the mechanisms that «govern» this behaviour, that is, outside factors like culture and ecology, and internal forces, like neurons, genes, hormones, and so on -- to give some answer to the question, Why do we behave the way we do? Now, he definitely does do this, it is true, but oh boy does he do a lot more than this too.
After a while the book gets a clearly and overtly political inclination (stay tuned). I don’t really have a problem with that – it’s just not quite what I expected. Sapolsky pulls no punches here: he is a liberal leftist. Hey, I am too – I should dig it! And in some ways it’s hard for me to give this only 3 stars, as in the end I find myself agreeing with him on most accounts, and also share his rather pessimistic and depressing worldview that is felt throughout the book (except for in the final part, but even this optimism feels kind of half-hearted to me). But this aspect of the book makes it more jumbled, it becomes unclear where he’s taking you, and what I initially thought would be a fairly straight-forward book about human behaviour became something of a political statement, with, among other things, Sapolsky’s opinions on the current state of prisons in the US (and elsewhere) and the desperate need for reform. On top of all that, the book is stuffed with (littered with, perhaps?) fascinating case studies, including obligatory discussions of the Asch conformity experiments, the Milgram Experiment, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Throughout the book Sapolsky is critical of the science behind the studies, and sometimes admits that studies he cites have not yet been replicated – so this is good, it’s clear that as a scientist Sapolsky is great, and I expected no less from one of my favourite authors. The problem is just that there are so many of these case studies, not all of them are even relevant (see above about digressions and footnotes!).
Apart from the many chapters with biological priming, you’ll find discussions of free will, the difference between conservatives and liberals (a section of the book that may infuriate conservatives and make liberals gloat), and Sapolsky also throws in his opinions in the quite recent debate sparked by Steven Pinker’s book, [b:The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined|13543093|The Better Angels of Our Nature Why Violence Has Declined|Steven Pinker|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1513020635s/13543093.jpg|16029496], about whether or not humans have gotten «better» (i.e. more peaceful) during the course of history. This section of the book I found particularly insightful, as I was aware of the debate but had honestly not really dived into it due to laziness. (Stay tuned.)
I’m also quite convinced many readers will be put off by Sapolsky’s humour (he is not afraid of using abbreviations like OMG either), and some who don’t get the humour might even think he’s insulting to other scientists – similarly to how many people get confused by Bertrand Russell’s use of irony and have a hard time telling when he’s serious and not. But with Sapolsky it’s a lot more obvious. He’s a good-humoured guy with a very self-deprecating sense of humour, and there is a lot of it in the book (stay tuned). He is well aware he’s a slightly aloof professor whose body is only a means to transport his brain; a man who has spent some 30 years alone in the savannahs of Africa studying baboons. I think he’s great for it. The tone in general is quite conversational – which again I was expecting; [b:Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|327|Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|Robert M. Sapolsky|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1441955030s/327.jpg|21860] was written in the same vein.
All that negativity aside, the book is good, in the end, partly because its message does in fact resonate so well with me. It makes me reflect on myself as a human being, my actions, thoughts, feelings, my biases and prejudices, and why I think as I do. The book has made me aware of areas in my life where I am particularly sensitive to irrational or prejudicial thinking, and how I can circumvent those flaws (basically tell my amygdala to STFU and make space for my prefrontal cortex). It’s made me aware of how humans tend to think, how we are so prone to Us/Them thinking, and just prone to thinking in buckets in general (as Sapolsky calls it). One of the conclusions of the book is simply: it’s complicated. And the book suffers from that: Sapolsky picks a fight with a topic that is just a bit too massive perhaps, especially considering all he wants to say, which is even more. But is it worth reading? A resounding yes. Would I recommend [b:Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|327|Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|Robert M. Sapolsky|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1441955030s/327.jpg|21860] ahead of this? Another, even more resounding, yes.
*For those that have not read the book: I added the odd "stay tuned" here and there because if you read this book you will be having to "stay tuned" pretty much constantly. Just priming you. Now when you know this fact, too, your dopamine will soar as you will find the first "stay tuned" in the book and be pleased to get the (admittedly poor) joke in my (admittedly poor) review. STAY TUNED. It is of vital importance.
After a while the book gets a clearly and overtly political inclination (stay tuned). I don’t really have a problem with that – it’s just not quite what I expected. Sapolsky pulls no punches here: he is a liberal leftist. Hey, I am too – I should dig it! And in some ways it’s hard for me to give this only 3 stars, as in the end I find myself agreeing with him on most accounts, and also share his rather pessimistic and depressing worldview that is felt throughout the book (except for in the final part, but even this optimism feels kind of half-hearted to me). But this aspect of the book makes it more jumbled, it becomes unclear where he’s taking you, and what I initially thought would be a fairly straight-forward book about human behaviour became something of a political statement, with, among other things, Sapolsky’s opinions on the current state of prisons in the US (and elsewhere) and the desperate need for reform. On top of all that, the book is stuffed with (littered with, perhaps?) fascinating case studies, including obligatory discussions of the Asch conformity experiments, the Milgram Experiment, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Throughout the book Sapolsky is critical of the science behind the studies, and sometimes admits that studies he cites have not yet been replicated – so this is good, it’s clear that as a scientist Sapolsky is great, and I expected no less from one of my favourite authors. The problem is just that there are so many of these case studies, not all of them are even relevant (see above about digressions and footnotes!).
Apart from the many chapters with biological priming, you’ll find discussions of free will, the difference between conservatives and liberals (a section of the book that may infuriate conservatives and make liberals gloat), and Sapolsky also throws in his opinions in the quite recent debate sparked by Steven Pinker’s book, [b:The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined|13543093|The Better Angels of Our Nature Why Violence Has Declined|Steven Pinker|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1513020635s/13543093.jpg|16029496], about whether or not humans have gotten «better» (i.e. more peaceful) during the course of history. This section of the book I found particularly insightful, as I was aware of the debate but had honestly not really dived into it due to laziness. (Stay tuned.)
I’m also quite convinced many readers will be put off by Sapolsky’s humour (he is not afraid of using abbreviations like OMG either), and some who don’t get the humour might even think he’s insulting to other scientists – similarly to how many people get confused by Bertrand Russell’s use of irony and have a hard time telling when he’s serious and not. But with Sapolsky it’s a lot more obvious. He’s a good-humoured guy with a very self-deprecating sense of humour, and there is a lot of it in the book (stay tuned). He is well aware he’s a slightly aloof professor whose body is only a means to transport his brain; a man who has spent some 30 years alone in the savannahs of Africa studying baboons. I think he’s great for it. The tone in general is quite conversational – which again I was expecting; [b:Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|327|Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|Robert M. Sapolsky|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1441955030s/327.jpg|21860] was written in the same vein.
All that negativity aside, the book is good, in the end, partly because its message does in fact resonate so well with me. It makes me reflect on myself as a human being, my actions, thoughts, feelings, my biases and prejudices, and why I think as I do. The book has made me aware of areas in my life where I am particularly sensitive to irrational or prejudicial thinking, and how I can circumvent those flaws (basically tell my amygdala to STFU and make space for my prefrontal cortex). It’s made me aware of how humans tend to think, how we are so prone to Us/Them thinking, and just prone to thinking in buckets in general (as Sapolsky calls it). One of the conclusions of the book is simply: it’s complicated. And the book suffers from that: Sapolsky picks a fight with a topic that is just a bit too massive perhaps, especially considering all he wants to say, which is even more. But is it worth reading? A resounding yes. Would I recommend [b:Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|327|Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers|Robert M. Sapolsky|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1441955030s/327.jpg|21860] ahead of this? Another, even more resounding, yes.
*For those that have not read the book: I added the odd "stay tuned" here and there because if you read this book you will be having to "stay tuned" pretty much constantly. Just priming you. Now when you know this fact, too, your dopamine will soar as you will find the first "stay tuned" in the book and be pleased to get the (admittedly poor) joke in my (admittedly poor) review. STAY TUNED. It is of vital importance.
olawunmi's review against another edition
4.0
It’s hard not to notice the strings of bias laced throughout the book, some of which are acknowledged. Ironically, the acknowledgment of some and not others only makes you wonder about the ones that didn’t get the same treatment and went unannounced
dclark32's review against another edition
4.0
This is an outstanding multi-disciplinary examination of biology and its intersection with the humanities; it is easily recommended. As an educator myself, I know a gifted teacher when I see one. For a notoriously thorny subject, Sapolsky keeps things very lively: I find his ability to explain complicated subject matter in a clear manner particularly admirable. Plus, I appreciate his willingness to explore nuances and criticisms of the research of even major contributors in a given field (always the mark of a genuine expert, in my experience*).
I've been waffling back and forth between 4.5 and 5 stars. For now, I am going with the former because his forays into more socio-political disciplines in the later chapters are considerably less authoritative than his discussions of the more purely science-based subjects that are his area of specialization. This is a minor critique though - the book is excellent. If you have an interest in the area, this is the place to start.
4.5/5
*By contrast, show me someone who speaks of "the evidence" and "the research" as a sort of metaphysical entity conveying divine authority, and I will show you somebody who wilts under thoughtful and informed questioning.
I've been waffling back and forth between 4.5 and 5 stars. For now, I am going with the former because his forays into more socio-political disciplines in the later chapters are considerably less authoritative than his discussions of the more purely science-based subjects that are his area of specialization. This is a minor critique though - the book is excellent. If you have an interest in the area, this is the place to start.
4.5/5
*By contrast, show me someone who speaks of "the evidence" and "the research" as a sort of metaphysical entity conveying divine authority, and I will show you somebody who wilts under thoughtful and informed questioning.
gabbuz's review against another edition
4.0
Ši knyga yra tokia stora ir sudėtinga, kad klausimas jau nebėra „ar verta ją skaityti?“, bet „ar verta investuoti į ją tiek laiko“?
Daugumai, ne. Investicija atsipirks tik tiems, kurie turi tikslą suprasti žmonių (ir kitų sutvėrimų) elgesį ne tik pagal evoliucinį ir socialinį programavimą, bet smegenų dalių, hormonų, ir genų veiklą. Tad reikia įsivertinti, kiek man svarbu viršutinės šoninės prieškakčio žievės ir limbinės sistemos ryšys, kuris iš dalies paaiškina sprendimų priėmimo procesą.
Norint perskaityti pirmąją knygos pusę, teko googlinti, užsirašinėti ir mokytis lyg planuočiau būti medikė. Antroji dalis buvo lengvesnė, nes daugiau laiko buvo skiriama socialiniam ir kultūriniam elgesio analizavimui.
Dabar suprantu elgesio niuansus kur kas geriau nei eilinis žmogus; man tai pravers ir asmeniniam ir profesiniam gyvenime. Ar tai transformavo mano pasaulio suvokimą? Ne.
Daugumai, ne. Investicija atsipirks tik tiems, kurie turi tikslą suprasti žmonių (ir kitų sutvėrimų) elgesį ne tik pagal evoliucinį ir socialinį programavimą, bet smegenų dalių, hormonų, ir genų veiklą. Tad reikia įsivertinti, kiek man svarbu viršutinės šoninės prieškakčio žievės ir limbinės sistemos ryšys, kuris iš dalies paaiškina sprendimų priėmimo procesą.
Norint perskaityti pirmąją knygos pusę, teko googlinti, užsirašinėti ir mokytis lyg planuočiau būti medikė. Antroji dalis buvo lengvesnė, nes daugiau laiko buvo skiriama socialiniam ir kultūriniam elgesio analizavimui.
Dabar suprantu elgesio niuansus kur kas geriau nei eilinis žmogus; man tai pravers ir asmeniniam ir profesiniam gyvenime. Ar tai transformavo mano pasaulio suvokimą? Ne.
ellaphaba's review against another edition
5.0
I borrowed this from the library and I want to buy my own copy to have for reference because it is that good.
sanctae_dianae's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.5
As a fellow scientist, this read gave me a better idea on the human body and why we are the way we are. Seeing a different perspective on hormones and the way they influence a big part of our behaviour was extraordinary. I totally recommend
leighgoodmark's review against another edition
5.0
It took me forever to finish this book. Sometimes I had to go back and re-read several times to get a concept, and I could only read it when it was completely quiet, so that I could concentrate. And I would do it again (and probably will). Sapolsky is a gifted writer and storyteller, which makes working your way through the neurobiology much easier and incredibly rewarding. He's convinced me that our best and worst impulses and acts are a function of biology, and that biology is deeply shaped by context. Absolutely fascinating and wonderful book. Worth every bit of effort it takes to understand the ways that neurotransmitters work (among many, many other things). And bonus: he collaborates with one of my favorite law professors!