agrajag's review against another edition
1.0
(review based on the first ~30% of the book, I abandoned this book and am not going to complete it)
The topic of this book is interesting, so I was hopeful starting out. Unfortunately it quickly became apparent that this is a book that evangelizes the authors one theory at any cost, including making completely unsourced claims that look extremely dubious even to a casual observer.
This book can be summarized with "we like things because we're born essentialists" and that's just not enough meat for an entire book.
The author also seems blissfully unaware about several of the groups he nevertheless write about; for example:
He's either unaware, or doesn't bother mentioning how many people on the spectrum feel about that.
But where he really lost me was with his treatment of gender.
Let me get that straight: he thinks that we're born gender-essentialists, and the evidence he use in favour of that is that 7 year old people who know little about evolutionary theory, still think that gender is a fundamental property of people, and he (or so it seems) thinks that socialization is something that hasn't yet started by age 7, so the views of 7-year old children can be used as evidence that a certain view is NOT a result of socialization? (where does he imagine 7 year old got the idea that human beings are the way we are "because God made them that way" ?)
The topic of this book is interesting, so I was hopeful starting out. Unfortunately it quickly became apparent that this is a book that evangelizes the authors one theory at any cost, including making completely unsourced claims that look extremely dubious even to a casual observer.
This book can be summarized with "we like things because we're born essentialists" and that's just not enough meat for an entire book.
The author also seems blissfully unaware about several of the groups he nevertheless write about; for example:
I used to work with children with autism and was constantly reminded to call them “children with autism” instead of “autistics”—the argument being that there is more to these people than their disorder.
He's either unaware, or doesn't bother mentioning how many people on the spectrum feel about that.
But where he really lost me was with his treatment of gender.
Before ever learning about physiology, genetics, evolutionary theory, or any other science, children think that there is something internal and invisible that distinguishes boys from girls.
Seven-year-olds tend to endorse statements such as “Boys have different things in their innards than girls” and “Because God made them that way” (a biological essence and a spiritual essence). Only later in development do children accept cultural explanations, such as “Because it is the way we have been brought up.” You need to be socialized to think about socialization.
Let me get that straight: he thinks that we're born gender-essentialists, and the evidence he use in favour of that is that 7 year old people who know little about evolutionary theory, still think that gender is a fundamental property of people, and he (or so it seems) thinks that socialization is something that hasn't yet started by age 7, so the views of 7-year old children can be used as evidence that a certain view is NOT a result of socialization? (where does he imagine 7 year old got the idea that human beings are the way we are "because God made them that way" ?)
randybo5's review against another edition
2.0
A pretty understandable oompilation of the science on why we like what we like.
deathcabforkatey's review against another edition
3.0
All-in-all an okay read. Not my favorite of his. I found his overall argument kind of lost throughout the book. He begins by saying "I'm making an argument for essentialism." And then at the end of the book brings it back up again. I found the connection to essentialism throughout the book to be lacking. He needed to point out to the reader when he was making his argument to make it more clear. It's a good, enjoyable read, though. It takes you through the science of human pleasure across the spectrum, to show how psychologists try to explain why we like what we like.
Read if you like: popular nonfiction, psychology, trying to understand weird things like cannibalism and masochism.
Read if you like: popular nonfiction, psychology, trying to understand weird things like cannibalism and masochism.
damsorrow's review against another edition
2.0
This book sets up a theory for you (essentialism) and then puts a principle in place (that we like and derive pleasure from things because we perceive something "essential" about them) and expounds on it different ways: food, sex, collecting, whatever. The big problem with the book is that food, sex, collecting, whatever are humongous topics, each with their own "home theories" that are virtually ignored.
I felt this most acutely in the sex chapter, which was largely based around that fucking "parental investment" bullshit I've had crammed down my throat forever--an old theory, taken down a million times. Were you guys aware that there are only two genders, and women act one way and men act another way, all of the time, no matter what, because they are motivated to reproduce? I know, right? An easy evolutionary psych bingo: "The dynamics of our savannah ancestors looked curiously like those of 1950s America." "Confusion over whether they're rationalizing polyamory or nuclear-family patriarchy, but whatever they're rationalizing, only men evolved to enjoy it."
I feel bad, because the dude seems kind and smart and I love that this book was written. But as I read I often felt like I was trying to hold in a wince as my favorite uncle spouts of poorly-informed political beliefs during Thanksgiving dinner.
I felt this most acutely in the sex chapter, which was largely based around that fucking "parental investment" bullshit I've had crammed down my throat forever--an old theory, taken down a million times. Were you guys aware that there are only two genders, and women act one way and men act another way, all of the time, no matter what, because they are motivated to reproduce? I know, right? An easy evolutionary psych bingo: "The dynamics of our savannah ancestors looked curiously like those of 1950s America." "Confusion over whether they're rationalizing polyamory or nuclear-family patriarchy, but whatever they're rationalizing, only men evolved to enjoy it."
I feel bad, because the dude seems kind and smart and I love that this book was written. But as I read I often felt like I was trying to hold in a wince as my favorite uncle spouts of poorly-informed political beliefs during Thanksgiving dinner.
eeclayton's review against another edition
4.0
Informative and entertaining. It's basically about the theory of essentialism, and how it applies to different fields of life. Bloom references lots of interesting research, and his style is just delightful.
pchance's review against another edition
1.0
So ironic that a book about pleasure has left me bored out of my mind. I'm not sure what this guy's qualifications are, but I disagree with the majority of what he says. It wasn't interesting. He glossed over sex which is surely the part we're all wondering about 🙄 Do yourself a favour and don't bother.
swhuber's review against another edition
2.0
I had nothing against Paul Bloom's style for the durration of the book. In fact, I rather enjoyed his style and thought his simple language and format would be an adequate way of describing why we like what we like.
You can sum up Bloon's entire 200 page argument in about 2 sentences. "We like things when we feel there is an associated essential quality to their being, imparted from either and internal or external source. The extent of our likes vary across several categories, including food, sex and religion; however, all of those categories are based on the same desire for essentialism."
Although this book has a "why" in the title, every explanation is based on correlation, not causation. Again, these are fine conclusions to draw, but they are only interesting for about chapter. The anecdotes and transitional stories were great, but I wanted a greater overall theme, not something that could be summed up so quickly with a slew of anecdotal evidence.
You can sum up Bloon's entire 200 page argument in about 2 sentences. "We like things when we feel there is an associated essential quality to their being, imparted from either and internal or external source. The extent of our likes vary across several categories, including food, sex and religion; however, all of those categories are based on the same desire for essentialism."
Although this book has a "why" in the title, every explanation is based on correlation, not causation. Again, these are fine conclusions to draw, but they are only interesting for about chapter. The anecdotes and transitional stories were great, but I wanted a greater overall theme, not something that could be summed up so quickly with a slew of anecdotal evidence.