knottyrambler's review against another edition
5.0
I really enjoyed listening to this book. Facinating.
kowood's review against another edition
5.0
If you’re into evolutionary biology, human violence, or fun bonobo facts, then you should pick up The Goodness Paradox by Richard Wrangham which describes his theory about how our evolutionary history has resulted in a human species that is simultaneously domesticated and capable of war.
Just as dogs have been bred by humans for pro-social behavior and low reactive aggression, humans have, as Wrangham suggests, been bred by ourselves for the same behaviors. Once humans developed language, we were able to share others’ actions with our peers (“Martin punched Deb in the face.”) and thus, the “reputation” was born. In hunter-gatherer societies bad behavior like murder, rape, and theft was punished by the group, so following social norms and fostering a respectable reputation became essential even for the most brawny of men. Our proclivity for violence was bred out of the gene pool because the tribe would kill (or other breeding-preventative measures like castration or banishment) individuals who were the most violent. In other words, the generous use of capital punishment over hundreds of thousands of years turned us into a peaceful, collaborative species. Wrangham argues that our desire to “fit in” to society’s norms, even if being different carries little actual risk, is a direct result from this pattern of coalitional retribution.
“What about war?” Well war and first-degree murder and genocide fall into the category of proactive aggression which is partially a symptom of the political structures and weapons of modern society that allow us to end lives while avoiding the gruesome, close-up assaults from which we would ordinarily retreat. We have far-ranging weapons which separate the one who pulls the trigger from the death they cause. Those making the most deadly decisions are the military leaders and the heads of state who rarely do the dirty work. The paradox lies in our capacity for these extreme forms of violence while simultaneously avoiding the day-to-day physical confrontations so common among wild mammals. Dick Cheney is described as a gentle, doting father who gives off a Ward Cleaver vibe. More exceptionally, Hitler was a vegetarian with a calm demeanor who adored his dog Blondi.
Wrangham makes it very clear that although capital punishment was a tool that eventually led to less reactive aggression, he views it as kin to the likes of patriarchy and cannibalism and condemns its continued use in modern society.
I would recommend this book for even just the section of the “domestication syndrome” that describes how and why selecting for low reactive aggression in mammals results in physical side effects like floppy ears and smaller skulls and more feminized males. Interesting stuff!
My only caveat is that although Wrangham’s argument is alluring, he uses a lot of guesswork and speculation to support his claim. To his credit, he never implies that he has all the answers.
Just as dogs have been bred by humans for pro-social behavior and low reactive aggression, humans have, as Wrangham suggests, been bred by ourselves for the same behaviors. Once humans developed language, we were able to share others’ actions with our peers (“Martin punched Deb in the face.”) and thus, the “reputation” was born. In hunter-gatherer societies bad behavior like murder, rape, and theft was punished by the group, so following social norms and fostering a respectable reputation became essential even for the most brawny of men. Our proclivity for violence was bred out of the gene pool because the tribe would kill (or other breeding-preventative measures like castration or banishment) individuals who were the most violent. In other words, the generous use of capital punishment over hundreds of thousands of years turned us into a peaceful, collaborative species. Wrangham argues that our desire to “fit in” to society’s norms, even if being different carries little actual risk, is a direct result from this pattern of coalitional retribution.
“What about war?” Well war and first-degree murder and genocide fall into the category of proactive aggression which is partially a symptom of the political structures and weapons of modern society that allow us to end lives while avoiding the gruesome, close-up assaults from which we would ordinarily retreat. We have far-ranging weapons which separate the one who pulls the trigger from the death they cause. Those making the most deadly decisions are the military leaders and the heads of state who rarely do the dirty work. The paradox lies in our capacity for these extreme forms of violence while simultaneously avoiding the day-to-day physical confrontations so common among wild mammals. Dick Cheney is described as a gentle, doting father who gives off a Ward Cleaver vibe. More exceptionally, Hitler was a vegetarian with a calm demeanor who adored his dog Blondi.
Wrangham makes it very clear that although capital punishment was a tool that eventually led to less reactive aggression, he views it as kin to the likes of patriarchy and cannibalism and condemns its continued use in modern society.
I would recommend this book for even just the section of the “domestication syndrome” that describes how and why selecting for low reactive aggression in mammals results in physical side effects like floppy ears and smaller skulls and more feminized males. Interesting stuff!
My only caveat is that although Wrangham’s argument is alluring, he uses a lot of guesswork and speculation to support his claim. To his credit, he never implies that he has all the answers.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
5.0
"The anthropologist Sarah Hrdy noted that to pack hundreds of chimpanzees into close quarters on an airplane would be to invite violent chaos, whereas most human passengers behave sedately even when they are crowded. As Dale Peterson observed, however, intense screening is needed to ensure that a secret enemy will not carry a bomb on board."
This captures the phenomenon (or "paradox") the book is trying to explain: humans have very low reactive aggression, that is uncontrollably attacking someone in the anger of the moment. We can walk down the street, see strangers, they can even bump into us, and we'll virtually never hit them and usually won't even send a dirty look their way. Virtually no other wild animal is like that. But humans also have extraordinary levels of proactive aggression, we can plot wars, genocides, and much more that kill millions of humans in the process--something that no other animal could come remotely close to doing.
Richard Wrangham advances a bold thesis for how this came about: evolutionary changes driven by hundreds of thousands of years of capital punishment that effectively "self domesticated" humans, much like the process that turned reactively aggressive wolves into tame dogs and many other examples of domestication. Basically, language (a bit of a deus ex machina in this account, and given that it doesn't fossilize it may always be in every account) enabled humans to coordinate to kill overly aggressive people using gossip, plotting, and the like. Over hundreds of thousands of years--or about 12,000 generations--this led to genetic changes that separated from earlier humans not to mention chimpanzees.
The evidence Wrangham puts forward for this hypothesis is draws on evolutionary biology, animal behavior, genetics, neuroscience, anthropology and more. A lot of it draws on studies of the way the domestication changes animals, many of them in the direction of paedomorphic changes in which animals retain more juvenile features as adults, including reduced differences between males and females, certain aspects like bone density, and interesting things that have simultaneously evolved multiple times like floppy ears and white tufts. Wrangham looks at the fossil record and modern humans and sees many of these features diverging from our ancestors--and also differing from very recent relatives like neanderthals.
Wrangham contrasts his hypothesis to other explanations. One explanation he debunks (following a long-standing tradition of arguing against it) is group selection, because this generally cannot explain why individuals will not benefit from defecting--something that fear of execution can explain. He also criticizes cultural explanations for human aggressive behavior because of the strong evidence about how deeply rooted it is, observable in babies, in children even when given contrary instructions, etc.
He also applies this idea to a variety of areas. For example, he explains several moral puzzles about people's behavior (e.g., trolley-problem like issues around people not wanting to touch or directly engage in certain behavior that they would do indirectly) as humans evolving to be risk averse, trying to avoid being (unfairly) blamed when they were trying to help. He also analyzes war which is an example of "coalitionary proactive aggression," contrasting the primitive version which relied on voluntary consensus without leaders leading to raids with a very high probability of success with the modern version which entails leaders getting their followers to do things that are highly non-adaptive from an evolutionary perspective--requiring intense drilling, rules, and created camaraderie to make it work.
The above does not do justice to what is a very rich, dense, but highly readable book that draws on a lot of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research. Although I am not 100 percent convinced of the execution hypothesis there is a rich set of evidence for it, not just an ex post just so story. Also, even if you do not agree with the hypothesis there is a lot to get out of the book, including a better understanding of aggression, some history of science (and particularly, some appalling politicalization that led scientists to resist admitting things like chimpanzee infanticide or hunter-gatherer warfare because they were afraid it would legitimize it in humans), and much much more.
Ultimately Wrangham is at pains to distance himself from the naturalistic fallacy that just because something is natural or evolved it is legitimate. He points out the ways that culture has changed over time to reduce violence--and that even nature itself builds in responses to incentives (e.g., the frequency of chimpanzee infanticide depends on factors that change the evolutionary rewards for engaging in it). Ultimately he agreed with Katherine Hepburn's character from The African Queen that "Nature... is what we are put in this world to rise above."
Very, very highly recommended.
P.S. Another image, like the opening quote, I cannot get out of my head is how humans have never really been led by alpha males, whether in hunter gathers or sophisticated societies. Our leaders are not obeyed because they could win a wrestling match with any other challenger but because they can organize a coalition to engage in violence to enforce the law. This means that humans have obedience in way that no wild animal does.
This captures the phenomenon (or "paradox") the book is trying to explain: humans have very low reactive aggression, that is uncontrollably attacking someone in the anger of the moment. We can walk down the street, see strangers, they can even bump into us, and we'll virtually never hit them and usually won't even send a dirty look their way. Virtually no other wild animal is like that. But humans also have extraordinary levels of proactive aggression, we can plot wars, genocides, and much more that kill millions of humans in the process--something that no other animal could come remotely close to doing.
Richard Wrangham advances a bold thesis for how this came about: evolutionary changes driven by hundreds of thousands of years of capital punishment that effectively "self domesticated" humans, much like the process that turned reactively aggressive wolves into tame dogs and many other examples of domestication. Basically, language (a bit of a deus ex machina in this account, and given that it doesn't fossilize it may always be in every account) enabled humans to coordinate to kill overly aggressive people using gossip, plotting, and the like. Over hundreds of thousands of years--or about 12,000 generations--this led to genetic changes that separated from earlier humans not to mention chimpanzees.
The evidence Wrangham puts forward for this hypothesis is draws on evolutionary biology, animal behavior, genetics, neuroscience, anthropology and more. A lot of it draws on studies of the way the domestication changes animals, many of them in the direction of paedomorphic changes in which animals retain more juvenile features as adults, including reduced differences between males and females, certain aspects like bone density, and interesting things that have simultaneously evolved multiple times like floppy ears and white tufts. Wrangham looks at the fossil record and modern humans and sees many of these features diverging from our ancestors--and also differing from very recent relatives like neanderthals.
Wrangham contrasts his hypothesis to other explanations. One explanation he debunks (following a long-standing tradition of arguing against it) is group selection, because this generally cannot explain why individuals will not benefit from defecting--something that fear of execution can explain. He also criticizes cultural explanations for human aggressive behavior because of the strong evidence about how deeply rooted it is, observable in babies, in children even when given contrary instructions, etc.
He also applies this idea to a variety of areas. For example, he explains several moral puzzles about people's behavior (e.g., trolley-problem like issues around people not wanting to touch or directly engage in certain behavior that they would do indirectly) as humans evolving to be risk averse, trying to avoid being (unfairly) blamed when they were trying to help. He also analyzes war which is an example of "coalitionary proactive aggression," contrasting the primitive version which relied on voluntary consensus without leaders leading to raids with a very high probability of success with the modern version which entails leaders getting their followers to do things that are highly non-adaptive from an evolutionary perspective--requiring intense drilling, rules, and created camaraderie to make it work.
The above does not do justice to what is a very rich, dense, but highly readable book that draws on a lot of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research. Although I am not 100 percent convinced of the execution hypothesis there is a rich set of evidence for it, not just an ex post just so story. Also, even if you do not agree with the hypothesis there is a lot to get out of the book, including a better understanding of aggression, some history of science (and particularly, some appalling politicalization that led scientists to resist admitting things like chimpanzee infanticide or hunter-gatherer warfare because they were afraid it would legitimize it in humans), and much much more.
Ultimately Wrangham is at pains to distance himself from the naturalistic fallacy that just because something is natural or evolved it is legitimate. He points out the ways that culture has changed over time to reduce violence--and that even nature itself builds in responses to incentives (e.g., the frequency of chimpanzee infanticide depends on factors that change the evolutionary rewards for engaging in it). Ultimately he agreed with Katherine Hepburn's character from The African Queen that "Nature... is what we are put in this world to rise above."
Very, very highly recommended.
P.S. Another image, like the opening quote, I cannot get out of my head is how humans have never really been led by alpha males, whether in hunter gathers or sophisticated societies. Our leaders are not obeyed because they could win a wrestling match with any other challenger but because they can organize a coalition to engage in violence to enforce the law. This means that humans have obedience in way that no wild animal does.
adrianhon's review against another edition
5.0
Ambitious, gripping, wide-ranging thesis that humanity’s unusual capacity for co-operation and aggression is due to self-domestication via literal execution of those exhibiting hot-blooded “reactive aggression” by means of cold-blooded “proactive aggression”.
Two minor criticisms:
1. The final section on war felt much more speculative than the others.
2. The Libby/Overdrive eBook was littered with errors.
Two minor criticisms:
1. The final section on war felt much more speculative than the others.
2. The Libby/Overdrive eBook was littered with errors.
audrey_rose94's review against another edition
3.0
Some interesting information and anecdotes thrown it there
But it felt so repetitive it truly felt like it was never gonna end.
It was alright otherwise.
But it felt so repetitive it truly felt like it was never gonna end.
It was alright otherwise.
jenna_serv's review against another edition
Read this for school - didn't have to read every chapter but most. Really good writing and easy to grasp concepts. One of the easier to digest books of the class
More...