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
lexyluthor's review against another edition
I really enjoyed this but was not prepared to read such a long nonfiction book. Definitely want to pick this up again in the future though
jonathanlibrarian's review against another edition
4.0
Very good but falls short of great for me as Sapolsky seems out of his depth in the last third of the book writing about ethics, social constructs, and historical violence. Also a bit redundant when writing on us/then, hierarchical conflicts. The last 60 page chapter was nothing but anecdotes of good individual and collective action which really diminished the book for me.
kilonshele's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
alannabarras's review against another edition
5.0
As Robert Sapolsky says in Believe, “You don’t have to choose between being scientific and being compassionate.” Turns out you also don’t have to choose between engaging writing and textbook-level detail. Starting with what causes an individual’s behavior in the moment - what neurons are fired or pathways triggered - Sapolsky slowly lengthens his focus. He first reached back in time, looking at what impacts our decisions in the days, months, or years leading up to them. He stretches back generations to the dawn of humanity. You’d think once Sapolsky covered the whole timeline he’d call it good but no - instead he widens the focus, starting with the first hints of civilizations all the way back to how modern day familial, social, and governmental structures impact how decisions are framed and made.
To be clear, this book is dense. If it isn’t used in college classrooms yet I’m sure it’s only a matter of time. But Sapolsky structures it well, consistently explaining a new concept first at a high level then giving a brief aside on how much to skim if you aren’t interested in digging into the details for that topic. This was probably the neatest structure I’ve ever seen in a nonfiction book, and it flowed perfectly.
Believe is a great read for anyone who enjoys history, biology, or sociology (any I missed?). The sheer quantity of information is balanced out by Sapolsky’s consistent dry wit. I listened to this as an audiobook and found myself giggling far more than I would have expected given the subject material.
www.lonslibrary.com
To be clear, this book is dense. If it isn’t used in college classrooms yet I’m sure it’s only a matter of time. But Sapolsky structures it well, consistently explaining a new concept first at a high level then giving a brief aside on how much to skim if you aren’t interested in digging into the details for that topic. This was probably the neatest structure I’ve ever seen in a nonfiction book, and it flowed perfectly.
Believe is a great read for anyone who enjoys history, biology, or sociology (any I missed?). The sheer quantity of information is balanced out by Sapolsky’s consistent dry wit. I listened to this as an audiobook and found myself giggling far more than I would have expected given the subject material.
www.lonslibrary.com
thearbiter89's review against another edition
4.0
This book took me a very long time to finish. Its scope is magisterial, its prose avuncular but dense, and its conclusions are anything but clear-cut - as it should be, for a book that purports to explain the reasons why humans behave as they do. Sapolsky takes us on a protracted journey through the spectrum of causes - from evolutionary factors buried in the deep structures of the brain, to genetic, epigenetic, environmental and ultimately societal factors.
And within and amidst each chapter - the answer to "what makes humans behave in X ways?" is invariably, "it's complicated". Nature vs. nature? False dichotomy - genes are modulated by environment and vice versa - every human behavior is combination of both. Testosterone causes aggression? Nope - it merely modulates the intensity of pre-existing propensities, which are themselves genetically and environmentally determined. Wars are not cause by endocrine factors, but by a host of elements, both evolutionary, genetic, societal. And Sapolsky also takes a stab at answering the perennial question of free will - his take is closer to that it's an illusion borne out of psychosocial factors too complex to ever understand.
But what's interesting is that rather than answering the question mechanistically, he applies it to an ethical argument about punitive punishment. To Sapolsky, punitive punishment for criminality is akin to the fearful witch-burnings of a past - condemning a sickness of the spirit beyond our means to apprehend and rehabilitate given current technology and understanding. If free will is indeed an illusion, the answer to all problems of criminality must rather be to alter the basal causes of the things that cause criminal behavior. There is no culpable homuncular singularity or spirit. Pity, then, that rehabilitation of many of these ills is beyond our current ken. I don't know if I can agree with this completely on an absolute gut level, but I can certainly appreciate how he can arrive at such a conclusion. Perhaps the Norwegians, with their humane prisons, are leading the way.
I give this: 4 out of 5 controversial social experiments
And within and amidst each chapter - the answer to "what makes humans behave in X ways?" is invariably, "it's complicated". Nature vs. nature? False dichotomy - genes are modulated by environment and vice versa - every human behavior is combination of both. Testosterone causes aggression? Nope - it merely modulates the intensity of pre-existing propensities, which are themselves genetically and environmentally determined. Wars are not cause by endocrine factors, but by a host of elements, both evolutionary, genetic, societal. And Sapolsky also takes a stab at answering the perennial question of free will - his take is closer to that it's an illusion borne out of psychosocial factors too complex to ever understand.
But what's interesting is that rather than answering the question mechanistically, he applies it to an ethical argument about punitive punishment. To Sapolsky, punitive punishment for criminality is akin to the fearful witch-burnings of a past - condemning a sickness of the spirit beyond our means to apprehend and rehabilitate given current technology and understanding. If free will is indeed an illusion, the answer to all problems of criminality must rather be to alter the basal causes of the things that cause criminal behavior. There is no culpable homuncular singularity or spirit. Pity, then, that rehabilitation of many of these ills is beyond our current ken. I don't know if I can agree with this completely on an absolute gut level, but I can certainly appreciate how he can arrive at such a conclusion. Perhaps the Norwegians, with their humane prisons, are leading the way.
I give this: 4 out of 5 controversial social experiments
juliahoermayer's review
4.0
This book has taken me about four months to read (here it says 3 but I do think it was more but tbf I read close to nothing in December anyways, so not sure that counts) which I think has never happened before. Doesn’t exactly speak for the book and I’m very happy it’s finally done and I can move on to something that gives me more enjoyment. Still, I would not call this a bad book any means. Quite on the contrary, it seems very realisable, well-researched and down to earth. It’s just that a big part of it seemed a bit superfluous and not carrying much information and it made it hard to read. I’m also not the biiiiigest fan of the writing.
But I have actually found myself quoting this book on a bunch of occasions so I guess it did teach me something. It just wasn’t as sensationalist and exciting as popular science often is which I guess is a good thing, I just can’t say I found this one a particularly enjoyable read, for whatever reasons.
But I have actually found myself quoting this book on a bunch of occasions so I guess it did teach me something. It just wasn’t as sensationalist and exciting as popular science often is which I guess is a good thing, I just can’t say I found this one a particularly enjoyable read, for whatever reasons.