Pinker, whom Ridley cites a few times, surely does but there are more linguists in the world.

It is far from true that all linguists agree with Chomsky. One example is Chomsky's hypotheses about Universal Grammar and language innateness. But flaws in some of the 'theories' are evident even before the argument is over, so why include those if a few paragraphs later Ridley admits that the theory does sound pretty wrong? An example: attractiveness of slender women nowadays supposedly signalizes their wealth because not every woman can afford a healthy diet.įurthermore, certain claims are given as well-known widely accepted facts while they may not even be true. When discussions are heated, it is indeed a virtue. Some readers praise Ridley for objectively presenting to them so many different and often contradictory theories.

Still, I did not like this book as much as I probably would, had it a bit less of sheer speculations. Speculating about contributions of the genes, nature, nurture, culture is fun, as much as getting a new perspective on what has always seemed 'obvious'. What could have shaped the human mind is an endlessly interesting subject, no question about that. It gets two stars for all of the awesome material his book used (badly) and referenced. He knows you're coming you predictable sap.ĭespite that lovely manipulation, I still didn't like it. So go ahead and say that you don't like his book. Just like them! Moreover, he expects a lot backlash from the less-thans who can't comprehend the magnitude of his reasoning. As all great scientists do, he spent a good deal of time throwing his name in with philosophers, sociologists, and naturalists and saying that he, too, was capable of flaws. It's a fun book.īut if you are someone who is easily irritated by flawed logic and narrow surveys used to prop up wobbly theorizing, skip it. If you are satisfied with the hetero-normative, monogamous, anglo, male-dominated definitions of sex and partnership (and if you are going to read this book as popular literature rather than as complete and well-founded scientific conjecture) go right ahead. this was a very difficult book to swallow. But as someone with sexual awareness, a hesitancy to polarize gender and sexuality, and my own idea of what a woman might think or want. the references were interesting enough to keep me reading. As a scientist or, at the very least, as a lover of science. The author has drawn up a laundry list of assumptions about all of humanity and left out a good deal of its subjects.

Coming out of pre-veterinary medicine and a slew of genetics classes, I can say that nothing in this book is particularly mind-blowing.

Genome by matt ridley