What do you think?
Rate this book
Patterns of Human Growth
This new, completely revised and updated edition provides a synthesis of the forces that shaped the evolution of the human growth pattern, the biocultural factors that direct its expression, the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that regulate individual development, and the biomathematical approaches that are needed to analyze and interpret human growth. After covering the history, philosophy, and basic biological principles of human development, the book turns to the evolution of the human life cycle. Later chapters explore the physiological, environmental, and cultural reasons for population variation in growth, and the genetic and endocrine factors that regulate individual development, providing a comprehensive explanation for the functional and adaptive significance of human growth patterns. The final chapter integrates all this information into a truly interactive biocultural model of human development.
455 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
1 person is currently reading
29 people want to read
About the author
Barry Bogin
7 books4 followersBarry Bogin (1950-) is professor emeritus of Biological Anthropology, Loughborough University, UK and professor emeritus of Anthropology, University of Michigan-Dearborn, USA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 28, 2024
The "science" presented in this textbook is not believable. It disagrees with too many things my own eyes have seen and with my own real life experience. Science is too untrustworthy/politicized today for me to believe someone's "study" over common sense.
Begin makes the insane claim that all humans should be the same height with little variation, that height has little to do with genetics and that it is more about social groups and dominance. Though these idea are compelling (how fascinating if that were true!) it just... goes against everything else I have every seen.
For example, Bogin makes the claim (backed up by science!) that the oldest son is always the tallest. I have never seen that. It is not true in my own extended family or any of the families I knew growing up. My father (oldest) was 6'3". His two younger brothers were both 6'7". The oldest son is the shortest is the rule I saw play out in all my childhood friendships. I have always told my firstborn son that he will be the shortest. I have shown him pictures of the famous Hemsworth brothers to make him understand why he has to be nice to his little brothers (because they will be bigger than he is one day). But apparently my eyes are wrong because science says so.
Wait! Bogin, says, in the upper class, for some strange inexplicable reason, second born brothers ARE the tallest. Third brothers are still the shortest, shorter than the first-born. Okay Bogin, but in my family (including extended!) the third brother has never, not once, been the shortest. Also, Bogin, I grew up in poverty. So your whole "upper class" rule doesn't work anyway.
In one of the books I read on monkeys by Sarah Hrdy, I read that the first baby monkey is always the shortest and no one knows why that is. The author of that book postulated that maybe the mother's body doesn't heavily invest in the firstborn because first time mothers are so likely to fail at keeping their baby alive. But Bogin wants me to believe that how it is for monkeys and what I have seen with my own eyes is not reality.
If Bogin is to be believed, than the very short (stunted!) Nicaraguans I live near who enjoy health far superior to any Americans I know, are not actually more healthy. My eyes and ears deceive me. "How many times have you been sick in your life?" I polled them a few years back. "Once? I think I was sick once when I was a teenager," my friend said. "Oh my friend, science says you do not enjoy good health, sorry."
The author--and perhaps this entire field--is way too obsessed with height as a biomarker for health. I am much more interested in body functionality, for example straight teeth without needing braces. I am so curious to know why so many malnourished people have them and why so many healthy people don't. (And no, I don't buy the whole chewing thing because I live in Nicaragua where people have ridiculously good teeth and eat the same mushy rice, beans, and tortillas that their families have eaten for generations.)
But back to how height is not genetic. My father's family is very tall. He is 6'3". His 6'7" brothers married short women (approximately 5'3"). Of my six cousins from those two brothers, three are short like their moms and three are tall like their dads--I have two female cousins born to women who are 5'3" who are over six feet tall. I have a male cousin born to a father who is 6'7" who only grew to be 5'7" (because his short mom). But please tell me more about how height isn't genetic, Bogin.
So, despite how interesting and compelling Bogin's ideas are and how I would be truly entertained to believe that my height is an expression of my social dominance and not my genes, I can't see this book as anything more than some bizarre woke call-to-action right out of Harrison Bergeron.
If I am shorter than you it means you have been oppressing me! That's why I could not grow to my full height! Anyone who is tall is an oppressor! Everyone should be the same height! Short people with straight teeth and no braces have terrible health!
Bogin is completely uncreative in his reasoning to explain the phenomena he has seen. For example, he has noticed that upper class children grow more in skeletal length and lower class children grow more in width. Now, if you believe in IQ there is an easy explanation. Higher IQ children (generally upper class) spend their childhoods laying around reading. Lower IQ children spend their childhoods doing physical activities like sports. Physical activity prompts the body to prepare for more physical activity, growing stronger, stockier bones. Lack of physical activity and muscle tone leaves the body free to grow taller.
My eyes have seen how excessive physical activity when young (gymnasts) causes them to be very short. Their muscles are so strong it prevents bone growth maybe? I am 5'11". Very tall for a female. I spent my whole childhood reading and not getting exercise. There were no muscles preventing me from maximizing my height. My sister, on the other hand, was athletic. She spent her childhood in sports. She only grew to 5'8." I had a higher IQ than my sister. That's why I preferred reading to sports. That *may* be why I grew taller. My higher IQ has enabled me to make more money. Thus the correlation between height and wealth or height and "social dominance."
Of course Bogin could never make these connections and would tell me I am wrong because (drum roll!) IQ doesn't exist! It's a racist, social construct. Just like race and eugenics. Everyone knows you can't actually breed for anything! Humans are the same! German Shepherds and labradors and fox Terriers are a perfect example of how eugenics (breeding for something) can't possibly work. Clearly breeds/races don't exist and you are racist if you think they do. German Shepherds, Labradors and fox terriers have the exact same personalities, IQ potential, and growth potential. It is only in your head if you think one breed is smarter than the other. And the only reason the shepherds grow bigger is because of social dominance! If you made sure all the dogs were treated equally, they would all be the same size... just like humans.
Begin makes the insane claim that all humans should be the same height with little variation, that height has little to do with genetics and that it is more about social groups and dominance. Though these idea are compelling (how fascinating if that were true!) it just... goes against everything else I have every seen.
For example, Bogin makes the claim (backed up by science!) that the oldest son is always the tallest. I have never seen that. It is not true in my own extended family or any of the families I knew growing up. My father (oldest) was 6'3". His two younger brothers were both 6'7". The oldest son is the shortest is the rule I saw play out in all my childhood friendships. I have always told my firstborn son that he will be the shortest. I have shown him pictures of the famous Hemsworth brothers to make him understand why he has to be nice to his little brothers (because they will be bigger than he is one day). But apparently my eyes are wrong because science says so.
Wait! Bogin, says, in the upper class, for some strange inexplicable reason, second born brothers ARE the tallest. Third brothers are still the shortest, shorter than the first-born. Okay Bogin, but in my family (including extended!) the third brother has never, not once, been the shortest. Also, Bogin, I grew up in poverty. So your whole "upper class" rule doesn't work anyway.
In one of the books I read on monkeys by Sarah Hrdy, I read that the first baby monkey is always the shortest and no one knows why that is. The author of that book postulated that maybe the mother's body doesn't heavily invest in the firstborn because first time mothers are so likely to fail at keeping their baby alive. But Bogin wants me to believe that how it is for monkeys and what I have seen with my own eyes is not reality.
If Bogin is to be believed, than the very short (stunted!) Nicaraguans I live near who enjoy health far superior to any Americans I know, are not actually more healthy. My eyes and ears deceive me. "How many times have you been sick in your life?" I polled them a few years back. "Once? I think I was sick once when I was a teenager," my friend said. "Oh my friend, science says you do not enjoy good health, sorry."
The author--and perhaps this entire field--is way too obsessed with height as a biomarker for health. I am much more interested in body functionality, for example straight teeth without needing braces. I am so curious to know why so many malnourished people have them and why so many healthy people don't. (And no, I don't buy the whole chewing thing because I live in Nicaragua where people have ridiculously good teeth and eat the same mushy rice, beans, and tortillas that their families have eaten for generations.)
But back to how height is not genetic. My father's family is very tall. He is 6'3". His 6'7" brothers married short women (approximately 5'3"). Of my six cousins from those two brothers, three are short like their moms and three are tall like their dads--I have two female cousins born to women who are 5'3" who are over six feet tall. I have a male cousin born to a father who is 6'7" who only grew to be 5'7" (because his short mom). But please tell me more about how height isn't genetic, Bogin.
So, despite how interesting and compelling Bogin's ideas are and how I would be truly entertained to believe that my height is an expression of my social dominance and not my genes, I can't see this book as anything more than some bizarre woke call-to-action right out of Harrison Bergeron.
If I am shorter than you it means you have been oppressing me! That's why I could not grow to my full height! Anyone who is tall is an oppressor! Everyone should be the same height! Short people with straight teeth and no braces have terrible health!
Bogin is completely uncreative in his reasoning to explain the phenomena he has seen. For example, he has noticed that upper class children grow more in skeletal length and lower class children grow more in width. Now, if you believe in IQ there is an easy explanation. Higher IQ children (generally upper class) spend their childhoods laying around reading. Lower IQ children spend their childhoods doing physical activities like sports. Physical activity prompts the body to prepare for more physical activity, growing stronger, stockier bones. Lack of physical activity and muscle tone leaves the body free to grow taller.
My eyes have seen how excessive physical activity when young (gymnasts) causes them to be very short. Their muscles are so strong it prevents bone growth maybe? I am 5'11". Very tall for a female. I spent my whole childhood reading and not getting exercise. There were no muscles preventing me from maximizing my height. My sister, on the other hand, was athletic. She spent her childhood in sports. She only grew to 5'8." I had a higher IQ than my sister. That's why I preferred reading to sports. That *may* be why I grew taller. My higher IQ has enabled me to make more money. Thus the correlation between height and wealth or height and "social dominance."
Of course Bogin could never make these connections and would tell me I am wrong because (drum roll!) IQ doesn't exist! It's a racist, social construct. Just like race and eugenics. Everyone knows you can't actually breed for anything! Humans are the same! German Shepherds and labradors and fox Terriers are a perfect example of how eugenics (breeding for something) can't possibly work. Clearly breeds/races don't exist and you are racist if you think they do. German Shepherds, Labradors and fox terriers have the exact same personalities, IQ potential, and growth potential. It is only in your head if you think one breed is smarter than the other. And the only reason the shepherds grow bigger is because of social dominance! If you made sure all the dogs were treated equally, they would all be the same size... just like humans.
Displaying 1 of 1 review