What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rational Animal: How Evolution Made Us Smarter Than We Think
Why do three out of four professional football players go bankrupt? How can illiterate jungle dwellers pass a test that tricks Harvard philosophers? And why do billionaires work so hard—only to give their hard-earned money away?
When it comes to making decisions, the classic view is that humans are eminently rational. But growing evidence suggests instead that our choices are often irrational, biased, and occasionally even moronic. Which view is right—or is there another possibility?
In this animated tour of the inner workings of the mind, psychologist Douglas T. Kenrick and business professor Vladas Griskevicius challenge the prevailing views of decision making, and present a new alternative grounded in evolutionary science. By connecting our modern behaviors to their ancestral roots, they reveal that underneath our seemingly foolish tendencies is an exceptionally wise system of decision making.
From investing money to choosing a job, from buying a car to choosing a romantic partner, our choices are driven by deep-seated evolutionary goals. Because each of us has multiple evolutionary goals, though, new research reveals something radical—there's more than one “you” making decisions. Although it feels as if there is just one single “self” inside your head, your mind actually contains several different subselves, each one steering you in a different direction when it takes its turn at the controls.
The Rational Animal will transform the way you think about decision making. And along the way, you'll discover the intimate connections between ovulating strippers, Wall Street financiers, testosterone-crazed skateboarders, Steve Jobs, Elvis Presley, and you.
When it comes to making decisions, the classic view is that humans are eminently rational. But growing evidence suggests instead that our choices are often irrational, biased, and occasionally even moronic. Which view is right—or is there another possibility?
In this animated tour of the inner workings of the mind, psychologist Douglas T. Kenrick and business professor Vladas Griskevicius challenge the prevailing views of decision making, and present a new alternative grounded in evolutionary science. By connecting our modern behaviors to their ancestral roots, they reveal that underneath our seemingly foolish tendencies is an exceptionally wise system of decision making.
From investing money to choosing a job, from buying a car to choosing a romantic partner, our choices are driven by deep-seated evolutionary goals. Because each of us has multiple evolutionary goals, though, new research reveals something radical—there's more than one “you” making decisions. Although it feels as if there is just one single “self” inside your head, your mind actually contains several different subselves, each one steering you in a different direction when it takes its turn at the controls.
The Rational Animal will transform the way you think about decision making. And along the way, you'll discover the intimate connections between ovulating strippers, Wall Street financiers, testosterone-crazed skateboarders, Steve Jobs, Elvis Presley, and you.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published September 10, 2013
53 people are currently reading
1019 people want to read
About the author
Douglas T. Kenrick
26 books34 followersProfessor of Psychology at Arizona State University. His research and writing integrate three scientific syntheses of the last few decades: evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, and dynamical systems theory. He is author of over 170 scientific articles, books, and book chapters, the majority applying evolutionary ideas to human cognition and behavior.
His father and brother both spent several years in Sing Sing, but he broke the family tradition and went to graduate school to study psychology. He studied social psychology under Robert B. Cialdini and received his Ph.D. from Arizona State University in 1976. He has edited several books on evolutionary psychology, contributed chapters to the Handbook of Social Psychology and the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, and been an author of two multi-edition textbooks (Psychology, with John Seamon; and Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction, with Steven Neuberg and Robert B. Cialdini). He writes a blog for Psychology Today magazine, titled Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life. He has a forthcoming book of the same title.
His father and brother both spent several years in Sing Sing, but he broke the family tradition and went to graduate school to study psychology. He studied social psychology under Robert B. Cialdini and received his Ph.D. from Arizona State University in 1976. He has edited several books on evolutionary psychology, contributed chapters to the Handbook of Social Psychology and the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, and been an author of two multi-edition textbooks (Psychology, with John Seamon; and Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction, with Steven Neuberg and Robert B. Cialdini). He writes a blog for Psychology Today magazine, titled Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life. He has a forthcoming book of the same title.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
April 17, 2015
My review will focus on style and content.
STYLE:
The book is easy to understand, and at times funny, but because it is written for readers with grade 2 education, its tone is a bit condescending and it leaves out major areas that one expects to be covered in a book that deals with a “scientific” issue. There is no much discussion of methodology or any shortcomings of the theory of evolutionary psychology. Normally for a book that is written for the general reader, one expects a more balanced approach and not one-sided arguments.
CONTENT – GENERAL COMMENTS:
Rationality and economics: Rationality is a relative concept since it is in reference to an objective function. The reason for assuming a particular rationality is to build a general predictive theory and not to explain every nook and cranny of human behaviour. Theories that explain something specific are, by definition, not general! The authors criticize economics, but economics, as the name implies, was developed to explain the allocation of economic resources – not to explain women’s ovulation. Economists are not interested in predicting the behaviour of a single individual, but rather the behaviour of a market as a whole. And if the assumption of self-interest provides as good a prediction as anything else, then, using the principle of Occam’s razor, we do not need the other stuff. It appears that the authors are somewhat confused about what economists assume about individuals. Economists assume that individuals are maximizing their utility, not their income. Income is a constraint to the maximization process.
The critique of economics for assuming rational, self-interest maximizing individuals is a bit problematic because, according to the book, humans do what they do in response to the needs of their seven selves. But since these selves are within us, isn’t this a self-interest maximization too? Why else would you care about Protection, Disease avoidance and mate acquisition in the first place?
We all know and agree that every person has a reason for behaving the way s/he does. But the authors seem to be confused about having a reason for what you do, the definition of rationality for theoretical purposes, and being smart. A reason why someone does something may not necessarily fit into the definition of rationality. The subtitle to the book is “How evolution made us smarter than we think”. But what they mean is that as long as your behaviour is explained by one of the seven selves, then that's smart! But buying into Ponzi schemes because of our need to acquire mates or avoid getting sick is not smart – it is an explanation of why it is happening, but definitely not smart. It is not even smart in their own terms since if you give up resources in exchange for nothing, which is what happens when you buy into Ponzi schemes, then this would fail the “evolutionary fitness” test.
Evolutionary psychology: The narrative of this theory seems to be a caricature of evolutionary biology. In evolutionary biology genes survive and propagate either by chance (gene-drift) or because of natural selection. Evolution happens because of random mutations in our genes and because of random changes in our environment – neither of which are controlled by our genes. So our genes are not little conscious beings running around inside our bodies making tactical and strategic plans! Crap happens to them all the time and some of this random crap survives by chance and some survives because the person that carried the gene happens to be in an environment that is best suited for this mutation (natural selection) - which in a way is also by chance since this person could have been in a different environment. But to take this model and transpose it onto conscious, self-aware beings like ourselves, especially when we have no clue what consciousness is, where it comes from and how it controls everything else, in order to explain behaviour is almost comic. Well, at least they should have taken the whole story of evolutionary biology including the environment and the randomness of things. No-one would disagree that our genes control to a large extent who we are and to some extent how we behave, but so does the environment. It can change gene expression, which is the process that translates genetic code into proteins and other gene products, and hence our behaviour.
The authors make a distinction between proximal explanations – these are just superficial stuff that economists explain - and “deep” explanations – which are of course the ones provided by evolutionary psychology. And the deep narrative usually goes back to the cavemen, for whom we have very little information as to how they behaved, or to some minor insect or fish species. Well, this anecdotal approach to developing a general theory of human behaviour is, to say, the least, irritating and the cartoonist explanations that are being provided are even more so. Why go back to the hunters-gatherers? Why not the Greeks or Romans, for whom we have more information, or if you really want to be evolutionary, to the Last Universal Ancestor? And why even stop there if you really want to go deep: why not go to the fundamental particles of physics and quantum mechanics, after all, these are the stuff that make up all living and inanimate matter in the universe!
Many of the seven selves in their theory, that are supposed to explain behaviour, they do so tautologically: For example, if the question is: why do people avoid getting sick? Then the evolutionary psychology answer is: Because our Sick Avoidance self takes over – in other words, because people don’t like getting sick! How does this explanation provide any further information on the original question?
Finally, now that we know, thanks to evolutionary psychologists, all these stuff about us, wouldn’t the authors expect people to change their behaviour? For example, if women knew that during ovulation they dress like sluts, wouldn’t they change their dressing habits?
The authors' closing remarks identify curiosity as one of the reasons why they wrote the book. That is, they, and millions of other scientists, were curious of what makes humans tick. But how is this powerful human drive – curiosity – explained with the seven sub selves? At first glance, it does not seem to fit with any of the sub-selves. The book is quiet on this, but I am sure that if you push them they would come with some ill-designed experiment to show that it is also related to some of the seven dwarfs!
CONTENT – SPECIFIC COMMENTS
One could go through and criticise the various studies mentioned in the book, but as I said before, the book is short on methodology. So I just picked some examples to show design or logical problems with their studies:
Dowry vs bride price:
The authors claim that in some societies men pay to choose the most fertile woman. In other societies the woman’s family pays a dowry to ensure that their daughter and grandchildren are taken care in the future. But why wouldn't the families in the first society also want their grandchildren to be taken care? And why would men in the second societies also pay a bride price as this gives them some degree of choice? The only way that this theory works is when men in the first example want to preserve the right to choose, while in the second they don’t and the family of the woman in the first model don’t care about her or her children but in the second society they do!
Natural frequencies vs Probabilities – or the Linda problem:
The authors present a story about Linda(s) and ask a question in two different ways in order to show that people cannot answer easily questions that are formed in man-made units of measurements, like probabilities, but they can answer easily in natural frequencies because - yes you guessed it - our caveman ancestors only understood natural numbers, like how many cows were on the field:
Statement 1: Linda is 31 and majored in philosophy and was deeply involved as a student with issues of discrimination, social justice and nuclear proliferation. Which is more probable? A. Linda is a bank teller; B. Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement?
Statement 2: Out of 100 women that are 31, majored in philosophy, and were deeply involved as students with issues of discrimination, social justice and nuclear proliferation, which is larger? A. The number of women that are bank tellers; or B. The number of women that are bank tellers and active in the feminist movements.
Now as it is evident from the phrasing of these questions, these are not exactly the same questions and the initial story about Linda, or the 100 Lindas, has nothing to do with the question. The story is there to trick the reader. The first question about Linda can also be interpreted as “Is Linda likely to be just a Bank teller and not active with feminism, or a bank teller and active with feminism?” On the other hand, the second question is much clearer. It asks which of the two sets of people is greater. So for me this has nothing to do with natural frequencies and more to do with proper phrasing of a question so that the person who is expected to answer it can understand it.
Columbus vs. Macon or the magic of sex ratios:
The authors claim that the good folks of Columbus, Georgia – and by this they mean the men – carry a massive credit card debt when compared to their fellow Georgians who live in Macon. The explanation for this is that Macon has more women per men than Columbus where there are more men than women. So the explanation goes like this: when men are in excess supply relative to women, they have to compete with each other to get the woman and in the process they spend a lot of money to impress their potential mate. While in Macon where there are more women than men, women practically throw themselves on the men who do not have to spend much on them. The logical problem with this argument is this: if women need to procreate as much as men, then in Macon it should be the women who now spend money to get their men so the debt levels should be similar with Columbus. But that is not what is happening and we have no explanation why this is so. In any case, there is also no explanation of how the study was designed. I mean, if we are going to test the theory that sex ratios explain debt accumulation, then we should test if it works in the right market. Clearly men less than 15 or over 70 are not in the market to acquire a bride, neither are those who are already married. So did the study account for this when they measured the supply of men and women or did they just take everyone into account? Second, if this theory is true, then since women in Columbus will take their time to choose which man to accept, then the average marriage age of women and their average age of giving birth to their first baby should be higher in Columbus than in Macon where the guys control the game. But of course no implications of their theory are being tested. I tried the US Census Bureau and CDC to find data on this but they only have this information at the state level.
The same explanation, i.e., supply of men and women, is used to explain the free and unrestrained sex in the 60s. But how did the young men and women of the 60s figured out that they were more women around - especially since most of them were stoned most of the time? And is the rebellion against authority and war, which was reducing the number of men, also a consequence of this unbalanced of sex ratios, or is rebellion a superficial, proximal explanation?
Shoes:
The authors seem to imply that all shoes are the same and hence if you are buying an expensive pair you are doing it for the sole purpose of gaining status? But not all shoes are the same. Some you wear and you feel good in them, some give you blisters after 5 minutes of walking, and some you cannot possibly use for other purposes, like you cannot use diner shoes for running a marathon. Why are all these shoes differences not relevant when someone is making a choice and decides to spend more on a pair or to buy more pairs?
STYLE:
The book is easy to understand, and at times funny, but because it is written for readers with grade 2 education, its tone is a bit condescending and it leaves out major areas that one expects to be covered in a book that deals with a “scientific” issue. There is no much discussion of methodology or any shortcomings of the theory of evolutionary psychology. Normally for a book that is written for the general reader, one expects a more balanced approach and not one-sided arguments.
CONTENT – GENERAL COMMENTS:
Rationality and economics: Rationality is a relative concept since it is in reference to an objective function. The reason for assuming a particular rationality is to build a general predictive theory and not to explain every nook and cranny of human behaviour. Theories that explain something specific are, by definition, not general! The authors criticize economics, but economics, as the name implies, was developed to explain the allocation of economic resources – not to explain women’s ovulation. Economists are not interested in predicting the behaviour of a single individual, but rather the behaviour of a market as a whole. And if the assumption of self-interest provides as good a prediction as anything else, then, using the principle of Occam’s razor, we do not need the other stuff. It appears that the authors are somewhat confused about what economists assume about individuals. Economists assume that individuals are maximizing their utility, not their income. Income is a constraint to the maximization process.
The critique of economics for assuming rational, self-interest maximizing individuals is a bit problematic because, according to the book, humans do what they do in response to the needs of their seven selves. But since these selves are within us, isn’t this a self-interest maximization too? Why else would you care about Protection, Disease avoidance and mate acquisition in the first place?
We all know and agree that every person has a reason for behaving the way s/he does. But the authors seem to be confused about having a reason for what you do, the definition of rationality for theoretical purposes, and being smart. A reason why someone does something may not necessarily fit into the definition of rationality. The subtitle to the book is “How evolution made us smarter than we think”. But what they mean is that as long as your behaviour is explained by one of the seven selves, then that's smart! But buying into Ponzi schemes because of our need to acquire mates or avoid getting sick is not smart – it is an explanation of why it is happening, but definitely not smart. It is not even smart in their own terms since if you give up resources in exchange for nothing, which is what happens when you buy into Ponzi schemes, then this would fail the “evolutionary fitness” test.
Evolutionary psychology: The narrative of this theory seems to be a caricature of evolutionary biology. In evolutionary biology genes survive and propagate either by chance (gene-drift) or because of natural selection. Evolution happens because of random mutations in our genes and because of random changes in our environment – neither of which are controlled by our genes. So our genes are not little conscious beings running around inside our bodies making tactical and strategic plans! Crap happens to them all the time and some of this random crap survives by chance and some survives because the person that carried the gene happens to be in an environment that is best suited for this mutation (natural selection) - which in a way is also by chance since this person could have been in a different environment. But to take this model and transpose it onto conscious, self-aware beings like ourselves, especially when we have no clue what consciousness is, where it comes from and how it controls everything else, in order to explain behaviour is almost comic. Well, at least they should have taken the whole story of evolutionary biology including the environment and the randomness of things. No-one would disagree that our genes control to a large extent who we are and to some extent how we behave, but so does the environment. It can change gene expression, which is the process that translates genetic code into proteins and other gene products, and hence our behaviour.
The authors make a distinction between proximal explanations – these are just superficial stuff that economists explain - and “deep” explanations – which are of course the ones provided by evolutionary psychology. And the deep narrative usually goes back to the cavemen, for whom we have very little information as to how they behaved, or to some minor insect or fish species. Well, this anecdotal approach to developing a general theory of human behaviour is, to say, the least, irritating and the cartoonist explanations that are being provided are even more so. Why go back to the hunters-gatherers? Why not the Greeks or Romans, for whom we have more information, or if you really want to be evolutionary, to the Last Universal Ancestor? And why even stop there if you really want to go deep: why not go to the fundamental particles of physics and quantum mechanics, after all, these are the stuff that make up all living and inanimate matter in the universe!
Many of the seven selves in their theory, that are supposed to explain behaviour, they do so tautologically: For example, if the question is: why do people avoid getting sick? Then the evolutionary psychology answer is: Because our Sick Avoidance self takes over – in other words, because people don’t like getting sick! How does this explanation provide any further information on the original question?
Finally, now that we know, thanks to evolutionary psychologists, all these stuff about us, wouldn’t the authors expect people to change their behaviour? For example, if women knew that during ovulation they dress like sluts, wouldn’t they change their dressing habits?
The authors' closing remarks identify curiosity as one of the reasons why they wrote the book. That is, they, and millions of other scientists, were curious of what makes humans tick. But how is this powerful human drive – curiosity – explained with the seven sub selves? At first glance, it does not seem to fit with any of the sub-selves. The book is quiet on this, but I am sure that if you push them they would come with some ill-designed experiment to show that it is also related to some of the seven dwarfs!
CONTENT – SPECIFIC COMMENTS
One could go through and criticise the various studies mentioned in the book, but as I said before, the book is short on methodology. So I just picked some examples to show design or logical problems with their studies:
Dowry vs bride price:
The authors claim that in some societies men pay to choose the most fertile woman. In other societies the woman’s family pays a dowry to ensure that their daughter and grandchildren are taken care in the future. But why wouldn't the families in the first society also want their grandchildren to be taken care? And why would men in the second societies also pay a bride price as this gives them some degree of choice? The only way that this theory works is when men in the first example want to preserve the right to choose, while in the second they don’t and the family of the woman in the first model don’t care about her or her children but in the second society they do!
Natural frequencies vs Probabilities – or the Linda problem:
The authors present a story about Linda(s) and ask a question in two different ways in order to show that people cannot answer easily questions that are formed in man-made units of measurements, like probabilities, but they can answer easily in natural frequencies because - yes you guessed it - our caveman ancestors only understood natural numbers, like how many cows were on the field:
Statement 1: Linda is 31 and majored in philosophy and was deeply involved as a student with issues of discrimination, social justice and nuclear proliferation. Which is more probable? A. Linda is a bank teller; B. Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement?
Statement 2: Out of 100 women that are 31, majored in philosophy, and were deeply involved as students with issues of discrimination, social justice and nuclear proliferation, which is larger? A. The number of women that are bank tellers; or B. The number of women that are bank tellers and active in the feminist movements.
Now as it is evident from the phrasing of these questions, these are not exactly the same questions and the initial story about Linda, or the 100 Lindas, has nothing to do with the question. The story is there to trick the reader. The first question about Linda can also be interpreted as “Is Linda likely to be just a Bank teller and not active with feminism, or a bank teller and active with feminism?” On the other hand, the second question is much clearer. It asks which of the two sets of people is greater. So for me this has nothing to do with natural frequencies and more to do with proper phrasing of a question so that the person who is expected to answer it can understand it.
Columbus vs. Macon or the magic of sex ratios:
The authors claim that the good folks of Columbus, Georgia – and by this they mean the men – carry a massive credit card debt when compared to their fellow Georgians who live in Macon. The explanation for this is that Macon has more women per men than Columbus where there are more men than women. So the explanation goes like this: when men are in excess supply relative to women, they have to compete with each other to get the woman and in the process they spend a lot of money to impress their potential mate. While in Macon where there are more women than men, women practically throw themselves on the men who do not have to spend much on them. The logical problem with this argument is this: if women need to procreate as much as men, then in Macon it should be the women who now spend money to get their men so the debt levels should be similar with Columbus. But that is not what is happening and we have no explanation why this is so. In any case, there is also no explanation of how the study was designed. I mean, if we are going to test the theory that sex ratios explain debt accumulation, then we should test if it works in the right market. Clearly men less than 15 or over 70 are not in the market to acquire a bride, neither are those who are already married. So did the study account for this when they measured the supply of men and women or did they just take everyone into account? Second, if this theory is true, then since women in Columbus will take their time to choose which man to accept, then the average marriage age of women and their average age of giving birth to their first baby should be higher in Columbus than in Macon where the guys control the game. But of course no implications of their theory are being tested. I tried the US Census Bureau and CDC to find data on this but they only have this information at the state level.
The same explanation, i.e., supply of men and women, is used to explain the free and unrestrained sex in the 60s. But how did the young men and women of the 60s figured out that they were more women around - especially since most of them were stoned most of the time? And is the rebellion against authority and war, which was reducing the number of men, also a consequence of this unbalanced of sex ratios, or is rebellion a superficial, proximal explanation?
Shoes:
The authors seem to imply that all shoes are the same and hence if you are buying an expensive pair you are doing it for the sole purpose of gaining status? But not all shoes are the same. Some you wear and you feel good in them, some give you blisters after 5 minutes of walking, and some you cannot possibly use for other purposes, like you cannot use diner shoes for running a marathon. Why are all these shoes differences not relevant when someone is making a choice and decides to spend more on a pair or to buy more pairs?
January 12, 2023
It got better and better the more I read. At first I was annoyed by how often the premise of the book was being repeated, it felt like filler. And ya know what, it probably was filler. It's like yeah I get it, humans are rational animals I READ THE TITLE. But eventually the content was so interesting that I wasn't bothered by it. Perhaps the authors were just so excited by their findings they just wanted to drive the point home.
I still don't necessarily agree that just because something we do is part of our genetic subconscious desire to procreate and survive, that that makes it "rational." But it does offer up an explanation.
I plan on doing more research on the topic, because many of the studies felt like correlation more than causation. But the correlation itself was still intriguing.
You might be wondering why I gave the book 5 stars even though I have gripes about it. But just because I'm being a little critical doesn't mean I didn't thoroughly enjoy reading it. Which I did! It's been a great conversation starter. The studies they describe are clever and surprising.
And the authors went to the university of Minnesota where I also got my degree, so maybe I'm a little biased? That may have gotten me to buy the book after seeing a tweet about it, but the content captivated me.
Men and women really ARE different. Lol.
Well done guys!
I still don't necessarily agree that just because something we do is part of our genetic subconscious desire to procreate and survive, that that makes it "rational." But it does offer up an explanation.
I plan on doing more research on the topic, because many of the studies felt like correlation more than causation. But the correlation itself was still intriguing.
You might be wondering why I gave the book 5 stars even though I have gripes about it. But just because I'm being a little critical doesn't mean I didn't thoroughly enjoy reading it. Which I did! It's been a great conversation starter. The studies they describe are clever and surprising.
And the authors went to the university of Minnesota where I also got my degree, so maybe I'm a little biased? That may have gotten me to buy the book after seeing a tweet about it, but the content captivated me.
Men and women really ARE different. Lol.
Well done guys!
August 6, 2022
Ah, that was fun to read! The introduction together with the two first chapters alone were worth the whole book; that’s where the conceptual framework is deployed and where some of the most fascinating findings about unconscious biological influences of human behaviours are presented. Chapters 4 and 5 are fantastic, too. But, on the whole, I was disappointed with the rather low level of rigour in the argumentation and with the unaddressed weaknesses of many of the studies cited. My main takeaway is the clarity of their evolutionary approach and the reframing of some classical problems in cognitive psychology.
The authors build their project on two insights: (1) “Human decision making serves evolutionary goals” and (2) these evolutionary goals are very different from one another. As it is common in evolutionary psychology/biology, they distinguish between the goals we explicitly set for ourselves — and share with people around us — and the implicit evolutionary ones, calling the former “shallow” and the latter “deep”. They are deep in the sense that they come from “deep-seated evolutionary wisdom, honed by our ancestors’ past successes and failures”. As I understand it, the deep goals (e.g., to reproduce) manifest themselves through the shallow goals (e.g., to have sex because it feels good) that drive our behaviours and that vary from culture to culture, from person to person. The justifications for achieving these goals also come in two flavours: proximate reasons are the ones we give explicitly — and are thus conscious—, while ultimate reasons are the ones evolution gives us—and are thus often unconscious. Both types are not mutually exclusive, but usually complementary.
Following their second insight, the authors tell us that we are composed of 7 subselves, each corresponding to one of the following seven evolutionary basic challenges: (1) evading physical harm, (2) avoiding disease, (3) making friends, (4) gaining status, (5) attracting a mate, (6) keeping that mate, and (7) caring for family. They go on to show how each subself is activated by context (sometimes a few of them can be activated at the same time pulling us in opposite direction) and unconsciously influences our decision making.
What about the title? Well, it’s really not the best fit for the book. It may lead the unsuspecting reader to think that the book is about characterizing the human species by its rationality and depicting it as unique compared to other species. This is not the case. The title needs to be interpreted keeping in mind the trend—founded in parts by Kahneman and Tversky—of revealing the many cognitive biases and other cognitive effects that fly in the face of humans as rational decision-makers. In The Rational Animal, the authors seek to explain why some of these instances of irrationality actually make a lot of sense considering their evolutionary roots. Many irrational decisions can be seen as smart moves for achieving deep goals. Still, within our modern lifestyle, deep rationality may not make us smarter.
Chapter 5 in particular explores how some irrational decisions and difficulties with logical or probabilistic statements go away when the problems are reframed in a way that would make more sense to our ancestors. For instance, when a conditional logic problem with letters and vowels is reframed in terms of cheating, people get the right answer. Similarly, when another classical decision problem about saving a portion of a population of 600 people (The Asian disease problem) is reframed so that the population is now 60 people — a number falling in the range of 20-150 that is believed to correspond to ancestral group size — the irrational/biased decision goes away. Some of the studies have issues, but still, the approach is intellectually very stimulating!
On a final note: I recommend getting a rigorous foundation in evolutionary psychology and in behavioural biology elsewhere. This book is fun and clever, the authors are entertaining, but sometimes it’s quite speculative and really lacks nuance.
The authors build their project on two insights: (1) “Human decision making serves evolutionary goals” and (2) these evolutionary goals are very different from one another. As it is common in evolutionary psychology/biology, they distinguish between the goals we explicitly set for ourselves — and share with people around us — and the implicit evolutionary ones, calling the former “shallow” and the latter “deep”. They are deep in the sense that they come from “deep-seated evolutionary wisdom, honed by our ancestors’ past successes and failures”. As I understand it, the deep goals (e.g., to reproduce) manifest themselves through the shallow goals (e.g., to have sex because it feels good) that drive our behaviours and that vary from culture to culture, from person to person. The justifications for achieving these goals also come in two flavours: proximate reasons are the ones we give explicitly — and are thus conscious—, while ultimate reasons are the ones evolution gives us—and are thus often unconscious. Both types are not mutually exclusive, but usually complementary.
Following their second insight, the authors tell us that we are composed of 7 subselves, each corresponding to one of the following seven evolutionary basic challenges: (1) evading physical harm, (2) avoiding disease, (3) making friends, (4) gaining status, (5) attracting a mate, (6) keeping that mate, and (7) caring for family. They go on to show how each subself is activated by context (sometimes a few of them can be activated at the same time pulling us in opposite direction) and unconsciously influences our decision making.
What about the title? Well, it’s really not the best fit for the book. It may lead the unsuspecting reader to think that the book is about characterizing the human species by its rationality and depicting it as unique compared to other species. This is not the case. The title needs to be interpreted keeping in mind the trend—founded in parts by Kahneman and Tversky—of revealing the many cognitive biases and other cognitive effects that fly in the face of humans as rational decision-makers. In The Rational Animal, the authors seek to explain why some of these instances of irrationality actually make a lot of sense considering their evolutionary roots. Many irrational decisions can be seen as smart moves for achieving deep goals. Still, within our modern lifestyle, deep rationality may not make us smarter.
Chapter 5 in particular explores how some irrational decisions and difficulties with logical or probabilistic statements go away when the problems are reframed in a way that would make more sense to our ancestors. For instance, when a conditional logic problem with letters and vowels is reframed in terms of cheating, people get the right answer. Similarly, when another classical decision problem about saving a portion of a population of 600 people (The Asian disease problem) is reframed so that the population is now 60 people — a number falling in the range of 20-150 that is believed to correspond to ancestral group size — the irrational/biased decision goes away. Some of the studies have issues, but still, the approach is intellectually very stimulating!
On a final note: I recommend getting a rigorous foundation in evolutionary psychology and in behavioural biology elsewhere. This book is fun and clever, the authors are entertaining, but sometimes it’s quite speculative and really lacks nuance.
April 6, 2014
Rational Animal provides strong thoughtful counterpoints to many behavioural finance (BF) theories. It cheats, in a way, by redefining "rationality" that behavioural economists love to mock. However, its biggest achievement is in highlighting the BF theorists' tendencies of simply exposing the human idiosyncrasies without providing explanations.
Right at the start, the authors make a useful distinction between the proximate and ultimate causes behind our activities. Their idea - that the actions that appear illogical from the viewpoint of rationality involving only the causes and effects surrounding the action alone may still be explainable through evolutionary tendencies - is radical and well made. Clearly, the authors are proposing a different idea of "rationality" which is far removed from the textbook mathematical variety involving a handful of direct variables and one that tries to encompass the unfathomed evolutionary goals.
The book also introduces a good "selfs within self" or seven multiple personalities' model to explain our behavioural inconsistencies. That humans are not computers and even the same individual does not respond identically to the same circumstances at different points is known to all real life beings but not understood or accepted as logical by the theoreticians. The authors' model is a good attempt at providing some explanation behind this irrational oddity. The section is littered with some good new studies and results - like the modified Prisoners Dilemma experiments involving family members to show the role played by trust and genes in rationality.
Separately, there are good explanations for why we overestimate our own skills (ie, how over 90% of us possibly think we are above average in over 90% of things!). The explanation that they have evolutionary functioned as a defence mechanisms when faced with dangerous situations may appear stretched at first. However, the studies of intuitive biological/physical responses of our behaviour (raising of white blood cells while watching photos of sick people or a male testosterone rise around an ovulating female) show why our views of rationality need a modification to accommodate the subconscious, almost intuitive bodily responses shaped by our evolution. The point of overconfidence inducing the risk-taking and hence has an evolutionary bias is truly staggering.
The section involving examples of how people solve many BF study problems rationally when the problems are presented in the frequency form but fail when described in the probability form too has some radical departures. The BF economists have repeatedly shown how the solutions we reach to any problem depends on how the issue is framed (the frame dependence) to point to our irrationality. There is nothing new in this argument, but these authors provide some evolutionary twists: in the example of frequencies versus probabilities, they claim that the later is a new mathematical invention and not yet evolutionary natural like the former.
The short book almost runs out of any new points to make somewhere around the two-third mark and turns banal. The "his versus her" section is out of place, where most explanations and examples are pretty generic. The book discussions turn completely purposeless without new perspectives when the topic moves to the behaviour of the parasites to explain our consumption or even corporate behaviour. It all becomes a bit silly and preachy by the end when the authors begin to discuss how we can avoid someone peddling their wares while trying to act in our interest. The advises become as simple as sleep before you make a decision!
Right at the start, the authors make a useful distinction between the proximate and ultimate causes behind our activities. Their idea - that the actions that appear illogical from the viewpoint of rationality involving only the causes and effects surrounding the action alone may still be explainable through evolutionary tendencies - is radical and well made. Clearly, the authors are proposing a different idea of "rationality" which is far removed from the textbook mathematical variety involving a handful of direct variables and one that tries to encompass the unfathomed evolutionary goals.
The book also introduces a good "selfs within self" or seven multiple personalities' model to explain our behavioural inconsistencies. That humans are not computers and even the same individual does not respond identically to the same circumstances at different points is known to all real life beings but not understood or accepted as logical by the theoreticians. The authors' model is a good attempt at providing some explanation behind this irrational oddity. The section is littered with some good new studies and results - like the modified Prisoners Dilemma experiments involving family members to show the role played by trust and genes in rationality.
Separately, there are good explanations for why we overestimate our own skills (ie, how over 90% of us possibly think we are above average in over 90% of things!). The explanation that they have evolutionary functioned as a defence mechanisms when faced with dangerous situations may appear stretched at first. However, the studies of intuitive biological/physical responses of our behaviour (raising of white blood cells while watching photos of sick people or a male testosterone rise around an ovulating female) show why our views of rationality need a modification to accommodate the subconscious, almost intuitive bodily responses shaped by our evolution. The point of overconfidence inducing the risk-taking and hence has an evolutionary bias is truly staggering.
The section involving examples of how people solve many BF study problems rationally when the problems are presented in the frequency form but fail when described in the probability form too has some radical departures. The BF economists have repeatedly shown how the solutions we reach to any problem depends on how the issue is framed (the frame dependence) to point to our irrationality. There is nothing new in this argument, but these authors provide some evolutionary twists: in the example of frequencies versus probabilities, they claim that the later is a new mathematical invention and not yet evolutionary natural like the former.
The short book almost runs out of any new points to make somewhere around the two-third mark and turns banal. The "his versus her" section is out of place, where most explanations and examples are pretty generic. The book discussions turn completely purposeless without new perspectives when the topic moves to the behaviour of the parasites to explain our consumption or even corporate behaviour. It all becomes a bit silly and preachy by the end when the authors begin to discuss how we can avoid someone peddling their wares while trying to act in our interest. The advises become as simple as sleep before you make a decision!
August 3, 2017
3.5/5. I enjoyed this book! it had a bunch of interesting case studies, and ways of thinking that were not immediately apparent to me. however, i have a couple gripes with this book--first of all, the case studies were often anecdotal, or mentioned anecdotally. i would often scratch my head and wonder the validity of some of the experiments, which i was unable to judge; most of the experiments lacked information about methodology and any sort of statistics beyond a percent. secondly, at the beginning, i was quite annoyed at how repetitive it was. "Look at this bizarre decision! but wait! it's actually all rational in the end because of ancestral adaptations!" yes, i know. i read the title. however, the book got more interesting as it went along. all in all, i'd recommend it!
January 3, 2023
تخيل أنك امرأة تتسوق عبر الإنترنت لشراء الملابس. هل تعتقدين أنك ستشتري ملابس مختلفة في الأيام التي تجعلك وظائف أعضاء جسمك أكثر عرضة للحمل؟
تعتمد قدرة المرأة على الحمل على دورة الإباضة ، والتي تمتد عند البشر عادةً حوالي أربعة أسابيع. يمكن للمرأة أن تحمل خلال أسبوع تقريبًا من الدورة ، والمعروفة باسم مرحلة التبويض. في حين أن إناث الشمبانزي تعلن عن مرحلة التبويض بردف أحمر لامع منتفخ ، فإن الإشارات بالنسبة للبشر ليست واضحة. بدون تعليم أو معدات محددة ، لا تعرف معظم النساء ،في سن الجامعة، وقت الإباضة. لكن إذا كانت المرأة تجهل أنها في فترة التبويض ، فهل يعني ذلك أن تلك الفترة لا تستطيع التأثير على سلوكها؟
للتعمق أكثر ، قامت أستاذة التسويق كريستينا دورانت وفريقها البحثي بتجنيد نساء لم يكن يستخدمن وسائل منع الحمل الهرمونية. عندما وصلت النساء لإجراء الدراسة ، خضعن لاختبار البول ، والذي تضمن الذهاب إلى دورة المياه للتبول على عصا. على الرغم من إخبار النساء بأن هذا الاختبار كان مقياسًا لصحتهن العامة ، كان الغرض الفعلي هو تحديد ما إذا كن يعانين من ارتفاع في نسبة الهرمونات المرتبط بالإباضة. ثم تم إرسال النساء المبيضات وغير المبيضات في رحلة تسوق عبر الإنترنت - إلى موقع ويب مصمم ليبدو مثل The Gap أو Old Navy. يحتوي المتجر الافتراضي على أكثر من مائة قطعة ملابس وإكسسوارات ، بما في ذلك السراويل والتنانير والقمصان والأحذية وحقائب اليد والمحافظ. لكن المنتجات تم اختيارها مسبقًا استراتيجيًا. كانت نصف العناصر أكثر جاذبية وأكثر إشراقًا وإغراء ، بينما كان النصف الآخر أكثر تحفظًا ورزانة. على الرغم من أن أيّا من النساء في الدراسة لم يعرفن ما إذا كان لديهن إباضة أم لا ، فقد اختارت النساء في المرحلة الخصبة من الدورة ملابس أكثر جاذبية وكشفًا - تنانير أقصر ، وكعب عالي ، وبلوزات شفافة كشفت عن الكثير من الجسم.
اتضح أن التبويض يغير سلوك المرأة حتى عندما لا ترتدي أي ملابس على الإطلاق. في دراسة أخرى ، قام جيفري ميللر ، وجوش تيبر ، وبرنت جوردان بتوظيف فريق غير عادي من مساعدي الأبحاث - ثماني عشرة امرأة كن يعشن كراقصات محترفات في "أندية السادة". سجلت النساء المبالغ التي حققنها على مدار ستين يومًا ، قام خلالها الباحثون بمراقبة مرحلة كل امرأة في دورتها. عندما كانت الراقصات أقل خصوبة ، حققن متوسط 185 دولارًا لكل وردية عمل مدتها خمس ساعات. لكن عندما كنّ في فترة الإباضة ، كنّ يكسبن ما يقرب من ضعف ذلك: 335 دولارًا. تكهن الباحثون بأن الإباضة أدت دون وعي النساء إلى جعلهن أكثر إثارة ، مما أدى إلى تغيير غير مرئي في الحالة الهرمونية للمرأة ليكون له تأثير اقتصادي واضح للغاية.
.
Douglas T Kenrick
The Rational Animal
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
تعتمد قدرة المرأة على الحمل على دورة الإباضة ، والتي تمتد عند البشر عادةً حوالي أربعة أسابيع. يمكن للمرأة أن تحمل خلال أسبوع تقريبًا من الدورة ، والمعروفة باسم مرحلة التبويض. في حين أن إناث الشمبانزي تعلن عن مرحلة التبويض بردف أحمر لامع منتفخ ، فإن الإشارات بالنسبة للبشر ليست واضحة. بدون تعليم أو معدات محددة ، لا تعرف معظم النساء ،في سن الجامعة، وقت الإباضة. لكن إذا كانت المرأة تجهل أنها في فترة التبويض ، فهل يعني ذلك أن تلك الفترة لا تستطيع التأثير على سلوكها؟
للتعمق أكثر ، قامت أستاذة التسويق كريستينا دورانت وفريقها البحثي بتجنيد نساء لم يكن يستخدمن وسائل منع الحمل الهرمونية. عندما وصلت النساء لإجراء الدراسة ، خضعن لاختبار البول ، والذي تضمن الذهاب إلى دورة المياه للتبول على عصا. على الرغم من إخبار النساء بأن هذا الاختبار كان مقياسًا لصحتهن العامة ، كان الغرض الفعلي هو تحديد ما إذا كن يعانين من ارتفاع في نسبة الهرمونات المرتبط بالإباضة. ثم تم إرسال النساء المبيضات وغير المبيضات في رحلة تسوق عبر الإنترنت - إلى موقع ويب مصمم ليبدو مثل The Gap أو Old Navy. يحتوي المتجر الافتراضي على أكثر من مائة قطعة ملابس وإكسسوارات ، بما في ذلك السراويل والتنانير والقمصان والأحذية وحقائب اليد والمحافظ. لكن المنتجات تم اختيارها مسبقًا استراتيجيًا. كانت نصف العناصر أكثر جاذبية وأكثر إشراقًا وإغراء ، بينما كان النصف الآخر أكثر تحفظًا ورزانة. على الرغم من أن أيّا من النساء في الدراسة لم يعرفن ما إذا كان لديهن إباضة أم لا ، فقد اختارت النساء في المرحلة الخصبة من الدورة ملابس أكثر جاذبية وكشفًا - تنانير أقصر ، وكعب عالي ، وبلوزات شفافة كشفت عن الكثير من الجسم.
اتضح أن التبويض يغير سلوك المرأة حتى عندما لا ترتدي أي ملابس على الإطلاق. في دراسة أخرى ، قام جيفري ميللر ، وجوش تيبر ، وبرنت جوردان بتوظيف فريق غير عادي من مساعدي الأبحاث - ثماني عشرة امرأة كن يعشن كراقصات محترفات في "أندية السادة". سجلت النساء المبالغ التي حققنها على مدار ستين يومًا ، قام خلالها الباحثون بمراقبة مرحلة كل امرأة في دورتها. عندما كانت الراقصات أقل خصوبة ، حققن متوسط 185 دولارًا لكل وردية عمل مدتها خمس ساعات. لكن عندما كنّ في فترة الإباضة ، كنّ يكسبن ما يقرب من ضعف ذلك: 335 دولارًا. تكهن الباحثون بأن الإباضة أدت دون وعي النساء إلى جعلهن أكثر إثارة ، مما أدى إلى تغيير غير مرئي في الحالة الهرمونية للمرأة ليكون له تأثير اقتصادي واضح للغاية.
.
Douglas T Kenrick
The Rational Animal
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
December 18, 2013
Excellent thesis, well-laid out, fun and easy to read. Humans are often thought to be rational and consistent. Yet experience continually demonstrates that that we behave “inconsistently” or “irrationally.” This book demonstrates that these choices and behaviors may make sense when viewed from an evolutionary perspective. The explanation is that rather than one personality, we have multiple (at least seven) subselves, each vying to be satisfied. These subselves developed evolutionarily, to help us survive as a species. Different subselves may be dominant at any given time, depending on the particular circumstances and how they affect our motivation. These subselves can also be primed by advertising, etc. The seven subselves are somewhat analogous to Maslow’s different stages of Being. They form a hierarchy. You have to read the book to find out what they are.
March 21, 2024
In recent decades, modern psychology has spotlighted human biases and seemingly irrational behavior. Some 97 cognitive biases have been identified. "Predictably Irrational" is the title of a best-selling book by behavioral psychologist Dan Ariely.
“We humans are born to be biased – and for good reason,” contend evolutionary psychologists Douglas Kenrick and Vladas Griskevicius. There is deep-seated evolutionary wisdom behind much of our behavior that is labeled irrational. In other words, decisions can be deeply rational at a deeper evolutionary level.
For example, human beings and monkeys have a loss aversion bias, placing greater weight on losses than on gains. We find a loss 2.75 times as psychologically impactful as a gain of the same amount. The authors say it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Our ancestors often were “living on the verge of starvation, (and) a slight downturn in your food reserves makes a lot more difference than a slight upturn.” Ancestors who had not guarded against losses might not have survived. Hence the bias made sense for survival. That doesn’t mean that it still makes sense in an environment where food is plentiful.
Decisions across the animal kingdom are made to serve evolutionary goals. “This is important because it suggests that many of our decision biases, errors and misjudgments might not be design flaws; instead, they may be design features.” These features influence our behavior at a subconscious level. In other words, we are not conscious of the wiring that leads to our decisions.
An example is that in mammals, ovulation alters female behavior. When women are in the fertile phase of their ovulation cycle, they choose sexier, more revealing clothing than when they aren’t. When dancers in strip clubs are ovulating, they make almost twice as much in tips as when they aren’t. An ovulating woman’s hormones appear to alter her decisions “to maximize her mating opportunities at the precise time of the month when doing so would have mattered most to her ancestors.”
Why are men more inclined than women to engage in risky behavior? Testosterone levels in young men spike in the presence of attractive women, and risk-taking increases accordingly. When the woman is ovulating, men take the most risks. Women in all societies are attracted to ambitious, successful men.
To further explain our behavior, the authors embrace the theory that we all have seven subselves or personalities, each dealing with different problems. The perennial problems our ancestors dealt with are evading harm, avoiding disease, making friends, gaining status, attracting a mate, keeping a mate, and caring for family. “The mind has different psychological systems for meeting each challenge.”
When each subself is activated, it has the most influence on our behavior, affecting how we interpret and react to information. For instance, when the attracting a mate subself is activated, men overcome their loss aversion and take risks to gain a mate. Ancestors who failed to take risks in this domain were less like to reproduce.
When it comes to avoiding danger and disease, our minds are overly sensitive to strangers and the smell and sight of sickness. The avoiding harm subself also contains a bias called “auditory looming.” It leads us to believe that a potentially dangerous approaching object will arrive slightly sooner than it actually will. Our bias is not completely accurate, but it does provide an extra margin of safety to get out of the way. Natural selection opted for safety over accuracy.
Natural selection also chooses bias over accuracy when it comes to men’s perception that a woman is sexually interested. Men often misinterpret women’s intentions due to this bias, but when it comes to mating, better to misinterpret than to miss a rare mating opportunity. Therefore, men’s sex detector is set overly sensitive.
Overconfidence is a bias related to status. Almost everyone rates themselves as above average when it comes to driving, for example. It turns out, however, that confidence is essential in achievement, enhancing ambition and persistence. Confident salespersons are less likely to be discouraged by rejection than those who more accurately perceive their own limitations. Overconfidence that their marriage will last encourages people to get married and reproduce.
Another example is that when we are around our children, our kin-care subself is activated, motivating us to help our offspring and other relatives, or even needy strangers. An interesting feature of kin-care is that “natural selection favors greater cooperation between organisms who share common genes.” This is demonstrated most starkly in the different treatment parents give to their biological children versus their stepchildren by marriage.
Parents are 5.5 times more likely to pay for college for their biological kids than for their step kids. Stepparents administer more severe punishment to stepchildren, who are forty times more likely to suffer physical abuse than those living with two biological parents. Children living with stepparents are also forty to one hundred times more likely to be killed. Another example of the power of genes is that identical twins tend to have closer and more cooperative relationships than fraternal twins.
In sum, “our minds evolved to be biased.” These biases helped our ancestors to survive and to reproduce. This is an entertaining and persuasive read, presenting a popularized version of evolutionary psychology rather than an academic one. -30-
“We humans are born to be biased – and for good reason,” contend evolutionary psychologists Douglas Kenrick and Vladas Griskevicius. There is deep-seated evolutionary wisdom behind much of our behavior that is labeled irrational. In other words, decisions can be deeply rational at a deeper evolutionary level.
For example, human beings and monkeys have a loss aversion bias, placing greater weight on losses than on gains. We find a loss 2.75 times as psychologically impactful as a gain of the same amount. The authors say it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Our ancestors often were “living on the verge of starvation, (and) a slight downturn in your food reserves makes a lot more difference than a slight upturn.” Ancestors who had not guarded against losses might not have survived. Hence the bias made sense for survival. That doesn’t mean that it still makes sense in an environment where food is plentiful.
Decisions across the animal kingdom are made to serve evolutionary goals. “This is important because it suggests that many of our decision biases, errors and misjudgments might not be design flaws; instead, they may be design features.” These features influence our behavior at a subconscious level. In other words, we are not conscious of the wiring that leads to our decisions.
An example is that in mammals, ovulation alters female behavior. When women are in the fertile phase of their ovulation cycle, they choose sexier, more revealing clothing than when they aren’t. When dancers in strip clubs are ovulating, they make almost twice as much in tips as when they aren’t. An ovulating woman’s hormones appear to alter her decisions “to maximize her mating opportunities at the precise time of the month when doing so would have mattered most to her ancestors.”
Why are men more inclined than women to engage in risky behavior? Testosterone levels in young men spike in the presence of attractive women, and risk-taking increases accordingly. When the woman is ovulating, men take the most risks. Women in all societies are attracted to ambitious, successful men.
To further explain our behavior, the authors embrace the theory that we all have seven subselves or personalities, each dealing with different problems. The perennial problems our ancestors dealt with are evading harm, avoiding disease, making friends, gaining status, attracting a mate, keeping a mate, and caring for family. “The mind has different psychological systems for meeting each challenge.”
When each subself is activated, it has the most influence on our behavior, affecting how we interpret and react to information. For instance, when the attracting a mate subself is activated, men overcome their loss aversion and take risks to gain a mate. Ancestors who failed to take risks in this domain were less like to reproduce.
When it comes to avoiding danger and disease, our minds are overly sensitive to strangers and the smell and sight of sickness. The avoiding harm subself also contains a bias called “auditory looming.” It leads us to believe that a potentially dangerous approaching object will arrive slightly sooner than it actually will. Our bias is not completely accurate, but it does provide an extra margin of safety to get out of the way. Natural selection opted for safety over accuracy.
Natural selection also chooses bias over accuracy when it comes to men’s perception that a woman is sexually interested. Men often misinterpret women’s intentions due to this bias, but when it comes to mating, better to misinterpret than to miss a rare mating opportunity. Therefore, men’s sex detector is set overly sensitive.
Overconfidence is a bias related to status. Almost everyone rates themselves as above average when it comes to driving, for example. It turns out, however, that confidence is essential in achievement, enhancing ambition and persistence. Confident salespersons are less likely to be discouraged by rejection than those who more accurately perceive their own limitations. Overconfidence that their marriage will last encourages people to get married and reproduce.
Another example is that when we are around our children, our kin-care subself is activated, motivating us to help our offspring and other relatives, or even needy strangers. An interesting feature of kin-care is that “natural selection favors greater cooperation between organisms who share common genes.” This is demonstrated most starkly in the different treatment parents give to their biological children versus their stepchildren by marriage.
Parents are 5.5 times more likely to pay for college for their biological kids than for their step kids. Stepparents administer more severe punishment to stepchildren, who are forty times more likely to suffer physical abuse than those living with two biological parents. Children living with stepparents are also forty to one hundred times more likely to be killed. Another example of the power of genes is that identical twins tend to have closer and more cooperative relationships than fraternal twins.
In sum, “our minds evolved to be biased.” These biases helped our ancestors to survive and to reproduce. This is an entertaining and persuasive read, presenting a popularized version of evolutionary psychology rather than an academic one. -30-
September 7, 2017
It was slow getting started and I feared I'd hate it, but it got a lot better as it went along. The idea of our 7 different subselves controlling us in different manners, depending on which subself is "activated," was very intriguing but in my mind not entirely proven. In fact, I think most of the ideas presented in the book were interesting to hear and think about, but I'm not ready to accept their system as truth. I enjoyed the book, but am still skeptical.
September 10, 2013
I loved this book! It really shows a new perspective on how all those seemingly "dumb" things that people do can be beneficial. The parasite chapter was my favorite part!
March 12, 2015
How evolution wired our brain with advantages and disadvantages. Cognitive-behavioral biases and how they share our day to day life.
May 6, 2023
I listened to the unabridged 9-hour audio version of this title (read by Tim Andres Pabon, Gildan Media, 2013).
Many books in the realm of behavioral economics and neuroeconomics have discussed human decision-making. The old assumption in the field of economics that humans are rational actors has fallen out of favor, having been replaced with the more-nuanced choice theory. Here are three books whose subject matters overlap with the current book, along with links to my reviews of them.
Algorithms to Live By (Christian & Griffiths):
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Predictably Irrational (Dan Ariely):
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The Upside of Irrationality (Dan Ariely):
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Unlike the last two books, which try to explain why we may act irrationally, the current book redefines rational decision-making in terms of evolutionary wisdom, even when the outcomes seem erratic.
Kenrick, Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University, and Griskevicius, Professor of Marketing at University of Minnesota, present a compelling account of our decision-making as a rational process, driven by sometimes-conflicting evolutionary forces, even though the result may at times appear irrational. Kenrick & Griskevicius explain that even though our choices aren't always consistent, we now understand that we follow quite rational criteria wired into our brains by evolution.
Sandwiched between an introduction (Cadillacs, Communists, and Pink Bubble Gums) and a conclusion (Mementos from Our Tour) are the following nine chapters that elaborate upon our sub-selves, defined in Chapter 2.
Chapter 1. Rationality, Irrationality, and the Dead Kennedys
Chapter 2. The Seven Sub-Selves
Chapter 3. Home Economics vs. Wall Street Economics
Chapter 4. Smoke Detectors in the Mind
Chapter 5. Modern Cavemen
Chapter 6. Living Fast and Dying Young
Chapter 7. Gold Porsches and Green Peacocks
Chapter 8. Sexual Economics: His and Hers
Chapter 9. Deep Rationality Parasites
The heart of the book is Chapter 2, listing and briefly describing our seven sub-selves. We are told, for example, that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. suffered from multiple-personality disorder; we all do. We make different choices, depending on which of our seven selves is running the show at any particular moment. The assumption that we have stable preferences (thus businesses marketing to our perceived profile) is misguided. Each of us is an amalgam of multiple selves, with different behaviors. A restaurant may emphasize its uniqueness or its popularity in different ads. If you watch a scary film, the ad focusing on popularity tends to be more effective. You want to go with the crowd, rather than stand out, in this context. Our seven sub-selves are in charge of managing the seven goals wired into us by evolution:
*Self-protection sub-self (personal or national defense)
*Disease-avoidance sub-self (a source of xenophobia)
*Affiliation sub-self (forming friendships and alliances)
*Status sub-self (our inner go-getter)
*Mate-acquisition sub-self (our inner swinging single)
*Mate-retention sub-self (getting along, to raise our kids)
*Kin-care sub-self (caring for family and humankind)
Many books in the realm of behavioral economics and neuroeconomics have discussed human decision-making. The old assumption in the field of economics that humans are rational actors has fallen out of favor, having been replaced with the more-nuanced choice theory. Here are three books whose subject matters overlap with the current book, along with links to my reviews of them.
Algorithms to Live By (Christian & Griffiths):
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Predictably Irrational (Dan Ariely):
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The Upside of Irrationality (Dan Ariely):
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Unlike the last two books, which try to explain why we may act irrationally, the current book redefines rational decision-making in terms of evolutionary wisdom, even when the outcomes seem erratic.
Kenrick, Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University, and Griskevicius, Professor of Marketing at University of Minnesota, present a compelling account of our decision-making as a rational process, driven by sometimes-conflicting evolutionary forces, even though the result may at times appear irrational. Kenrick & Griskevicius explain that even though our choices aren't always consistent, we now understand that we follow quite rational criteria wired into our brains by evolution.
Sandwiched between an introduction (Cadillacs, Communists, and Pink Bubble Gums) and a conclusion (Mementos from Our Tour) are the following nine chapters that elaborate upon our sub-selves, defined in Chapter 2.
Chapter 1. Rationality, Irrationality, and the Dead Kennedys
Chapter 2. The Seven Sub-Selves
Chapter 3. Home Economics vs. Wall Street Economics
Chapter 4. Smoke Detectors in the Mind
Chapter 5. Modern Cavemen
Chapter 6. Living Fast and Dying Young
Chapter 7. Gold Porsches and Green Peacocks
Chapter 8. Sexual Economics: His and Hers
Chapter 9. Deep Rationality Parasites
The heart of the book is Chapter 2, listing and briefly describing our seven sub-selves. We are told, for example, that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. suffered from multiple-personality disorder; we all do. We make different choices, depending on which of our seven selves is running the show at any particular moment. The assumption that we have stable preferences (thus businesses marketing to our perceived profile) is misguided. Each of us is an amalgam of multiple selves, with different behaviors. A restaurant may emphasize its uniqueness or its popularity in different ads. If you watch a scary film, the ad focusing on popularity tends to be more effective. You want to go with the crowd, rather than stand out, in this context. Our seven sub-selves are in charge of managing the seven goals wired into us by evolution:
*Self-protection sub-self (personal or national defense)
*Disease-avoidance sub-self (a source of xenophobia)
*Affiliation sub-self (forming friendships and alliances)
*Status sub-self (our inner go-getter)
*Mate-acquisition sub-self (our inner swinging single)
*Mate-retention sub-self (getting along, to raise our kids)
*Kin-care sub-self (caring for family and humankind)
May 11, 2018
Not really much new data here, but it is packaged up well. Reciprocity, loss-gain framing, "natural" cognition, mate choice, etc. The notion of "sub-selfs" has some utility, although I think one needs to be careful not to push it too far, otherwise we end up with the tiresome and unbounded "modules" of evo-cogsci. A sub-self is essentially a motivational unit, but one in which motivation affects and is affected by perception, and which primes particular sorts of behaviors (and learning opportunities).
November 19, 2021
Despite its sloppy text and structure, its lack of charm, The Rational Animal still doesn't fail to crystalize the most basic of theories in evolutionary psychology . I find this book extremely memorable due to the content being forward and clear. Each chapter rewarded me with an "aha" moment and many epiphanies along the pages.
If you're interested in why do we humans behave as we do, this book will help you get less confused.
If you're interested in why do we humans behave as we do, this book will help you get less confused.
May 18, 2018
Mildly entertaining and interesting if you are not familiar with the behavioral sciences. It's not a book to rely on for serious research as evolutionary psychology is presented without nuances. I can see how I would use parts of it in an undergrad course to make the point for a modular view of the mind or to introduce the very general idea of parasites taking advantage of our evolutionary adaptations.
October 19, 2019
Well-written treatise that sets out a stronger defence of seemingly irrational decisions than other authors in this area. Removes the stigma from cognitive error. As a skeptic, I now have less contempt for non-skeptics and my mind turns to more rational strategies to persuade and motivate those with opposing views.
July 14, 2020
This was okay, but the findings are fairly common knowledge, and the presentation of the information lacked enough illumination to justify the word count.
In short this book should have been half as long.
In short this book should have been half as long.
December 30, 2017
Easy to read, well organized. Central theme about the book is about the 7 primary motivations that influence behaviors and decision making. Interesting!
November 25, 2019
A very interesting read. Something I would have probably enjoyed even outside of class.
June 17, 2020
Well a bit disappointing as it repeats many well known studies
November 22, 2020
One of the best books I read this year. So good that I might just reread it again, right away.
Read
December 21, 20207 sub-selves and evolutionary economists
October 7, 2021
Tiresome attempts at humour and a lot of repetition. A few insights along the way.
March 15, 2022
Great book on understanding behavior motivation.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 11, 2023
This has to be the worst and most disgusting book on modern psychology I've ever read. Chapters 7 and 8 are particularly disgraceful.
May 15, 2014
Kenrick shows us how we "actually" make decisions. We are using a brain developed during our evolution. It's a primitive brain that hasn't changed and is not suited to our current environment. But it's still making decisions.
That's not to say they are bad decisions. All of them serve us in some sort of way that helped evolve us into the humans we are today. It's just that we don't consciously realize we are tapping into a pre-historic system.
Why do we give and want a diamond engagement ring? It appeals to our "mate acquisition" subself. Men want to display their status to the woman they want and the woman wants an assurance that the man has the equity to support her.
Why do so many young men die in car accidents or homicides? The status-seeking (and mate acquisition) subself. Succeeding at risk-taking improves our status among our peer group, thereby improving our likelihood of attaining a mate.
Why do so many people go from rags to riches to bankruptcy? Blame their self-protection (yes, self-protection) subself. Most of them grew up in unstable environments: fatherless, poverty, constant moves, inconsistent parenting. They have "learned" that life is unstable and they "protect" themselves from losing out on life, expecting it to end quickly, by spending more than they get, usually tremendously.
So this doesn't convince you? If we are reacting with a primitive brain, why don't we know it? Because evolution hasn't brought us up to speed on why we do what we do. Life was simple then: run from enemies (self-protection), isolate fellow group members who have sores all over their bodies (disease avoidance), share food with neighbors and others in your group (affiliation - these friends just might save your life someday by returning the favor), try to outdo others in your ability to hunt or grow food (status - you're more likely to achieve a mate if you stand out from the crowd), take risks to achieve something no one else can (mate acquisition - you either die or look like a real winner), stick around to help raise children (mate retention)share food with your family and stick around to help raise the kids(kin-care). It was SO simple then.........
We don't have to run from wild beasts anymore, but we DO have to wear our seat belts and look both ways before we cross the street in an attempt to save our lives. So it does relate.
The book is not only informative but very easy to read. It has a few repetitions but you can skip over those, as you can if you've taken psychology and/or economics classes and know some of the studies they refer to. It's definitely worth reading, if only to help you look deeper into why you're making a decision that you may regret in the morning.
That's not to say they are bad decisions. All of them serve us in some sort of way that helped evolve us into the humans we are today. It's just that we don't consciously realize we are tapping into a pre-historic system.
Why do we give and want a diamond engagement ring? It appeals to our "mate acquisition" subself. Men want to display their status to the woman they want and the woman wants an assurance that the man has the equity to support her.
Why do so many young men die in car accidents or homicides? The status-seeking (and mate acquisition) subself. Succeeding at risk-taking improves our status among our peer group, thereby improving our likelihood of attaining a mate.
Why do so many people go from rags to riches to bankruptcy? Blame their self-protection (yes, self-protection) subself. Most of them grew up in unstable environments: fatherless, poverty, constant moves, inconsistent parenting. They have "learned" that life is unstable and they "protect" themselves from losing out on life, expecting it to end quickly, by spending more than they get, usually tremendously.
So this doesn't convince you? If we are reacting with a primitive brain, why don't we know it? Because evolution hasn't brought us up to speed on why we do what we do. Life was simple then: run from enemies (self-protection), isolate fellow group members who have sores all over their bodies (disease avoidance), share food with neighbors and others in your group (affiliation - these friends just might save your life someday by returning the favor), try to outdo others in your ability to hunt or grow food (status - you're more likely to achieve a mate if you stand out from the crowd), take risks to achieve something no one else can (mate acquisition - you either die or look like a real winner), stick around to help raise children (mate retention)share food with your family and stick around to help raise the kids(kin-care). It was SO simple then.........
We don't have to run from wild beasts anymore, but we DO have to wear our seat belts and look both ways before we cross the street in an attempt to save our lives. So it does relate.
The book is not only informative but very easy to read. It has a few repetitions but you can skip over those, as you can if you've taken psychology and/or economics classes and know some of the studies they refer to. It's definitely worth reading, if only to help you look deeper into why you're making a decision that you may regret in the morning.
April 27, 2016
Fantastic connection between evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics.
The main point of this book is that we are NOT irrational, the things that appear to be irrational (e.g. biases, heuristics) exist because they are evolutionary advantageous.
Oftentimes what is evolutionary advantageous leads us to make silly choices. We're programmed to strive for success, not happiness. Which is why we might hop on a rat race hedonistic treadmill, even though that doesn't actually make us happier.
So many huge insights in this book - or explanations of why.
-We have 7 selves driving our behavior.
-They are derived from evolution - they serve the purpose of staying alive and passing down genes.
-These selves often conflict with each other - e.g. wanting to have an affair.
-These 7 selves re-prioritize through life stages: childhood = survival + disease avoidance, older kids = affiliation, teen = status + mate acquisition, family = mate retention + kin care.
-These re-prioritize and refocus through our life, but can be activated with priming
-Evolutionary Ease and Evolutionary Nudging (my term). How we process information can be difficult or easy depending on if it is engaging our System 1, Elephant system. Things like pictures, narratives are easy to interpret and process more so than large numbers and letters (invented later, not by evolutionary machinery)
-Depending on which Self is driving and the situation, there are different norms of Exchange between us. There's the Communal Sharing exchange norms where we deal in trading love and affection. There's the Mate Acquisition exchange (mate acquisition self) where we pay for others, and try to show off. There's the Equality Matching exchange where we try to show respect (status and affiliation self). There's the Authority Ranking exchange where we bow down to show respect to superiors (Status self). Finally, there's the Rational Economics exchange which is guarded and led by the Self-Protection self. This is the situation when there's no reputation to effect after the transaction, so you naturally try to get the best you can get, ignoring how it effects the other person as you'll never see them again. This is what Rationality focuses on. It's how you might interact with a perfect stranger you'll never see again. Importantly: you can increase the pie at stake by shifting people towards a more Kin, Communal exchange system with more trust (e.g. SWA).
-Living Fast or Slow... environment how you grow up affects your Life History strategy. Risk seeking or averse.
The main point of this book is that we are NOT irrational, the things that appear to be irrational (e.g. biases, heuristics) exist because they are evolutionary advantageous.
Oftentimes what is evolutionary advantageous leads us to make silly choices. We're programmed to strive for success, not happiness. Which is why we might hop on a rat race hedonistic treadmill, even though that doesn't actually make us happier.
So many huge insights in this book - or explanations of why.
-We have 7 selves driving our behavior.
-They are derived from evolution - they serve the purpose of staying alive and passing down genes.
-These selves often conflict with each other - e.g. wanting to have an affair.
-These 7 selves re-prioritize through life stages: childhood = survival + disease avoidance, older kids = affiliation, teen = status + mate acquisition, family = mate retention + kin care.
-These re-prioritize and refocus through our life, but can be activated with priming
-Evolutionary Ease and Evolutionary Nudging (my term). How we process information can be difficult or easy depending on if it is engaging our System 1, Elephant system. Things like pictures, narratives are easy to interpret and process more so than large numbers and letters (invented later, not by evolutionary machinery)
-Depending on which Self is driving and the situation, there are different norms of Exchange between us. There's the Communal Sharing exchange norms where we deal in trading love and affection. There's the Mate Acquisition exchange (mate acquisition self) where we pay for others, and try to show off. There's the Equality Matching exchange where we try to show respect (status and affiliation self). There's the Authority Ranking exchange where we bow down to show respect to superiors (Status self). Finally, there's the Rational Economics exchange which is guarded and led by the Self-Protection self. This is the situation when there's no reputation to effect after the transaction, so you naturally try to get the best you can get, ignoring how it effects the other person as you'll never see them again. This is what Rationality focuses on. It's how you might interact with a perfect stranger you'll never see again. Importantly: you can increase the pie at stake by shifting people towards a more Kin, Communal exchange system with more trust (e.g. SWA).
-Living Fast or Slow... environment how you grow up affects your Life History strategy. Risk seeking or averse.
February 17, 2017
Having read this book right after Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite, I think the best way to review this is in comparison to the other. First, this book is much simpler to read and geared more toward a general audience. Second, it talks only about the different modules of our brain, while Hypocrite sets up a more detailed theory of evolutionary psychology and the modular mind.
This is a great book to read to understand how you make decisions based on which module of your brain is most active. But I think for best understanding of how enormous the implications of the modular view of the mind are, it's best to read this and ALSO Hypocrite.
This is a great book to read to understand how you make decisions based on which module of your brain is most active. But I think for best understanding of how enormous the implications of the modular view of the mind are, it's best to read this and ALSO Hypocrite.
November 27, 2016
This book is about how evolution shaped the brain and how many of our seemingly bad decisions are not so bad if placed in an evolutionary context. The problem is that the research the book is built on is still pretty questionable. Clearly, the brain evolved. There's no question there. The question is whether you can look at multiply-determined behaviors to see the evolutionary history with methods used in this research; can you take findings from these studies and explain complex behavior with evolution? Many studies on things like the role of hormones in men's and women's behaviors (e.g., shopping) are failing to replicate, but that doesn't come up here. In fact, the book covers absolutely no skepticism of the ideas, of which there is quite a lot. And that skepticism has less to do with findings that don't replicate than with the nature of causal explanations and the kind of evidence needed for them. So yes, it's true that our decision biases can and have served some functional purposes, but it is too soon to be able to point directly to the evolutionary context of our ancestors to explain it.
Also, the book is almost all filler. There are about 5-10 sentences of fluff for every one nugget of information. It's written at about a 9th grade level.
These types of books are frustrating because although the do give a glimpse of cool new ideas and the research being conducted, they treat the findings as facts, when the truth is that many of the findings are unlikely to hold up to close scrutiny. That is the nature of science. This book is basically propaganda for these researcher's work and their field in general.
Also, the book is almost all filler. There are about 5-10 sentences of fluff for every one nugget of information. It's written at about a 9th grade level.
These types of books are frustrating because although the do give a glimpse of cool new ideas and the research being conducted, they treat the findings as facts, when the truth is that many of the findings are unlikely to hold up to close scrutiny. That is the nature of science. This book is basically propaganda for these researcher's work and their field in general.
February 25, 2016
Certainly an interesting topic and area of study, and I'm a staunch believer in the research agenda, but I went in a lot more excited than I came out. While the broad strokes are convincing, many of the individual studies they talked about were a little hard to believe, and given the known difficulties with priming studies, I could have done with, say, a sample size or an effect size for them, at least in an appendix or something. I found myself really only buying the Gigerenzer studies with any level of confidence, and that's because I've read them before. Aims a little low/broad/excitable in its attempts to make Gladwell sales. I think this work will (eventually) become the prevailing explanatory model of decision making, but after reading that book I put the date that happens a little farther out.
Additionally, the book does some injustice to the two prevailing decision making schools of thought (rational decision making and heuristics & biases), and willfully ignores the stacks and stacks of literature explaining how these schools do in fact answer the questions it says they ignore. I'd be willing to buy that the evolutionary explanation is superior, but it's hard to make that case when they, for example, ignore every rational explanation of trust and cooperation, and straight up claim that economics can't explain these phenomena, which is so obviously false I can't imagine they even believe it themselves.
Additionally, the book does some injustice to the two prevailing decision making schools of thought (rational decision making and heuristics & biases), and willfully ignores the stacks and stacks of literature explaining how these schools do in fact answer the questions it says they ignore. I'd be willing to buy that the evolutionary explanation is superior, but it's hard to make that case when they, for example, ignore every rational explanation of trust and cooperation, and straight up claim that economics can't explain these phenomena, which is so obviously false I can't imagine they even believe it themselves.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews