What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives
In this era of genome projects and brain scans, it is all too easy to overestimate the role of biology in human psychology. But in this passionate corrective to the idea that DNA is destiny, Jesse Prinz focuses on the most extraordinary aspect of human nature: that nurture can supplement and supplant nature, allowing our minds to be profoundly influenced by experience and culture. Drawing on cutting-edge research in neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology, Prinz shatters the myth of human uniformity and reveals how our differing cultures and life experiences make each of us unique. Along the way he shows that we can't blame mental illness or addiction on our genes, and that societal factors shape gender differences in cognitive ability and sexual behavior. A much-needed contribution to the nature-nurture debate, Beyond Human Nature shows us that it is only through the lens of nurture that the spectrum of human diversity becomes fully and brilliantly visible.
402 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2011
57 people are currently reading
1287 people want to read
About the author
Jesse J. Prinz
11 books43 followersJesse J. Prinz is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and director of the Committee for Interdisciplinary Science Studies at the City University of New York, Graduate Center. He lives in New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
June 19, 2022
Немам времена да форматирам текст овде, одећа се неће сама скинути са жице, те прибелешке качим у свом азилу и журим, журим... 🖤
October 9, 2018
So, you have perhaps heard of the "nature vs. nurture" debate. A while back, Steven Pinker wrote "The Blank Slate" on the topic, and early on he shared that several peers had said to him some version of: "why bother with that topic? everyone knows now that it is neither entirely nature nor nurture." Pinker's response was that everyone says "of course it's both, but..." and then they come down on one side or the other (I am simplifying, of course).
Jesse Prinz (who mentions Pinker's book in this one, btw) does something similar. Yes, of course our biological nature has an impact, but...he thinks we're a blank slate. I'm sure he would object to this characterization, but he would probably not object to being described as thinking that his peers have gone way to far in ascribing to biology, that which is adequately explained by sociology. Prinz thinks that the principal distinguishing trait of humans, is their flexibility. We can vary our diet, our behavior, our mating habits, and many other attributes of fundamental biological importance, and we can do this for no other reason than that we were raised that way.
If you were to put "it's all genes" at one end of a spectrum, and "it's all learning" at the other, then Prinz is about 90% of the way to the right. He does, of course, admit that there are biological limits to what we can and usually do, but the list of what he thinks is cultural/learned is long. He does not seem to believe that IQ is very well explained by genetics, and thinks instead it is almost entirely environmental. He argues against the Chomskyan idea that our language abilities are a specialization, and says instead that they are one aspect of a more general statistical association ability of our brains. He seems to believe the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (what language we are most comfortable speaking in, influences how we think). He thinks emotions are not universal and hard-wired, but learned, being substantially different in different cultures. He is quite skeptical about the idea of instinctive, non-learned moral instincts. He concludes with a chapter on sex, and asserts that what we find attractive (age, behavior, even gender) is shaped by the culture we are raised in, the implication being that if anything should be hard-wired it's our sex drive, and if that is malleable then anything is.
By and large, I think he goes too far. It may be that ideas about how much the ideal woman should weigh change with the culture, but I have it on good authority that no amount of socialization can make a gay man not be attracted to other men. The Enlightenment-to-Great War intellectual race between the English, French, and German-speaking worlds did not seem to suggest that one's native language was much of a determining factor, hence the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis seems weak. There may be lots of things that impact IQ, some of them clearly environmental, but the idea that our genes play no role seems as plausible as the claim that our muscular strength is unaffected by genetics.
Still, there is something useful to be gained in reading an argument taken to its logical conclusion, and perhaps slightly beyond. If Prinz usually goes too far, he is nonetheless able en route to point out lots of flaws in widely shared thinking that goes the other way. Prinz's book also gives lots of interesting insights and introduces us to many, many intriguing experiments done by others; he has clearly read widely and thought deeply about the topics he is writing about. The best judge of a book on popular science is not how much one agrees with it, but whether or not you are better informed after reading it, and Prinz's books easily passes that test.
Jesse Prinz (who mentions Pinker's book in this one, btw) does something similar. Yes, of course our biological nature has an impact, but...he thinks we're a blank slate. I'm sure he would object to this characterization, but he would probably not object to being described as thinking that his peers have gone way to far in ascribing to biology, that which is adequately explained by sociology. Prinz thinks that the principal distinguishing trait of humans, is their flexibility. We can vary our diet, our behavior, our mating habits, and many other attributes of fundamental biological importance, and we can do this for no other reason than that we were raised that way.
If you were to put "it's all genes" at one end of a spectrum, and "it's all learning" at the other, then Prinz is about 90% of the way to the right. He does, of course, admit that there are biological limits to what we can and usually do, but the list of what he thinks is cultural/learned is long. He does not seem to believe that IQ is very well explained by genetics, and thinks instead it is almost entirely environmental. He argues against the Chomskyan idea that our language abilities are a specialization, and says instead that they are one aspect of a more general statistical association ability of our brains. He seems to believe the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (what language we are most comfortable speaking in, influences how we think). He thinks emotions are not universal and hard-wired, but learned, being substantially different in different cultures. He is quite skeptical about the idea of instinctive, non-learned moral instincts. He concludes with a chapter on sex, and asserts that what we find attractive (age, behavior, even gender) is shaped by the culture we are raised in, the implication being that if anything should be hard-wired it's our sex drive, and if that is malleable then anything is.
By and large, I think he goes too far. It may be that ideas about how much the ideal woman should weigh change with the culture, but I have it on good authority that no amount of socialization can make a gay man not be attracted to other men. The Enlightenment-to-Great War intellectual race between the English, French, and German-speaking worlds did not seem to suggest that one's native language was much of a determining factor, hence the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis seems weak. There may be lots of things that impact IQ, some of them clearly environmental, but the idea that our genes play no role seems as plausible as the claim that our muscular strength is unaffected by genetics.
Still, there is something useful to be gained in reading an argument taken to its logical conclusion, and perhaps slightly beyond. If Prinz usually goes too far, he is nonetheless able en route to point out lots of flaws in widely shared thinking that goes the other way. Prinz's book also gives lots of interesting insights and introduces us to many, many intriguing experiments done by others; he has clearly read widely and thought deeply about the topics he is writing about. The best judge of a book on popular science is not how much one agrees with it, but whether or not you are better informed after reading it, and Prinz's books easily passes that test.
Read
May 31, 2013Prinz is the antidote to contemporary analytic philosophy's agoraphobia. He presents a unified empiricist picture of mind and language and morality that matches the ambition of Hume and Russell. Though Prinz can't match the literary merit of the great empiricists, he successfully carries out the project set out in the subtitle of Hume's Treatise: "An Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects".
September 15, 2023
كتب الفيلسوف الإنجليزي توماس هوبز في القرن السابع عشر أن البشر بطبيعتهم أنانيون وعدوانيون. يقول هوبز: «إننا نرغب في قتل بعضنا البعض بكل سرور لتحقيق مكاسب شخصية، ولا يمكن إلا لحكومة قوية أن تكبح هذه الغريزة الأساسية". في الحالة الطبيعية، قبل إنشاء مثل هذه الحكومات، كانت هناك حتماً حرب الجميع ضد الجميع. وبعد قرن من الزمان، دافع جان جاك روسو المولود في سويسرا عن الاستنتاج المعاكس: وهو أن البشر بطبيعتهم منعزلون ومسالمون. إن المنافسة والصراع والحرب تنتج عن وجود المجتمع، وليس عن ميولنا الطبيعية. وجهة نظر ثالثة اقترحها صديق روسو الاسكتلندي ديفيد هيوم. لقد وافق على أن البشر مسالمون، لكنه نفى أن يكونوا منعزلين؛ نحن بطبيعتنا اجتماعيون وخيرون ومتعاطفون مع احتياجات بعضنا البعض.
هذه نظريات متنافسة حول الطبيعة البشرية ... نظريات حول كيفية استعدادنا بيولوجيًا للتصرف كبشر. يستمر النقاش حتى يومنا هذا : يستخدم بعض المؤلفين العلوم الاجتماعية الحديثة للدفاع عن وجهة نظر هوبز حول الشر الطبيعي، ويدافع آخرون عن وجهة نظر هيوم حول الفضيلة الطبيعية. لكن هناك شيئًا مريبًا بشأن البحث عن الطبيعة البشرية. لماذا نفترض أن البشر كلهم متشابهين؟ هناك تباين كبير في السلوك البشري. نعلم جميعًا أشخاصًا طيبي القلب وآخرين ليسوا كذلك. وفي ضوء ذلك قد يكون من المنطقي القول بأن هناك طبائع بشرية ، وليس طبيعة بشرية واحدة.
قد يكون هذا الانتقال إلى الطبائع البشرية التعددية مشكلة أيضًا. تفترض العبارة أن معظم الاختلافات لها أساس بيولوجي. ولكن هذا قد لا يكون صحيحا. هل بعض الناس طيبون أم سيئون بطبيعتهم؟ ربما. لكن السمات البشرية قد تعكس أيضًا تأثير التنشئة. وقد أقر بذلك هوبز وروسو وهيوم. يعتقد هوبز أن الدولة الشمولية يمكنها ترويض الوحش الموجود بداخلنا. يرى روسو أن المجتمع مُفسد. يعتقد هيوم أن كل أمة لها طابع خاص بها. يقول إن السويسريين صادقين، والفرنسيون مضحكين، والإنجليز أذكياء. تنبع هذه الاختلافات من "طبيعة الحكومة، والثورات، والوفرة أو الفقر الذي يعيش فيه الناس، وحالة الأمة بالنسبة لجيرانها، وما شابه ذلك من الظروف"، وليس لأسباب بيولوجية.
.
Jesse J. Prinz
Beyond Human Nature
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
هذه نظريات متنافسة حول الطبيعة البشرية ... نظريات حول كيفية استعدادنا بيولوجيًا للتصرف كبشر. يستمر النقاش حتى يومنا هذا : يستخدم بعض المؤلفين العلوم الاجتماعية الحديثة للدفاع عن وجهة نظر هوبز حول الشر الطبيعي، ويدافع آخرون عن وجهة نظر هيوم حول الفضيلة الطبيعية. لكن هناك شيئًا مريبًا بشأن البحث عن الطبيعة البشرية. لماذا نفترض أن البشر كلهم متشابهين؟ هناك تباين كبير في السلوك البشري. نعلم جميعًا أشخاصًا طيبي القلب وآخرين ليسوا كذلك. وفي ضوء ذلك قد يكون من المنطقي القول بأن هناك طبائع بشرية ، وليس طبيعة بشرية واحدة.
قد يكون هذا الانتقال إلى الطبائع البشرية التعددية مشكلة أيضًا. تفترض العبارة أن معظم الاختلافات لها أساس بيولوجي. ولكن هذا قد لا يكون صحيحا. هل بعض الناس طيبون أم سيئون بطبيعتهم؟ ربما. لكن السمات البشرية قد تعكس أيضًا تأثير التنشئة. وقد أقر بذلك هوبز وروسو وهيوم. يعتقد هوبز أن الدولة الشمولية يمكنها ترويض الوحش الموجود بداخلنا. يرى روسو أن المجتمع مُفسد. يعتقد هيوم أن كل أمة لها طابع خاص بها. يقول إن السويسريين صادقين، والفرنسيون مضحكين، والإنجليز أذكياء. تنبع هذه الاختلافات من "طبيعة الحكومة، والثورات، والوفرة أو الفقر الذي يعيش فيه الناس، وحالة الأمة بالنسبة لجيرانها، وما شابه ذلك من الظروف"، وليس لأسباب بيولوجية.
.
Jesse J. Prinz
Beyond Human Nature
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
June 17, 2013
If you care about human beings and our future you should hope this book is right. Mr. Prinz is a philosopher, and he believes that the nature-nurture debate has swung too far towards nature in this era when molecular biology and neurobiology are ascendant. This book was written to try and swing the balance back towards nurture.
If nature is a bigger factor, then we are all stuck with what we were given at our conception. But if Mr. Prinz right and nurture is more important, then we all have the chance at a good life. We just need to figure out how to improve our cultural beliefs and institutions so they nurture everyone.
The book covers these topics: traits such as intelligence, knowledge, thinking, feelings, and morality.
For each topic Mr. Prinz describes the arguments and research that support the nature hypothesis in detail. Then he systematically pokes hole in every aspect of the arguments, and builds the case for nurture. Of course he doesn’t argue that nature has no effect, he’s just providing a correction to the current love-affair with the idea that everything is rooted in biology.
For example, research has shown that intelligence is variable throughout an individual’s lifetime, and the environment a person is in has a lot to do with how much of that person’s potential is expressed.
There are a lot of interesting ideas in here, such as the concept that human emotions like guilt are actually blends of simpler emotions. Perhaps guilt is just a blend of fear and sadness, and envy is a blend of anger and desire.
This question caught my interest: Do we think in language or in images? I feel strongly that the answer is images, but I plan on learning more about this debate.
If nature is a bigger factor, then we are all stuck with what we were given at our conception. But if Mr. Prinz right and nurture is more important, then we all have the chance at a good life. We just need to figure out how to improve our cultural beliefs and institutions so they nurture everyone.
The book covers these topics: traits such as intelligence, knowledge, thinking, feelings, and morality.
For each topic Mr. Prinz describes the arguments and research that support the nature hypothesis in detail. Then he systematically pokes hole in every aspect of the arguments, and builds the case for nurture. Of course he doesn’t argue that nature has no effect, he’s just providing a correction to the current love-affair with the idea that everything is rooted in biology.
For example, research has shown that intelligence is variable throughout an individual’s lifetime, and the environment a person is in has a lot to do with how much of that person’s potential is expressed.
There are a lot of interesting ideas in here, such as the concept that human emotions like guilt are actually blends of simpler emotions. Perhaps guilt is just a blend of fear and sadness, and envy is a blend of anger and desire.
This question caught my interest: Do we think in language or in images? I feel strongly that the answer is images, but I plan on learning more about this debate.
February 23, 2013
Prinz's book is a meditation on the way our cultural environment shapes our development, as individuals and as a species. He takes exception to recent 'naturist' research in the field, and challenges many theories about 'innate' characteristics. (I'm guessing that, if you're a naturist, you'll probably like this book a whole lot less than I did, but I found it gave me much to consider about the way in which humans learn and form societies.)
September 7, 2021
The first twenty pages were already a struggle for me. He decision not to explicitly name why scientists have chosen to ignore culture. His discussion on the racist ways biological science has been used, choosing to call it an argument (kinda sorta sure that’s a truth).
Then I got to the page where he circles back to the biological arguments around crime on page 44 and the paragraph on African American families at the top of page 45 made me tap out.
Disappointed because the concept is fascinating. But, the way he’s chosen to talk about it is problematic. In a topic with nuances, requiring he go into the sociopolitical and he tries to talk about this as if it’s bacteria cultures. And in the process, brings in all the prejudiced/supremacist frameworks from science that cause the very issue he’s trying to break down.
Hoping I find a book on the topic with more nuanced and interdisciplinary discussion.
Then I got to the page where he circles back to the biological arguments around crime on page 44 and the paragraph on African American families at the top of page 45 made me tap out.
Disappointed because the concept is fascinating. But, the way he’s chosen to talk about it is problematic. In a topic with nuances, requiring he go into the sociopolitical and he tries to talk about this as if it’s bacteria cultures. And in the process, brings in all the prejudiced/supremacist frameworks from science that cause the very issue he’s trying to break down.
Hoping I find a book on the topic with more nuanced and interdisciplinary discussion.
December 23, 2012
Good counter-arguments to Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate." Counter-arguments perhaps too strong ... Prinz doesn't deny human nature, but claims it's controlling influence has been - at times - overstated.
Tightly organized, well-elucidated, seems to cover all the ground (but I'm no expert). Calls into question the interpretations results of many earlier studies - making you realize that much care needs to be given to interpreting any study's results.
Gives us hope (somewhat); ie - that we're not so completely pre-determined.
A 1-on-1 debate between these two would be fascinating.
(maybe there is one .. I'll check you-tube later).
Tightly organized, well-elucidated, seems to cover all the ground (but I'm no expert). Calls into question the interpretations results of many earlier studies - making you realize that much care needs to be given to interpreting any study's results.
Gives us hope (somewhat); ie - that we're not so completely pre-determined.
A 1-on-1 debate between these two would be fascinating.
(maybe there is one .. I'll check you-tube later).
July 12, 2015
His arguments often run counter to the pop science of the age, but Prinz is mostly right, about important things, in this book. It's encouraging to see a careful and thoughtful philosopher successfully crafting a work like this for the inquisitive layperson.
January 5, 2016
To be honest, I found it interesting (I wholeheartedly agree with the premise), but rather repetitive and a tad dire. Even the bit about language was just more of the same and slightly boring... and I am a linguist!
I enjoyed the bit about gender, though.
I enjoyed the bit about gender, though.
June 18, 2019
This book serves as a great introductory piece for anyone looking to get into the Nature vs Nurture debate. The author starts off with telling the story of what human nature was through the eyes of Hobbes, Rousseau and Hume and then launches into the pendulum swing between the arguments for and against naturism and nurturism. Where this book stands out at the beginning is when the author makes it clear that the argument is not a dichotomy and the arguments have now taken the form of throughgoing naturism/nurturism, which the Prinz very briefly defines with the help of examples. The book is divided into several smaller areas covering ideas from language and learning, to ideas of sexuality, rationalism and empiricism while trying to keep a neutral stance by providing alternate explanations to certain conjectures made by naturists for innnateness. Prinz also uses a good amount of empirical studies performed by well-known researchers in their fields and introduces a lot of concepts simplified for a reader who is just looking to get into the debate. I found many of the chapters insightful, but there were times I did find myself wondering if Prinz was nitpicking at certain theories, where some of the arguments have been updated and rectified and built upon. My other problem with the book is when it cites a research, but proceeds to use an example of the research not used in the original study. The conclusions drawn from these might not be wrong, but it did feel a bit straw-man at some points, one major example being a study conducted by Leda Cosmides (which the book wrongfully cites as Linda Cosmides) and John Tooby about an innate logic mechanism to detect cheaters of social rules. Overall, the studies cited are very interesting, but for any scholar looking to use this book as a reference material, I strongly suggest that you do not cite this book word for word and look into the actual published research papers instead. Despite that, I think Prinz manages to construct a very compelling argument against naturism, and I would recommend this book to anyone who does not have much background in social/cognitive psychology or philosophy who intends on finding a place to start.
October 25, 2024
While I generally agree with the premise, I found several problems with his arguments. First, Prinz mentions many single studies on both sides of a point, yet he generally mentions repeatability of those studies on one side. Most of the studies on both sides suffer from repeatability problems. At multiple points Prinz fails to connect issues where he has devoted entire chapters, e.g. religion and morality seem connect, at least to some degree. Much of the work relied on stories (thought experiments, theories and anecdotes) with little scientific support.
July 26, 2025
i had the hardback edition because i found it on sale and it is a high quality print. that is all i can say that is positive about this book.
the guy bends over backwards to push his “dna is not destiny” agenda, and goes against real scientists he has no buisiness mentioning - like Chomsky and Pinker - who most likely had the good fortune of never hearing of hin or his dumb book.
i threw it away after contemplating donating it, but i didn’t want anyone else to read it. it’s only the second time in my life that i wanted to slap an author for writing a book so bad
the guy bends over backwards to push his “dna is not destiny” agenda, and goes against real scientists he has no buisiness mentioning - like Chomsky and Pinker - who most likely had the good fortune of never hearing of hin or his dumb book.
i threw it away after contemplating donating it, but i didn’t want anyone else to read it. it’s only the second time in my life that i wanted to slap an author for writing a book so bad
March 6, 2019
A creative - if, inaccurate - hypothesizing of how the human mind operates. Particularly, in the realm of language, this author clearly lacks knowledge. The inborn human grammatical instinct has been proven. As anyone who has studied Computer Science knows, linguistic logic requires a permanent grammatical reference, residing in (be it silicon or carbon based) the brain.
November 14, 2018
Presented with a sort of pantomime nature vs nurture rhetorical style that all but overwhelms the occasional good and thoughtful explorations of, e.g., cross-cultural differences in thinking patterns.
December 28, 2016
Most of this information has been covered better elsewhere, and the rest is included to prove a point.
November 9, 2017
Beyond Human Nature offers a counterweight to the genetic causalism that pervades much books, articles, and scientific-minded lay talks nowadays, while also showing that cultural psychology (which dates from Tomasello's The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition) and the empiricist view of the human mind both make for a good alternative.
Jesse puts much of the intensely debated cases under closer scrutiny (IQ and the bell curve, racial and sexual differences in intellectual skills, language impact upon thought, mental illness). He shows how the naturist side, allowing genes to account for the evidences period , often rests on bad science : neglecting environmental impacts on development, ignoring disparities in outcomes and standards of living, and the like.
This work shines in honesty, rigor, and intellectual breadth - going from a thorough critique of the language of thought, to the exprimental supports given to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, to the holistic vs individualistic cultures framing of perceptions and information processing... And lot more.
A good part of the book is showing how the empiricist's view of the mind, as being made of associations between mental images (copies of sensory experiences) and emotions, fare better than its rival in accounting for abstract ideas, for the productivity of thought, and for its overall context-sensitivity and dependence. A return to empiricism is also a way to stress how cautiously we should be in terms of hypothesis and explanations building : if one trait can be shown to be unteachable, unlearnable; and if the proper environment to learn the trait from experience and from teaching can be shown to be lacking or esle unexistant, than that trait should be viewed as innate. But it is heavily clear, when reading the works criticized by Prinz (on moral belief, naive physics and emotions among other things), that genetic causation/necessity/suffiency claims are straighforward and easy going as far as these unlearnability et al. condition are concerned.
Of special interest is the way empiricism fosters a careful analysis of basic emotions (Ekman's Big Six), once taken as universal, analysis that unravel how these, given their cultural variability, are likely to be grounded on the associations of simpler, more primitve affects.
Beyong Human Nature is a pretty good, enjoyable and thoughtful work.
Jesse puts much of the intensely debated cases under closer scrutiny (IQ and the bell curve, racial and sexual differences in intellectual skills, language impact upon thought, mental illness). He shows how the naturist side, allowing genes to account for the evidences period , often rests on bad science : neglecting environmental impacts on development, ignoring disparities in outcomes and standards of living, and the like.
This work shines in honesty, rigor, and intellectual breadth - going from a thorough critique of the language of thought, to the exprimental supports given to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, to the holistic vs individualistic cultures framing of perceptions and information processing... And lot more.
A good part of the book is showing how the empiricist's view of the mind, as being made of associations between mental images (copies of sensory experiences) and emotions, fare better than its rival in accounting for abstract ideas, for the productivity of thought, and for its overall context-sensitivity and dependence. A return to empiricism is also a way to stress how cautiously we should be in terms of hypothesis and explanations building : if one trait can be shown to be unteachable, unlearnable; and if the proper environment to learn the trait from experience and from teaching can be shown to be lacking or esle unexistant, than that trait should be viewed as innate. But it is heavily clear, when reading the works criticized by Prinz (on moral belief, naive physics and emotions among other things), that genetic causation/necessity/suffiency claims are straighforward and easy going as far as these unlearnability et al. condition are concerned.
Of special interest is the way empiricism fosters a careful analysis of basic emotions (Ekman's Big Six), once taken as universal, analysis that unravel how these, given their cultural variability, are likely to be grounded on the associations of simpler, more primitve affects.
Beyong Human Nature is a pretty good, enjoyable and thoughtful work.
January 23, 2016
A very refreshing, enjoyable and thought-provoking read! Prinz doesn't use the arrogant tone of Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky, but humbly and respectfully presents evidence for a larger role of nurture. That evidence isn't just questionnaires where women who have grown up in countries where they have more opportunities than in the US reply that wealth isn't particularly important when they look for a mate (sorry, but when reading "How the mind works", I was appalled by the scientific weakness of the presented studies), but solid and convincing research.
Unfortunately, one chapter of the book lacked the quality of the rest and seemed to be an attempt to persuade the reader to adopt a theory that the author had made up without actually considering much research. To me, the chapter on mental health didn't make much sense at all. Very little research was mentioned and the views expressed revealed a lack of insight into the current state of research in the field. I hope I didn't find the rest of the book so convincing only because I am less familiar with the research in those fields, but judging by the amount of references for each chapter, the mental health one was the only one produced without first exploring relevant research.
Thus, with the risk of annoying one of the professors at my own university department - whose work was criticized in the book - I give this 5 stars and continue exploring this exciting field.
Unfortunately, one chapter of the book lacked the quality of the rest and seemed to be an attempt to persuade the reader to adopt a theory that the author had made up without actually considering much research. To me, the chapter on mental health didn't make much sense at all. Very little research was mentioned and the views expressed revealed a lack of insight into the current state of research in the field. I hope I didn't find the rest of the book so convincing only because I am less familiar with the research in those fields, but judging by the amount of references for each chapter, the mental health one was the only one produced without first exploring relevant research.
Thus, with the risk of annoying one of the professors at my own university department - whose work was criticized in the book - I give this 5 stars and continue exploring this exciting field.
May 11, 2012
Are we the result of nature (our inherited traits) or nurture, the effect of the environment. Prinz is on the side of nurture, and goes systematically through the research to prove his point. The book is interesting and persuasive.
September 9, 2012
A worthy opponent of Stephen Pinker, Noam Chomsky and a great many other proponents of evolutionary psychology.
Prinz clearly and persuasively debunks or re-interprets the talking points of those seeking a model of human traits anchored in evolutionary theory.
Prinz clearly and persuasively debunks or re-interprets the talking points of those seeking a model of human traits anchored in evolutionary theory.
Read
January 18, 2013I am very interested in this subject, but not enough to slog through this repetitive book. There's just too much information, and too much nature vs. nurture talk. I don't need convincing, I already agree with the premise.
January 16, 2013
Phew! That was a slog.
Don't get me wrong, it was an interesting read, but I was expecting something a bit lighter than this apologist's textbook for the Nuturist's crowd...
December 4, 2012
A well written book on a very interesting premise. Insightful and educative.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews