What do you think?
A Billion Years of Sex Differences: How Evolution Shaped the Minds of Men and Women
According to an old joke, everyone knows that men and women are different... except social scientists. In A Billion Years of Sex Differences, evolutionary psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams tackles some of science's most controversial How do men and women differ? Where do the differences come from? And how do they shape modern life?
The result is the most up-to-date, balanced and engaging account of human sex differences yet written, covering everything from dating and mating to aggression and parenting, from children's toy preferences and workplace gender gaps to mental health and the politics of equality. Drawing on a century of research - and a billion years of evolution - Stewart-Williams explains why many sex differences appear despite socialization, not because of it; why in our mating and parenting patterns, humans are more like the average bird than the average mammal; and why sex differences are sometimes a sign of societal health rather than injustice.
With more than two decades of research in evolutionary psychology and an international reputation in the field, Steve Stewart-Williams is uniquely positioned to challenge prevailing views in this fraught debate. Avoiding the extremes of either overstating or denying the differences, he argues that, rather than trying to make men and women identical, we should strive for a world where bias and barriers are eliminated, and where people are free to be themselves whether they conform to gender norms or defy them.
The result is the most up-to-date, balanced and engaging account of human sex differences yet written, covering everything from dating and mating to aggression and parenting, from children's toy preferences and workplace gender gaps to mental health and the politics of equality. Drawing on a century of research - and a billion years of evolution - Stewart-Williams explains why many sex differences appear despite socialization, not because of it; why in our mating and parenting patterns, humans are more like the average bird than the average mammal; and why sex differences are sometimes a sign of societal health rather than injustice.
With more than two decades of research in evolutionary psychology and an international reputation in the field, Steve Stewart-Williams is uniquely positioned to challenge prevailing views in this fraught debate. Avoiding the extremes of either overstating or denying the differences, he argues that, rather than trying to make men and women identical, we should strive for a world where bias and barriers are eliminated, and where people are free to be themselves whether they conform to gender norms or defy them.
Audible Audio
First published June 4, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
June 4, 2026
Steve Stewart-Williams’ A Billion Years of Sex Differences is one of the most important books on sex differences published in recent years. Drawing on evolutionary psychology, biology, anthropology, genetics, and cross-cultural research, Stewart-Williams takes readers on a fascinating journey through the deep evolutionary roots of human nature.
What makes this book especially valuable is its balanced and evidence-based approach. Rather than viewing men and women through an ideological lens, Stewart-Williams examines the scientific evidence with curiosity, humility, and rigour. He rejects simplistic claims that men and women are either completely the same or entirely different, instead exploring where sex differences are large, where they are small, and why they exist.
Importantly, this is neither a male-negative nor female-negative book. It honours both masculine and feminine traits, recognising that each sex brings distinctive strengths, vulnerabilities, preferences, and contributions. The result is a deeply human account of who we are and how we came to be.
Readers may disagree with some conclusions, but they will struggle to find a more comprehensive synthesis of the evidence. In an era where discussions of sex differences are often dominated by politics and ideology, A Billion Years of Sex Differences stands out as a thoughtful, respectful, and scientifically grounded contribution.
Whether you are interested in psychology, relationships, parenting, education, or public policy, this book deserves a wide readership. It reminds us that understanding men and women begins not with slogans, but with evidence.
What makes this book especially valuable is its balanced and evidence-based approach. Rather than viewing men and women through an ideological lens, Stewart-Williams examines the scientific evidence with curiosity, humility, and rigour. He rejects simplistic claims that men and women are either completely the same or entirely different, instead exploring where sex differences are large, where they are small, and why they exist.
Importantly, this is neither a male-negative nor female-negative book. It honours both masculine and feminine traits, recognising that each sex brings distinctive strengths, vulnerabilities, preferences, and contributions. The result is a deeply human account of who we are and how we came to be.
Readers may disagree with some conclusions, but they will struggle to find a more comprehensive synthesis of the evidence. In an era where discussions of sex differences are often dominated by politics and ideology, A Billion Years of Sex Differences stands out as a thoughtful, respectful, and scientifically grounded contribution.
Whether you are interested in psychology, relationships, parenting, education, or public policy, this book deserves a wide readership. It reminds us that understanding men and women begins not with slogans, but with evidence.
June 14, 2026
A clear and lucid account of the science and debate involving the differences between men and women. It is a well-balanced account of the arguments and evidence. The upshot is that men and women do differ on average, but that the differences are usually modest. In comparison with other animals, we seem to occupy a somewhat awkward position where sexual differences are significant but do not entirely dominate our behavior. The author concludes that while the behavioral and social differences are significantly modulated by culture, there is an innate component that is difficult to explain away.
June 9, 2026
قد تتحول الصور النمطية الجنسية إلى نبوءات تحقق ذاتها. فعلى سبيل المثال، إذا افترض الأهل والمعلمون أن الرياضيات والعلوم مخصصة للأولاد، بينما القراءة والكتابة مخصصة للفتيات، فقد يغفلون عن ملاحظة أو تنمية مواهب الأطفال في المجالات التي تتعارض مع توقعاتهم. وفي الوقت نفسه، إذا اعتقد الصبيان أنهم لن يكونوا بارعين في رعاية الأطفال، أو الفتيات أنهن لن يكنّ بارعات في التعامل مع الأرقام، فقد يقللون من الوقت والجهد المبذولين في هذه الأنشطة، مما يضمن في النهاية عدم تفوقهم فيها. وحتى لو اعتقد الأطفال أنهم قادرون على التفوق في مجال ما، فإنهم لا يرغبون في الظهور بمظهر غريب، خاصة في سنوات المراهقة، لذا غالبًا ما يحصرون أنشطتهم اليومية وطموحاتهم الحياتية في ما يُعتبر طبيعيًا لجنسهم.
.
Steve Stewart-Williams
A Billion Years of Sex Differences
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
Steve Stewart-Williams
A Billion Years of Sex Differences
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
August 12, 2026
There were a lot of good parts, but it was too repetitive and too cautious. I suppose this is a touchy subject right now, but I feel as though it was needless. We get the 1st and last chapters at least half dedicated to establishing this dichotomy between nurture vs. nature / progressivism vs. traditionalism, followed by "pretty please don't get mad at me." We have to take a five-step protocol and go over the naturalistic and forever-fixed fallacy every time there is something controversial stated. And I suppose there is a lot of it in the book; I don't know. I didn't find anything controversial. There is nothing controversial about nature and reality. The book could have been cut short by 50 pages, and it would only improve in quality.
I try to be sympathetic, but think of comparing it to Evolution of Desire, where Buss nonchalantly discusses arguments in favour of rape as a distinct evolutionary strategy—a topic many-fold more controversial than anything in this book—and he did a line or two of text just reaffirming that rape is terrible anyway. I suppose it is distasteful to compare two authors, especially when one of them is a lot older and more established, but I see that topics like this can be covered like any other topic in science. Important to note: I rated Evolution of Desire as a 4 as well, but it is a stronger book on a somewhat similar, but notably not the same, topic.
Generally, the book sometimes comes off as a for-and-against essay. I am not against that per se, but combined with everything else, was it necessary? Choose one.
The same goes for the last chapter. Aside from some interesting biases against boys and men, most of it was unnecessary, especially when you regurgitated the key takeaways from the book at the end anyway. The reason why my rating is still pretty generous is because it is better to have superfluous rather than missing pages.
Although I think that there were some missing parts. He goes over the greater-male-variability hypothesis, says that men and women have the same average IQ, contrary to popular belief, and leaves it at that. What do you mean you're not going to cover the most popular example of the hypothesis, that men dominate the tails of the distribution, there? There are loads of studies on it, but if you don't agree that this is true, it would be only logical to bust this myth alongside the "girls have lower IQ" and "girls are bad at math" myths.
Another small thing that irked me is this part:
> "At birth, the sex ratio is male-biased: that is, more male babies are born than female babies. By sexual maturity, the ratio is approximately equal, and from then on, women increasingly outnumber men."
Almost! You almost had it! Look at the population pyramid of any developed Western/European country and you will see a pretty consistent male surplus up streching well after 35. You cannot pin it on migrants; it is ubiquitous, from East to West, noticeable as early as the 1960s, even in countries with notoriously few immigrants like Japan. You can see it reach close to the 50s, and only then does it taper off. There is no EU country (where they actually break down gender-age data) where it is not closer to 40
This demographic reality has huge implications for many aspects of our society. Together with physical segregation of the sexes: different majors, different jobs, different (size) cities in which the two sexes live, etc., he explains it well with the gender-equality paradox and then just leaves it there. This has huge implications for the rise in incel culture, the male loneliness epidemic, the growing rift between genders, etc. South Korea, the dystopian hellhole that it is, is a perfect epitomization of this.
There are studies showing that regions with more male-biased sex ratios have higher levels of incel-related activity, which makes this demographic reality particularly relevant to the rise of incel culture, male loneliness, and potentially the growing rift between genders. This is a relevant topic—the one he is so scared of, as is seemingly everyone. Nobody wants to even mention the screwed-up sex-ratio stretching so far. It is not the 50s anymore; it doesn't end at 20 years old. He had a perfect backdrop and blew it in favour of explaining how it doesn't mean that something is OK just because it is natural, for who knows what time. This is a mild case of the common fenomenon: assuming the reader is stupid
Another thing that annoyed me was when he discussed the male shortened life expectancy. Sure, the best way to extend the lifetime of men is to castrate them; the second best thing is MONEY. The sex gap changes dramatically with income: women lived 6 years longer than men in the bottom 1%, compared with only 1.5 years longer in the top 1%. Ignoring the socioeconomic aspect in favour of the nature aspect for the only time in the book had me shaking my head. Generally, he gives the nurture-only side all the second chances. I suppose he is scared not to, but I guess this time it was left out. I am not mad
I appreciate the time he took to explain Cohen's d and all those basic statistical concepts. I suppose this might be superfluous to some, but not to me. The book was overall interesting and informative, but as I said, pages were not used very economically. Which fine since the good and bad of the book are segragated into different chapters. The information was overall solid.
I try to be sympathetic, but think of comparing it to Evolution of Desire, where Buss nonchalantly discusses arguments in favour of rape as a distinct evolutionary strategy—a topic many-fold more controversial than anything in this book—and he did a line or two of text just reaffirming that rape is terrible anyway. I suppose it is distasteful to compare two authors, especially when one of them is a lot older and more established, but I see that topics like this can be covered like any other topic in science. Important to note: I rated Evolution of Desire as a 4 as well, but it is a stronger book on a somewhat similar, but notably not the same, topic.
Generally, the book sometimes comes off as a for-and-against essay. I am not against that per se, but combined with everything else, was it necessary? Choose one.
The same goes for the last chapter. Aside from some interesting biases against boys and men, most of it was unnecessary, especially when you regurgitated the key takeaways from the book at the end anyway. The reason why my rating is still pretty generous is because it is better to have superfluous rather than missing pages.
Although I think that there were some missing parts. He goes over the greater-male-variability hypothesis, says that men and women have the same average IQ, contrary to popular belief, and leaves it at that. What do you mean you're not going to cover the most popular example of the hypothesis, that men dominate the tails of the distribution, there? There are loads of studies on it, but if you don't agree that this is true, it would be only logical to bust this myth alongside the "girls have lower IQ" and "girls are bad at math" myths.
Another small thing that irked me is this part:
> "At birth, the sex ratio is male-biased: that is, more male babies are born than female babies. By sexual maturity, the ratio is approximately equal, and from then on, women increasingly outnumber men."
Almost! You almost had it! Look at the population pyramid of any developed Western/European country and you will see a pretty consistent male surplus up streching well after 35. You cannot pin it on migrants; it is ubiquitous, from East to West, noticeable as early as the 1960s, even in countries with notoriously few immigrants like Japan. You can see it reach close to the 50s, and only then does it taper off. There is no EU country (where they actually break down gender-age data) where it is not closer to 40
This demographic reality has huge implications for many aspects of our society. Together with physical segregation of the sexes: different majors, different jobs, different (size) cities in which the two sexes live, etc., he explains it well with the gender-equality paradox and then just leaves it there. This has huge implications for the rise in incel culture, the male loneliness epidemic, the growing rift between genders, etc. South Korea, the dystopian hellhole that it is, is a perfect epitomization of this.
There are studies showing that regions with more male-biased sex ratios have higher levels of incel-related activity, which makes this demographic reality particularly relevant to the rise of incel culture, male loneliness, and potentially the growing rift between genders. This is a relevant topic—the one he is so scared of, as is seemingly everyone. Nobody wants to even mention the screwed-up sex-ratio stretching so far. It is not the 50s anymore; it doesn't end at 20 years old. He had a perfect backdrop and blew it in favour of explaining how it doesn't mean that something is OK just because it is natural, for who knows what time. This is a mild case of the common fenomenon: assuming the reader is stupid
Another thing that annoyed me was when he discussed the male shortened life expectancy. Sure, the best way to extend the lifetime of men is to castrate them; the second best thing is MONEY. The sex gap changes dramatically with income: women lived 6 years longer than men in the bottom 1%, compared with only 1.5 years longer in the top 1%. Ignoring the socioeconomic aspect in favour of the nature aspect for the only time in the book had me shaking my head. Generally, he gives the nurture-only side all the second chances. I suppose he is scared not to, but I guess this time it was left out. I am not mad
I appreciate the time he took to explain Cohen's d and all those basic statistical concepts. I suppose this might be superfluous to some, but not to me. The book was overall interesting and informative, but as I said, pages were not used very economically. Which fine since the good and bad of the book are segragated into different chapters. The information was overall solid.
July 1, 2026
This book is great and shows how evolutionary psychology and biology have improved a lot in the last years. We have left behind the hard, dogmatic and deterministic discourses of Dennett or Dawkins, and also the little nuanced reductionisms of Pinker or Buss. Stewart-Williams manages to nuance, explain the difference between statistical generalities and individual or group realities and, simply, go to the biological root of the question. In this sense, this is an outstanding piece of work and very recommendable. A MUST for philosophers, sociologists, psychologists and so on.
Now then, there are several criticisms to make, even if they are moderate...
The first one is that the author has a perception of "culture" that is a bit poor (while he has a very good perception of biology and science), which is normal. What the author obviates—or is not capable to emphasize—is that all biology is crossed by words and stained by culture: what the biologist Eva Jablonka terms "cultural evolution". Every fetus emerges already in a human amniotic fluid, and vice versa. The maternal instinct itself, which is undeniable, takes many forms, nuances, hates, obsessions, negations, depressions... precisely because of human culture. And I am not denying that in animals the mothers can also do infanticide because of stress; I say that the way of living it, giving it a meaning, etcetera, is culture.
However, Stewart-Williams, in his bias, pulls always more towards the biological side, as if the match was played there. And of course, it is not like that. Although he says that "Nature's contribution is more crucial", in the last chapter he cannot say much about how to "solve" our gender problems. To do that, one has to speak about politics, anthropology, education, symbolisms, marketing, art... about social sciences, which he, like so many evolutionary authors, see as enemies.
The author lacks a more processual biological vision in the line of John Dupré, Eva Jablonka, Evan Thompson or David Noble, by levels of meaning and development, where sex is not only seen in gametes (which is true at a biological level), but also at the cultural, social, human and symbolic phenomenological level where WE move. Organs, phenotype... everything is key in the human dimension where we live. As many authors have claimed: "sex in humans is, overally speaking, about brains and MIND". But Stewart-Williams tries to circumnavegate this two huge icebergs...
To put an example of what we mean about what should be nuanced or what the author "lacks": Does a space satellite owe more to biology or to culture? And a sculpture finely made on a grain of rice? Of course, without creative beings we wouldn't have the satellite, and without rice we wouldn't have the sculpture. BUT, the actual truth is that a huge part of society—and of history—has not had satellites. And, if we want to understand the sculpture artistically and anthropologically, that it is made of rice or clay can be the less important thing.
The defect that I think the author should check the most is the religious belief he has in "The second law of behavior genetics". He should review the scientific criticisms to twin studies (as, for example, Sapolsky collects in Behave or Determined). There are many scientific authors who have turned around this simplistic vision of the effect of families on brothers. To cite some: Jay Joseph, Leon Kamin, Marcus Feldman, Evan Charney and... Eric Turkheimer, the creator of this "law" who at the end criticized it! I point out by the way that there are also certain psychological limits. The author has it taken with social scientists and psychologists; I understand this is because they have often undervalued the real differences of biology. But it is also true that the author simplifies and underestimates the psychological nuances and depth.
Of course, I have pointed out many things that seem to me he should nuance or that are naive. Yes, there is a lot of naivety, because I think that often those who only opt for a biologizing perspective believe that everything is very simple, and the problems get erased. What is more, Stewart-Williams also should acknowledge that when he addresses the topic of homosexuality, he still has a long way to go in terms of reviewing and reflecting (what he points out is not bad, but again he wants to consider it a closed case with certain reductionist possibilities). And, of course, the trans topic, which is very key, is not even mentioned.
For this reason, I would also recommend, to complete the perspective of this author, other approaches that don't necessarily deny the fundamental thesis of the book, but make see how there are other dimensions to take into account if someone really wants to treat the theme of sex differences in all its human complexity. I refer to books like Sexual Ambiguities by Geneviève Morel, El deseo trans by Vilma Coccoz, Deshumanizando al varón by Daniel Jiménez, Righteous Men by Ivan Jablonka, A la conquista del cuerpo equivocado by Miquel Missé, or ¿Existe la relación sexual? by Massimo Recalcati... all of them very different and diverse, and of course none of them perfect (and I have left many others in the inkpot). Also is highly recommendable to read Cordelia Fine, because, as Stewart Williams put it "She writes very well", what is true (although some of hers arguments are tricky).
Anyway, I have to stress again that this essay is a MUST. No debate or discussion will be possible (in philosophy, sociology or whatever) without taking into account the basic biological facts that Steve Stewart-Williams show us here, although many debates should still be opened, following the advocators of a more conplex thread of evolution based on genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic variation.
Now then, there are several criticisms to make, even if they are moderate...
The first one is that the author has a perception of "culture" that is a bit poor (while he has a very good perception of biology and science), which is normal. What the author obviates—or is not capable to emphasize—is that all biology is crossed by words and stained by culture: what the biologist Eva Jablonka terms "cultural evolution". Every fetus emerges already in a human amniotic fluid, and vice versa. The maternal instinct itself, which is undeniable, takes many forms, nuances, hates, obsessions, negations, depressions... precisely because of human culture. And I am not denying that in animals the mothers can also do infanticide because of stress; I say that the way of living it, giving it a meaning, etcetera, is culture.
However, Stewart-Williams, in his bias, pulls always more towards the biological side, as if the match was played there. And of course, it is not like that. Although he says that "Nature's contribution is more crucial", in the last chapter he cannot say much about how to "solve" our gender problems. To do that, one has to speak about politics, anthropology, education, symbolisms, marketing, art... about social sciences, which he, like so many evolutionary authors, see as enemies.
The author lacks a more processual biological vision in the line of John Dupré, Eva Jablonka, Evan Thompson or David Noble, by levels of meaning and development, where sex is not only seen in gametes (which is true at a biological level), but also at the cultural, social, human and symbolic phenomenological level where WE move. Organs, phenotype... everything is key in the human dimension where we live. As many authors have claimed: "sex in humans is, overally speaking, about brains and MIND". But Stewart-Williams tries to circumnavegate this two huge icebergs...
To put an example of what we mean about what should be nuanced or what the author "lacks": Does a space satellite owe more to biology or to culture? And a sculpture finely made on a grain of rice? Of course, without creative beings we wouldn't have the satellite, and without rice we wouldn't have the sculpture. BUT, the actual truth is that a huge part of society—and of history—has not had satellites. And, if we want to understand the sculpture artistically and anthropologically, that it is made of rice or clay can be the less important thing.
The defect that I think the author should check the most is the religious belief he has in "The second law of behavior genetics". He should review the scientific criticisms to twin studies (as, for example, Sapolsky collects in Behave or Determined). There are many scientific authors who have turned around this simplistic vision of the effect of families on brothers. To cite some: Jay Joseph, Leon Kamin, Marcus Feldman, Evan Charney and... Eric Turkheimer, the creator of this "law" who at the end criticized it! I point out by the way that there are also certain psychological limits. The author has it taken with social scientists and psychologists; I understand this is because they have often undervalued the real differences of biology. But it is also true that the author simplifies and underestimates the psychological nuances and depth.
Of course, I have pointed out many things that seem to me he should nuance or that are naive. Yes, there is a lot of naivety, because I think that often those who only opt for a biologizing perspective believe that everything is very simple, and the problems get erased. What is more, Stewart-Williams also should acknowledge that when he addresses the topic of homosexuality, he still has a long way to go in terms of reviewing and reflecting (what he points out is not bad, but again he wants to consider it a closed case with certain reductionist possibilities). And, of course, the trans topic, which is very key, is not even mentioned.
For this reason, I would also recommend, to complete the perspective of this author, other approaches that don't necessarily deny the fundamental thesis of the book, but make see how there are other dimensions to take into account if someone really wants to treat the theme of sex differences in all its human complexity. I refer to books like Sexual Ambiguities by Geneviève Morel, El deseo trans by Vilma Coccoz, Deshumanizando al varón by Daniel Jiménez, Righteous Men by Ivan Jablonka, A la conquista del cuerpo equivocado by Miquel Missé, or ¿Existe la relación sexual? by Massimo Recalcati... all of them very different and diverse, and of course none of them perfect (and I have left many others in the inkpot). Also is highly recommendable to read Cordelia Fine, because, as Stewart Williams put it "She writes very well", what is true (although some of hers arguments are tricky).
Anyway, I have to stress again that this essay is a MUST. No debate or discussion will be possible (in philosophy, sociology or whatever) without taking into account the basic biological facts that Steve Stewart-Williams show us here, although many debates should still be opened, following the advocators of a more conplex thread of evolution based on genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic variation.
July 16, 2026
Το βιβλίο θα μπορούσε να έχει υπότιτλο "τα έμφυλα στερεότυπα είναι (σχεδόν) όλα σωστά και έχουν βιολογικό υπόβαθρο". Συνοψίζεται, όμως, στην εικόνα 1: ένα διάγραμμα με δύο επικαλυπτόμενες κανονικές κατανομές. Αυτό που θέλει να πει, και λέει, είναι ότι οι διαφορές ανάμεσα στα δύο φύλα υπάρχουν, έχουν γενετική προέλευση, αλλά είναι κατά κανόνα μικρές. Ο συγγραφέας γενικά αγχώνεται και πιστεύει ότι οι προοδευτικοί έχουν πάρει πλέον το πάνω χέρι και εκεί που η παράδοση ήθελε τις διαφορές ανάμεσα στα δύο φύλα να είναι φυσικές και επιβεβλημένες, οι προοδευτικοί πλέον όχι μόνο αρνούνται αυτές τις διαφορές, αλλά επιβάλουν και την εξάλειψή τους, ενώ δεν θα έπρεπε. Προτείνει έναν Τρίτο Δρόμο, τον δρόμο του κεντρώου, όπου αφήνουμε τους ανθρώπους να είναι ο εαυτός τους. 18% του βιβλίου είναι βιβλιογραφικές αναφορές. Ευτυχώς δεν χρησιμοποιεί το APA style, αλλά από την άλλη, εκτός λίγων εξαιρέσεων, οι έρευνες που επικαλείται είναι όλες στο παράρτημα στο τέλος. Αλλά και μέσα στο κείμενο να τις είχε, είναι αδύνατον για τον μέσο αναγνώστη να αξιολογήσει όλες αυτές τις έρευνες και να αποφανθεί αν ο συγγραφέας έχει δίκιο ή όχι. Και εκεί είναι που το χάνει: έχει επιχειρήματα, αλλά νιώθεις ότι τα έχει πει ένα εκατομμύριο φορές, και είναι σαν να βαριέται να τα επαναλάβει. Αποτέλεσμα η μόνιμη επωδός "οι διαφορές ανάμεσα στα δύο φύλα υπάρχουν και είναι βιολογικές". Κι ο Χαράρι αναφέρεται σε πάμπολες έρευνες, τις οποίες διάφοροι επικριτές του έχουν πλέον αμφισβητήσει, αλλά σε πείθει με τον λόγο του. Εδώ ο λόγος του μου φαίνεται βεβιασμένος και αγχωτικός για να σε πείσει.
Με έπεισε;
Δεν ξέρω.
Σε πολλά συμφωνούσα ήδη με τον συγγραφέα. Εκεί που διαφωνούσα δεν νομίζω ότι με έπεισε. Ίσως είναι ηθικό το θέμα.
Είναι ένα βιβλίο που κατά κύριο λόγο θα εκνευρίσει αριστερούς και κατά δεύτερο λόγο δεξιούς. Όλοι θα βρουν κάτι για να εκνευριστούν, και όλοι κάτι για να πιαστούν.
Με έπεισε;
Δεν ξέρω.
Σε πολλά συμφωνούσα ήδη με τον συγγραφέα. Εκεί που διαφωνούσα δεν νομίζω ότι με έπεισε. Ίσως είναι ηθικό το θέμα.
Είναι ένα βιβλίο που κατά κύριο λόγο θα εκνευρίσει αριστερούς και κατά δεύτερο λόγο δεξιούς. Όλοι θα βρουν κάτι για να εκνευριστούν, και όλοι κάτι για να πιαστούν.
August 16, 2026
An informative read and a balanced take
I think that the topic that this book is about is simultaneously quite important but also very difficult to write about. For reasons the author goes into in the book, sex differences and their origin and implications are pretty controversial, but misunderstanding them (in both directions) also has pretty bad effects, so they ought to be talked about.
I believe that the book gives a pretty balanced and statistically informed account of sex differences and also, very interestingly, contrasts humans with other species. Given that science has shown many years ago that we as humans are not necessarily biologically special I think that that's a pretty interesting and informative take that most stuff you see about this doesn't necessarily go into.
The book also correctly emphasis that sex differences are both small and real, statistical rather than categorical but still significant in aggregate. This is counter to both those who like to emphasise sex differences and those who like to deny them; I think the book is mostly quite unideological, which is good.
I think that the topic that this book is about is simultaneously quite important but also very difficult to write about. For reasons the author goes into in the book, sex differences and their origin and implications are pretty controversial, but misunderstanding them (in both directions) also has pretty bad effects, so they ought to be talked about.
I believe that the book gives a pretty balanced and statistically informed account of sex differences and also, very interestingly, contrasts humans with other species. Given that science has shown many years ago that we as humans are not necessarily biologically special I think that that's a pretty interesting and informative take that most stuff you see about this doesn't necessarily go into.
The book also correctly emphasis that sex differences are both small and real, statistical rather than categorical but still significant in aggregate. This is counter to both those who like to emphasise sex differences and those who like to deny them; I think the book is mostly quite unideological, which is good.
September 20, 2026
Stewart-Williams is a scientist that to me embodies Sagan's quote: "Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility." He does a great job taking you along for the journey through a subject most would rather avoid right now. If you want to know the current state of science on the subject I highly recommend it.
Want to Read
September 9, 2026have not read but want to, and noticed something that may be salient: the Goodreads reviews so far have all been by men (or those who present as male). What is it about the human male that makes them want to read books by men but by women, not so much? But women read men voraciously. Just kidding.
September 29, 2026
A book literally EVERYONE should read. It would lead to me having to explain so much less to people if only they read this book.
July 13, 2026
Fascinating
Extremely interesting and presented in a style full of warmth and humour. It’s a balanced and readable book on a fascinating subject.
Extremely interesting and presented in a style full of warmth and humour. It’s a balanced and readable book on a fascinating subject.
Review of advance copy
Very important and well-written book.
The reason i rated it 4 and not 5 stars has nothing to do with the quality of the book per se, it is more of a personal rating. I agreed with basically everything, and he keeps you interested throughout. The only downside for me were the constant ”steel-manning” of other perspectives, (e.g. ”How do we know this isn’t due to socialisation?”), which, although important, somewhat disturbed the flow of the book. Instead, I would personally have enjoyed even deeper psychological investigation (and perhaps even speculation), but i understand the choice.
Nevertheless a very relevant and accessible book!
The reason i rated it 4 and not 5 stars has nothing to do with the quality of the book per se, it is more of a personal rating. I agreed with basically everything, and he keeps you interested throughout. The only downside for me were the constant ”steel-manning” of other perspectives, (e.g. ”How do we know this isn’t due to socialisation?”), which, although important, somewhat disturbed the flow of the book. Instead, I would personally have enjoyed even deeper psychological investigation (and perhaps even speculation), but i understand the choice.
Nevertheless a very relevant and accessible book!
Review of advance copy
Terrific scientific overview of the topic, with the target audience being "blank slatists" on the one hand and internet theorists who exaggerate sex differences on the other. Does excellent job putting the size of differences into perspective (most are small/moderate and emerge only in population-level statistics).
Not terribly riveting if you've already read a lot about evo psych.
A lot of comments on the internet could be responded to by just sending a link to this book.
Not terribly riveting if you've already read a lot about evo psych.
A lot of comments on the internet could be responded to by just sending a link to this book.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews