I don’t quite know why exactly but I didn’t want to like this book, it could have been that there were random interjections of sexist remarks which made it a less pleasant read throughout [and I take a serious stand against censorship and political over correctness that would not allow me to say this unless I was encountered with bluntly misogynist somewhat offensive comments]. However, the premise was indeed brilliant and timely and the book was in all honesty, entertaining.
A brilliant premise with average execution
This book is not a critical reading in the topic of the impact of evolutionary biology and psychology on our modern times, Sapiens -which is often quoted in the book rightfully so- and Human Kind offer a much better viewpoint on the clashes between biological evolution and the sociological evolution. What upset me a little, is that it had so much potential. It could have offered us a critical comparative assessment of our neurological development and how it limits us in light of the unexpected trajectory of the development of civilisation. More so, it could have focused on the mismatch between our Stone Age brain and our post digital revolution brain, it confined the mismatch comparison between the Stone Age era and the agricultural era with the exception of the last chapter. The examples throughout the book were also limited to the Netherlands and Germany for the most part which again, made it feel like an account or a deep case study on the region alone.
The mismatch vision and the dimensions under investigation
One of the most insightful assessments of the book was when the authors introduced the four most critical mismatch cues. Stating that our evolved brian is first and foremost adapted to living in the Savannah (our environment of evolutionary adaptedness), so from a biological perspective, we never really moved past that and all our decisions are drawn to be compatible with that environment.
They mention some key traits of the pre-historic brain:
* We respond to dangers we sense physically (see, smell, hear, feel, taste)
* Our self interest predominates that of the greater population except when it comes to our genetically related family members
* Short-sightedness: our brains live in the present, the here and now
* We excel at mimicking one another: we’re basically copy cats
* We are status oriented, we will do anything and everything to advance our genetic pool
The psychological mechanisms:
Drawn from the insights of evolutionary psychologists, they reduce the human psychological driving mechanisms to TWO exactly, which dictate our perception, thoughts, feelings and behaviour on both a conscious and subconscious level: to survive and reproduce, but you know psychologists, everything has to come down to reproduction, so not sure I’ll be taking these as facts. So what they’re suggesting is that every decision we make, goes through a simple heuristic: IF it will help me in 1 SURVIVE - AND OR- 2 REPRODUCE, than I shall.
The Cues:
So our decision making rules are activated by a few, FILTERED, external and internal cue. The argument they put forward is that MISMATCH, or our faulty ill driven decisions and behaviours that result from our lack of adaptability to the modern era, occurs from modern cues that can be categorised as:
1) Exaggerated cues: we evolved to look for ripe fruit thus we crave sugar, so our sugar addiction results from a mismatch between excess unexpected supply provided by civilisation and brains that maximise the demand for survival purposes
2) Obsolete cues: cues we’re wired to respond to but don’t have to anymore like preferring a physically stronger leader in a highly intellectual society
3) Fake cues: cues that mimic reality but are not real like social media friendships. We think we’re strengthening our social survival instinct but we’re not gaining the benefits of protection and group micro societies.
4) Absent cues: cues we need for survival like strengthened social structures but have been disappearing as a ‘benefit’ of a self sufficient individualistic driven society leading to radical mental health issues that stem from ‘loneliness’ for example.
Note: they do suggest that sometimes there are positive mismatches that lead to evolutionary advantages as a result from the need to adapt providing examples from the animal kingdom.
So why didn’t we die out from our mismatches? Cultural Evolution
They suggest that one of the core human evolutionary advantages was that we have culture: ideas, norms and values which are substantiated through observation, learning behaviour and social interaction. The evolutionary information passed down from our genetic code is supplemented from MEMES, so vertical and horizontal informational transmission happens through peers, discussions, exposure where language and imitation play a large role. It’s also critical to note that our social or cultural evolution surpasses our biological evolution. Biology and culture are so ingrained that there is even support from our DNA structure where two variants of DRD4 are associated with different characteristic traits: shortDRD4 denotes altruism and conscientiousness and longDRD4 is associated with the adventure gene and risky behaviour. Our ability to thrive through our cultural development comes down to the fact that we are not limited by our biology, but it is extremely inefficient to pretend like our brains have not lagged throughout this development.
Examples of Matches/Mismatches
Prehistoric Bodies: Hair baldness helps us avoid parasites, beard growth demonstrates masculinity, small jaws that require braces, independent children fostered through cooperative commune breeding, outdoor play, early exposure to the outside world caused less crying, women live longer to meet the ‘Grandmother hypothesis’ of prosperity, the need to nap as a result of two shift prehistoric sleeping, dyslexia is due to the nonexistence of writing and reading at the time, ill informed modern perceptions of natural activity like ADHD, sugar greed, excessively long lives, THE INVENTION of fatty and sweet [NO STOP EATING cue], Jetlag, genetic in-breeding, mental illnesses due to an unnatural lonely and isolated existence are all examples of mismatches between prehistoric bodies and modern living. So eat better, cycle and exercise more, breastfeed and foster your child correctly, avoid avoidable malnutrition triggered diseases, don’t stray from the tribe for your mental health.
Prehistoric Relationships: Monogamy is natural, mainly due to prehistoric scarcity and maintaining the peace, the peacock tail theory stands and both parties will do whatever it takes to ensure optimal mating, female oppression resulted from tyrannical post agriculture possessive idiots who wanted to ensure that women were ‘contained’, women seek intelligence, wit and humour to naturally protect a better human population and men just want to spread their genes as far as possible, the allure of passionate relations results from nature’s sneaky intention to populate the earth regardless of convenience.
Prehistoric Work: hierarchy is not natural, working for someone is not natural, the idea of ‘management’ is not natural. We are optimally better off as entrepreneurs, unspecialised with a vast variety of skills, working with teams that have ‘leadership figures’ and no managers. The economy however seems to be a naturally evoked concept as we crave and desire trading, even Adam Smith notions to the fact that we gain some pleasure from exchanging goods and services so while the idea of money is foreign and that’s why its so difficult to manage money, preserve it and make more of it as we are not evolutionary prone to associate any value to it, the sharing and exchange of goods and services and these cycles of trading patterns just working out mysteriously on their own -INVISIBLE HAND-IDLY- is not an imposed concept or a feature of modern society.
Prehistoric Politics: STOP WARS, they are not natural and kingdoms and politics are a modern post agricultural invention. However, there is much insight here on how our tribalism is triggered through collective patterns so subscribing to a nationality, an army or even a football team seems to alert the tribal traits within us and forces us into conformity that we are naturally prone to and the protection of those who are like us. In the past it also seems that we valued physical strength over anything else in the leader, however that has gone to obsolete cue territory today. We might be better off with more women in management positions nowadays as they are more prone to ensure peace and empathise with ‘enemies’.
Prehistoric Religion: This was nicely written and summarises the relationship with religion in the modern era quite well. Bottom line though that religion also comes naturally to us as we were likely to be very superstitious throughout the Stone Age and actually favoured believing in a supreme creator or at least spiritual guiding beings. This mainly results from the rituals, sacrifices, shared beliefs and systematic codes of conduct to keep everyone in check and organise the group in a chaotic environment filled with unexpected dangers.
The rest of the chapters discuss our relationship to war, the evolution of language, our dysfunctional relationship with nature and sustainability and that it’s actually a myth to think that we were attuned with nature as a result of our love for nature and the environment, the impact of nonexistent entities with a pseudo presence that convince us that TV characters or social media stars are part of our lives even though they are not as we cannot process and fully grasp non physical presence, our relationship to celebrity, our relationship with animals. The Virtual Reality chapter was particularly fascinating as it even mentions why we were naturally inclined to create art, sing and verbalise our emotions.
The Mismatch Commandments:
Eat more fruits and nuts, breastfeed, play outside, invest in children, demolish managers and invest in leaders, do not idolise celebrity, look people in the eyes, recycle, read more books, expose yourself to more scientific knowledge.
Overall:
I would like to iterate that I enjoyed the book, I did not dislike it. There are so many anecdotes, shrewd observations and fascinating insights about how we’ve adapted to the modern age and what we lack to ensure that our brains harmonise with social progress. I just think that it shouldn’t be on top of anyone’s list, especially those who have not yet read Sapiens and Human Kind. Reading the first 50 pages and the last 50 pages may be a much better use of your time than reading the entire book.