What do you think?
Rate this book
Červená královna: Sexualita a vývoj lidské přirozenosti
Sexualita a vývoj lidské přirozenosti. U nás dobře známý autor Matt Ridley přinesl v této knize nový pohled na evoluční psychologii pohlavního výběru. Od svého prvního vydání v roce 1993 významně přispěla ke změně chápání mnoha aspektů evoluční teorie a stala se klasickým textem. Červená královna je poutavě napsaná encyklopedie nejnovějších vědeckých názorů na lidskou přirozenost. Pojmenována je podle Červené královny z Carrollovy Alenky, která zůstává na místě, ať utíká seberychleji - podobný efekt v evoluci vysvětluje Teorie červené královny, podle níž závody organismů vedou ke stabilní rovnováze. Kniha, která se stala klasikou již krátce po svém vydání, patří do knihovny každého přemýšlivého člověka.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 1993
1376 people are currently reading
33567 people want to read
About the author
Matt Ridley
26 books2,200 followersMatthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, is a British science writer, journalist and businessman. He is known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics, and has been a regular contributor to The Times newspaper. Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period it experienced the first run on a British bank in 130 years. He resigned, and the bank was bailed out by the UK government; this led to its nationalisation.
Ridley is a libertarian, and a staunch supporter of Brexit. He inherited the viscountcy in February 2012 and was a Conservative hereditary peer from February 2013, with an elected seat in the House of Lords, until his retirement in December 2021.
Ridley is a libertarian, and a staunch supporter of Brexit. He inherited the viscountcy in February 2012 and was a Conservative hereditary peer from February 2013, with an elected seat in the House of Lords, until his retirement in December 2021.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 805 reviews
October 7, 2007
Things I learned from this book: (human) women like tall men, (human) men like beautiful women, (barn swallow) women like men with long, symmetrical tails, gentlemen prefer blondes, sperm are small because they made a dastardly deal with nature, gender exists (and there are two of them) essentially as an accidental by-product of a primordial genetic arms race, why (we think) that we (or anything else) has sex (as opposed to splitting in half or excanging packets of DNA), why roosters have wattles and how nucleic cells probably developed.
None of these things help me get laid...so far.
None of these things help me get laid...so far.
January 11, 2014
Coming out of pre-veterinary medicine and a slew of genetics classes, I can say that nothing in this book is particularly mind-blowing... except the hubris. The author has drawn up a laundry list of assumptions about all of humanity and left out a good deal of its subjects. As a scientist or, at the very least, as a lover of science... the references were interesting enough to keep me reading. But as someone with sexual awareness, a hesitancy to polarize gender and sexuality, and my own idea of what a woman might think or want... this was a very difficult book to swallow. In fact, it's akin to dry Kool-Aid.
If you are satisfied with the hetero-normative, monogamous, anglo, male-dominated definitions of sex and partnership (and if you are going to read this book as popular literature rather than as complete and well-founded scientific conjecture) go right ahead. It's a fun book.
But if you are someone who is easily irritated by flawed logic and narrow surveys used to prop up wobbly theorizing, skip it.
The good news is: Ridley doesn't care. As all great scientists do, he spent a good deal of time throwing his name in with philosophers, sociologists, and naturalists and saying that he, too, was capable of flaws. Just like them! Moreover, he expects a lot backlash from the less-thans who can't comprehend the magnitude of his reasoning. So go ahead and say that you don't like his book. Ridley is one step ahead of you. He knows you're coming; you predictable sap.
Despite that lovely manipulation, I still didn't like it. It gets two stars for all of the awesome material his book used (badly) and referenced.
If you are satisfied with the hetero-normative, monogamous, anglo, male-dominated definitions of sex and partnership (and if you are going to read this book as popular literature rather than as complete and well-founded scientific conjecture) go right ahead. It's a fun book.
But if you are someone who is easily irritated by flawed logic and narrow surveys used to prop up wobbly theorizing, skip it.
The good news is: Ridley doesn't care. As all great scientists do, he spent a good deal of time throwing his name in with philosophers, sociologists, and naturalists and saying that he, too, was capable of flaws. Just like them! Moreover, he expects a lot backlash from the less-thans who can't comprehend the magnitude of his reasoning. So go ahead and say that you don't like his book. Ridley is one step ahead of you. He knows you're coming; you predictable sap.
Despite that lovely manipulation, I still didn't like it. It gets two stars for all of the awesome material his book used (badly) and referenced.
January 23, 2013
What could have shaped the human mind is an endlessly interesting subject, no question about that. Speculating about contributions of the genes, nature, nurture, culture is fun, as much as getting a new perspective on what has always seemed "obvious". Still, I did not like this book as much as I probably would, had it a bit less of sheer speculations. Some readers praise Ridley for objectively presenting to them so many different and often contradictory theories. When discussions are heated, it is indeed a virtue. But flaws in some of the "theories" are evident even before the argument is over, so why include those if a few paragraphs later Ridley admits that the theory does sound pretty wrong? An example: attractiveness of slender women nowadays supposedly signalizes their wealth because not every woman can afford a healthy diet.
Furthermore, certain claims are given as well-known widely accepted facts while they may not even be true. One example is Chomsky's hypotheses about Universal Grammar and language innateness. It is far from true that all linguists agree with Chomsky. Pinker, whom Ridley cites a few times, surely does but there are more linguists in the world. Another example: neural networks have recently had a huge comeback, researchers have very big hopes for "deep learning". Obviously Ridley dismissed them as incapable of learning far too early. A few times I was wondering where Ridley got his facts from. For example, describing "highly sexed emperors" he states that the ancient civilizations we know of were all ruled exclusively by ruthless men with hundreds of wives and thousands of children (mostly sons). One of his examples is Akhenaten who in fact is known as a loving husband and father of a dozen of children. There are numerous depictions of him playing with his daughters. Also, apparently Ridley never heard of successful female pharaohs. His knowledge of the ancient civilizations seems to be based on a cartoon about an evil pharaoh and his poor slaves.
Finally, what annoyed me most is the plasticity of Ridley's "evolutionary" arguments. If there is a trait which he states is characteristic of modern men, he simply says that it was obviously advantageous for males in the past. Usually he throws in a thought experiment or some bizarre example from the animal world and off to the next section and a new trait. But this is not what is needed to prove a hypothesis. First, the trait may be not as characteristic of men as he wants it to look like. For example, he says "boys are better in math than girls", or "girls are better in linguistic tasks" although even at his time there were studies showing that it very much depends on how boys and girls are treated at elementary school. In fact there are countries where girls are better in math (Iceland). Second, for a evolutionary argument to apply, there must be a gene, so why not name it right away? Third, why should this particular gene be gender-specific, why wouldn't it reveal its power in the other gender too? Wouldn't men benefit from better language skills (something he claims women are better at)? I doubt so. Finally, if the gene has not yet been discovered, why not show a mathematical model which would at least demonstrate that the benefit of the trait is real and would affect the reproductive success of its carrier. What happened with females who were not so eloquent? Were they and their children killed by better versed women? Surely I do see a benefit in being a good talker and I can imagine why this quality could be more important for women than men, but it still does not explain why this supposedly genetic trait should propagate. There is a big difference between "soft skills" and traits like "fear the snakes" or "lactose tolerance" for which reproductive advantage is obvious.
To summarize, an interesting read but with far too many annoying errors, logical flaws and sloppy arguments.
Furthermore, certain claims are given as well-known widely accepted facts while they may not even be true. One example is Chomsky's hypotheses about Universal Grammar and language innateness. It is far from true that all linguists agree with Chomsky. Pinker, whom Ridley cites a few times, surely does but there are more linguists in the world. Another example: neural networks have recently had a huge comeback, researchers have very big hopes for "deep learning". Obviously Ridley dismissed them as incapable of learning far too early. A few times I was wondering where Ridley got his facts from. For example, describing "highly sexed emperors" he states that the ancient civilizations we know of were all ruled exclusively by ruthless men with hundreds of wives and thousands of children (mostly sons). One of his examples is Akhenaten who in fact is known as a loving husband and father of a dozen of children. There are numerous depictions of him playing with his daughters. Also, apparently Ridley never heard of successful female pharaohs. His knowledge of the ancient civilizations seems to be based on a cartoon about an evil pharaoh and his poor slaves.
Finally, what annoyed me most is the plasticity of Ridley's "evolutionary" arguments. If there is a trait which he states is characteristic of modern men, he simply says that it was obviously advantageous for males in the past. Usually he throws in a thought experiment or some bizarre example from the animal world and off to the next section and a new trait. But this is not what is needed to prove a hypothesis. First, the trait may be not as characteristic of men as he wants it to look like. For example, he says "boys are better in math than girls", or "girls are better in linguistic tasks" although even at his time there were studies showing that it very much depends on how boys and girls are treated at elementary school. In fact there are countries where girls are better in math (Iceland). Second, for a evolutionary argument to apply, there must be a gene, so why not name it right away? Third, why should this particular gene be gender-specific, why wouldn't it reveal its power in the other gender too? Wouldn't men benefit from better language skills (something he claims women are better at)? I doubt so. Finally, if the gene has not yet been discovered, why not show a mathematical model which would at least demonstrate that the benefit of the trait is real and would affect the reproductive success of its carrier. What happened with females who were not so eloquent? Were they and their children killed by better versed women? Surely I do see a benefit in being a good talker and I can imagine why this quality could be more important for women than men, but it still does not explain why this supposedly genetic trait should propagate. There is a big difference between "soft skills" and traits like "fear the snakes" or "lactose tolerance" for which reproductive advantage is obvious.
To summarize, an interesting read but with far too many annoying errors, logical flaws and sloppy arguments.
August 2, 2020
Αν έχει δίκιο ο Ράσελ, γι αυτό το βιβλίο θα περηφανευομαι που το διάβασα μέχρι να πεθάνω! Γιατί όχι μόνο μου άνοιξε το μυαλό σε έναν άλλο τρόπο συλλογιστικής (του ίδιου συγγραφέα είναι και η Ορθολογική Αισιοδοξία) αλλά και γιατί μου επιβεβαίωσε ό,τι σκεφτόμουν σποραδικά καιρό τώρα· ότι η ανθρώπινη ευφυΐα, ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ και φυλετική επιλογή βασίστηκε στην γονιδιακή διάθεση για σεξουαλική υπεροχή και επιτυχία. Για να το πω απλα, σκέφτομαι άρα κάνω σεξ και κάνω σεξ γιατί σκέφτομαι!
Η κοκκινη βασίλισσα είναι η βιολογική θεωρία που αντιστοιχεί την επιτυχή επιβίωση και εξέλιξη του ανθρώπινου είδους μέσω της συνεχούς ΑΝΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ διαμάχης των γονιδίων με τις ισχυρές ομάδες των παρασιτων που προκαλούν τις ασθένειες.
Μέσω της γενετικής ποικιλίας που γέννα η σεξουαλικη ανθρώπινη αναπαραγωγή, το είδος μας αντιπαρατιθεται σαν σε σκακιστική αναμέτρηση με τις ασθένειες, πότε νικώντας και πότε χάνοντας αλλά πάντα σε συνεχή σύγκρουση και πορεία μπροστά, που όμως ΟΜΟΙΑΖΕΙ ΣΑΝ ΝΑ ΒΡΊΣΚΕΣΑΙ ΣΥΝΕΧΕΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΊΔΙΟ ΣΗΜΕΙΟ ΑΦΟΥ Η ΜΑΧΗ ΣΥΝΕΧΙΖΕΤΑΙ ΑΕΝΑΩΣ...
Στην συνέχεια με την ακατάπαυστη ανάμειξη των γονιδίων από γενιά σε γενιά ο άνθρωπος επιλέγει να κρατήσει ότι πιο ικανό στην αναπαραγωγική εξέλιξη, τόσο από την γυναίκα όσο και από τον άνδρα. Και εδώ τα δύο φύλα εξελίσσονται αντιδιαλεκτικά, όπως τα γονίδια και τα παράσιτα, και το κάθε φύλο έχει επηρεάσει το άλλο και του έχει προσδώσει ρόλους και αντιδράσεις σε μια συνεχή ΑΕΝΑΗ προσπάθεια να ξεκλειδώσει εκείνο το κομμάτι που ωφελεί τα γονίδια του. Δράση και Αντίδραση με σκοπό την απόκτηση απογόνων, Επιλογή του καλύτερου και εξέλιξη εκείνων των σημείων σωματικά και πνευματικά, που βεβαιώνουν την επιτυχία διαιώνισης.
Τελος - το Πιο Αποκαλυπτικό Μέρος - η επιλεκτικοτητα των ανθρώπων σχετικά με τον ερωτικό τους σύντροφο εχει σύρει τον ανθρώπινο Νου σε μια διαδικασία φρενιωδους διερεύνησης με σκοπό να γοητεύσει τον άλλο φύλο!!!
Για ποιο λόγο εξελίχθηκε ο εγκέφαλος; Για Κανέναν Άλλο Λόγο, πέραν του ότι το πνεύμα, η επιδεξιότητα, η εφευρετικοτητα και η μοναδικότητα πρέπει να γοητεύουν τους άλλους ανθρώπους. Και με την γοητεία αυτή εξασφαλίζουμε τον καταλληλοτερο ερωτικό σύντροφο για τα γονίδια μας και τους απογόνους μας.
Η ανάπτυξη και σταδιακή εξέλιξη του ανθρώπινου εγκεφαλου έγινε με τρόπο δράσης αντίδρασης απέναντι στους συνανθρώπους μας μέσω των καθημερινών επαφών και ανταλλαγών. Και με κύριο σκοπό να ωφεληθουμε, να χειραγωγησουμε, να κερδίσουμε το ερωτικό του ενδιαφέρον και να επιτύχουμε την γονιδιακή μας αθανασία!
Κοινώς, για το ΣΕΞ και την εξασφάλιση του κατάλληλου συντρόφου γίναμε πιο έξυπνοι, μουσικόφιλοι, πνευματώδεις, με εκτίμηση στο καλό χιούμορ, το καλό γούστο, και το ωραίο και την αισθητική! ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟ ΜΑΣ ΚΆΝΕΙ ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΟΥΣ ΣΤΟ ΕΙΔΟΣ ΜΑΣ...
Η κοκκινη βασίλισσα είναι η βιολογική θεωρία που αντιστοιχεί την επιτυχή επιβίωση και εξέλιξη του ανθρώπινου είδους μέσω της συνεχούς ΑΝΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ διαμάχης των γονιδίων με τις ισχυρές ομάδες των παρασιτων που προκαλούν τις ασθένειες.
Μέσω της γενετικής ποικιλίας που γέννα η σεξουαλικη ανθρώπινη αναπαραγωγή, το είδος μας αντιπαρατιθεται σαν σε σκακιστική αναμέτρηση με τις ασθένειες, πότε νικώντας και πότε χάνοντας αλλά πάντα σε συνεχή σύγκρουση και πορεία μπροστά, που όμως ΟΜΟΙΑΖΕΙ ΣΑΝ ΝΑ ΒΡΊΣΚΕΣΑΙ ΣΥΝΕΧΕΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΊΔΙΟ ΣΗΜΕΙΟ ΑΦΟΥ Η ΜΑΧΗ ΣΥΝΕΧΙΖΕΤΑΙ ΑΕΝΑΩΣ...
Στην συνέχεια με την ακατάπαυστη ανάμειξη των γονιδίων από γενιά σε γενιά ο άνθρωπος επιλέγει να κρατήσει ότι πιο ικανό στην αναπαραγωγική εξέλιξη, τόσο από την γυναίκα όσο και από τον άνδρα. Και εδώ τα δύο φύλα εξελίσσονται αντιδιαλεκτικά, όπως τα γονίδια και τα παράσιτα, και το κάθε φύλο έχει επηρεάσει το άλλο και του έχει προσδώσει ρόλους και αντιδράσεις σε μια συνεχή ΑΕΝΑΗ προσπάθεια να ξεκλειδώσει εκείνο το κομμάτι που ωφελεί τα γονίδια του. Δράση και Αντίδραση με σκοπό την απόκτηση απογόνων, Επιλογή του καλύτερου και εξέλιξη εκείνων των σημείων σωματικά και πνευματικά, που βεβαιώνουν την επιτυχία διαιώνισης.
Τελος - το Πιο Αποκαλυπτικό Μέρος - η επιλεκτικοτητα των ανθρώπων σχετικά με τον ερωτικό τους σύντροφο εχει σύρει τον ανθρώπινο Νου σε μια διαδικασία φρενιωδους διερεύνησης με σκοπό να γοητεύσει τον άλλο φύλο!!!
Για ποιο λόγο εξελίχθηκε ο εγκέφαλος; Για Κανέναν Άλλο Λόγο, πέραν του ότι το πνεύμα, η επιδεξιότητα, η εφευρετικοτητα και η μοναδικότητα πρέπει να γοητεύουν τους άλλους ανθρώπους. Και με την γοητεία αυτή εξασφαλίζουμε τον καταλληλοτερο ερωτικό σύντροφο για τα γονίδια μας και τους απογόνους μας.
Η ανάπτυξη και σταδιακή εξέλιξη του ανθρώπινου εγκεφαλου έγινε με τρόπο δράσης αντίδρασης απέναντι στους συνανθρώπους μας μέσω των καθημερινών επαφών και ανταλλαγών. Και με κύριο σκοπό να ωφεληθουμε, να χειραγωγησουμε, να κερδίσουμε το ερωτικό του ενδιαφέρον και να επιτύχουμε την γονιδιακή μας αθανασία!
Κοινώς, για το ΣΕΞ και την εξασφάλιση του κατάλληλου συντρόφου γίναμε πιο έξυπνοι, μουσικόφιλοι, πνευματώδεις, με εκτίμηση στο καλό χιούμορ, το καλό γούστο, και το ωραίο και την αισθητική! ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟ ΜΑΣ ΚΆΝΕΙ ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΟΥΣ ΣΤΟ ΕΙΔΟΣ ΜΑΣ...
November 28, 2016
This is really well written, but I just can't really wrap my head around the themes of sexuality in this book, especially as it concerns the idea of gender. Also I don't really trust men of science who can write things like "boys are better in math than girls" or "girls are better at linguistic tasks" as if they are universal truths instead of biased theories.
August 24, 2008
Well, I had hoped to write this review closer to having read the book, but I'll write this anyway, just without some of the examples I was hoping to remember.
Roughly the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the books covers the different explanations for why sex arose and the mating habits of various non-human species. One thing that is great about this book is it will relate a theory, then an insufficiency in the theory, then a counter theory, then additional findings, and back and forth and so on. If there isn't a consensus it just leaves the question open and for you to ponder yourself. For anyone interested in how science is done, numerous examples ideas blossoming, be attacked, rediscovered, etc. are recounted. Also, lots of different case studies are recounted. All the stories of different species behavior is entertaining in and of itself.
In the last part of the book, humans are closely examined. As long as you repeatedly the disclaimer at the beginning of that section, that you may be able to say something about males are more X on average and females are more Y on average, but individual instances of men and women, of course, may run counter. Also, that evolution has primed certain tendencies for each sex, but tendencies are not fate and thus, again, you can only talk about averages or generalities. If you remember that, and don't get your undies in a bunch, the discussion of how human nature is/was shaped by evolution is illuminating.
So I recommend this to everyone, especially those interested in how the brain works, how people work, and/or how science works.
Roughly the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the books covers the different explanations for why sex arose and the mating habits of various non-human species. One thing that is great about this book is it will relate a theory, then an insufficiency in the theory, then a counter theory, then additional findings, and back and forth and so on. If there isn't a consensus it just leaves the question open and for you to ponder yourself. For anyone interested in how science is done, numerous examples ideas blossoming, be attacked, rediscovered, etc. are recounted. Also, lots of different case studies are recounted. All the stories of different species behavior is entertaining in and of itself.
In the last part of the book, humans are closely examined. As long as you repeatedly the disclaimer at the beginning of that section, that you may be able to say something about males are more X on average and females are more Y on average, but individual instances of men and women, of course, may run counter. Also, that evolution has primed certain tendencies for each sex, but tendencies are not fate and thus, again, you can only talk about averages or generalities. If you remember that, and don't get your undies in a bunch, the discussion of how human nature is/was shaped by evolution is illuminating.
So I recommend this to everyone, especially those interested in how the brain works, how people work, and/or how science works.
July 3, 2020
This was one of those books that I bought because I was sucked in by the title and the cover. Plus I thought, hey that's kinda out of my comfort zone, I'd like to push myself to read something new and possibly difficult to understand.
I couldn't make it past the first chapter, so I read the end in hopes to find what his conclusion is and its we are all apes in the end. I find that rather depressing and quite hard to believe. I find it hard to swallow that we are only biological animals who are driven only by the need to find a way to better our species by sex with those chosen for their perfection. I look at all we create and imagine and I see so much more than that. He does grant that we are creative, but still underneath it all we are just creative apes. We are such a diverse species full of such hate, but also so much beauty. We can be blindingly compassionate and also completely clueless and self absorbed. There are so many variations that it is hard to explain them all through sexual Darwinism.
I probably missed something there in the middle, but if his conclusion had been less crass maybe I would have been driven to read more of what drove him to that conclusion.
I couldn't make it past the first chapter, so I read the end in hopes to find what his conclusion is and its we are all apes in the end. I find that rather depressing and quite hard to believe. I find it hard to swallow that we are only biological animals who are driven only by the need to find a way to better our species by sex with those chosen for their perfection. I look at all we create and imagine and I see so much more than that. He does grant that we are creative, but still underneath it all we are just creative apes. We are such a diverse species full of such hate, but also so much beauty. We can be blindingly compassionate and also completely clueless and self absorbed. There are so many variations that it is hard to explain them all through sexual Darwinism.
I probably missed something there in the middle, but if his conclusion had been less crass maybe I would have been driven to read more of what drove him to that conclusion.
December 6, 2015
How much more generous it would be if, instead of writing parables about childhood wounds, psychologists were to accept that some differences between the sexes just are, that they are in the nature of the beasts, because each sex has an evolved tendency to develop that way in response to experience.
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature is a very accessible book. It is easy to read, follow and understand.
After reading this book, you will never look the same at a cheating spouse, a woman who had plastic surgery or a rich man.
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature is a very accessible book. It is easy to read, follow and understand.
After reading this book, you will never look the same at a cheating spouse, a woman who had plastic surgery or a rich man.
June 1, 2013
I enjoyed this book and recommend it highly. Some may see it as a cynical view of human nature, however I found it to be an engaging and convincing one. My favorite quote from this book sums up the totality of the text for me: "...the choosiness in human beings in picking their mates has driven the human mind into a frenzied expansion for no reason except that wit, virtuosity,inventiveness, and individuality turn people on. It is a somewhat less uplifting perspective on the purpose of humanity than a religious one, but it is also liberating. Be different."
July 22, 2016
This was like being in a work release program with an educated half-wit.
Very questionable reasoning throughout.
Very questionable reasoning throughout.
June 6, 2020
Ridley throws a lot of interesting hypotheses at the question of why there is sex & why/how we indulge without ever coming to a firm conclusion & admitting such. I liked that since I didn't find a lot of the studies or statistics he referenced too convincing. This is more a book with points to ponder rather than a definitive text. He writes this at the end of the book, Half the ideas in this book are probably wrong. The history of human science [in this regard] is not encouraging. But he goes on to quote Hume & mention how far we've progressed since his day. We're just not there yet & may never be since we're so good at deceiving ourselves.
It's well worth the time to read. There are some good insights into why we act the way we do & I really liked his opinions on the differences in children of different sexes. I've long been angered by the way the education system treats boys & girls the same. They're not & his point that nurture & nature shouldn't be seen as polar opposites, but as part of a process was very well made.
Table of Contents
Preface
ONE: Human Nature
TWO: The Enigma
THREE: The Power of Parasites
FOUR: Genetic Mutiny and Gender
FIVE: The Peacock’s Tale
SIX: Polygamy and the Nature of Men
SEVEN: Monogamy and the Nature of Women
EIGHT: Sexing the Mind
NINE: The Uses of Beauty
TEN: The Intellectual Chess Game
EPILOGUE: The Self-domesticated Ape
It's well worth the time to read. There are some good insights into why we act the way we do & I really liked his opinions on the differences in children of different sexes. I've long been angered by the way the education system treats boys & girls the same. They're not & his point that nurture & nature shouldn't be seen as polar opposites, but as part of a process was very well made.
Table of Contents
Preface
ONE: Human Nature
TWO: The Enigma
THREE: The Power of Parasites
FOUR: Genetic Mutiny and Gender
FIVE: The Peacock’s Tale
SIX: Polygamy and the Nature of Men
SEVEN: Monogamy and the Nature of Women
EIGHT: Sexing the Mind
NINE: The Uses of Beauty
TEN: The Intellectual Chess Game
EPILOGUE: The Self-domesticated Ape
May 10, 2012
I might have rated this more highly if I hadn't just come off a spate of reading very similar and slightly better works that incorporate much of its content in pithier form (Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works, though those were both written afterwards), yet its central metaphor of sexual selection as arms race is compelling enough that I finished it alongside the superior Dennett and Pinker books anyway. The "red queen" of the title is derived from the famous character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass who at one point tells Alice that in her world, you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in place. Life is similar, in that hard-won evolutionary advantages are obsoleted almost instantly as competitors adapt to keep up - the book is about how sexuality is used both on a macro level between species, as a gene-shuffler that can provide a leg up over parasites and asexual organisms that are forced to evolve a bit more slowly; and on a micro level within species, as males and females choose different game-theoretic strategies to maximize reproductive fitness. Obviously we're most interested in human sexuality, so the book does not disappoint in its exploration of titillating topics like adultery, incest, homosexuality, polygamy, promiscuity, age differences, dimorphism, fashion, and communication, with plenty of comparisons to analogous behavior in the animal kingdom. There's also plenty of pages on whether all this exciting behavior is due to nature or nurture, which I did not find to be as well-written as Dennett or Pinker's very similar sections in their books (strawmen start popping up in conjunction with loaded subjects like feminism, though this happened somewhat in Pinker's book as well); readers who aren't idiots will be unsurprised that Ridley falls into the sensible "it's both, to some degree, depending on what you're talking about" camp. I found the red queen idea to be a an illuminating metaphor and I enjoyed Ridley's take on sexual selection, even if as a work specifically on evolutionary biology it didn't rise to the level of Richard Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype, which I consider to be one of the best books existing on the subject, but since I read it right next to books that seemed to recapitulate most of its insights in fewer pages I'm not sure I would recommend it above either. It was a better-written treatise on human sexuality than your average porn, though, that's for sure.
November 26, 2025
Εξελικτική βιολογία στα καλύτερά της (μέχρις αποδείξεως του εναντίου, φυσικά, στην επιστήμη δεν υπάρχουν δόγματα) και πώς το σεξ -δηλαδή η ύπαρξη φύλων- στην αναπαραγωγή επηρέασε την εξέλιξη των ειδών, του ανθρώπου συμπεριλαμβανομένου και πώς ωφέλησε αυτά τα είδη (παρά το οξύμωρο της κόκκινης βασίλισσας, όπου θηρευτής και θήραμα ή ξενιστής και παράσιτο, είναι σε ένα διαρκή αγώνα εξοπλισμών, παραμένοντας στο τέλος στις ίδιες σχετικές θέσεις).
Μακριά από woke δογματισμούς και πολιτικές ορθότητες, ο Ρίντλεϊ λέει τα σύκα “σύκα” και το ασκάδι “ασκάδι”, αναπτύσσει όμορφα τη θεωρία του με πληθώρα παραδειγμάτων και μόνο λίγες φορές ξεφεύγει από τα χωράφια του και μπαίνει σε αυτά των κοινωνιοβιολόγων ή ακόμη και των κοινωνιολόγων. Του το συγχωρούμε, απλώς του βγάζουμε ένα αστεράκι από το απόλυτο 5.
Αξίζει να διαβαστεί, δεν είναι δύσκολο για τον αμύητο στη βιολογία και έχει και το φοβερό συμπέρασμα: ο εγκέφαλός μας απέκτησε αυτό εκπληκτικό για το σώμα μας μέγεθος και πολυπλοκότητα... ΓΙΑ ΝΑ Γ@ΜΗΣΟΥΜΕ! (ΟΚ, πρακτικά για να αναπαραχθούμε εις βάρος πιο ηλίθιων, αλλά δεδομένου ότι για να αναπαραχθούμε πρέπει πρώτα να συνουσιασθούμε, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, το πιάσατε το πενογούμενο).
Από τα βιβλία που αξίζει να διαβαστούν.
Υ.Γ. Υποψιάζομαι ότι κάποιες κυρίες κουρεμένες με τσεκούρι και μοβ απόχρωση μαλλιών, μπορεί να το βρουν αποκρουστικό, αλλά επειδή δεν είναι δόγμα, όπως είπαμε, μπορούν να του απαντήσουν με τις δικές τους μελέτες μετά από peer review.
Μακριά από woke δογματισμούς και πολιτικές ορθότητες, ο Ρίντλεϊ λέει τα σύκα “σύκα” και το ασκάδι “ασκάδι”, αναπτύσσει όμορφα τη θεωρία του με πληθώρα παραδειγμάτων και μόνο λίγες φορές ξεφεύγει από τα χωράφια του και μπαίνει σε αυτά των κοινωνιοβιολόγων ή ακόμη και των κοινωνιολόγων. Του το συγχωρούμε, απλώς του βγάζουμε ένα αστεράκι από το απόλυτο 5.
Αξίζει να διαβαστεί, δεν είναι δύσκολο για τον αμύητο στη βιολογία και έχει και το φοβερό συμπέρασμα: ο εγκέφαλός μας απέκτησε αυτό εκπληκτικό για το σώμα μας μέγεθος και πολυπλοκότητα... ΓΙΑ ΝΑ Γ@ΜΗΣΟΥΜΕ! (ΟΚ, πρακτικά για να αναπαραχθούμε εις βάρος πιο ηλίθιων, αλλά δεδομένου ότι για να αναπαραχθούμε πρέπει πρώτα να συνουσιασθούμε, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, το πιάσατε το πενογούμενο).
Από τα βιβλία που αξίζει να διαβαστούν.
Υ.Γ. Υποψιάζομαι ότι κάποιες κυρίες κουρεμένες με τσεκούρι και μοβ απόχρωση μαλλιών, μπορεί να το βρουν αποκρουστικό, αλλά επειδή δεν είναι δόγμα, όπως είπαμε, μπορούν να του απαντήσουν με τις δικές τους μελέτες μετά από peer review.
July 6, 2013
Matt Ridley was educated at Oxford and is a journalistic scientist, which means he is able to translate the more complicated scientific breakthroughs and understandings to the wider public in a clear and succinct manner.
Almost anything he has written, including his Guardian articles, are worthy of a reader's time. This particuar publication is a mind blowing look at evolutionary biology from the origin and end game of sex in our cultural and genetic lives.
There are many books on this topic but few are as concise or lucid in description as this one. I have read it several times and my copy is smothered in annotations making it impossible for me to lend it to anyone.
If you have ever questioned our bizarre mating rituals and the differing obsessions and motivations of either sex then this is the serious read that your questioning mind requires to set it at ease. However, just as one set of questions is answered you will only go on to formulate even more interrogatives but at least this time round they will be more meaninful inquisitions.
This should be mandatory reading at schools for more mature students.
Almost anything he has written, including his Guardian articles, are worthy of a reader's time. This particuar publication is a mind blowing look at evolutionary biology from the origin and end game of sex in our cultural and genetic lives.
There are many books on this topic but few are as concise or lucid in description as this one. I have read it several times and my copy is smothered in annotations making it impossible for me to lend it to anyone.
If you have ever questioned our bizarre mating rituals and the differing obsessions and motivations of either sex then this is the serious read that your questioning mind requires to set it at ease. However, just as one set of questions is answered you will only go on to formulate even more interrogatives but at least this time round they will be more meaninful inquisitions.
This should be mandatory reading at schools for more mature students.
June 18, 2012
I learned a lot from this book.
The thesis is that much of human intelligence is a result of a sex-selection arms race.
As a background, we are asked basic questions like, "why sex"?
Ridley does a good job quantifying this question and providing an honest, if uncertain answer.
The short answer is, the perpetual arms races with viruses and parasites makes sex worth the cost.
That cost can be as large as the Peacock's tail feathers, or the giant human brain.
In the case of the human brain, the battle of the sexes has resulted in an organ that is also directly useful for survival.
Language and logic, according to Ridley, are byproducts of a brain suited for outwitting the opposite sex.
There is much ado about cuckoldry, cheating, harems, etc.
All this is actually quite disturbing, even for a dispassionate scientist like myself.
But Ridley does a commendable job of disclaiming any moral interpretation of the science.
The thesis is that much of human intelligence is a result of a sex-selection arms race.
As a background, we are asked basic questions like, "why sex"?
Ridley does a good job quantifying this question and providing an honest, if uncertain answer.
The short answer is, the perpetual arms races with viruses and parasites makes sex worth the cost.
That cost can be as large as the Peacock's tail feathers, or the giant human brain.
In the case of the human brain, the battle of the sexes has resulted in an organ that is also directly useful for survival.
Language and logic, according to Ridley, are byproducts of a brain suited for outwitting the opposite sex.
There is much ado about cuckoldry, cheating, harems, etc.
All this is actually quite disturbing, even for a dispassionate scientist like myself.
But Ridley does a commendable job of disclaiming any moral interpretation of the science.
April 15, 2011
This was an absolutely fantastic book. I love this author! The questions posed in the work are terribly to the point. Why do we have two sexes? Why not perform Asexual reproduction as many plant species do? What are the genetic, and social functions of sex from an evolutionary standpoint? I remember wondering about this very thing when studying botany in college. How did we evolve to be a diplontic species? (I want to be a dikaryotic fungus by the way... yes I did go there). Basically if you love biology and genetics this book is going to be a rollarcoaster of fun.
May 14, 2015
This is Evo Psych masquerading as hard science. It is sometimes dense and technical, sometimes defensive and condescending. There is some well-researched science, some reasonable observations, and some logical conclusions, but they are so inextricably tangled with sweeping generalizations, correlations misinterpreted as causations, and ambiguous data presented as certainty as to render the whole mess too annoying to read. I gave up with about 70 pages to go. Life is too short, and surely there is some more recent and more thoughtful writing on this topic by now.
January 10, 2021
"Οι άνθρωποι είναι τόσο παρόμοιοι αλλά και τόσο διαφορετικοί. Η απάντηση κρύβεται στη μοναδική αλχημεία του σεξ. Κάθε άνθρωπος είναι μοναδικός, λόγω της γενετικής ποικιλίας που γεννάει η σεξουαλική αναπαραγωγή μέσα από την αέναη σκακιστική αναμέτρηση με τις ασθένειες. Κάθε άνθρωπος είναι μέλος ενός ομοιογενούς είδους, περιέχει τα γονίδια όλων των υπολοίπων ανθρώπων. Η επιλεκτικότητα των ανθρώπων σχετικά με τον ερωτικό τους σύντροφο έχει σύρει τον ανθρώπινο νου σε μία διαδικασία φρενιτιώδους διεύρυνσης, για κανέναν άλλο λόγο πέρα του ότι το πνεύμα, η επιδεξιότητα, η εφευρετικότητα και η μοναδικότητα γοητεύουν τους άλλους ανθρώπους."
March 11, 2019
Excellent review of science (theories and methodologies for determining causes) of sexual reproduction, that passes the test of time (originally published in 1993!). Highly recommend. I will likely re-read this again.
This book is far superior to Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. They are often paired and compared, even though they are not, and should not be considered to be, in the same category: The Red Queen is how proper science is done, while Sex at Dawn is a theoretical piece that provokes attention and satisfies readers' interest for reasons that are not purely scientific. It is important to maintain that distinction.
This book is far superior to Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. They are often paired and compared, even though they are not, and should not be considered to be, in the same category: The Red Queen is how proper science is done, while Sex at Dawn is a theoretical piece that provokes attention and satisfies readers' interest for reasons that are not purely scientific. It is important to maintain that distinction.
Read
July 29, 2020I like Matt Ridley, but I’ve read this book too late. It’s been 15 years since its publication, and it’s too long for the science to be still groundbreaking. There is absolutely nothing in it that is new to me. Moreover, some of it feels already outdated and a bit too authoritarian on many issues which we now realize will have to be updated. Hence no rating.
Ridley is intelligent enough to know it himself, too. I had to smile at his own comments on the book.
‘Half the ideas in this book are probably wrong. The history of human science is not encouraging. Galton’s eugenics, Freud’s unconscious, Durkheim’s sociology, Mead’s culture-driven anthropology, Skinner’s behaviorism, Piaget’s early learning, and Wilson’s sociobiology all appear in retrospect to be riddled with errors and false perspectives. No doubt the Red Queen’s approach is just another chapter in this marred tale.’
Having said so, I have to add that the book is very well written and that majority of ideas are no doubt sound.
Ridley is intelligent enough to know it himself, too. I had to smile at his own comments on the book.
‘Half the ideas in this book are probably wrong. The history of human science is not encouraging. Galton’s eugenics, Freud’s unconscious, Durkheim’s sociology, Mead’s culture-driven anthropology, Skinner’s behaviorism, Piaget’s early learning, and Wilson’s sociobiology all appear in retrospect to be riddled with errors and false perspectives. No doubt the Red Queen’s approach is just another chapter in this marred tale.’
Having said so, I have to add that the book is very well written and that majority of ideas are no doubt sound.
November 22, 2020
Ok, a little more than a chapter in, I’m done with this pretentious twaddle about how men are for aggression and do the sexual selecting, and women are for bearing and raising children, and anyone who is LGBTQ, not to mention anyone who survives past child rearing age, is apparently a genetic error. How odd that these genetic “flaws” have persisted and flourished through time, hm? The author is well read and highly privileged, which apparently excuses him from careful research, proof, or even sound logic. I am sure this book will remain popular for reinforcing sexist norms and heterosexual bigotry but I’m not giving it any more of my time. One star given for Simon Prebble’s wonderful narration, wasted here.
February 17, 2021
“Life is a Sisyphean race, run ever faster toward a finish line that is merely the start of the next race.”
Never has this felt more real than as we approach the one year anniversary of the pandemic lock down.
The Red Queen concept derives from Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass": The faster you run, the more the world moves with you and the less you make progress.
"Time always erodes advantage."
Keep adapting, or get left behind.
Never has this felt more real than as we approach the one year anniversary of the pandemic lock down.
The Red Queen concept derives from Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass": The faster you run, the more the world moves with you and the less you make progress.
"Time always erodes advantage."
Keep adapting, or get left behind.
September 29, 2025
In the last couple of years, I've been making a conscientious effort to dive deep into my owned books tbr mountain. This was a random purchase back in 2017. A science book by Matt Ridley that is essentially about sex and reproduction in nature. The title is a bit of a misnomer. The book addresses human nature in the last third of the book. The rest talks about reproduction in plants, insects animals etc. A reminder of how much science writing has changed in 30 years (the book was published in 1993).
I found the book to be fascinating and really an allegory for what is happening in modern America (I see that in most of the books I read which really says more about me than the books 😶). Essentially the theory is that mankind is not evolving, we are running in place or continuously changing just to stay in place. Of course Ridley is talking biology and I'm talking sociology but the effect is the same. Competition is supposed to stoke progress and yet it just changes the environment. Progress is rare for the species. Anyhoooo, the book had some interesting theories that I would (I'm not a scientist) postulate evolved from modern culture rather than strict research. In other words, lots of interpretation strangely upholding the authors point of view (imagine that!). In a nutshell, the author tends to anthropomorphize the nonhuman subjects to add intellectual heft. For example, he theorized that Swallows are drawn to the most attractive bird when selecting mates. How does one measure the attractiveness of birds to other birds? In a sense attractiveness means drawn to, but the author ascribes it to appearance and he does it to many species. The other thing he did that hit me wrong was in how he (attempted) to describe how human women and men chose their mates. There was a definite patriarchal hewn to his conclusions that came across a social theory rather than biological. That's the beauty of reading books written 30 years ago. It's like opening a time capsule. Don't get me wrong, there is lots of good stuff here and it is written in an interesting way. It's just that as I get older, I am finding myself viewing books and their content differently. This was a treasure trove of history both as intended and accidentally. I enjoyed it!
4+ Stars
Listened to Audible. Narration by Simon Prebble was excellent!
I found the book to be fascinating and really an allegory for what is happening in modern America (I see that in most of the books I read which really says more about me than the books 😶). Essentially the theory is that mankind is not evolving, we are running in place or continuously changing just to stay in place. Of course Ridley is talking biology and I'm talking sociology but the effect is the same. Competition is supposed to stoke progress and yet it just changes the environment. Progress is rare for the species. Anyhoooo, the book had some interesting theories that I would (I'm not a scientist) postulate evolved from modern culture rather than strict research. In other words, lots of interpretation strangely upholding the authors point of view (imagine that!). In a nutshell, the author tends to anthropomorphize the nonhuman subjects to add intellectual heft. For example, he theorized that Swallows are drawn to the most attractive bird when selecting mates. How does one measure the attractiveness of birds to other birds? In a sense attractiveness means drawn to, but the author ascribes it to appearance and he does it to many species. The other thing he did that hit me wrong was in how he (attempted) to describe how human women and men chose their mates. There was a definite patriarchal hewn to his conclusions that came across a social theory rather than biological. That's the beauty of reading books written 30 years ago. It's like opening a time capsule. Don't get me wrong, there is lots of good stuff here and it is written in an interesting way. It's just that as I get older, I am finding myself viewing books and their content differently. This was a treasure trove of history both as intended and accidentally. I enjoyed it!
4+ Stars
Listened to Audible. Narration by Simon Prebble was excellent!
March 31, 2010
As I was reading the first chapter, I kept thinking I was embarking on something written by a geek giggling at the word "sex"; I don't think I was entirely wrong, but if there was any giggling from the author at the mention of sex, it was for truly fascinating reasons.
I disliked the first chapter: anything titled "Human Nature" in this day and age seems preposterous. I kept on reading, nevertheless, hoping I'd find salvageable bits from this.
I was absolutely enraptured by chapter three, at which point Ridley was on his way in the dissection of one of the most fascinating concepts I've ever encountered. The first chapter was an overture, I'll stick to saying not particularly well written, but should just be understood as such; the opera begins in chapter two.
Mental experiment: Say you have four people, two of them a couple, male and female, who reproduce sexually, and the other two asexually reproducing females (it's called parthenogenesis, bear with me). They reproduce, what do you have? The couple has one offspring, the asexuals have one each for a total of two offspring. Asexual reproduction seems to be twice as efficient as sexual reproduction, so, why sex?
Because it's fun, some might say, but this book, which kicks off with the sex enigma, provides far more informative analysis of the matter, which has been a mainstay in evolutionary biology. Turns out parasites have a lot to do with this evolutionary device...
Remember the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's wonderland? She runs around but never gets anywhere because the world moves along with her. Well, that's where the title of the book and the name of a fascinating concept come from. A host and a parasite are entangled in a Red Queen situation, where the faster evolving parasite succeeds as he breaks the host's defenses and the host succeeds when he prevents the parasite from doing so, thus running but never getting anywhere because of the changing situation. This may be referred to as an arms race as well in military imagery, but I feel the absurdity of Carroll's character makes Red Queen preferable.
This Red Queen concept, and I'm sure wikipedia will do a much better job of explaining it than me, holds sway in many of evolution's questions and beyond. Ridley is witty and entertaining in his exposition, creating a truly eye-opening experience in this book for anyone with an interest in the ideas that shape our understanding of the world around us and ourselves. The book explores evolution via sexual selection, never missing illustrative examples along the way, and does a fair job at presenting the different views that have historically shaped how science understands sex and its consequences.
Ridley used to be science editor at The Economist, which leads me to believe adds to the conciseness and clarity in his writing. Throughout the final chapters of the book, he delves into human nature, having gained much credibility from the writing that preceded them. His treatment of such a debated subject is incredibly illustrative of the many forces usually ignored by the disciplines that usually deal with such a subject, and provides us with an extensive look at how evolution and the Red Queen can inform.
I think I'll be coming back to this book many times from now on in my thought and in my understanding of everything around me.
I disliked the first chapter: anything titled "Human Nature" in this day and age seems preposterous. I kept on reading, nevertheless, hoping I'd find salvageable bits from this.
I was absolutely enraptured by chapter three, at which point Ridley was on his way in the dissection of one of the most fascinating concepts I've ever encountered. The first chapter was an overture, I'll stick to saying not particularly well written, but should just be understood as such; the opera begins in chapter two.
Mental experiment: Say you have four people, two of them a couple, male and female, who reproduce sexually, and the other two asexually reproducing females (it's called parthenogenesis, bear with me). They reproduce, what do you have? The couple has one offspring, the asexuals have one each for a total of two offspring. Asexual reproduction seems to be twice as efficient as sexual reproduction, so, why sex?
Because it's fun, some might say, but this book, which kicks off with the sex enigma, provides far more informative analysis of the matter, which has been a mainstay in evolutionary biology. Turns out parasites have a lot to do with this evolutionary device...
Remember the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's wonderland? She runs around but never gets anywhere because the world moves along with her. Well, that's where the title of the book and the name of a fascinating concept come from. A host and a parasite are entangled in a Red Queen situation, where the faster evolving parasite succeeds as he breaks the host's defenses and the host succeeds when he prevents the parasite from doing so, thus running but never getting anywhere because of the changing situation. This may be referred to as an arms race as well in military imagery, but I feel the absurdity of Carroll's character makes Red Queen preferable.
This Red Queen concept, and I'm sure wikipedia will do a much better job of explaining it than me, holds sway in many of evolution's questions and beyond. Ridley is witty and entertaining in his exposition, creating a truly eye-opening experience in this book for anyone with an interest in the ideas that shape our understanding of the world around us and ourselves. The book explores evolution via sexual selection, never missing illustrative examples along the way, and does a fair job at presenting the different views that have historically shaped how science understands sex and its consequences.
Ridley used to be science editor at The Economist, which leads me to believe adds to the conciseness and clarity in his writing. Throughout the final chapters of the book, he delves into human nature, having gained much credibility from the writing that preceded them. His treatment of such a debated subject is incredibly illustrative of the many forces usually ignored by the disciplines that usually deal with such a subject, and provides us with an extensive look at how evolution and the Red Queen can inform.
I think I'll be coming back to this book many times from now on in my thought and in my understanding of everything around me.
December 15, 2021
I didn't give five stars because I found this book something of a slog in the beginning.
To make his case, it's necessary for Ridley to give an account of what has been found true of animal behavior before moving on to relate it to the most familiar animal, man. These accounts of the sex lives of birds and mammals and so on are rather dull to me.
But stick with it! The book gets more interesting until it becomes absolutely fascinating with the chapter "Sexing the Mind". From that point on I was hanging on almost every sentence. The conclusions the author reaches are surprising, enlightening, exciting, because they are so reasonable in view of the evidence for them.
The idea that prompts the title is drawn from the Red Queen, a character in Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who must keep running faster all the time just to keep up. Evolution demands the same.
The natural environment puts demands on every living thing. The most demanding thing for animals that have separate sexes, is for each sex to keep up with what the other wants - sexual selection.
We can't reproduce by ourselves, so we must be able to come together with at least one member of the opposite sex to provide a future for our genes. The success of the individual in doing this determines his/her influence on future generations - what they will be like, how attractive they will be. Thus, each sex is in a contest with others of it own sex in being the most attractive to the opposite sex. It's a race that never ends.
The parallels between other animals and man are remarkable. Just as remarkable are the unique characteristics of man. Why do we have such huge brains for our body size and are so intelligent? Whey are we so accomplished in music and the arts and even sense of humor? Why do we have such a highly developed consciousness? Why do we have two sexes when other forms of life may have many more, or no sex, or both sexes on the same individual? Why are we monogamous and are we necessarily so?
The book is driven by the question - "what is human nature?" - what is it that defines us, that we have in common with each other regardless of our individual differences?
The Red Queen is going straight to my bookshelf because I know I will want to read it again. I just wish it were available on the Kindle so I could use the wonderful note-taking feature of that gadget.
I shouldn't forget a warning - Ridley is no fan of the social sciences. If you think culture makes us what we are, you won't find any support for it here. He's got no time for Margaret Mead or B.F. Skinner and Freud, though he had some good insights, was off to outer space with his theory of the unconscious oedipal drive. For Ridley, evolution is in the driver's seat.
PS - if you would like to explore the idea that culture can be evolutionary, try Darwin's Cathedral by David Wilson.
To make his case, it's necessary for Ridley to give an account of what has been found true of animal behavior before moving on to relate it to the most familiar animal, man. These accounts of the sex lives of birds and mammals and so on are rather dull to me.
But stick with it! The book gets more interesting until it becomes absolutely fascinating with the chapter "Sexing the Mind". From that point on I was hanging on almost every sentence. The conclusions the author reaches are surprising, enlightening, exciting, because they are so reasonable in view of the evidence for them.
The idea that prompts the title is drawn from the Red Queen, a character in Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who must keep running faster all the time just to keep up. Evolution demands the same.
The natural environment puts demands on every living thing. The most demanding thing for animals that have separate sexes, is for each sex to keep up with what the other wants - sexual selection.
We can't reproduce by ourselves, so we must be able to come together with at least one member of the opposite sex to provide a future for our genes. The success of the individual in doing this determines his/her influence on future generations - what they will be like, how attractive they will be. Thus, each sex is in a contest with others of it own sex in being the most attractive to the opposite sex. It's a race that never ends.
The parallels between other animals and man are remarkable. Just as remarkable are the unique characteristics of man. Why do we have such huge brains for our body size and are so intelligent? Whey are we so accomplished in music and the arts and even sense of humor? Why do we have such a highly developed consciousness? Why do we have two sexes when other forms of life may have many more, or no sex, or both sexes on the same individual? Why are we monogamous and are we necessarily so?
The book is driven by the question - "what is human nature?" - what is it that defines us, that we have in common with each other regardless of our individual differences?
The Red Queen is going straight to my bookshelf because I know I will want to read it again. I just wish it were available on the Kindle so I could use the wonderful note-taking feature of that gadget.
I shouldn't forget a warning - Ridley is no fan of the social sciences. If you think culture makes us what we are, you won't find any support for it here. He's got no time for Margaret Mead or B.F. Skinner and Freud, though he had some good insights, was off to outer space with his theory of the unconscious oedipal drive. For Ridley, evolution is in the driver's seat.
PS - if you would like to explore the idea that culture can be evolutionary, try Darwin's Cathedral by David Wilson.
July 16, 2015
My review of this book can be summed up in a quote from the very end of the book, "Half the ideas in this book are probably wrong." That's probably a generous estimate on the author's part! I would also add "sexist" to "wrong." If only I'd read the end first, I could've saved myself a lot of frustration.
A sampling:
"The best [men] can hope for now is a good-looking younger mistress and a devoted wife who is traded in every decade or so. We're back to square one."
"Inject all pregnant women with the right dose of hormones, and the result would be men and women with normal bodies but identical female brains. War, rape, boxing, car racing, pornography, and hamburgers and beer would soon be distant memories."
Then he talks about how women with Turner's syndrome are born without ovaries. "They are exaggeratedly feminine in their behavior, with typically a special interest in babies, clothes, housekeeping, and romantic stories."
This book is bad science based in sexist stereotypes. Ironically, I read it for my feminist book club!
A sampling:
"The best [men] can hope for now is a good-looking younger mistress and a devoted wife who is traded in every decade or so. We're back to square one."
"Inject all pregnant women with the right dose of hormones, and the result would be men and women with normal bodies but identical female brains. War, rape, boxing, car racing, pornography, and hamburgers and beer would soon be distant memories."
Then he talks about how women with Turner's syndrome are born without ovaries. "They are exaggeratedly feminine in their behavior, with typically a special interest in babies, clothes, housekeeping, and romantic stories."
This book is bad science based in sexist stereotypes. Ironically, I read it for my feminist book club!
March 15, 2016
This was an interesting exploration of the reasons for sexual reproduction in many organisms, as well as then discussing the science with relation to human sexuality and sociology. Ridley makes good thorough use of a broad range of research findings in the area, discussing these with (mainly) even-handedness and a breadth of illustrative examples. The central theme relates to the importance of sexual reproduction in protection from disease and in best perpetuating our genes. It's an educational and readable book, full of useful facts and insights - I would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.
Unfortunately for me, I found some of it hard going because much of the science was stuff I already knew about from my college and university education, and previous books I've read on the subject. I've read other Matt Ridley books before, and he seems to have honed his skills in later books - at times this got slightly bogged down and lacked pace and direction in the slower sections where I thought too many examples were given.
Unfortunately for me, I found some of it hard going because much of the science was stuff I already knew about from my college and university education, and previous books I've read on the subject. I've read other Matt Ridley books before, and he seems to have honed his skills in later books - at times this got slightly bogged down and lacked pace and direction in the slower sections where I thought too many examples were given.
June 10, 2017
کتاب رو ک خوندم افسرده شدم، آدم ناامید میشه ک برای پیدا کردن جنس مخالف این قدر باید تویه ی فضای رقابتی قرار بگیری
فصل هشتم و نهم کتاب رو دوست داشتم بقیه اش چرت و پرت های این دانشمندهای حوزهی میمون شناسی و اولوشن بود، بدرد من این همه علم خشک نمیخوره
لب کتاب تویه فصل آخرش اینه که اگر پیدا کردن جنس مخالف یه بازی باشه که هر کسی شماره ای رو پیشونیش باشه و شماره ی خودش رو ندونه و بهش بگند که برو دنبال شماره های بالاتر و با اون جفتی پیدا کن بعد یه مدتی اونی که روی پیشونیش نوشته 1 میخواد بره با 1000 دوست شه ولی 1000 رجکت میکنه و آخرش 1 با 2 رابطه برقرار میکنه، و 1000 با عددهای بالاتر
چه دنیای بیرحمیه
چقدر طبیعت بیرحمه
:)
فصل هشتم و نهم کتاب رو دوست داشتم بقیه اش چرت و پرت های این دانشمندهای حوزهی میمون شناسی و اولوشن بود، بدرد من این همه علم خشک نمیخوره
لب کتاب تویه فصل آخرش اینه که اگر پیدا کردن جنس مخالف یه بازی باشه که هر کسی شماره ای رو پیشونیش باشه و شماره ی خودش رو ندونه و بهش بگند که برو دنبال شماره های بالاتر و با اون جفتی پیدا کن بعد یه مدتی اونی که روی پیشونیش نوشته 1 میخواد بره با 1000 دوست شه ولی 1000 رجکت میکنه و آخرش 1 با 2 رابطه برقرار میکنه، و 1000 با عددهای بالاتر
چه دنیای بیرحمیه
چقدر طبیعت بیرحمه
:)
July 27, 2008
My God, I loved this book. Extremely accessible, yet very substantial. I don't think I can ever think about sex or human nature the same way. I feel that this is one of those seminal books that a person can't go back from.
And it certainly does make it strange to go to a party and watch all the humans hooking up.
And it certainly does make it strange to go to a party and watch all the humans hooking up.
December 15, 2017
The payoff in this book is in the last 1/3rd of the book. The beginning is really really dry and academic. The theories are fascinating and some were mind-blowing. Ridley himself admits that they are just theories and probably half of them are wrong. But it's just a fascinating way to view human behavior through sexual selection and evolutionary advantage.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 805 reviews