What do you think?
Rate this book
Кто мы такие? Гены, наше тело, общество
В книгу «Кто мы такие?» вошли лучшие статьи известного ученого и популяризатора науки Роберта Сапольски о человеке во всем его потрясающем многообразии. Три ее раздела, посвящены главным вопросам естествознания, включая влияние генов и среды на поведение, социальные, политические и сексуальные предпосылки поведенческой биологии и роль общества в формировании личности. Во всем, что описывает Сапольски — от брачных ритуалов грызунов до религиозных практик жителей тропических лесов, от выделения феромонов до мозговых паразитов, — он блестяще соединяет передовые научные открытия с ироничными и мудрыми наблюдениями о невообразимой сложности бытия.
221 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 19, 2005
167 people are currently reading
4004 people want to read
About the author
Robert M. Sapolsky
17 books5,409 followersRobert Morris Sapolsky is an American neuroendocrinology researcher and author. He is currently a professor of biology, and professor of neurology and neurological sciences and, by courtesy, neurosurgery, at Stanford University. In addition, he is a research associate at the National Museums of Kenya.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews
November 1, 2021
A wonderful collection of essays by biologist Robert Sapolsky, who has an incredible sense of humor as well. I learned quite a lot and had fun doing it. Each essay is a quick and easy read.
March 3, 2024
After reading Behaved and Determined and Zebras A Primate’s Memoir, and viewing his Human Behavioral Biology lectures on YouTube, I’ll read anything by Sapolsky.
When I finish a book by him I feel a sense of satisfaction but also loss, like when you spend time with a good (and very smart) friend but know you won’t see them again for a while.
Next up: his other essay collection and any lectures and interviews I can find.
When I finish a book by him I feel a sense of satisfaction but also loss, like when you spend time with a good (and very smart) friend but know you won’t see them again for a while.
Next up: his other essay collection and any lectures and interviews I can find.
December 23, 2017
"we are certainly not the most evolved species, nor the least vulnerable. Nor the cleverest."
November 29, 2025
Я дуже і дуже люблю Роберта Сапольські. Це третя книга, що я у нього читаю, і тішуся, що цього разу я прочитала його конспектуючи, щоб забути якомога менше (хехе)
Це збірка есеїв, що в різні роки (1997-2005) з'являлися в публікаціях різноманітних журналів — від наукових, до популярних (наприклад Менс Хелс). Розбиті на три тематичних групи Гени, Тіла і Супільство, і якимось дивом (редакторським) відчуваються прекрасно вбудованими в одну розповідь, а не розкиданими в усі боки. Я чесно думала, що прочитається за два вечори, але ноуп — сильно переоцінила свою здібність занурюватися в пояснення біохімії мозку.
З плюсів:
- Він класно, весело, цікаво, чесно і скромно пише. Просто людина, в особистість якої закохуєшся на раз-два.
- Жодної води. Зебри були розписані на сотні сторінок, та в певний момент вимикалася свідомість, і наче з повного переливали в порожнє. Тут все стисло, але по суті. (Так, тобто формат "есеїв" себе виправдав)
- Ще раз підкреслю як органічно ці есеї переливалися один з іншого. Не відчувалося розірваностей абощо.
- Тонна цікавої інформації про людей і тварин, але це і так ясно.
Це збірка есеїв, що в різні роки (1997-2005) з'являлися в публікаціях різноманітних журналів — від наукових, до популярних (наприклад Менс Хелс). Розбиті на три тематичних групи Гени, Тіла і Супільство, і якимось дивом (редакторським) відчуваються прекрасно вбудованими в одну розповідь, а не розкиданими в усі боки. Я чесно думала, що прочитається за два вечори, але ноуп — сильно переоцінила свою здібність занурюватися в пояснення біохімії мозку.
З плюсів:
- Він класно, весело, цікаво, чесно і скромно пише. Просто людина, в особистість якої закохуєшся на раз-два.
- Жодної води. Зебри були розписані на сотні сторінок, та в певний момент вимикалася свідомість, і наче з повного переливали в порожнє. Тут все стисло, але по суті. (Так, тобто формат "есеїв" себе виправдав)
- Ще раз підкреслю як органічно ці есеї переливалися один з іншого. Не відчувалося розірваностей абощо.
- Тонна цікавої інформації про людей і тварин, але це і так ясно.
December 14, 2012
This is another great book of what nature via nurture really means, driving many coffin nails through genetic determinism, including practitioners of Pop Evolutionary Psychology (with capital letters, as a philosophical mindset) who remain more genetic determinists than they let on while claiming to preach "nature via nurture."
Sapolsky is the real deal on "nature via nurture" - indeed, it should be noted that, with the exception of a totally genetically determined thing like Huntington's disease, he preaches "nature ONLY via nurture," or something along that general line.
Beyond that, he gets into the nuts and bolts of what we know today, and don't know, about non-coding areas of our DNA, which are NOT all simply "junk DNA." Rather, you have introns and exons for marking where a coding sequence of DNA starts and stops, and even more importantly, you have regulatory, or modulating, sections of DNA, which may tell a coding section only to switch on when there are more than 12 hours of daylight per day, which could be used to trigger mating behavior.
Here are some important page by page notes:
23 "More than 95 percent of DNA is non-coding. Sure, a lot of that is the junk-packing material DNA [a lot of which may be "quarantined" remnants of viral DNA, similar to what Norton Utilities does on your PC when necessary], but your average gene comes with a huge instruction manual about how to operate it, and the operator is often environmental."
23-24 "The startling second fact is that when you examine variability in DNA sequences among individuals, the non-coding regions of DNA are considerably more variable than are the regions that code for genes." Sapolsky admits much of this is due to junk DNA areas, but that much of the variability is attributable to regulatory area. Obviously, this has huge impacts on the nurture side of things.
42-44 Good discussion of imprinted genes, which differ from Mendelian biology in that only one is active, usually the one that comes from the parent of the same sex as a child. (Note: this does NOT mean these genes are limited in placement to our sex chromosomes.) The result? These imprinting genes battle for placental and fetal growth, as male and female genes have different "urges" for the placental and fetal rates of growth, due to male-vs-female differences in mammalian breeding strategy. Placental tumors can result if only the paternal gene is active, lack of placental implantation in the uterus when only the maternal gene is active.
61 Offspring of attractive males, in many species studies, survive less often than average.
63. In a study with ducks, with attractive males, it actually appears that the female invests more energy in the egg, laying a larger egg when impregnated by an attractive male. (The egg size is under female control.)
Both of these should put some question to old stereotypes about peacock tails being signs of fitness and so increasing mating, etc. At the least, they should caution us to look for more nuanced explanations.
83ff Limbic and autonomic nervous responses come on- and offline at different rates to one another. In relation to the frontal cortex, this may help explain why intermittent rewards can actually be more psychologically reinforcing than regular ones.
177. In many species, females in some way manipulate alpha-male type males into fighting over them, to go off and mate with more "nice guy" types.
184. Why our desire for revenge? It stems out of game theory, from games such as Prisoners' Dilemma, etc., which show the value of "tit for tat altruism" - if the game is played more than once, especially if one knows a "cheater" will be back in the mix again.
But, in a one-time game, especially where a competitor is informed he/she cannot inform players of future rounds about a cheater, including not being able to inform them through the action of punishing a cheater, then revenge as our self-appointed judge and executioner's pound of flesh seems a natural action, even if we the "cheated" have to expend yet more energy to make the cheater pay.
Hence our actions in today's civilized society, namely such as flipping people off for cutting us off in traffic, etc.
Sapolsky is the real deal on "nature via nurture" - indeed, it should be noted that, with the exception of a totally genetically determined thing like Huntington's disease, he preaches "nature ONLY via nurture," or something along that general line.
Beyond that, he gets into the nuts and bolts of what we know today, and don't know, about non-coding areas of our DNA, which are NOT all simply "junk DNA." Rather, you have introns and exons for marking where a coding sequence of DNA starts and stops, and even more importantly, you have regulatory, or modulating, sections of DNA, which may tell a coding section only to switch on when there are more than 12 hours of daylight per day, which could be used to trigger mating behavior.
Here are some important page by page notes:
23 "More than 95 percent of DNA is non-coding. Sure, a lot of that is the junk-packing material DNA [a lot of which may be "quarantined" remnants of viral DNA, similar to what Norton Utilities does on your PC when necessary], but your average gene comes with a huge instruction manual about how to operate it, and the operator is often environmental."
23-24 "The startling second fact is that when you examine variability in DNA sequences among individuals, the non-coding regions of DNA are considerably more variable than are the regions that code for genes." Sapolsky admits much of this is due to junk DNA areas, but that much of the variability is attributable to regulatory area. Obviously, this has huge impacts on the nurture side of things.
42-44 Good discussion of imprinted genes, which differ from Mendelian biology in that only one is active, usually the one that comes from the parent of the same sex as a child. (Note: this does NOT mean these genes are limited in placement to our sex chromosomes.) The result? These imprinting genes battle for placental and fetal growth, as male and female genes have different "urges" for the placental and fetal rates of growth, due to male-vs-female differences in mammalian breeding strategy. Placental tumors can result if only the paternal gene is active, lack of placental implantation in the uterus when only the maternal gene is active.
61 Offspring of attractive males, in many species studies, survive less often than average.
63. In a study with ducks, with attractive males, it actually appears that the female invests more energy in the egg, laying a larger egg when impregnated by an attractive male. (The egg size is under female control.)
Both of these should put some question to old stereotypes about peacock tails being signs of fitness and so increasing mating, etc. At the least, they should caution us to look for more nuanced explanations.
83ff Limbic and autonomic nervous responses come on- and offline at different rates to one another. In relation to the frontal cortex, this may help explain why intermittent rewards can actually be more psychologically reinforcing than regular ones.
177. In many species, females in some way manipulate alpha-male type males into fighting over them, to go off and mate with more "nice guy" types.
184. Why our desire for revenge? It stems out of game theory, from games such as Prisoners' Dilemma, etc., which show the value of "tit for tat altruism" - if the game is played more than once, especially if one knows a "cheater" will be back in the mix again.
But, in a one-time game, especially where a competitor is informed he/she cannot inform players of future rounds about a cheater, including not being able to inform them through the action of punishing a cheater, then revenge as our self-appointed judge and executioner's pound of flesh seems a natural action, even if we the "cheated" have to expend yet more energy to make the cheater pay.
Hence our actions in today's civilized society, namely such as flipping people off for cutting us off in traffic, etc.
November 18, 2023
Очень крутая книга, для того чтобы прочитать которую я раскачивалась около года, но проглотила все от середины и до финальных глав за довольно короткий срок. Эта книга навсегда будет ассоциироваться у меня с очень важным для меня человеком и надеюсь проложит для меня путь к прочтению других книг Сапольски.
July 1, 2021
Brutal Sapolsky, estos artículos están bien cheveres, me gusta la ironía que maneja y además es todo un crack de la investigación. "Tener mente abierta es un requisito para tener un corazón abierto"
March 10, 2026
Особливої цікавості читання есеїв додав спосіб у який цю книгу було прочитано у моєму випадку - по черзі з дружиною читали одне одному вголос, і на місці тут же обговорювали, хороший досвід.
November 12, 2020
інформативно, (за)коротко, цікаво і доволі розважально. так розумію, що це збірка есе тому вони відрізняються за обсягом і глибиною - власне тільки деякі з них доволі детальні, що і є мінусом книжки. тобто вона занадто поп-наукова, хоча зовсім не вода і багато про що я не знав. для "м'якого" знайомства з автором підходить (давно хотів перечитати його роботи)
July 6, 2012
Monkeyluv is a collection of essays (previously published elsewhere) grouped around 3 broad themes:
Genes and their influence on behavior.
This is the old nature/nurture debate. Are we the way we are because of our genes or the environment in which we are raised? Scientists figured out some time ago that it’s a combination of both, but identifying the source of specific behaviors is complicated.
Our body’s influence on behavior.
It should come as no surprise (except perhaps to extreme mind/body dualists) that brains are physical organs and are influenced by events that take place in the body and influence our bodies in return. Hormones released by the body effect the way we think and act (one of the reasons men are different from women) and fear (a mental phenomenon) causes gooseflesh (or a bottle-brush tail in the case of my cat) are two such examples.
The environment’s influence on behavior.
The most interesting essay involved the broad differences in cultures that evolved in desert vs. jungle environments and how desert cultures tend to be monotheistic, militaristic, repressive and paternalistic, while jungle cultures are polytheistic and take a more free-wheeling approach to life (more like the tribes of Polynesia as opposed to the Yanomami I suppose). One could conclude that we are the unfortunate recipients of a desert culture that has spread globally (assuming you buy in to the precepts of this cultural anthropological explanation).
This is the first book I’ve read by Sapolsky, and I’m wondering how it took me so long to come around to him. He has a lively writing style and the ability to explain complex scientific subjects in an interesting manner to a layperson. He also has something that seems to be altogether lacking in most science writers … a wicked sense of humor.
Genes and their influence on behavior.
This is the old nature/nurture debate. Are we the way we are because of our genes or the environment in which we are raised? Scientists figured out some time ago that it’s a combination of both, but identifying the source of specific behaviors is complicated.
Our body’s influence on behavior.
It should come as no surprise (except perhaps to extreme mind/body dualists) that brains are physical organs and are influenced by events that take place in the body and influence our bodies in return. Hormones released by the body effect the way we think and act (one of the reasons men are different from women) and fear (a mental phenomenon) causes gooseflesh (or a bottle-brush tail in the case of my cat) are two such examples.
The environment’s influence on behavior.
The most interesting essay involved the broad differences in cultures that evolved in desert vs. jungle environments and how desert cultures tend to be monotheistic, militaristic, repressive and paternalistic, while jungle cultures are polytheistic and take a more free-wheeling approach to life (more like the tribes of Polynesia as opposed to the Yanomami I suppose). One could conclude that we are the unfortunate recipients of a desert culture that has spread globally (assuming you buy in to the precepts of this cultural anthropological explanation).
This is the first book I’ve read by Sapolsky, and I’m wondering how it took me so long to come around to him. He has a lively writing style and the ability to explain complex scientific subjects in an interesting manner to a layperson. He also has something that seems to be altogether lacking in most science writers … a wicked sense of humor.
February 19, 2021
Сборник статей, большая часть из которых посвящена общеизвестным вопросам. Наверное, если вы хоть немного интересуетесь современной биологией, генетикой, этологией и социальным поведением, вы вряд ли найдете что-то принципиально новое для себя.
То, что это не цельное произведение тоже накладывает свой отпечаток.
В общем, наверное, лучше прочитать еще одного Докинза
То, что это не цельное произведение тоже накладывает свой отпечаток.
В общем, наверное, лучше прочитать еще одного Докинза
February 18, 2021
Увлекательная книга. Написана максимально простым языком с долей юмора, при этом информативно.
Если вы смотрели лекции Сапольски, то возможно часть информации в этих эссе вы уже слышали, но даже несмотря на это получила большое удовольствие от прочтения.
Если вы смотрели лекции Сапольски, то возможно часть информации в этих эссе вы уже слышали, но даже несмотря на это получила большое удовольствие от прочтения.
November 21, 2016
Tremendo, Sapolsky. Cuando grande quiero ser como tú.
September 9, 2024
Юмор, наука, личные лирические отступления - я в восторге. Заставило и задуматься о своих убеждениях, отточить их, и посмотреть на некоторые моменты из своего прошлого и настоящего, переосмыслить. Приятно было побыть 6 часов в обществе доктора Роберта Сапольски, буду слушать его лекции.
P.S. Иногда с грустью думал про несостоявшуюся университетскую научную карьеру: "that's where I belong".
P.S. Иногда с грустью думал про несостоявшуюся университетскую научную карьеру: "that's where I belong".
December 20, 2024
Petits assajos de neurobiologia i antropologia de l'heterodox científic Robert M. Sapolsky. Molt entretinguts i divertits, però n'hi ha tants que acabes el llibre amb la sensació de no recordar res.
September 30, 2020
Готова простить Сапольски даже умеренный сексизм, очень увлекательно!
January 4, 2024
This is the third Robert Sapolsky book I've read. The Trouble with Testosterone and A Primate's Memoir were much easier reads. This book was science heavy and necessitates, in my opinion, a somewhat intermediate level of knowledge regarding biology.
December 6, 2021
Una bellissima raccolta di saggi brevi e articoli di questo brillante neurobiologo, che ho apprezzato e dal quale ho appreso molte cose interessanti.
Quanto di ancestrale c’è ancora in noi, da quando eravamo cacciatori raccoglitori? Se esiste, come si relaziona con la nostra attuale realtà?
Perché siamo così diversi l’uno dall’altro, a volte anche a parità di ambiente? Forse perché i geni 🧬 insieme all’ambiente interagiscono diversamente (almeno io ho capito così 😅)!!
Tante altre domande interessanti che spiegano con quale approccio lavorano certe scienze riduzioniste e forse per la neurobiologia questo approccio è ancora molto difficile da applicare, vista l’estrema complessità del nostro cervello e di tutto il sistema nervoso umano.
Da leggere, per dare una rinfrescata ai nostri neuroni che, invecchiando, diventando sedentari (ma non a tutti a quanto pare)!
Quanto di ancestrale c’è ancora in noi, da quando eravamo cacciatori raccoglitori? Se esiste, come si relaziona con la nostra attuale realtà?
Perché siamo così diversi l’uno dall’altro, a volte anche a parità di ambiente? Forse perché i geni 🧬 insieme all’ambiente interagiscono diversamente (almeno io ho capito così 😅)!!
Tante altre domande interessanti che spiegano con quale approccio lavorano certe scienze riduzioniste e forse per la neurobiologia questo approccio è ancora molto difficile da applicare, vista l’estrema complessità del nostro cervello e di tutto il sistema nervoso umano.
Da leggere, per dare una rinfrescata ai nostri neuroni che, invecchiando, diventando sedentari (ma non a tutti a quanto pare)!
March 29, 2021
Сапольски норм. собрание статей норм, но я не любитель такого формата. пойду дальше читать Пинкера.
March 5, 2012
3.5 stars.
A collection of essays (18 total) which were published in magazines like Discover, Natural History, The Sciences, etc. by Robert Sapolsky, a biologist at Stanford. The book is divided into three parts: Genes and Who We Are, Our Bodies and Who We Are, and Society and Who We Are, with each having 6 essays. I found the first section just okay (a bit too basic I think) but enjoyed the second and third sections more. Given the broad range of topics—everything from genetic differences between men and women to the effect of stress on brain size to the mating habits of monkeys—there is something here for everyone. Which is also the major weakness of this book; that is, it has breadth at the expense of depth. Although Dr. Sapolsky gives references at the end of each essay, his arguments still feel “light,” as is his writing, for better or worse. So I wouldn’t recommend it for those who are looking for academically rigorous writing but those who enjoy pop science will probably get a kick out of it. Plus, how can you resist this cover? (Not to mention the great backcover photo of the author with a…baboon(I think))
A collection of essays (18 total) which were published in magazines like Discover, Natural History, The Sciences, etc. by Robert Sapolsky, a biologist at Stanford. The book is divided into three parts: Genes and Who We Are, Our Bodies and Who We Are, and Society and Who We Are, with each having 6 essays. I found the first section just okay (a bit too basic I think) but enjoyed the second and third sections more. Given the broad range of topics—everything from genetic differences between men and women to the effect of stress on brain size to the mating habits of monkeys—there is something here for everyone. Which is also the major weakness of this book; that is, it has breadth at the expense of depth. Although Dr. Sapolsky gives references at the end of each essay, his arguments still feel “light,” as is his writing, for better or worse. So I wouldn’t recommend it for those who are looking for academically rigorous writing but those who enjoy pop science will probably get a kick out of it. Plus, how can you resist this cover? (Not to mention the great backcover photo of the author with a…baboon(I think))
September 27, 2011
One of the best science writers out there! I found myself chuckling out loud about things like parasitic bacteria. Dr. Sapolsky is great at bringing biology down to earth as well as warding us away from stereotypical ideas that can develop from popular coverage. With his cleverness and cynical humor, he doesn't have to resort to hype to make his topics interesting.
July 8, 2014
I loved A Primate's Memoir: A Neuroscientist's Unconventional Life Among the Baboons, so I was really looking forward to this. And I was disappointed. Not as engaging, not as charming.
August 20, 2021
I think this book is really captivating and informative. Earlier, I've read Stephen Pinker's 'The Blank Slate' where he proves the pivotal role of genes in human life and behaviour. Here, Sapolsky tries to show the importance of another basic category - the environment. And his humorous and competent narration could be the great proof of the fantastic difficulty of the human brain and behaviour.
August 23, 2014
A wonderfully readable collection of essays on a wide range of topics, from genetics to physiology to society and civilization.
November 11, 2015
Way meh.
March 9, 2026
Here’s an example of a cover that accurately reflects the tone of the book. Robert Sapolsky is a Stanford professor of neurology and also spends a lot of time on the African veldt, studying (other) large primates. He’s written a number of books for the general public; as far as I know, this is his only book of essays. It’s a good way to get to know him.
Although I am emphatically not a professor at Stanford, I share a lot of interests with this guy. Being an old curmudgeon. The obvious and not-so-obvious mechanisms of the human body, and how it evolved. Microbiology and its effects on behavior. And finally, writing snarky reviews of stuff I’ve read. This book is full of reviews of scientific articles that have crossed Sapolsky’s desk along with his opinions and verdicts, presented in entertaining fashion.
It helps that the subject is so interesting. The genetic basis for behavior is a loaded topic; far too many correlations have been drawn between, for example, the redness of one’s hair and the level of evil-vixenhood reducing strong men to jelly. Early on, the author makes his main point: Genes do not create behaviors. Genes create proteins. Sometimes these proteins increase or decrease one’s sensitivity to certain environmental stimuli. The book abounds in fascinating examples.
One of the fun things mixed up in here is the way scientists can be blinded by bias just like everybody else. Observation: About twenty percent of soldiers returning from war suffer debilitating PTSD. Observation: These afflicted soldiers have smaller hippocampuses than their platoon buddies who do not suffer PTSD. The hippocampus, among other things, is responsible for creating long-term memories and their retrieval. PTSD seems not to result from a single traumatic incident, but rather when horrible things happen repeatedly. The obvious conclusion is that somehow these traumatic incidents create some sort of stress-induced reaction that kills cells within the hippocampus.
But! Smart guys like Sapolsky will wonder whether cause and effect are mixed up here. Maybe people who already have small hippocampuses are more likely to suffer PTSD when exposed to the same circumstances as anyone else? Some pretty compelling evidence comes from a little-known database maintained by the Veteran’s Administration, who kept a bunch of records describing identical twins, one of whom went to war and the other of whom did not. But even this is not at all definitive – he notes that 90% of women who have been repeatedly raped suffer PTSD, far too many to attribute to something pre-existing within the woman’s brain.
Can we move on to something more cheerful? How about an experiment at Yale where the experimenters put a male black grouse (called a ‘blackcock,’ but I don’t suppose that’s relevant) into a pen with a female while she was fertile. Normally these males are handsome critters:
The heartless experimenters ruined his chances, though, by coloring all his striking plumage black:
Not surprisingly, the female showed no interest. But now for the fun part: They placed into the enclosure a group of dead, taxidermied females in poses that suggested arousal.
And all of a sudden, the living female suddenly decided Mr. Wrong was actually pretty fine.
Prof. Sapolsky sometimes seems a bit to sure of his opinions, and occasionally forces in a lame joke when simple exposition is called for. But I come away impressed and will be looking for his other books.
Although I am emphatically not a professor at Stanford, I share a lot of interests with this guy. Being an old curmudgeon. The obvious and not-so-obvious mechanisms of the human body, and how it evolved. Microbiology and its effects on behavior. And finally, writing snarky reviews of stuff I’ve read. This book is full of reviews of scientific articles that have crossed Sapolsky’s desk along with his opinions and verdicts, presented in entertaining fashion.
It helps that the subject is so interesting. The genetic basis for behavior is a loaded topic; far too many correlations have been drawn between, for example, the redness of one’s hair and the level of evil-vixenhood reducing strong men to jelly. Early on, the author makes his main point: Genes do not create behaviors. Genes create proteins. Sometimes these proteins increase or decrease one’s sensitivity to certain environmental stimuli. The book abounds in fascinating examples.
One of the fun things mixed up in here is the way scientists can be blinded by bias just like everybody else. Observation: About twenty percent of soldiers returning from war suffer debilitating PTSD. Observation: These afflicted soldiers have smaller hippocampuses than their platoon buddies who do not suffer PTSD. The hippocampus, among other things, is responsible for creating long-term memories and their retrieval. PTSD seems not to result from a single traumatic incident, but rather when horrible things happen repeatedly. The obvious conclusion is that somehow these traumatic incidents create some sort of stress-induced reaction that kills cells within the hippocampus.
But! Smart guys like Sapolsky will wonder whether cause and effect are mixed up here. Maybe people who already have small hippocampuses are more likely to suffer PTSD when exposed to the same circumstances as anyone else? Some pretty compelling evidence comes from a little-known database maintained by the Veteran’s Administration, who kept a bunch of records describing identical twins, one of whom went to war and the other of whom did not. But even this is not at all definitive – he notes that 90% of women who have been repeatedly raped suffer PTSD, far too many to attribute to something pre-existing within the woman’s brain.
Can we move on to something more cheerful? How about an experiment at Yale where the experimenters put a male black grouse (called a ‘blackcock,’ but I don’t suppose that’s relevant) into a pen with a female while she was fertile. Normally these males are handsome critters:
The heartless experimenters ruined his chances, though, by coloring all his striking plumage black:
Not surprisingly, the female showed no interest. But now for the fun part: They placed into the enclosure a group of dead, taxidermied females in poses that suggested arousal.
And all of a sudden, the living female suddenly decided Mr. Wrong was actually pretty fine.
Prof. Sapolsky sometimes seems a bit to sure of his opinions, and occasionally forces in a lame joke when simple exposition is called for. But I come away impressed and will be looking for his other books.
June 16, 2022
Monkeyluv: And Other Essays on Our Lives as Animals merupakan kumpulan artikel dari Robert M. Sapolsky dari berbagai majalah. Beberapa di antaranya telah mengalami sedikit perubahan. Buku ini terdiri dari tiga bagian, yaitu “Part I: Genes and Who We Are”, “Part II: Our Bodies and Who We Are”, dan “Part III: Society and Who We Are”.
Saya akan mencatat berbagai hal yang saya anggap penting dari buku ini. Berikut adalah catatan saya.
PART I: GENES AND WHO WE ARE
Apa yang sebenarnya gen lakukan? Gen tidak menghasilkan perilaku, perasaan, atau pikiran. Gen menghasilkan protein, yang mana spesifik sekuens DNA membentuk kode gen untuk jenis protein spesifik. Beberapa protein ini bertanggung jawab terhadap perilaku, perasaan, dan pikiran.Proteins include some hormones and neurotransmitters (chemical messengers between neurons), the receptors that receive hormonal and neurotransmitter messages, the enzymes that synthesize and degrade those messengers, many of the intracellular messengers triggered by those hormones, and so on. … But the key is that it is extremely rare that things like hormones and neurotransmitters cause a behavior. Instead, they produce tendencies to respond to the environment in certain ways.
Belum tentu orang yang memiliki gen depresi sudah pasti akan terkena depresi dan tidak semua orang dengan depresi mayor memiliki gen depresi di dalam tubuhnya. Selain itu, orang-orang yang memiliki pengalaman yang sama belum tentu akan mengalami respon yang sama. Misalnya, dua anak yang sama-sama mengalami hal buruk di masa kecilnya, seperti perceraian orangtua, kehilangan kakek atau nenek, harus mengubur hewan kesayangan, atau selalu mengalami perundungan yang parah. Akan tetapi, yang satu mengalami semuanya dalam satu tahun, sementara yang lain mengalami dalam rentang waktu enam tahun, maka anak yang memiliki pengalaman buruk dalam kurun waktu satu tahun akan cenderung lebih mudah terkena depresi.
Intinya sih di bagian satu ini antara gen, lingkungan, dan situasi itu saling berinteraksi dan memengaruhi.
Catatan lengkapnya ada di sini.
February 16, 2021
Сборник статей разных лет с подробным списком литературы к каждой, если захочется изучить вопрос подробнее. Сапольски пишет легко и увлекательно, в популярном стиле, слегка шутливой манере.
Многие факты и теории поражают, заставляют задуматься, пересмотреть привычный взгляд на вещи. И хорошо запоминаются. Экологическая антропология - попытки связать культуру с климатом и экологией, война полов, синдром Мюнхгаузена по доверенности, закрытость ко всему новому после достижения определённого возраста.
"...Остерегаясь всего нового, сужая угол зрения и предпочитая однообразие, мы обедняем себя. Поразительно, но открытие, что к сорока годам вас уже окунули в бронзу и поставили на каминную полку, что уже существуют общественные институты вроде «старых добрых» радиостанций, доказывает: вы уже не там, где культура. Если там есть яркий, богатый новый мир, он не должен принадлежать одним только двадцатилетним, исследующим его ради исследования как такового. Что бы ни отталкивало нас от нового, я думаю, стоит хотя бы немного с ним побороться, даже если придется иногда отложить Боба Марли.
Но есть и другой, еще более важный вывод. Когда я вижу, как мои лучшие студенты взбудоражены общественными проблемами, когда я вижу, что они готовы ехать на край земли, чтобы проповедовать прокаженным в Конго, или на край города, чтобы учить какого-то ребенка читать, я вспоминаю: быть такими когда-то было намного проще. Открытый ум необходим для открытого сердца."
Многие факты и теории поражают, заставляют задуматься, пересмотреть привычный взгляд на вещи. И хорошо запоминаются. Экологическая антропология - попытки связать культуру с климатом и экологией, война полов, синдром Мюнхгаузена по доверенности, закрытость ко всему новому после достижения определённого возраста.
"...Остерегаясь всего нового, сужая угол зрения и предпочитая однообразие, мы обедняем себя. Поразительно, но открытие, что к сорока годам вас уже окунули в бронзу и поставили на каминную полку, что уже существуют общественные институты вроде «старых добрых» радиостанций, доказывает: вы уже не там, где культура. Если там есть яркий, богатый новый мир, он не должен принадлежать одним только двадцатилетним, исследующим его ради исследования как такового. Что бы ни отталкивало нас от нового, я думаю, стоит хотя бы немного с ним побороться, даже если придется иногда отложить Боба Марли.
Но есть и другой, еще более важный вывод. Когда я вижу, как мои лучшие студенты взбудоражены общественными проблемами, когда я вижу, что они готовы ехать на край земли, чтобы проповедовать прокаженным в Конго, или на край города, чтобы учить какого-то ребенка читать, я вспоминаю: быть такими когда-то было намного проще. Открытый ум необходим для открытого сердца."
April 9, 2023
I have gotten to Monkeyluv a bit late, considering when it was first published and also that I seem to have been going backwards. But having read Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, Behave and A Primate's Memoir I just couldn't stop there and so decided to seek out more of Sapolsky's books. I think it's the humor that does it for me. It's this unique style of writing that turns some scientific sophisticated data into a captivating language that I actually understand. I think if scientific break throughs were all introduced by Sapolsky I would be more eager to keep up with them all. I think what he does with his essays as with his books will inspire so many people to take a more noticeable interest in science. I think I have definitely become more interested in neuroendocrinology which up until I found out who Sapolsky was I didn't even know was an established field in science. I highly recommend, even though the data for this particular set of articles could be outdated by now. It's the surest way to fall in love with science and get a kick out of the humor and sometimes the self-irony.
September 19, 2023
Sapolsky is one of my heroes, a genius who integrates learning from various fields and applies it to questions that cut right to the heart of what makes us human. At the same time, he has a well-known gift for taking scientific findings and presenting them in accessible and engaging ways.
Though the science represented in this book is over 20 years old, I wanted to read it in advance of his new book, “Determined”. His thesis in that forthcoming work, that free will is a myth and we’d be a more just society if we accepted that, was explored more tentatively in his masterful book “Behave.” I was curious to trace the roots of this contention in these writings from earlier in his career.
There are some delightful pieces here, with his typical humor and perspicacity about scientific debates that have left his colleagues in fisticuffs. And, remarkably, some of the topics presented in this book are just getting due attention in the present, such as the negative health impacts of loneliness. If the world is going under, I want Sapolsky, or at least his words, within arm’s reach.
Though the science represented in this book is over 20 years old, I wanted to read it in advance of his new book, “Determined”. His thesis in that forthcoming work, that free will is a myth and we’d be a more just society if we accepted that, was explored more tentatively in his masterful book “Behave.” I was curious to trace the roots of this contention in these writings from earlier in his career.
There are some delightful pieces here, with his typical humor and perspicacity about scientific debates that have left his colleagues in fisticuffs. And, remarkably, some of the topics presented in this book are just getting due attention in the present, such as the negative health impacts of loneliness. If the world is going under, I want Sapolsky, or at least his words, within arm’s reach.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews