Evil: The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side

by Julia Shaw

What is it about evil that we find so compelling? From our obsession with serial killers to violence in pop culture, we seem inescapably drawn to the stories of monstrous acts and the aberrant people who commit them. But evil, Dr. Julia Shaw argues, is all relative, rooted in our unique cultures. What one may consider normal, like sex before marriage, eating meat, or being a banker, others find abhorrent. And if evil is only in the eye of the beholder, can it be said to exist at all? In Evil , Shaw uses case studies from academia, examples from and popular culture, and anecdotes from everyday life to break down complex information and concepts like the neuroscience of evil, the psychology of bloodlust, and workplace misbehavior. This is a wide-ranging exploration into a fascinating, darkly compelling subject.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Philosophy, True Crime, Audiobook, Sociology

Audio CD

First published February 26, 2019

About the author

Julia Shaw is an honorary research associate at the University College London. Born in Germany and raised in Canada, she has a MS in psychology and law and a PhD in psychology from the University of British Columbia. She is a regular contributor to Scientific American.

Reviews

[Meike · Rating 2 out of 5]

As this is a "popular science" book, I didn't expect to be confronted with rigorous academic postulations and intricate arguments that can only be understood by insiders, but this was way too shallow for my taste (and I am not an expert in any of the fields Shaw discusses). I really wanted to like this, but unfortunately, I didn't learn much, and Shaw's impulse to talk about herself and preach to her readers didn't help either - not because her statements are somehow wrong, but because they are often referring to things so obvious (don't be afraid of mentally ill people! Don't perpetuate the suppression of women! Don't discriminate people because of their sexual orientation!) that I'm wondering who the reading audience for this book is. I know that there are people who cling to hateful and cliched ideas in oder to marginalize others, but will they pick up this book and have an epiphany?

The basic problem of the book is probably that the concept of "evil" is so broad and partly subjective (what would you consider as evil, what merely as bad?) that Shaw is busy covering a lot of ground at the expense of depth: She talks about the concept of "evil" in the context of technology, power, the office, sexuality, murder, rape culture, the Nazis, terrorism, paedohpilia, slavery, sadism... and yes, she herself states that this exploration is based on her own interests regarding the concept of "evil". While there are some scientific studies that I had never heard of and that I found very interesting, many cases she refers to are already well-known (how often do we have to read about the Stanford Prison Experiment?).

So all in all, I was a little underwhelmed by this book. And hey, all German speakers out there, if you want to get an impression what this book feels like, you can watch this clip in which Shaw (who is German-Canadian) does a "creepiness test" with late night host Jan Böhmermann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_mzL...

[Krys | TheFxckingTwist · Rating 2 out of 5]

Book Blog | Bookstagram

I really wanted to like this, but absolutely didn’t like this, and frankly, parts of it are so off-putting I want to toss it out a window.

But it’s not a bad book either. So... I don't know. Whatever.

My biggest problem really comes down to the fact that this book is not about the science behind humanity’s dark side, as the cover suggests.

I wanted to learn about the brain, human chemistry, and nature vs nurture; I wanted case studies and scientific journals and theories and experiments. What I got was the author explaining why evil is subjective and nothing is really bad because all humans fuck up. The overall theme boils down to “rethinking evil.”

While that may be a provocative topic to tackle, I wouldn’t have necessarily started the book with the argument that we should reconsider labelling Hitler as evil. BUT THAT'S JUST ME.

There is actually very little science-backed study and explanation in this book. The author invokes the Milgram Experiment to discuss the banality of evil, and then uses the Stanford Prison Experiment to explore groupthink, but never mentions the many issues that led to the study being discredited. Shaw doesn’t do a very good job of tying the referenced studies to the points she’s trying to make; they are loosely thrown together and barely make a correlation.

There’s a passive defence for everything from pedophiles and bestiality to the idea that words like “murderer” and “rapist” are hypocritical and heinous definitions we as a species label people unfairly with when really we’ve all made mistakes as humans.



I probably should have stopped reading after that shit, but nevertheless, I persisted, and what I found was a shallow argument against the idea of “evil” and a swath of the author’s biased opinions and personal background. While I admire her dedication to speaking her truth, it seemed to act only as a jumping-off point for the author to become preachy to the reader.

She approached her writing with an occasional “holier-than-thou” tone that came across like, “I know this is how the world should work and the rest of you should just shut up.”

Shaw takes some strange soap-box stances on things such as normalizing abhorrent sexual practices and suggesting that people harm animals because we’re protecting our brains from cuteness overload. PUH-LEASE.

THIS 👏 IS 👏 NOT 👏 WHAT 👏 I 👏 CAME 👏 HERE 👏 FOR.



I was looking for actual science-based non-fiction that would enlighten me on the “evil” aspects of humanity, and on why people do the fucked up things we do. Instead, this is a lot of personal speculation by the author meant to support her opinion that nothing is really evil, we’re just misunderstanding the human condition.

Whatever. Maybe that’s true. Everything is subjective and there are no firm, black-and-white rules that tell us how this shit is supposed to work so we make them up as we go along with the basic understanding that we should do our best to not hurt anyone. We learn, we grow, we allow marriage rights, abortion rights… we continue to evolve as we learn what is doing the most harm or the least.

We arrive at the conclusion that murder is wrong, hurting animals is wrong, exterminating an entire group of people because you don’t like their religion is wrong, and so is sexually abusing children.

Shaw momentarily brings up the idea that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” but abandons the point without too much exploration. Again, subjectively true, but in purely rational terms, there must be some kind of agreement on what is right and what is wrong or else we fall apart as a society.

Within those terms, dying on the hill “pedophilia is just misunderstood” is not a good look.

There were also a lot of contradicting arguments in the book. One that stood out to me was Shaw’s stance on porn – it’s not that bad and we should stop being so critical of the porn industry and those obsessed with it, and maybe we should allow porn to be used in health classes. But later in the book goes on to wag her finger at misogyny, chastising society for allowing ourselves to become over-saturated with images of women that promote an unhealthy idea of sex and women’s bodies, ultimately leading to demeaning women in society.

How are those two positions not in conflict with each other?

I just…



This whole book is filled with Nietzsche quotes in between Shaw opening up a can of worms with an opinion and then dropping the follow-up real fast without giving a full argument for her point.

Overall, I found the arguments made in the book to be easy and lacking any kind of real conviction or solid backing evidence. It’s like she just sat down and wrote a bunch of offensive questions and called it a day.

After all the op-ed style writing and soap-boxing, everything comes down to the semantics of the word “evil,” instead of the actual science behind people who have dark, objectively negative impulses and how science explains these things.

That’s the book I wanted to read. That’s not this book.


⭐⭐ | 2 stars

[Ian · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’ve long been struck by the subjectivity of the concept of evil. All over the world there are people who do harm to others, deeds that I personally view as evil, but very few of the perpetrators consider themselves to be evil. If their motives are political or religious they usually see themselves as doing good. “Ordinary” criminals often have some sense they are doing wrong but will justify their actions to themselves by victim-blaming. There are other means through which people who do harmful things absolve themselves, at least in their own minds.

The author touches on this subjectivity early in the book, by telling her readers that “I guarantee that somebody thinks you’re evil.” Initially I found this a bit disconcerting – I consider myself a fairly inoffensive sort of fellow – but of course the author is right. To return to the example of political or religious extremists, members of extremist groups often consider anyone outside their group as evil.

Unfortunately, after this strong start my interest in the book fell away. I suppose I expected the book to pose moral questions without being preachy about them, but after the first few chapters this book became very, very preachy. We got lots of statements like “This is a call for action to…”, “I encourage you to…”, and “We need a revolution in…”. One of the author’s main themes is that factors such as peer-group pressure and the “bystander effect” mean that we are all complicit in wrongdoing.

I did have one or two of my prejudices challenged, which is worthwhile, but I also felt that much of the book was at quite a basic level. I didn’t feel as if I came away with many new insights. At other times, such as in the chapter on technology, I found the author’s arguments unconvincing. I was surprised that near the end the author quoted the results of the “Stanford Prison Experiment”, the veracity of which has been fiercely disputed (in this case she did acknowledge that the results are disputed).

Some parts of this are worthwhile but overall I found it a bit of a disappointment.

[Angela · Rating 1 out of 5]

Warning: really long rant ahead.

I don’t give many books 1* as I can usually find a thing or two about a book that I enjoyed. Ultimately, I found Julia Shaw’s book so frustrating I’m surprised I even finished it.

First, I’d like to start by saying that as a fan of true crime, sinister stories, and exploring the “dark side”, I waited anxiously for this book to hit the shelves.

Make no mistake about it. “Evil” is NOT a science-backed exploration of humanity’s dark side. It is rife with the author’s personal opinions and eye-rolling anecdotes. I did not expect to pick up a book full of opinions on: the ineffectiveness of our prison system, if we should avoid judging murderers because we make “mistakes” too, why we should normalize peadophilia, and whether we all have the impulse to harm animals as a mechanism to protect our brain from too much cute.

Uh, what.

Here are some quotes from the first 10% that should have been a sign to slam this book shut and walk away.

“Think about the worst thing you have ever done. Something that you are probably ashamed of [...] Infidelity. Theft. Lying. Now imagine everyone knew about it. Judged you for it. [...] For our decisions we see the nuances, the circumstances, the difficulties. For others we often just see the outcome of their decisions. This leads us to define human beings, in all their complexity, by a single heinous term. Murderer. Rapist.”

So, we should not summarize a murderer’s character with the label “murderer” because we make mistakes too?! Why would someone attempt to use actions such as lying/infidelity/theft to defend someone who commits murder? This is quite the mental jump to make. If we didn’t label a murderer as a murderer, would that help them to not murder again? Truly struggling here.

“... entire books have been written about [Hitler’s] motivations, his personality and his actions. People have long wanted to know why, and how, he became the man we know [...] instead of dissecting the particulars of his actions, I want us to focus our attention on just one question: if you could go back in time, would you kill baby Hilter?”

“One unexpected situation in which our sadistic tendencies seem to show themselves is in the presence of cute animals. Have you ever seen a puppy that was so adorable that you just couldn’t handle it? Where you felt like you wanted to take your hands and squeeze it’s floppy little face really hard? Some animals are just so cute that we feel a bit like we want to hurt them.”

I can’t. First 10% of the book people.

WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?! Don’t put science in the title of your book if your aim is to simply preach your biased opinion and throw shock-jock style questions at your readers. I wanted to read a scientific insight into the dark parts of the human condition, not Shaw’s personal, anecdotal speculation of whether evil humans are just misunderstood.

And yes, she mentions some scientific studies, both obscure and infamous, but she does a poor job tying them to the points she is trying to make. Also, this is the 8,000th book to cite the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram Shock Experiment, and Shaw offers nothing new or compelling to the analysis of these studies. Not even the Nietzsche quotes in between chapters could save this one for me.

For the love of Ted Bundy, please don’t shelve this under “Science”.



Summer Reading Challenge 2/27
Stranger than Fiction - “Read a non-fiction book published this year”

[Julie · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is evil? What makes certain choices and actions evil? Does evil exist independently? Or does it need an opposite...good...to manifest? Is evil subjective....or universal?

Dr. Julia Shaw takes a close in-depth look at evil in her new book. But this isn't the sort of book that most might expect. It isn't a bloody dissection of evil behavior in detail, or a discussion of pros and cons about punishment or treatment for those who commit serious acts of violence or crime. Dr. Shaw instead looks at the science behind human behavior. She points out in her introduction that her book is NOT about philosophy, morality, religious views or about punishment/consequences for aberrant behavior....it's about WHY human beings do the things they do, what in the makeup of human beings allows violent or evil choices, and what behaviors seem to be present in a person to make them capable of evil. Dr. Shaw breaks down the wide concept of "Evil'' into smaller pieces, using science to explain human behavior.

I read my way through this tome about the nature of evil slowly and thoughtfully. I wanted to give my brain time to formulate its opinions on Dr. Shaw's theories. For me, the idea that any human being can be capable of evil in certain situations is chilling and disturbing. I'm not saying that it isn't true....I'm saying that it is a rough revelation. We all want to see ourselves as the "good'' separated from those we see as "evil'' -- murderers, rapists, criminals, pedophiles, etc. But are we really separate? Interesting theories. Very interesting facts and explanations. Definitely thought provoking, but also disturbing. I had a hard time getting through the entire book. Not because I didn't like it or believe it...but because there is a lot of hard truth and a lot to digest/think over.

This book has definitely started some interesting discussions in our household....my husband and I are still debating what we think about the nature of evil and what situations might lead us to make an "evil'' choice. We had a long discussion this morning about how we perceive those who commit evil acts...do we see them as a person who committed an evil act...or do we judge them as an intrinsically evil person. Are there levels of evil? Are there really "evil'' people...and can "evil'' people have portions of themselves that are good? I think this book is going to be spurring debate in my household for some time to come. Healthy debate is a good thing!

Evil: The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side hits on some rough subjects -- sadism, murder, deviance, group violence, terrorism, effects of technology/the internet and others.

I have respect for Dr. Shaw's education and her theories. I did my best to understand her points, although my educational background is not in psychology. But I think at times she goes a step or so too far....maybe tries to make things a bit too clinical? I haven't thought over it enough to know if I think that way because she actually does go too far, or if her straight forward opinions about our tendencies to be judgmental make me uncomfortable. Food for thought...and discussion...

All in all, I liked this book because it really made me think. I don't necessarily agree with all of Dr. Shaw's points, but I'm at least willing to seriously think it over and try to wrap my mind around it.

**I voluntarily read an advanced readers copy of this book from Abrams Press via NetGalley. All opinions expressed are entirely my own.**

[Cinzia DuBois · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ok, so here is why I thought this book was incredibly weak, despite me technically agreeing with the author's position in many ways.

Let's state the obvious: you can't apply a scientific approach to language. This was all about the psychology of how people employ the term rather than the psychological impediments driving people to do bad things. This was it's first and major flaw.

The "science" behind evil teetered between many arguments which all cancelled each other out:
1. There's no such thing as evil
2. We should be empathetic to people who do "evil" things as they have mental health issues/personality disorder/had a hard life
3. You do stuff other people think is evil (such as being gay or supporting abortion) so who are you to say things like rape and child pornography are evil when you stand up for the former
4. You can think people do evil things, but you have to prioritise feeling empathy as that's more productive.

I'm someone who is very "be kind to everyone" type of person and "don't inflict harm or violence as any justification is turtles all the way down" but... there's a reason people invented language. "Evil" is not a technical term and it's up for debate as to what constitutes as evil. However, the same principles can be applied to all subjective terms, such as "selfish". Some people act in ways others regard as selfish & others don't think it's selfish. Does that mean selfishness does not exist? Should we stop using the term selfish?

Most words are not categorical, & they're certainly not a science.

You can't apply scientific logic to people's employment of language to determine it's worthiness. Furthermore, I found the author's insistence that we look upon people such as Ted Bundy with empathy without her ever addressing these people's lack of empathy for their victims an interesting take? Surely this overlooks a major insight here. Why is it that there are people who have the ability to look upon people like Ted Bundy and employ empathy whilst there are people like Ted Bundy who are incapable of reciprocating? Surely that in of itself is worth scientific exploration, and perhaps a dissonance that can be generically explained by the term "evil"? Technically yes, it's not a scientific term, but again, I return to my example of "selfish". No word is scientific, but they are useful cursors.

Finally, her scientific stance went too far in terms of ignoring the reality of things. I know one academically can't make generalisations, but to say that child rape "MAY" cause harm to victims is like trying to be academically sound when saying being stabbed repeatedly "MAY" hurt.

The people reading this book are likely not those who think queer people or abortions are evil for example, BUT she didn't challenge those people who do think that way AT ALL, even if they did read the book. She talked about the wrongness of prescribing the term evil to Hitler, pedophiles, murderers and rapists.

Asking those of us who see murder, war, pedophilia and rape as evil to "check in on our empathy before using a generic term" while not speaking to people who see being gay, trans, a working woman, someone who seeks abortion, people of different religions as evil was an...interesting choice.
But yeah. Every day I'm reminded of how bigots, despite their political affiliation, maintain zero empathy for those they hate, from internet commenters to JK Rowling & governments.

They never take a pause to check in on their bigotry, & as a leftist, I'm tired of doing the emotional labour

[Krista · Rating 3 out of 5]

We make evil when we label something so. Evil exists as a word, as a subjective concept. But I firmly believe there is no person, no group, no behaviour, no thing that is objectively evil. Perhaps evil only really exists in our fears.

I like books about the brain and human behaviour, and I thought that Julia Shaw's Evil:The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side might give insight into what makes this “dark side” tick. But that's not really what this book is about. The TL;DR is that we are all capable of doing harm to each other, each society has a different definition of “harm”, and none of us deserve to be labelled for life by the worst act we've ever done (as determined by the society we live in). I get that “othering” people as monsters does nothing to eliminate behaviour that most of us consider deviant, but with very little actual science and many snarky personal asides, this read more like an opinion piece than even Buzzfeed-level pop science. Not really what I expected or wanted. (Note: I read an ARC and passages quoted might not be in their final forms.)

We may think that our labelling of others as evil or bad is rational, and our behaviour towards such individuals justified, but the distinction may be more trivial than we expect. I want to help you explore the similarities between the groups of people you consider evil and yourselves, and to engage with a critical mind to try and understand them...Let me help you find your evil empathy.

It's a useful example for Shaw to point out that there are countries in the world that still have a death penalty for homosexuality – most of us in the West see that while those who think of homosexuality as evil feel justified in throwing “offenders” from rooftops, they are very wrong. So, what are we wrong about here? Shaw basically says that there is no behaviour that anyone engages in that we are not all capable of, and it's more useful to talk about ways to improve society than throw around the label “evil”. For example, rapists are a product of rape culture:

Are those who sexually assault evil? They are certainly often portrayed as such. Unfortunately from the cases we do know about, sexual assault is so prevalent that if we were to send all the perpetrators to a remote island, we would see our population shrink dramatically.

What she recommends is “better sexual socialisation”, and to “treat the women of the world as capable, complex, fully formed human beings, who are not inferior to men.” Shaw has similar thoughts on slavery's relationship to the society it operates within:

I think that enslaving someone is one of the worst things we can do to another human being, but calling slavery evil feels like letting slaveholders off the hook. It is greedy. It is selfish. It is harmful. But it's the result of broken systems and an individual's broken values rather than some fundamental and immutable aberration within the slaveholder.

And I'm not arguing against that: slavery used to be normalised in the West and is still practised here by the “greedy” and “selfish” in the shadows; but can't "greedy" and "selfish" still be evil? It was more challenging for me (in a very large section on sexuality) to think of pedophilia as a sexual orientation instead of an active choice, and Shaw urges us to see it as natural (and unharmful if not acted on) so that pedophiles can feel safe to open up about their urges and seek help.

By trying to understand paedophilia we are not dismissing the realities of child sexual abuse, nor are we condoning or normalising the issue. Instead, we can work towards a world where we are in a better position to deal with the reality of the issue. Paedophilia has always existed, and always will. Flippantly dismissing it as an aberration helps no one.

On murder, Shaw sees no evil: a person who has killed once in the heat of the moment doesn't deserve to be labelled a murderer; even Jeffrey Dahmer was apparently just lonely.

When we start to scratch below their scary surface, even the worst killers turn out to be human beings. And, looking at the data, it seems that human beings largely kill for the same reasons that they do many other things – to find human connections, to protect their families, to achieve their goals, to acquire things they think they need. They do it to deal with basic human emotions like anger and jealousy, lust and greed, betrayal and pride...If your murder fantasies were deeper, and you had less to lose, you too might act on them.

Right up to Hitler, Shaw refuses to use the label “evil” to describe anyone. Beyond the chapters on criminal behaviour, I didn't get anything out of the section on why new technology (and particularly AI) shouldn't be labelled evil, and the section on corporate greed, third world working conditions, and factory farming (Shaw is a vegan) felt more woke than sciencey. And as for the science, most of the research quoted were variations on the Trolley Dilemma, the Milgram (shock button) Experiment and the (generally discredited today) Stanford Prison Experiment that I studied at university a hundred years ago.

When we understand what leads to harm, we can begin to fight against it. This involves taking action to stop harm, fighting against our own urges to do harm, and helping people who have done harm to get better. And whatever we stand for, fight for, feel for, we must never dehumanise people.

I'm all for stopping harm, and I'm not arguing against the idea that understanding is the first step to fixing anything. But this wasn't really a science book. And it didn't really convince me that some people's actions don't deserve to be called by a name that marks them as outside the range of acceptable human behaviour. Three stars is a rounding up.

[Daniel Chaikin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is good fun, but it's not the solid source I hoped. I agree with all of Shaw's conclusions (see below), but the arguments here aren't very strong and I have issues with that. I felt the logic wasn't always carefully worked out or worded well. And I was really bothered by her writing, occasionally, "But is it evil? I think not." That's a terrible tie-in to the book's overall theme.

I'm not sure the book is lazy, but I want to say it is. What it actually is, is tilted. The author begins with her conclusion, and then develops the arguments to prove them true. And, yes, lots of corners are cut. I expected a clear deep look into the meaning of evil, the roots of the concept and some of its evolution and an effort to try to understand how that concept is applied today. Then, I was expecting this foundation to be revisited over and over again throughout the book. It's not there. I don't recall her spending any time defining the term (although I'm a very imperfect listener), at least she definitely never revisits it. Instead, she refers to Nietzsche, and paraphrases him as suggesting all evil is subjective. It's an interesting source, but it's not really a baseline for the entire concept. And that's a big flaw. The whole concept of the book rests on the definition - and the base assumptions, and they simply aren't there in any solid way.

As a light pop-science entertainment book, this was fun enough. She has a whole chapter titled, Kinky as F**k, about how a lot sexual deviance is pretty much universal. She looks a lot of different experiments and leaves the reader thinking about perception, and especially how, over and over again, people are led to do terrible pain-inflicting things without protesting, accepting their actions as normal. And she has gifted us with this terrific (if under-supported within) summary at the end:

1. calling people evil is lazy
2. all brains are a bit sadistic
3. we are all capable of murder
4. our creepiness radars suck
5. technology can amplify dangerousness
6. sexual deviance is pretty common
7. all monsters are human
8. money distracts from harm
9. culture cannot excuse cruelty
10. we MUST speak of the unspeakable

-----------------------------------------------

15. Evil: The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side by Julia Shaw
reader: Teri Schnaubelt
published: 2018
format: 7:73 audible audiobook (288 pages in hardcover)
acquired: Feb 21
listened: Feb 21 – Mar 4
rating: 4
locations: N/A
about the author A German-Canadian psychologist, born in 1987 in Cologne.

[Guille · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lo primero que hay que tener en cuenta al abordar la lectura de este libro es que su carácter es meramente divulgativo. No es un estudio profundo ni tampoco especialmente novedoso de ninguno de los temas que trata. Sin embargo, sí es un buen libro como introducción a ciertas cuestiones, provocativo al cuestionar algunas ideas y capaz de romper esquemas. En definitiva, un buen punto de inicio para la reflexión.

Se le reprocha a la autora que recurra a justificaciones biológicas y ambientales de los actos, lo que disminuye, argumentan, la carga de responsabilidad sobre los mismos olvidándose del libre albedrío. Ante este tipo de críticas siempre me he preguntado cuál es la alternativa a basar nuestros actos en la combinación estructura cerebral/experiencia vital, ¿el azar? (nada descartable, por otro lado), porque yo no veo otra posibilidad y no creo que la gente piense en el azar cuando se refiere al libre albedrío y habla de responsabilidades.

Por último, se le critica por convertir en banales los actos de maldad. En mi opinión, su tesis no les quita importancia ni gravedad, simplemente llama la atención sobre el hecho de que esos actos no están perpetrados por monstruos o enfermos.

Y sin más tardanza, expongo aquí su tesis: todos somos susceptibles de actuar mal en algún sentido si se dan las condiciones necesarias “influenciados por una combinación de sus cerebros, sus disposiciones y los sistemas sociales en los que viven”; nadie se escapa de tener algún rasgo o comportamiento maligno, de hecho, la gente comete actos malos con mucha frecuencia. Comprender esto puede ayudarnos a comprender, que no justificar, el origen de ciertos actos y ayudarnos a enfrentarnos a ellos.

“Los actos malvados no son necesariamente los hechos de hombres malvados, sino que pueden ser atribuibles a la operación de poderosas fuerzas sociales… saber cuán fácilmente nos deslizamos hacia los malos comportamientos, alentados por los grupos en los que trabajamos, puede ayudarnos a detectar y detener nuestra propia radicalización”

El mal, y leyendo este libro uno se da buena cuenta de ello, es como el tiempo para San Agustín: “Si nadie me pregunta qué es el tiempo, lo sé, pero si me lo preguntan y quiero explicarlo, ya no lo sé”. Los límites entre el bien y el mal son tan difusos que lo que en algunas sociedades es considerado aceptable para otras puede ser aberrante. Incluso dentro de la misma sociedad las personas disienten sobre la calificación moral de ciertos actos.

"No existen fenómenos morales, sino solo una interpretación moral de los fenómenos" Nietzsche

Es más, nosotros mismos podemos cambiar de parecer en una situación concreta bajo algún tipo de presión (estrés, desesperación, miedo…) o autoengaño (el dinero es un gran desviador del daño). Shaw señala dos procesos mentales que favorecen la irresponsabilidad en el mal cometido: las deshumanización del otro como ser humano y la desindividuación o el sentimiento de sentirse anónimo, de formar parte de un grupo más grande que diluye nuestra responsabilidad y aumenta nuestra capacidad de hacer daño a los demás.

“… los humanos matan en gran medida por las mismas razones por las que hacen muchas otras cosas. Para encontrar una conexión humana, para proteger a sus familias, para lograr sus metas, para conseguir las cosas que creen necesitar. Lo hacen para lidiar con emociones tan básicas como la ira y los celos, la lujuria y la codicia, la traición y el orgullo”

Shaw expone que todos nos encontramos en algún punto de la línea que une la maldad y la bondad, que no hay una quiebra entre malos y buenos, que nuestro cerebro está dotado de la capacidad de causar daños a nuestros semejantes, además de personas con ciertas características cerebrales particulares que las favorecen. Los rasgos que definen a los malvados —psicosis, narcisismo, maquiavelismo y sadismo— están presentes en cada uno de nosotros e incluso son rasgos favorecidos en la consecución de objetivos de algunas actividades humanas.

“Las cosas que a menudo llamamos malas son parte de la experiencia humana. Puede que no nos gusten las consecuencias, pero las tendencias humanas no son inherentemente buenas ni malas, simplemente son… el fundamento de muchas de las cosas que nos llevan a hacer daño también nos lleva a hacer cosas de las que se beneficia la sociedad”

En definitiva, todos somos potencialmente malos en algún grado, lo que no implica que estemos determinados a actuar mal ni mucho menos que esos actos estén justificados.

[Viola · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ļoti interesanta tēma, bet autore mēģina ļoti daudz informācijas ietilpināt vienā grāmatā, lai gan būtībā katra nodaļa būtu savas grāmatas vērta. Līdz ar to sanāk daudziem jautājumiem pievērsties ļoti vispārināti. Tāda nepabeigtības un steigas sajūta.

[Austra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lieliska grāmata, kuru derētu izlasīt ikvienam, lai drusku pārdomātu savas attieksmes un to, kā mēs ikviens ar saviem vārdiem un darbiem vai savu klusēšanu atbalstām un veicinām ļaunumu. Lai arī grāmatai ir savi mīnusi, tā tomēr rosina svarīgu sarunu ar sevi.

Plašāk izrakstījos blogā - https://oysternotes.wordpress.com/202...

[Mill · Rating 2 out of 5]

*Edited: the name of the book I referred.

Quite a hard one to rate. I attended the author’s talk which was rather fun and raises many interesting topics and convinced me to buy the book.

There are some very strong chapters which make one look into the abyss called humanity and recognise the complexities that goes beyond “that person does evil things, they are so inhuman”. I think we’re so prone to assign responsibilities when things go wrong to a specific person/group, because the alternative that such “evil” things are so natural to human and a combination of environment and chance can lead us there too. It is also more comforting to think that once we eliminate the person who wronged, we’ll be safe. I appreciate the chapters that call for more nuances in thinking about “evil”. The research underlying this topic is therefore relevant to discussions on criminal justice, terrorism, norms, and philosophy in general. I wish there are even more discussion on research though. Sometimes the book just stops short when I want to know more - but too lazy to go hunt the paper myself, which is why I buy a pop-sci book. Well, guess I’ll be rarely satisfied.

Other chapters, however, are filled with personal opinions and calls to actions. The former is acceptable, just not what I expect from this book and I feel “dilutes” the content. The latter, however, is really grating and feel patronising especially when the calls to action are quite hollow and superficial. I could have been more generous had there were evaluations of how effective such actions are rather than speculation.

(Below is...just ranting which doesn’t really benefit anyone deciding whether to read or not, but I want an outlet.)
I believe this book would really benefit from better editing especially in terms of consistency of tones (which range from conversational with actual “WTF” in it to a more formal arguments), and also in terms of the overall structure. The inconsistent tone just makes the book reads like separate articles bound together and is a bit distracting. Secondly, since the book doesn’t aim at exploring exhaustively the list of “evils” (not that that were ever possible), the order of the chapters could have had more flows connecting one to the next. It seems weird to me to read about AI ethics and then follow up immediately by sexual deviancy. Minor issue, yes, but when the ordering is done well, like in Brief Answers to the Big Questions, the emerging trends or the thread ties everything together can turn a book into an elegant piece of writing and more importantly, help readers grasp the underlying theme easier.

(Last point, I just wonder how one can be sure that subjects in the experiments will tell the truth or how the researcher could verify the claim. For example, for surveys on sexual deviancy. Perhaps most people are not pathological liars, but still. This assumption seems to be quite different from experimental economics which seems to assume the results are not really reliable unless one can be sure that the agents have no incentives to lie.)

[Jess Shanks · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book legitimately let me down. Let's count the reasons:

1) This book sets up your expectations to be about about the SCIENCE behind humanities dark side, which puts a certain type of book in mind. This book is not that book.

2) Once you get past the improper naming of this book, she leads you down a path of "evil is subjective", "most things you think are evil, aren't actually evil", and then finally, "the word 'evil' shouldn't even exist" - paraphrased, of course.

3) She attempts to make points out of loosely thrown together correlations that don't even make sense.

4) The entire point of this book really comes down to her issue that she takes up with the word "evil" itself. This book is about semantics, not the science behind humanity's dark side.

[Mairita (Marii grāmatplaukts) · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5 zvaigznes, jo dažās vietās doma šķita apraujamies, neizstāstot līdz galam. Bet vispār ļoti interesanta grāmata, ko būtu vērts izlasīt daudz lielākam cilvēku skaitam nekā tas notiks. Teksts var likt justies neērti, jaunas zināšanas skrāpēsies smadzenēs, var pat sašust par noteiktiem apgalvojumiem, jo esam pieraduši ļaunumu vienkāršot, skatīties uz to noteiktā veidā, bet te mūs spiež palūkoties plašāk. Šī grāmata varētu būt arī 3x biezāka, jo ļaunuma koncepts ir sarežģīts un ļaunuma izpausmes daudzveidīgas.

[Katja H · Rating 2 out of 5]

It started out pretty strong but the longer it went on the weirder it got.
Stopped taking it seriously after she claimed that rapists, murderers and paedophiles are not evil (arguably true) but meat-eaters definitely are..

[Amirography · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be honest, I'm disappointed. Her book on fake memories was very educational and interesting. And the sentiment and courage behind this book were amazing. But the content in this book was not as detailed and interesting as I hoped. Her citations and arguments did not impress me. I mean relying on Zimbardo's Standford prison experiment was disappointing, as anyone who dug deep into this experiment would know how fraudulent, unreliable, questionable and unreplicated this so-called experiment was. And the chapter on AI? Relying on Hawking and Musks arguments? Are you kidding me? There are good arguments against AI, but the only interesting thing about Hawking and Musks anti-AI arguments is that how can a genius in one field be so stupid in another.
Again, the sentiment behind this book was amazing. But the execution was highly disappointing. I would have given her a worse rating if it wasn't for the courage and progressive thinking that this book would have taken.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shaw's main question for her readers is this: should we as a society be using the word evil? Is it okay to label someone evil, in turn forever damning them for their bad decisions? Shaw doesn't think we should - that there are many facets of someone 'turning evil' and that we need to do better to understand these people's behaviors (like pedophilia or psychopathy) instead of deeming them less than. I tend to not agree with Shaw's hypothesis (I do think murderers should be labeled murderers for the rest of their lives!), but I was impressed with her wide array of knowledge, as well as her fascinating collection of research studies. Although at times I lost the main thread, Shaw included so much interesting information, that it didn't matter too much in the need. A great psychology read!

[Lolly K Dandeneau · Rating 4 out of 5]

via my blog: https://bookstalkerblog.wordpress.com/
'Without understanding, we risk dehumanizing others, writing off human beings simply because we don’t comprehend them.'

That is a loaded sentence and Evil is a strange beast, one we can’t ever contain because it’s slippery. The face of evil changes with time, what is evil today may be the norm tomorrow. One thing this book will do is make you squirm, because when discussing evil we remove ourselves from the equation until someone points out that ignorance is no excuse either. Oh yes, you and me too. Think about consumerism, all those things we just have to have on the backs of the broken. I have such a disgust for child abusers, but the truth is, Shaw raises solid arguments on why dehumanizing anyone actually hurts us all in the end. How can we learn and create a safe environment if we really don’t understand the why of it all? How can we understand the why of anything if we rush to label a person or thing evil? End of story, you’re nothing like me, you’re evil! Nothing else to see here, we’ve decided it’s just evil. I realize that is a huge mistake.

Someone thinks you are evil too, be it for your religious beliefs or lack thereof, maybe even the country you live in, or your sexual preferences. Julia Shaw’s book can start some very interesting conversations and you can bet not everyone is going to agree. This is not for the light reader, the subject is very heavy. You are not meant to feel sorry for people who are attracted to children or animals, to most of us this is beyond vile, repulsive but it doesn’t change that such people exist and struggle with these ‘urges’. Do you see what I mean, this is a tough read! It’s hard to review, because these are subjects we find downright abhorrent and, admittedly, evil. Like a dead rotting thing, we do not want to acknowledge it’s there, bury it, let someone else deal with it. Tell me though, what about people who have evil thoughts but never act on them? Or their forbidden urges? How do we help them, prevent these thoughts from escalating into acts? Can we? What a slippery slope!

This book will challenge your notions of bad and good, much in the same way age blurs that line. As children, we are reared on stories teaching us morality, many meant to keep us in line or safe, to make sure we become upstanding citizens. As we age, life kicks us, we struggle, we make mistakes because we are human and flawed. We all want to be understood, forgiven our mistakes, and yet if someone’s darkest deed is out in the open, it’s less easy to move on because it’s all we can see, an ever-present stain. Not everything should be forgiven, we have laws for a reason, but we must understand or we gain nothing. In all fairness though, often some criminals do prove that they shouldn’t be trusted and commit the same crimes over and over. What about that?

Regarding our impressions based on looks (someone looks evil, weird, creepy) it is true we are biased. Surely someone who is beautiful, well-kempt, and eloquent gains the trust of many, and often to our detriment. Our visual perception is deeply flawed, just as much as we trust beauty we are put off by those with unusual deformities, unfairly so. I agree with the idea that people often feel someone must deserve their suffering, we see it every day. This made me wonder… if someone looks ‘creepy’ to everyone they meet, they would certainly be treated suspiciously, it wouldn’t be so far-fetched to imagine it affects their interactions and sours them socially. Why not, I would certainly be sick and tired of people myself always having an adverse reaction to me based on looks I had no choice in. On the flip side, I thought the same is true for those with stunning looks who do have depth and maybe have a hard time knowing who genuinely likes them as a person, rather than wanting them based on their beauty alone. Between the two though, people often stumble over themselves to help attrractive people. I refuse to touch on mental illness and the disgusting lack of understanding the whole world over, it’s such a mess even in our ‘modern age’. People are downright terrified of mental illness, it’s no wonder with popular culture and films, the mentally ill, if you believe Hollywood, are all serial killers. People are downright uncomfortable the moment they hear whisper of ‘mental illness’, much of that is due to ignorance, poor education as a whole on the subject. See, this book leads to stray thoughts. Back to evil…

Mob mentality is a beast, it certainly seems that cruelty (evil) is easier for human beings if others are chanting alongside you. We also can be downright disgusting if there is anonymity to hide behind. Is that not evil? I have a hard time reading about the differences in cultures. My beloved uncle was an anthropologist and there were many conversations about the places he traveled, the shocking (to my American sensibilities) social norms he witnessed, many I would and do consider evil and I am adamant in my refusal to change my mind even at the risk of hypocrisy. That’s okay, I am human but I will listen at least, to your side.

Back to looks again, I agree we are biased in our judgements based on looks but I also believe in gut instincts. Personally, when I’ve ignored mine, it was a mistake. I think we have these gut reactions for a reason more often than not. Then again, I have met just as many ‘beautiful people’ that gave me a bad feeling. So there. The fact is, I would be the first to define someone as evil if they victimized my loved ones. It’s a different conversation when you experience it firsthand, I know this book isn’t about the victims, but it’s my personal feeling. I understand what Shaw is saying, and why it’s important but I don’t have to like it.

This is a provocative book. I will say, much as Shaw does, thoughts are one thing acting on them another. I hope we do someday have a way to intervene and help those with ‘unnatural urges’ (please, don’t bombard me with messages about what defines unnatural, we will be here for eternity and I mean murdering people, abuse, molestation, anything that victimizes another). I realize we victimize each other in small ways, but somehow taking someone’s life isn’t as bad as say, snapping at your child. Let’s face it, call it evil or not there are extremes that have to be measured or else society falls apart. We do need to continue studying the nature of evil, because that nature is in us all. Thank God there are others invested in this science, because for me, it would be too hard. I leave it to the experts.

An uneasy read, but I think it will give you a lot to talk about. It was hard for me to review!

Publication Date: February 27, 2019

Abrams Press

[Lynn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Three observations:
1). This is one of the dumbest books by an apparently smart person I have read in a long time.

2) I probably shouldn't have expected much from a book on ethics that offers a quote from Nietzsche before every chapter.

3) It is amazing how deeply the author is blinded to any other reality by her own social and personal preferences. She knows how the world should be, and we should just shut up and listen.

Her basic premise is true but pretty shallow: We gain little by labeling anyone or anything as "evil" and at worst we distance ourselves from facing our own moral issues by thinking that only "evil" people do bad things. No argument there.

However, her personal life totally shapes her world view. She is bisexual and has received negative feedback on that, so any sexual act is pretty much OK and simply a sign that you were made that way (up to and including sex with horses.) There is no sense that sex plays any role other than the fulfillment of personal desire. She does have to tiptoe around pedophilia but thinks we should try to keep pedophiles from doing too much harm by not controlling their desires.

She is a college professor and so sees secular business as very suspect and money as innately corrupting. Her two examples of business ethics are the Pharma Bro and Ford's decision to sell the Pinto even though they knew it could catch fire.

She is female, so any form of sexual inequality is terrible. She actually describes women as a minority group, even though they are 51% of the population.
\
Suffice it to say I was less than impressed by a book that says screwing horses is OK but interrupting a woman at work is terrible. If the point of ethics is to make her feel good, this was a very successful book. But from my point of view we examine ethical issues to find the places where they make us feel we need to improve (and not just by opposing the things she opposes.)

[Lynn Coulter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not confident at all about sharing my opinions of Julia Shaw's new book, Evil: the Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side. After all, Ms. Shaw is a senior lecturer in psychology and criminology at London South Bank University, and I have expertise in neither field.

But I just can't agree with the conclusions she draws from case studies of serial killers and criminals. I agree with her finding that readers fascinated by evil, and I understand what she means when she says different cultures may disagree on what is actually evil behavior.

Then she asks, if evil depends on a cultural definition, does evil really exist at all? She loses me entirely when she discusses serial killer/cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer as driven by loneliness. Wait. Most lonely people don't need to freeze other humans' body parts or ingest them to deal with their emotions. Some of her reasoning just doesn't mesh with common sense. I think evil actually does exist in some people, (was Hitler just lonely, too?) and that some people are so disturbed they cross moral/ethical lines.

Then again, as I said from the beginning, what do I know? I'm not a trained scientist. But I can't accept all her theories, which seem too simplistic. The book itself is well-written.

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed Bi: The Hidden Culture, History, and Science of Bisexuality, so I was curious to read some of Shaw's other works, but this one wasn't quite a hit for me. Interesting concept, and there's certainly some good stuff here, but it just wasn't quite as compelling as I wanted it to be. I was also frustrated by her use throughout the book of studies/cases that have been quite heavily contested and criticized. While she does usually mention this fact in the book when she's referring to them, she doesn't provide the details of what those controversies are, just sort of glosses over it and then continues to use them to support her claims. Super frustrating.

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an ethics instructor, I am delighted to have read Julia Shaw's book, Evil: The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side. Dr. Shaw does an outstanding job of elucidating the nuances of a rich bio-psycho-social perspective of despicable behavior. Now, I have a wealth of great examples, provocative research findings, and thoughtful questions for debate to share and help learners see the science and philosophy behind evil. Plus, reading this book was like a deliberate ride through a freak house wearing a lab coat. Thanks to the publisher for letting me enjoy this ride via Net Galley before it officially debuts with the public this fall.

[Todd Fischer · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading this you will probably find out that you are in fact.....Evil. But in the end the word is justified as being meaningless and subject to each person's determination on what is evil. Not her best book but very good nonetheless.

[Santiago Camuñas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Magnífico libro sobre el Mal. Desde un conocimiento psicológico, traza una línea sobre que es la maldad, quien la realiza, porqué, personas corrientes que cometen actos incomprensibles para el resto.

[Aislinn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hate to say this. I hate that this book is making me say this. But, alas:

To my utter dismay, this review will touch on political topics, most of which the kind that has sparked off a culture war at least once. Rather than these issues themselves, this review will focus on how they are handled in the context of this book.

If I criticize the way Shaw treats politics in this book - which I will - this has nothing to do with whether I agree with her or not. What I criticize is how politics connect, or do not connect, with the wider theme of the book. After all, I was led here because I wanted to learn more about "evil." Therefore in my review, how much I end up learning about morality is what I'm most, if not solely, concerned about.

┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅

If I had to describe this book in one word, it would be "self-indulgence." Harsh, yes, but it is the closest to what I feel as I read this.

I've always been wary of "pop science" or "pop psychology" books. In another review, I called a certain kind of popular non-fiction "Introduction to [Its Author's] Thoughts." This book falls squarely into this category.

┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅

I found myself frowning right from the introduction. I actually agree with almost everything Shaw says, such as the importance of not labeling anyone we cannot understand as "evil" and of acknowledging our own capacity to harm others. But her tone.

The tone is ostensibly calm and meditative. Yet the underlying paternal condescension is pervasive - the way your college professor remains polite and helpful while genuinely believing you to be stupid, trying to take your little hand and gently coo you to "enlightenment":

... Think about the worst thing you have ever done. Something that you are probably ashamed of, and that you know would make other people think less of you. Infidelity. Theft. Lying. Now imagine that everyone knew about it. Judged you for it. Constantly called you names arising from it. How would that feel?

We would hate for the world to forever judge us based on the acts we most regret. Yet this is what we do to others every day. For our own decisions we see the nuances, the circumstances, the difficulties. For others we often just see the outcome of their decisions. This leads us to define human beings, in all their complexity, by a single heinous term. Murderer. Rapist. Thief. Liar. Psychopath. Paedophile.

These are labels bestowed on others, based on our perception of who they must be, given their behaviour. A single word intended to summarise someone’s true character and to disparage it, to communicate to others that this person cannot be trusted. This person is harmful. This person is not really a person at all – rather some sort of horrible aberration. An aberration with whom we should not try to empathise because they are so hopelessly bad that we will never be able to understand them. Such people are beyond understanding, beyond saving, evil. (Introduction)


[But marking a] distinction [between the good "us" and evil "them"] is not only adverse for discourse and understanding, it is also fundamentally incorrect. We may think that our labelling of others as evil or bad is rational, and our behaviour towards such individuals justified, but the distinction may be more trivial than we expect. I want to help you explore the similarities between the groups of people you consider evil and yourself, and to engage with a critical mind to try and understand them.

Our reactions to deviance may ultimately tell us less about others and more about ourselves. In this book I want to encourage a curiosity, an exploration of what evil is and the lessons we can learn from science to better understand humanity’s dark side. I want you to ask questions, I want you to be hungry for knowledge, and I want to feed your hunger. Come with me on a journey to uncover the science of your living nightmares.

Let me help you find your evil empathy. (Introduction)

┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅

Hand in hand with this preachy - if not slightly messianic - tone is the staggering frequency of the pronouns "I," "we," and "you." I'm really not sure what effect Shaw is trying to create, or what book Shaw is trying to write. This is presented as an "academic" work by a respectable scholar in her field, but I find the "academic" parts clearly subordinated to the author's own philosophical musings.

These soliloquies, wondering aloud in the air, are liberally sprinkled before, during, and after her introduction of important findings in the field of moral psychology, which you would have expected to be one of the main reasons why readers bought this book.

When discussing the commonality of murder, Shaw begins her section as follows:

I really dislike typologies that try to label people who have committed murder based on the crime scenes they leave behind, or their perceived subconscious motivations – ‘By golly, I think this murderer is motivated by power. He probably still lives with his mum. Clearly, he is a deranged psychopath.’ I partially blame TV shows for making it seem that this kind of offender-profiling is interesting or useful – I think it is neither.

However, I do rather like a functional typology. In this regard, what researchers Albert Roberts and colleagues put together in a paper published in 2007 bears examination ... [which basically states in academese that murderers commit crimes for very complicated reasons.]* (Chapter 2)

The whole thing could have been written like this: People like to think that murderers can be neatly categorized. They can't. In 2007, researchers Albert Roberts and his colleagues ...

Yes, Shaw's version isn't so redundant in itself. But when almost every citation in the book begins or ends with such "lead-in/out" paragraphs, to the point where these personal musings seem more like the real content than the academic findings themselves, your patience runs out.

Take a look at this section on "men's predisposition to violence." The author argues that this "predisposition" is partly genetic, partly conditioned by society; therefore Mother Evolution doesn't justify men's tendency to use violence. That's it. But Shaw presents the same point like this:

[Archer's point about gender roles] brings me to my point of contention with evolutionary theories of aggression and murder. They can quite readily be used to argue ‘Well, that’s just how men are.’ To counter this, first of all, humans have the capacity for inhibition. This means men can choose to not act aggressively. Predispositions don’t make some people commit murder; their own decisions do that. It’s a bit like the idea that guns don’t kill people, people do. Second, maybe men murder more because society raises boys to be more disinhibited, aggressive and physically active than girls.

There is ample research on this, and I also have a relevant story that I want to share. I had a friend when I was growing up in Canada. Our status as best friends was consolidated on the first day of Grade 3, when she gave me a colourful bangle and declared that we would be friends for ever. Even though she lived almost an hour away, my parents regularly drove me to see her for playdates. On one such playdate it was her tenth birthday. We had been told to wait in her bedroom until we were called. We were excited about what her parents had planned. They called us after what seemed like an eternity, and we came running into the living room, delighted to find a pile of beautifully wrapped presents waiting for my friend.

Despite her excitement, she sat down obediently on the couch adjacent to the pile, waiting for her parents to allow her to proceed. Before she could even open the first one, her five-year-old brother stormed into the pile and started tearing the presents apart. There was gift wrap everywhere. My friend couldn’t contain her disappointment and started crying, while her parents sat by idly, clearly amused by the spectacle. They never interfered. My friend was devastated for weeks. Even at the time I recognised the double standard. It was my introduction to misogyny.

Whenever people say that boys will be boys, that sexist comments are just locker-room talk, or that men are just naturally more violent than women, I think of stories like this one. Society often gives too much leeway to destructive, aggressive and violent actions carried out by men. This is bad for women, like my friend whose birthday was ruined, but it might be even worse for men. When we rationalise male aggression as natural and normal, we accept that men are more likely to be convicted of crimes, end up in prison, and be victimised by other men. But why should our prisons be filled with men? Is this not a disastrous situation for males? Gender inequality in how we educate boys and girls on violence and aggression is hugely problematic. If we want violence and murder rates to go down, this is something we can, and must, change. (Chapter 2)

Is any part of the childhood story necessary? To spare my readers the pain, my plan was to summarize the above story rather than quote the whole thing. But no summary I have written can capture my irritation when I was reading this. So, the whole thing it is.

I'm here to learn about evil. I'm here to learn about morality. But Shaw doesn't seem to understand this - or worse, she understands it but doesn't care. Throughout the book she continues to insert her personal, not-always-relevant commentary, almost flippantly, into whatever subject she is supposedly "explaining" to us.

I actually have a whole list of such quotes that I find grating. The list alone exceeds the Goodreads character limit, which is probably a good thing. They don't add anything new to my point, so I'll just stop here and post some of the quotes in the comments instead.

Back to my review. This entire book is almost structured this way: the author begins with some random topic that, to be fair, is not unrelated to evil, such as mankind's "innate" urge to be violent; the author rambles on about her own views on things that are sort-of related to this subject; the author intersperses this with her own experiences, but also occasionally with studies that are actually quite interesting; the author catches herself, hastily tries to relate the topic back to evil, and rushes on to the next random subject that has obviously been on her mind for a long time and needs to be vented.

┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅

And this is where I get political. For, once again, to my utter dismay, the author's "own views" on the subject of evil are intimately bound up with her political stance. At some point, this book seems more like a political call to arms than an introduction to the moral psychology of evil.

In 2017, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) relationships were still a criminal offence in seventy-four countries ... [But just] because they aren’t visible or accepted, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Does it make you furious that LGBTQIPA+ individuals are treated as criminals? Or, even worse, as non-existent? Are you intolerant of other people’s intolerance, because we aren’t like that? It can be easy to villainise those who villainise others. I, for example, am intolerant of people who are homophobic. But it is also important to discuss issues that are dear to us with people who disagree with us. Even if there is just a greater understanding won, from either side, such discussions can help to humanise and destigmatise. In particular, minority and underprivileged groups can benefit from voices added to the discussion, someone sticking up for them. (Chapter 5)


[But even] in a society that claims to be ‘OK’ with LGBTQIPA+ individuals, coming out is hard. I am an advocate for the LGBTQIPA+ community, but rarely do I feel comfortable sharing my own sexuality. And as someone who presents as totally hetero-normative, my sexuality is also never called into question. She’s feminine-looking, of course she’s straight.

I am part of a particular group of people who are fetishised by the heterosexual community, but also don’t feel like they quite belong in the queer community. According to my own experience, and two researchers who study this, Milaine Alarie and Stephanie Gaudet, members of my group are often told that ‘it’s just a phase’, that I am being ‘greedy’, or even that I’m ‘doing it for the attention of men’. I am part of a mostly invisible group. A sexual orientation that heterosexuals rate more negatively than being homosexual, and that homosexuals rate more negatively than being heterosexual.

And, you know what? Fuck invisibility.

I am bisexual. (Chapter 5)


I’m the first ‘openly’ bisexual person most of my students have ever met. And in return I can see the strength build in my LGBTQIPA+ students, the sense of community and safety, the desire to tell their own stories. Some for the first time. It’s beautiful. (Chapter 5)


We fear that which we do not know. Be brave. Only transparency can help elicit the cultural change that we need.

Let the rainbow flag soar. (Chapter 5)

I'm sure you get the point. Now let's move on to perhaps my biggest problem with the book.

┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅

For all of Shaw's "progressiveness," and all of her preaching about the evils of "dehumanisation" and "deindividuation," this book comes across as extremely narrow in its definition of "humanity."

First and foremost: All the research Shaw cites to shed light on the darkest recesses of the "human" soul has been carried out in Western countries, specifically in North-Western Europe, North America, and perhaps Australia. Take the chapter on paedohebephilia as an example: in order to show how many paedohebephiles there are in the world, Shaw first quotes a study carried out solely in the UK; being a responsible academic, she immediately asks: "Does this apply to other parts of the world?" She then cites a study by a Canadian researcher who seems to have successfully estimated the number of paedohebephiles in the "general population" - by conducting surveys in Germany, Norway, and Finland.

(Shaw doesn't even mention where those surveys were conducted. Like many other studies she cites, she nonchalantly hands out the figures as indisputable fact. In the case of this study, she provides no more than one sentence of context: "In 2014, Michael Seto, a Canadian researcher who has studied how many men have sexual thoughts or fantasies about children around the world ..." I find out the scope of Seto's and Shaw's "world" by going to the bibliography and pulling up the source myself, which is the exact same BBC article I've linked.)

But what's more: this book doesn't even take a strictly "Western" angle. Soon, Shaw is off on tangents about gun control, Twitter, LGBT rights, veganism, capitalism, #MeToo, and others. Soon, the definition of "humanity" and "we" will shrink from Westerners to progressive Westerners.

This shift happens so quickly and so unabashedly, it is hardly a shift at all. Right from the start, Shaw decides that the "humanity" in the subtitle of her book - and thus the "we" in the book - will be limited to a very specific group of people with a very specific set of values in a very specific region of the world.

Once again: it's not about whether the book's opinions are "right" or "wrong." It is about how self-debilitating its approach is.

In a book about the truths of "humanity," Shaw treats the vast majority of humanity living outside the West as non-existent. In a book that has jumped to the defense of - or given a voice to, depending on your view - murderers, paedophiles, human traffickers, and sociopathic CEOs, Shaw refuses to consider readers who hold different political views to hers as worthy of being part of her audience.

All of this makes her plea for "humanisation" all the more hollow, her paternalistic tone all the more grating.

┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅┄┅

But believe this or not: I actually think the book contains many profound insights. Even though I just trashed this part, but I do find Shaw's final message quite moving:

And whatever we stand for, fight for, feel for, we must never dehumanise each other. (Conclusion)

Perhaps the reason why I feel so salty is because I agree with Shaw's main reason for writing this book. To acknowledge that no man knows anything about mankind is the first step towards understanding mankind.

I still want to learn more about evil. Shaw might not have taught me much; but I am left with silent hope that one day I will come across a book that meets my needs, as long as there are people, like Shaw, who are willing to try and understand.

In the world, everyone knows enough to pursue what he does not know, but no one knows enough to pursue what he already knows. Everyone knows enough to condemn what he takes to be no good, but no one knows enough to condemn what he has already taken to be good. (Zhuangzi)

(This is quoted from Zhuangzi, but translated by Burton Watson in his The Complete Works of Zhuangzi, published by Columbia University Press.

That said, I actually prefer Pierre Ryckmans' translation:

People all seek to know what they do not know yet; they ought rather to seek to know what they know already.

Unfortunately, this version is missing the second part of the quote - the part about condemning what you like along with what you don't like. I think that message is too important in the context of this review to be left out.)

[Sandra Koka (pielasit_sirdi)]

"Ļaujiet man jums palīdzēt izjust empātiju pret ļauno." (18.lpp.)



Džūlija Šova mēģina mūs izmest no laivas un mainīt mūsu uzskatus par ļaunuma konceptu.

Kas ir ļaunums? Vai ikviens no mums ir spējīgs uz ļaunu rīcību un sadismu?! Vai monstri, kas pastrādājuši brutālus noziegumus ir tādi paši cilvēki kā mēs?!

Psiholoģijas zinātniece Džūlija Šova savā zinātniskajā pētījumā apskata ļaunuma dažādās izpausmes, pieķeroties tādām tēmām kā pornogrāfija, pedofilīja, paverdzināšana, terorisms, slepkavības un daudzas citas. Izmantojot dažādus pētījumus, Šova mēģina attainot un izskaidrot ļaunuma dažādās šķautnes, pievēršot uzmanību, ka ikviens no mums ir spējīgs uz ļaunu rīcību.



"Pētnieki secināja, ka regulāru maltīšu ieturēšana, lai uzturētu cukura līmeni, palīdzētu samazināt agresiju attiecībās."(35.lpp.)



Lai nebiedē zinātniskais aspekts, "Ļaunuma rašanās" ir kodolīga un interesanta lasāmviela, kas liks daudz domāt, filosofēt un atbildēt uz kompromitējošiem jautājumiem. Bieži vien abstrahējoties no ļaunuma koncepta, dehumanizējot "ļaunos cilvēkus", mēs izliekamies, ka ļaunums uz mums neattiecas, bet vērojot pasaulē notiekošo, cilvēku rīcība atkal un atkal no jauna pārliecina, ka cilvēce no kļūdām nemācās un ikviens konkrētā situācijā var pieņemt lēmumus, kas citkārt liktos neiespējami.



"Ļauno un labo cilvēku" definēšana manu prātu nomocījusi jau agrāk, tā kā man ļoti patīk patieso kriminālo sēriju filmas, šis jautājums arvien uzpeld no jauna. Vai "labs cilvēks" pastrādājot noziegumu, automātiski skaitās "ļauns cilvēks"? Vai mēs tikai to definējam kā ļaunu rīcību. Un otrādāk. Šova savā pētījumā pierāda, ka ikvienam no mums ir iespēja uz šādu rīcību.



"..Amerikas kultūra savā ziņā izauklē sērijveida slepkavas, it īpaši ņemot vērā neticamo popularitāti, ko prese velta cilvēkiem." (68.lpp.)



Interesants aspekts, ko apskata Šova, ir mūsu viedoklis par skaistiem cilvēkiem, kas var būt maldinošs un nespēt izvērtēt reālo situāciju. Arī skaistus noziedzniekus mēs tiecamies idealizēt un mīkstināt tiem sodu.



"Ja kāds ir pievilcīgs, mūsu baiļu filtrs nekavējoties sabojājas." (77.lpp.)



"..atmiņas ir nevis precīzi pagātnes pieraksti, bet gan līdzīgas Vikipēdijas lappusēm- tās ir konstruktīvas un rekonstruktīvas. Jūs varat tās rediģēt un mainīt, un to pašu var darīt citi cilvēki." (15.lpp.)





3.7 zvaigznes

[Dienne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Before I begin I have just one question for Ms. Shaw: Would you choose to live next to a known serial child predator if you had kids?

The answer, by the terms of her own book, should be, sure, why not? After all, he's not evil, just misunderstood. That is the overarching message of this book: there is no evil, only that which we label evil. But throughout the book, Shaw repeatedly demonstrates that she has very little understanding of what true evil really is. Somehow, because we all might have a tendency to, say, lash out at a loved one in a moment of frustration, we really can't judge a Hitler or a Ted Bundy. The absolute pinnacle in moral relativism.

In my college writing tutorial, we always had to say something positive before we could give any criticism. I remember one paper I shared with some of my dormmates in an attempt to find that positive thing. One of them suggested, "You used nice quality draft paper." I'm left feeling a little like that in my attempt to review this book. I guess the best I could say is that if my sixth grade daughter had written it, I'd be reasonably impressed (although I'd wash her mouth out with soap).

Shaw is all over the place in talking about all kinds of topics that could, theoretically, have to do with evil, but all of her topics are so shallow and disorganized that there is very little substance to them and often the connection with evil is tenuous, at best. Many topics I was left wondering why she talked about them at all. For instance, she spills a great deal of ink talking about sexual fantasies. Who the hell cares? I don't care what's going on in your mind when you're alone in a room with your right hand occupied. But that's not what's evil about sex. What's evil about sex is when it's used coercively to hurt other people. So are rapists and child molesters evil? Shaw herself raises the question, but can't bring herself to answer it. I think it's pretty unequivocal that they have voluntarily chosen to do evil acts. So why does she stop short of using the word evil? And no, just because I might do something like snap at my husband does not mean that I am just like those rapists and child molesters. There is a line.

In fact, Shaw clearly demonstrates her lack of understanding of evil when she talks about "trustworthy" vs. "creepy" people and uses Nobel Peace Prize winners as her examples of "trustworthy" individuals. Is she aware the Henry Kissinger has won that prize? Aung San Suu Kyi, who was involved in the Rohingya genocide? Barack Obama who ordered the assassination of an American sixteen-year-old, not to mention the devastation of Libya, Honduras and Haiti? I'm sorry, but winning a Nobel Peace Prize is no guaranty of trustworthiness.

Another flaw is the supposed "science" in the book. Sure, Shaw references dozens of studies, but either they were poor studies to begin with or Shaw does a poor job of explaining and elucidating them. In one study, for instance, participants were left alone in a waiting room after being told that a woman with schizophrenia would be joining them. This alleged woman's things were on the second of seven chairs. The participants were then observed to see how far they would sit from this alleged schizophrenic woman. They found that people sat an average of 2.4 chairs away from her. The obvious flaw in this study is that it apparently didn't include any non-schizophrenic control situations. I don't know about you, but I would sit at least two to three chairs away from *any* stranger in a waiting room. What were they expecting - that people would sit right next to her when there were other open chairs available? That's not evidence of bias against mental illness, it's just how people space themselves in a small room. There were many other odd studies of this nature, plus, of course, she has to haul out the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison Experiments, as if there's a drop of new insight to be culled from those.

Probably the fatal flaw of the book is that she never addresses the issue of power. In fact, she conflates a man who kills his significant other because she was leaving him with a woman who kills her abusive significant other in a long-winded discussion of "murder fantasies". She does understand that getting away from an abuser is not about a "murder fantasy", right? And never does she speak about political power and all the devastating evil that neoliberalism has wrought - the dozens of countries invaded, millions of people killed and displaced, our world-wide network of torture "black sites", the starvation of Yemen, the "Dirty War" in Argentina in which dissidents were captured, tortured and ultimately dropped, alive, out of airplanes into the ocean, etc. - all for U.S. imperialistic and profit motivations. Can Shaw really say with a straight face that those acts - and the people who engineered them - were not evil? Was Hitler himself not evil? Or is there no leap for Ms. Shaw between a regretful instance of yelling at a loved one and throwing Jews in ovens?

Shaw wants us to empathize with "Pharma Bro" Marin Shkreli because he grew up in a culture that values money more than people. Guess what? We all did. Yet most of us would never let AIDS patients die because our obscene profits are more important than people being able to afford their medicine. In fact, very, very few people would do what Shkreli did, and it's not just because most of us don't have the opportunity. It's the reverse, in fact. Most of us don't have the opportunity because we're not so blatantly ruthless that we would even think to pursue "opportunities" like that. We have words for people who are that blatantly ruthless. "Evil" is the first that comes to mind. (Oh, but Shkreli totally proved his humanness because he cried at his sentencing, so it's all good. Spare me.)

Oh, and we can all understand and sympathize with Jeffrey Dahmer - he was just lonely. I know when I get lonely I carve up a teenage boy or two and stuff them into my fridge. Oh, wait, no, I don't. (BTW, she completely messed up the story of Dahmer's discovery and arrest, which is pretty sad considering it's right there on Wikipedia for free.)

I agree with Shaw that we have to be wary of "otherizing" people and dehumanizing them. But calling out evil where there is clearly evil is not dehumanizing. In fact, the one thing Shaw got right is that evil is part of humanity itself. I would argue, in fact, that failing to see the evil is dehumanizing because it erases a large aspect of human experience. To be fully human - and to fully see the humanity in others - requires seeing at and recognizing evil.

[Cathy · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

Some chapters were more interesting than others and this raises some valid questions, but ultimately I didn't get what I wanted out of this book. The author's writing/narration didn't work for me because she often came across as sounding vaguely condescending and there was a preachy quality to it all, which I hate.

Also, if I never hear the word 'dehumanise' again, it will be too soon.

I do give the author kudos for being so open about her own sexuality in this book and I did like the short section about false memories, which is apparently her field of expertise and I would be interested in reading more about those.

[Isabel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ich fand das Buch richtig spannend und wichtig, da Julia Shaw einen menschlichen Ansatz des "Bösen" vertritt und dafür wirbt, Täter nicht als Monster abzustempeln. Wir sollten vielmehr die Beweggründe für Taten analysieren und uns häufiger selbst hinterfragen: Zu was für schlimmen Taten wären wir fähig? Mein einziger Kritikpunkt sind die vielen komplexen Themen, die sie mal eben mit einem Kapitel abhakt (darunter Diskriminierung von Frauen, Sexualstraftaten und Terrorismus) und die eine viel tiefere Betrachtung verdient hätten. Dadurch gleitet das Buch manchmal in Oberflächlichkeit ab.

[(Lililasa) Kurkulis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vai tas viss ir "ļaunums", par ko raksta autore? Šķiet, nē. Vienlaicīgi, laikam taisnība ir Hannai Ārentei par ļaunuma banalitāti.

Pēdējā nodaļa bija visinteresantāka (man).