What do you think?
Rate this book
Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity
A powerful new theory of human nature suggests that our unique friendliness is the secret to our success as a species.
For most of the approximately 300,000 years that Homo sapiens have existed, we have shared the planet with at least four other types of humans. All of these were smart, strong, and inventive. But around 50,000 years ago, Homo sapiens made a cognitive leap that gave us an edge over other species. What happened?
Since Charles Darwin wrote about "evolutionary fitness," the idea of fitness has been confused with physical strength, tactical brilliance, and aggression. In fact, what made us evolutionarily fit was a remarkable kind of friendliness, a virtuosic ability to coordinate and communicate with others that allowed us to achieve all the cultural and technical marvels in human history. Advancing what they call the "self-domestication theory," Brian Hare, professor in the department of evolutionary anthropology and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University and his wife, Vanessa Woods, a research scientist and award-winning journalist, shed light on the mysterious leap in human cognition that allowed Homo sapiens to thrive.
But this gift for friendliness came at a cost. Just as a mother bear is most dangerous around her cubs, we are at our most dangerous when someone we love is threatened by an "outsider." The threatening outsider is demoted to sub-human, fair game for our worst instincts. Hare's groundbreaking research, developed in close coordination with Richard Wrangham and Michael Tomasello, giants in the field of cognitive evolution, reveals that the same traits that make us the most tolerant species on the planet also make us the cruelest.
Survival of the Friendliest offers us a new way to look at our cultural as well as cognitive evolution and sends a clear message: In order to survive and even to flourish, we need to expand our definition of who belongs.
For most of the approximately 300,000 years that Homo sapiens have existed, we have shared the planet with at least four other types of humans. All of these were smart, strong, and inventive. But around 50,000 years ago, Homo sapiens made a cognitive leap that gave us an edge over other species. What happened?
Since Charles Darwin wrote about "evolutionary fitness," the idea of fitness has been confused with physical strength, tactical brilliance, and aggression. In fact, what made us evolutionarily fit was a remarkable kind of friendliness, a virtuosic ability to coordinate and communicate with others that allowed us to achieve all the cultural and technical marvels in human history. Advancing what they call the "self-domestication theory," Brian Hare, professor in the department of evolutionary anthropology and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University and his wife, Vanessa Woods, a research scientist and award-winning journalist, shed light on the mysterious leap in human cognition that allowed Homo sapiens to thrive.
But this gift for friendliness came at a cost. Just as a mother bear is most dangerous around her cubs, we are at our most dangerous when someone we love is threatened by an "outsider." The threatening outsider is demoted to sub-human, fair game for our worst instincts. Hare's groundbreaking research, developed in close coordination with Richard Wrangham and Michael Tomasello, giants in the field of cognitive evolution, reveals that the same traits that make us the most tolerant species on the planet also make us the cruelest.
Survival of the Friendliest offers us a new way to look at our cultural as well as cognitive evolution and sends a clear message: In order to survive and even to flourish, we need to expand our definition of who belongs.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published July 14, 2020
317 people are currently reading
8711 people want to read
About the author
Brian Hare
5 books131 followersBrian Hare is Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University, where he founded the Duke Canine Cognition Center. His research on 'dognition' has been published in the leading journals. With his wife Vanessa Woods, he cofounded the new dog intelligence testing and training company Canines Inc. To find out more, visit the Dognition website.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews
May 29, 2020
I received Survival of the Friendliest: Why We Love Insiders and Hate Outsiders, and How We Can Rediscover Our Common Humanity as an ARC. The first few chapters I was learning a lot about the domestication of dogs foxes and I was like, "This isn't what I was expecting, and I don't know where it's going, but I'm surprisingly interested." And then I learned about bonobos and they became my new favorite species and inspiration. And at that point I was like "This still isn't what I was expecting but I don't even care at this point because I am so interested in everything please tell me more." BUT THEN it all tied together so beautifully into the evolution of humans and my brain was sufficiently blown. But then I had questions (mostly my question was "why aren't we like bonobos, but with technology?" lol). And then those questions were answered. And my mind was blown even more (mostly due to what I learned about oxytocin). So basically what I'm trying to say is that I will never look at evolution and society the same ever again. I literally go around now telling everyone I know everything I learned in this book because IT WAS SO INTERESTING. Read it. Please. And then talk to me about it because I need someone to talk to about it.
December 11, 2021
This is the most playful, refreshing, and illuminating approach I’ve seen to the science of how we evolve. The rigorous but highly entertaining experiments on various species show something Darwin only observed, without the benefit of modern cognitive science. The capacity of creatures to interact, cooperate, and even form interspecies emotional bonds, is the superpower that has unleashed socializing species for a new level of collective evolution.
The first half of the book is a joy to read. Then the authors turn to the social challenges before us, and things get less enjoyably serious. Clearly, the world’s progress in friendship-forming has a dark side, as our lines of inclusion leave other creatures outside our circle of compassion. Our civilization of social networks is expanding, but it has battle lines. Somewhat depressingly, Hare and Woods introduce the science that explains fearful demonization of outsiders. The friendship- and client-building process starts to look more like hard work than engaging fun. Still, Hare and Woods show a highly encouraging big picture. Their data show that success for individuals, businesses, and nations is increasingly measured less in enemies conquered than in friends gained.
The first half of the book is a joy to read. Then the authors turn to the social challenges before us, and things get less enjoyably serious. Clearly, the world’s progress in friendship-forming has a dark side, as our lines of inclusion leave other creatures outside our circle of compassion. Our civilization of social networks is expanding, but it has battle lines. Somewhat depressingly, Hare and Woods introduce the science that explains fearful demonization of outsiders. The friendship- and client-building process starts to look more like hard work than engaging fun. Still, Hare and Woods show a highly encouraging big picture. Their data show that success for individuals, businesses, and nations is increasingly measured less in enemies conquered than in friends gained.
February 20, 2023
Myślałam, że dam tej książce 4⭐️, bo świetnie się czytała i dużo ciekawych rzeczy w niej. Ale po skończeniu czuję, że nie do końca potrafiłabym opowiedzieć, co właściwie przeczytałam i w jaki sposób autor dochodzi do wniosku, że „przetrwają najżyczliwsi”. Trochę chaos się zakradł po drodze. Ale to wciąż świetny tytuł i jak najbardziej warty lektury.
October 18, 2020
Good hypothesis, about how tolerance and friendliness favored cooperation and were evolutionarily beneficial to human culture -- society has "self-domesticated" itself. He looks at how friendliness has developed and played out in a few other species (chimps, apes, bonobos, wolves, foxes, dogs, etc.). However, I think his defense was a little weak (in my mind he didn't "prove" his thesis conclusively) -- some of the evidence, I thought, was "circumstantial." That doesn't mean his hypothesis was wrong -- it did resonate. But I don't think it was conclusive. I also thought points were a little redundant and long-winded (even though it's not a particularly long book).
February 29, 2024
This book intrigued me from the moment I picked it up. With the promise of unveiling a "powerful new theory of human nature," my expectations were high. Unfortunately, by the time I turned the last page, I was left feeling quite underwhelmed.
Firstly, the core premise of Hare's theory, which suggests a shift in our understanding of human evolution towards the survival of the friendliest, rather than the fittest, never seemed to be formally introduced. While the concept is fascinating and hints at a revolutionary way of understanding human progress, the book falls short in laying out a clear, structured argument for it. This lack of a solid foundation makes it challenging to fully grasp or appreciate the theory's implications.
Moreover, the book's structure leaves much to be desired. It embarks on a meandering journey through various fields such as psychology, politics, and evolution, without ever truly finding its footing. This eclectic mix, while interesting at times, ultimately feels disjointed and fails to coalesce into a coherent narrative. It's as if the book is trying to cover too much ground without a clear direction, leaving me adrift in a sea of ideas that never quite connect.
Hare attempts to bolster his arguments with evidence supporting human self-domestication, yet much of this evidence is anecdotal. It's often unclear whether the observed self-domestication effects are correlational or causal, which significantly undermines the book's argumentative power.
The reliance on well-worn research studies is another point of contention. While these studies are undoubtedly important, their familiarity to most readers means that the book often feels like a rehash of old ideas rather than a source of new insights. This is compounded by the selective presentation of research that supports Hare's thesis, with little attention given to contradictory evidence that could provide a more balanced perspective.
Towards the end, the book takes a rather unexpected detour into politics, characterized by a lengthy rant on political dysfunction. It just feels out of place and does little to advance the central argument. This foray into a different domain not only disrupts the narrative flow but also seems irrelevant to the book's purported focus on human nature and evolution.
Perhaps most perplexing is the contradiction that emerges in the latter chapters. After spending much of the book advocating for the survival of the friendliest, Hare seems to suggest that, in fact, the ruthless are the ones who thrive. This stark contradiction not only confuses the reader but also undermines the book's initial premise.
In conclusion, "Survival of the Friendliest" contains some interesting facts and raises intriguing questions about human nature and evolution. However, it ultimately falls short in delivering a coherent theory or convincing argument. The book feels like a collection of loosely related ideas rather than a tightly woven narrative, making it a somewhat frustrating read. While Hare's enthusiasm for the subject is evident, the book could have benefited greatly from a more focused approach and a rigorous examination of the evidence. As it stands, it's a missed opportunity to explore a fascinating aspect of human evolution in a meaningful way.
Firstly, the core premise of Hare's theory, which suggests a shift in our understanding of human evolution towards the survival of the friendliest, rather than the fittest, never seemed to be formally introduced. While the concept is fascinating and hints at a revolutionary way of understanding human progress, the book falls short in laying out a clear, structured argument for it. This lack of a solid foundation makes it challenging to fully grasp or appreciate the theory's implications.
Moreover, the book's structure leaves much to be desired. It embarks on a meandering journey through various fields such as psychology, politics, and evolution, without ever truly finding its footing. This eclectic mix, while interesting at times, ultimately feels disjointed and fails to coalesce into a coherent narrative. It's as if the book is trying to cover too much ground without a clear direction, leaving me adrift in a sea of ideas that never quite connect.
Hare attempts to bolster his arguments with evidence supporting human self-domestication, yet much of this evidence is anecdotal. It's often unclear whether the observed self-domestication effects are correlational or causal, which significantly undermines the book's argumentative power.
The reliance on well-worn research studies is another point of contention. While these studies are undoubtedly important, their familiarity to most readers means that the book often feels like a rehash of old ideas rather than a source of new insights. This is compounded by the selective presentation of research that supports Hare's thesis, with little attention given to contradictory evidence that could provide a more balanced perspective.
Towards the end, the book takes a rather unexpected detour into politics, characterized by a lengthy rant on political dysfunction. It just feels out of place and does little to advance the central argument. This foray into a different domain not only disrupts the narrative flow but also seems irrelevant to the book's purported focus on human nature and evolution.
Perhaps most perplexing is the contradiction that emerges in the latter chapters. After spending much of the book advocating for the survival of the friendliest, Hare seems to suggest that, in fact, the ruthless are the ones who thrive. This stark contradiction not only confuses the reader but also undermines the book's initial premise.
In conclusion, "Survival of the Friendliest" contains some interesting facts and raises intriguing questions about human nature and evolution. However, it ultimately falls short in delivering a coherent theory or convincing argument. The book feels like a collection of loosely related ideas rather than a tightly woven narrative, making it a somewhat frustrating read. While Hare's enthusiasm for the subject is evident, the book could have benefited greatly from a more focused approach and a rigorous examination of the evidence. As it stands, it's a missed opportunity to explore a fascinating aspect of human evolution in a meaningful way.
August 10, 2020
This is an absolutely brilliant book. I found out in the afterword that they completely rewrote the second part of the book after the election of Donald Trump. The reason is easy to see.
These two scientists who specialise in the behaviour of dogs , chimpanzees and bonobos delved deeply into aspects of social psychology to look at the other side of the pro-sociality that they said allowed us to evolve as a species ( hence the title).
They start by sharing Brian’s trip to the Siberian wastes to visit a remarkable project where a Russian Zoologist , Dmitry Belyayev, did a long term experiment in breeding red foxes for friendliness.in just a few generations the foxes developed dog traits of curly tails, licking and being friendly towards humans.
This experiment showed how dogs self-domesticated and adapted to living with humans.
The authors contend that humans were able to succeed against other human species, such as the clever and stronger Neanderthals, because they had the ability to cooperate with each other and pass on good ideas through generations.
The kindness that allowed these developments has a downside though. The authors try to explain how kindness to strangers was really “strangers like us”. These prosocial humans could be good Samaritans if the strangers were like them but they could easily kill a neighbouring tribe with no great concerns.
They look at the subject of “dehumanisation” and how this allows you to treat “others” with complete lack of moral scruple as they are considered non-human!
The result of this obverse of the coin of sociality, cooperation, friendship to strangers, is mass murder and slavery which stains our history.
Thus they react to the threats to democracy by people who use race, religion or sexual preference to create hatred in communities. They discuss statements made by Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. election campaign where he denigrated people to whip up support from the disaffected.
This is a powerful, well written informative book that seamlessly covers science (biology, genetics, biochemistry) as well as politics and psychology. I highly recommend it.
These two scientists who specialise in the behaviour of dogs , chimpanzees and bonobos delved deeply into aspects of social psychology to look at the other side of the pro-sociality that they said allowed us to evolve as a species ( hence the title).
They start by sharing Brian’s trip to the Siberian wastes to visit a remarkable project where a Russian Zoologist , Dmitry Belyayev, did a long term experiment in breeding red foxes for friendliness.in just a few generations the foxes developed dog traits of curly tails, licking and being friendly towards humans.
This experiment showed how dogs self-domesticated and adapted to living with humans.
The authors contend that humans were able to succeed against other human species, such as the clever and stronger Neanderthals, because they had the ability to cooperate with each other and pass on good ideas through generations.
The kindness that allowed these developments has a downside though. The authors try to explain how kindness to strangers was really “strangers like us”. These prosocial humans could be good Samaritans if the strangers were like them but they could easily kill a neighbouring tribe with no great concerns.
They look at the subject of “dehumanisation” and how this allows you to treat “others” with complete lack of moral scruple as they are considered non-human!
The result of this obverse of the coin of sociality, cooperation, friendship to strangers, is mass murder and slavery which stains our history.
Thus they react to the threats to democracy by people who use race, religion or sexual preference to create hatred in communities. They discuss statements made by Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. election campaign where he denigrated people to whip up support from the disaffected.
This is a powerful, well written informative book that seamlessly covers science (biology, genetics, biochemistry) as well as politics and psychology. I highly recommend it.
October 23, 2021
I would give a 3.5 stars for the first part of the book, where they discuss actual science, but due to the last few chapters being 1 star I'll average it out to 2.
The beginning goes into various studies on domestication of animals, including dogs, foxes, and bonobos, and it's connection to friendliness. Some studies discussed the author conducted themselves, which was nice to get a first hand account of. They also relate animal domestication to human domestication, and most of the arguments are pretty sound.
The thing that was the biggest turn off was the sharp turn into political ideologies out of nowhere. They argue that the alt right is essentially the same as leftists, saying both sides dehumanize people. They used antifa with zero irony, comparing anti-white-supremacy protesters to actual white supremacists. Wrote about black men being incarcerated at higher rates without covering at all how those statistics are skewed due to higher policing in black communities, racial profiling, BIPOC being given longer sentences, ect ect.
Yes, it can be helpful to be friendly to people who disagree with you - but it's shortsighted to argue people should be friendly with hateful people in the name of "tolerance" when those same people worry about discrimination and hate crimes.
Overall I enjoyed the first part well enough, but the ignorance in the last half makes me wish I didn't waste my money on it. If you have any decent understanding of oppression systems / socialism / communism I recommend you skip it or at least borrow a library copy.
The beginning goes into various studies on domestication of animals, including dogs, foxes, and bonobos, and it's connection to friendliness. Some studies discussed the author conducted themselves, which was nice to get a first hand account of. They also relate animal domestication to human domestication, and most of the arguments are pretty sound.
The thing that was the biggest turn off was the sharp turn into political ideologies out of nowhere. They argue that the alt right is essentially the same as leftists, saying both sides dehumanize people. They used antifa with zero irony, comparing anti-white-supremacy protesters to actual white supremacists. Wrote about black men being incarcerated at higher rates without covering at all how those statistics are skewed due to higher policing in black communities, racial profiling, BIPOC being given longer sentences, ect ect.
Yes, it can be helpful to be friendly to people who disagree with you - but it's shortsighted to argue people should be friendly with hateful people in the name of "tolerance" when those same people worry about discrimination and hate crimes.
Overall I enjoyed the first part well enough, but the ignorance in the last half makes me wish I didn't waste my money on it. If you have any decent understanding of oppression systems / socialism / communism I recommend you skip it or at least borrow a library copy.
September 29, 2020
This book makes some interesting points, and I find the argument that the same mental faculties and systems that make humans so caring and loyal toward "their own" also sharpen their antipathy towards "others" that may be a threat to "their own." However, I think the author is really eager to make the leap from underlying science to relevant social/political commentary, and in service of this goal, he consciously tries to make the science more "digestible" for his audience which means dumbing it down by simplifying which is accomplished by exaggerating the confidence of certain conclusions and neglecting the myriad caveats that could be raised.
I have already read better accounts (Domesticated: Evolution in a Man-Made World) of "domestication syndrome" and the "self-domestication hypothesis." I found the experimental results where people were essentially more prejudiced when administered oxytocin very interesting. However, when trying to draw distinctions between evidence of "prejudice" and "dehumanization" the author gets a bit sloppy I think. Many books are written about prejudice, and this author desperately wants his book to stand out from those, even I think to be seen as the "missing piece" that makes so many other observations/phenomena/issues "click into place" with a coherent explanatory framework. To accomplish this, he tries very hard to distinguish his subject of "dehumanization" from general "prejudice." While he doesn't' quite explain the methodology, he cites studies that apparently score subjects on these supposedly distinct qualities and then regress those scores against experimental outcomes like willingness to administer cruelty to imaginary test subjects. These sort of numeric regressions reveal correlation but not causation which the author glosses over. Further, regressing against some sort of degree of dehumanization automatically implies that dehumanization is some sort of imaginary one-dimensional quality from "like me" to "like animals." There are in fact many facets of the gap we perceive between ourselves and animals, and it only makes sense that our attitudes towards others can be similarly complex rather than reduced to some single "humanness" metric. While I wouldn't mind ignoring this nuance for ease of discussion, I do object to the fact that the author doesn't pause at least once to acknowledge that the nuance exists.
I have already read better accounts (Domesticated: Evolution in a Man-Made World) of "domestication syndrome" and the "self-domestication hypothesis." I found the experimental results where people were essentially more prejudiced when administered oxytocin very interesting. However, when trying to draw distinctions between evidence of "prejudice" and "dehumanization" the author gets a bit sloppy I think. Many books are written about prejudice, and this author desperately wants his book to stand out from those, even I think to be seen as the "missing piece" that makes so many other observations/phenomena/issues "click into place" with a coherent explanatory framework. To accomplish this, he tries very hard to distinguish his subject of "dehumanization" from general "prejudice." While he doesn't' quite explain the methodology, he cites studies that apparently score subjects on these supposedly distinct qualities and then regress those scores against experimental outcomes like willingness to administer cruelty to imaginary test subjects. These sort of numeric regressions reveal correlation but not causation which the author glosses over. Further, regressing against some sort of degree of dehumanization automatically implies that dehumanization is some sort of imaginary one-dimensional quality from "like me" to "like animals." There are in fact many facets of the gap we perceive between ourselves and animals, and it only makes sense that our attitudes towards others can be similarly complex rather than reduced to some single "humanness" metric. While I wouldn't mind ignoring this nuance for ease of discussion, I do object to the fact that the author doesn't pause at least once to acknowledge that the nuance exists.
May 7, 2023
3.5/5⭐️
April 30, 2021
This book affected me profoundly. I love the idea of survival of the friendliest as opposed to the fittest (nature red in tooth and claw). The authors give convincing evidence of why homo sapiens survived to now while the other proto-humans of 80,000 years ago didn't. They say basically we domesticated ourselves. Being more social and open to other people made it so we could have bigger communities and share innovations and inventions among communities. Those helped to protect from predators and ice ages, advanced progress in the ways people fed and housed themselves, and led to long-distance trade.
The book covers experiments with theory of mind that compare young and older humans and animals. It was previously thought that, since chimpanzees don't pick up the meaning of humans pointing even when food reward is involved, humans are the only animals who respond in this way. Then someone noticed that dogs do, which should have been common knowledge, but, you know, theories and all. Similar experiments confirmed that dogs do, wolves don't; bonobos do, chimps don't. Foxes bred to be friendly/domesticated over many generations do; wild foxes don't.
I'd read in the author's previous book (The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter than You Think, which I highly recommend) about the fox breeding experiment. It was started in the Stalin era in Siberia (the only place a geneticist could survive at the time) and is still happening. They found that, when they continued to breed the very friendliest foxes (not shy, not hostile, but curious) with each other, after a number of generations they had tame foxes.
Okay, being able to breed for tameness was expected. But there were also unexpected physical changes. The tame foxes have smaller bodies, smaller brains, smaller muzzles, more variation in coloring, and more. Same differences as between wolves and dogs. And, it turns out, same differences between chimps and bonobos. Guess what: homo sapiens has similar differences from earlier hominins (check out the difference between that word and hominids, interesting) and the species has been progressing in that direction.
So, basically, we tamed ourselves. The authors then theorize that the downside of our type of tameness is that we are so attached to our own groups that we tend to dehumanize groups that might be seen to be threatening. Which has led to wars and various other atrocities. They show some pathways where this can happen with oxytocin, serotonin, and testosterone. Still quite plausible.
The later part of the book was rewritten before publication after Trump was elected. Much of it seems plausible, but it's rawer and needs more research to substantiate. There are some interesting studies on how people dehumanize other groups. The authors go through a lot of it before they - finally! - get to American racism, which they tackle pretty well. They explore democracy and the current polarization. They present evidence that nonviolent actions are more likely than violent ones to produce positive change. I hope so.
Maybe because of my end of the polarization, I didn't like some of their theory. They have a circle diagram where the "moderates" are in the middle, then two outer layers, of ideologues and extremists (the outer layer). This layer lumps antifa in with white supremacists (on different sides of the circle but the same layer). First, I don't agree that the "moderate" position is necessarily the most reasonable (or friendliest). Second, though yes, they found some violent-ish activities by antifa, I just don't think it's equivalent. I don't agree with using hate to combat hate, but I think there are giant differences between the left and right in this county; one side wants peace and love and the other thrives on hate.
This is a book that presents a theory and applies it to our current situation. It is not a book that offers a solution, though you can tell that the authors, like the rest of us, would like to find one. So, yes, they try to see how our situation could have a nonpartisan solution. The most solid citation they have is a study comparing the attitudes of freshman college students who had dorm roommates of a different race with those who didn't. The conclusion is that familiarity breeds cross-cultural openness (or something like that), which persists into later life.
I highly recommend this book. It touches on a lot more than this review covers, including very interesting animal research and a number of past and present situations worldwide. I imagine it would be controversial in the evolutionary anthropology and psychology fields. I hope it prompts much more research, both into the evolution of people/culture (and other animals) and into ways to promote tolerance and friendship among different cultural groups.
The book covers experiments with theory of mind that compare young and older humans and animals. It was previously thought that, since chimpanzees don't pick up the meaning of humans pointing even when food reward is involved, humans are the only animals who respond in this way. Then someone noticed that dogs do, which should have been common knowledge, but, you know, theories and all. Similar experiments confirmed that dogs do, wolves don't; bonobos do, chimps don't. Foxes bred to be friendly/domesticated over many generations do; wild foxes don't.
I'd read in the author's previous book (The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter than You Think, which I highly recommend) about the fox breeding experiment. It was started in the Stalin era in Siberia (the only place a geneticist could survive at the time) and is still happening. They found that, when they continued to breed the very friendliest foxes (not shy, not hostile, but curious) with each other, after a number of generations they had tame foxes.
Okay, being able to breed for tameness was expected. But there were also unexpected physical changes. The tame foxes have smaller bodies, smaller brains, smaller muzzles, more variation in coloring, and more. Same differences as between wolves and dogs. And, it turns out, same differences between chimps and bonobos. Guess what: homo sapiens has similar differences from earlier hominins (check out the difference between that word and hominids, interesting) and the species has been progressing in that direction.
So, basically, we tamed ourselves. The authors then theorize that the downside of our type of tameness is that we are so attached to our own groups that we tend to dehumanize groups that might be seen to be threatening. Which has led to wars and various other atrocities. They show some pathways where this can happen with oxytocin, serotonin, and testosterone. Still quite plausible.
The later part of the book was rewritten before publication after Trump was elected. Much of it seems plausible, but it's rawer and needs more research to substantiate. There are some interesting studies on how people dehumanize other groups. The authors go through a lot of it before they - finally! - get to American racism, which they tackle pretty well. They explore democracy and the current polarization. They present evidence that nonviolent actions are more likely than violent ones to produce positive change. I hope so.
Maybe because of my end of the polarization, I didn't like some of their theory. They have a circle diagram where the "moderates" are in the middle, then two outer layers, of ideologues and extremists (the outer layer). This layer lumps antifa in with white supremacists (on different sides of the circle but the same layer). First, I don't agree that the "moderate" position is necessarily the most reasonable (or friendliest). Second, though yes, they found some violent-ish activities by antifa, I just don't think it's equivalent. I don't agree with using hate to combat hate, but I think there are giant differences between the left and right in this county; one side wants peace and love and the other thrives on hate.
This is a book that presents a theory and applies it to our current situation. It is not a book that offers a solution, though you can tell that the authors, like the rest of us, would like to find one. So, yes, they try to see how our situation could have a nonpartisan solution. The most solid citation they have is a study comparing the attitudes of freshman college students who had dorm roommates of a different race with those who didn't. The conclusion is that familiarity breeds cross-cultural openness (or something like that), which persists into later life.
I highly recommend this book. It touches on a lot more than this review covers, including very interesting animal research and a number of past and present situations worldwide. I imagine it would be controversial in the evolutionary anthropology and psychology fields. I hope it prompts much more research, both into the evolution of people/culture (and other animals) and into ways to promote tolerance and friendship among different cultural groups.
February 5, 2021
It seems quite obvious in hindsight that humans are domesticated animals, but Hare presents his theory and findings in such a mind-blowing way. First, our physical and social evolution resembles that of dogs and other domesticated animals (especially bonobos, who similarly "self-domesticated"). He included some interesting studies about how humans and domesticated animals follow others' gazes and assume they are providing helpful information, whereas chimpanzees other than bonobos, while intelligent, don't understand these social cues.
Second, we display the same dual oxytocin effects of love towards "our people," while doing the equivalent of barking at any outsiders who we perceive as threats. The studies here showed that dehumanization (thinking that some are "less human" than you or your group) is the biggest factor in people being willing to inflict cruelty on others. And the biggest cause for this kind of thinking is if you think that the other group or person dehumanizes YOU "retaliatory dehumanization." This is why propaganda works so well. The antidote, Hare argues, is relationships with individuals from outside your group. Education campaigns, on the other hand, actually do not work very well in changing racist/dehumanizing views.
Again, the findings feel a bit mundane writing them out but the book was written in a fascinating way and ended before it was able to get tiresome.
Second, we display the same dual oxytocin effects of love towards "our people," while doing the equivalent of barking at any outsiders who we perceive as threats. The studies here showed that dehumanization (thinking that some are "less human" than you or your group) is the biggest factor in people being willing to inflict cruelty on others. And the biggest cause for this kind of thinking is if you think that the other group or person dehumanizes YOU "retaliatory dehumanization." This is why propaganda works so well. The antidote, Hare argues, is relationships with individuals from outside your group. Education campaigns, on the other hand, actually do not work very well in changing racist/dehumanizing views.
Again, the findings feel a bit mundane writing them out but the book was written in a fascinating way and ended before it was able to get tiresome.
August 5, 2022
Wow. Not what I expected from Richard Wrangham's star pupil. It's a perplexing combination of lazy research and hack science, underwhelming in every respect.
Most of the book was partisan political propaganda, and not the annoying-yet-skillful kind you might happen across in a Steven Pinker tome. No, this instead put democracy on a pedestal and employed narrative sensationalism to try to upset the reader, thus sidestepping the need for facts. Hack work.
Apart from the rampant babbling, the other issue was: He boils our interpersonal lives down to a series of mechanisms firing in the brain and had he cared to follow such an idea to its conclusion he'd have noticed he was thus reducing humanity to mindless automatons incapable of making our own decisions. And yet... as seen above, he employs sensationalism in the same book. One cannot have both cold biology and vibrant sociology.
Finally, every single issue he tackles in this book... they've all been more skillfully covered by other authors, some of them even *decades* before Hare tossed his two cents in. On politics and sociology, he reads like a discount Frans de Waal. On the history of evolutionary theory he reads like a discount David Quammen. On racial issues, he reads like an especially discounted Malcom Gladwell.
All that to say... there are a plethora of more informative books on this subject.
Most of the book was partisan political propaganda, and not the annoying-yet-skillful kind you might happen across in a Steven Pinker tome. No, this instead put democracy on a pedestal and employed narrative sensationalism to try to upset the reader, thus sidestepping the need for facts. Hack work.
Apart from the rampant babbling, the other issue was: He boils our interpersonal lives down to a series of mechanisms firing in the brain and had he cared to follow such an idea to its conclusion he'd have noticed he was thus reducing humanity to mindless automatons incapable of making our own decisions. And yet... as seen above, he employs sensationalism in the same book. One cannot have both cold biology and vibrant sociology.
Finally, every single issue he tackles in this book... they've all been more skillfully covered by other authors, some of them even *decades* before Hare tossed his two cents in. On politics and sociology, he reads like a discount Frans de Waal. On the history of evolutionary theory he reads like a discount David Quammen. On racial issues, he reads like an especially discounted Malcom Gladwell.
All that to say... there are a plethora of more informative books on this subject.
September 17, 2020
My favourite topic of all times! ♥️
February 21, 2024
Świetna i potrzebna w dzisiejszych czasach książka.
Autorzy uciekają od rozumianej dosłownie koncepcji walki o byt, kładąc nacisk na to, jak ważna dla naszego przetrwania jest życzliwość, współpraca i otwartość na inne istoty żywe.
Czytało mi się świetnie. Tekst zrozumiały dla przeciętnego zjadacza chipsów i żelków, ale nie zinfantylizowany. Mnóstwo badań, ciekawe wnioski, a do tego płynne przechodzenie między odmiennymi, ale zazębiającymi się tematami. Miód na moje serce, miód na mój mózg. Żeby było jeszcze ciekawiej - autorzy w posłowiu przyznają, że pierwotna koncepcja książki (a dokładniej - jej podsumowania) miała wyglądać nieco inaczej. Zaznaczają również, że część środowiska naukowego nie zgodzi się z podejściem zaprezentowanym w publikacji.
Ok. 220 stron "mięska". To wystarczy, żeby czytelnik zakończył lekturę usatysfakcjonowany i zachęcony do dalszego eksplorowania tematu.
Autorzy uciekają od rozumianej dosłownie koncepcji walki o byt, kładąc nacisk na to, jak ważna dla naszego przetrwania jest życzliwość, współpraca i otwartość na inne istoty żywe.
Czytało mi się świetnie. Tekst zrozumiały dla przeciętnego zjadacza chipsów i żelków, ale nie zinfantylizowany. Mnóstwo badań, ciekawe wnioski, a do tego płynne przechodzenie między odmiennymi, ale zazębiającymi się tematami. Miód na moje serce, miód na mój mózg. Żeby było jeszcze ciekawiej - autorzy w posłowiu przyznają, że pierwotna koncepcja książki (a dokładniej - jej podsumowania) miała wyglądać nieco inaczej. Zaznaczają również, że część środowiska naukowego nie zgodzi się z podejściem zaprezentowanym w publikacji.
Ok. 220 stron "mięska". To wystarczy, żeby czytelnik zakończył lekturę usatysfakcjonowany i zachęcony do dalszego eksplorowania tematu.
January 29, 2026
Fascinating book about how we as humans became the dominant species. I’m still thinking about the quote “friendship is the world’s greatest equalizer.”
February 1, 2024
Książka, która zachęca do bycia życzliwym i pokazuje, dlaczego jest to ważne i przynosi ludziom liczne korzyści. Ciekawie interpretuje, dlaczego dehumanizujemy innych i jak z tym walczyć. Bądźmy empatyczni!
August 15, 2024
Książka zdecydowanie warta lektury; oparta na badaniach naukowych, doświadczeniach, zawiera bardzo dużo wątków psychologicznych, z świetnym przesłaniem; 5/5
February 29, 2024
We read this for a neuroscience book club I co-run. Message me if you want our book summary and thought questions :)
I was pretty underwhelmed by this book. The central idea that humans self-domesticated is introduced well (domestication phenotypes in dogs and bonobos, contrast with chimps) but ultimately not convincingly demonstrated. The clustering of domestication-related traits when all we've selected for is friendliness was perhaps the most interesting concept in the whole book, and yet was very sparely supported mechanistically (maybe it's migratory neural crest cells!).
My biggest problem with the book was the lack of scientific rigor. There are several fundamental faults with the way the authors approach the existing data:
1. The data is heavily cherry picked. For example, the authors don’t present a full discussion on traits found in domesticated mammals. Rather, they focus selectively on the ones that fit their particular hypothesis.
2. They make heavy use of one-off psychology findings that have long since fallen to the replication crisis (e.g. the marshmallow test).
3. They don't appropriately contextualize neurobehavioral findings. For example: The authors claim that “oxytocin may disrupt the connection between the mPFC and the amygdala…blunting the amygdala’s fear and disgust response.” However, they later state exactly the opposite: “by binding to neurons in the mPFC, oxytocin amplifies the amygdala threat signal and blunts the response of the mPFC during social interactions.” These contradictory pieces of information highlight the importance of presenting neurobiology findings complete with their specific context, lest they otherwise become totally meaningless. If you don't specify under what conditions neurohormones have certain effects and in which areas, or define terms carefully, you're not actually making a scientifically validated statement.
4. They make a TON of unsubstantiated reverse inferences. For example: the authors argue that “increasing eye contact would have promoted the expression of oxytocin, encouraging bonding and social communication” but they don’t present any evidence for this reverse inference, instead assuming it would have been true given that in some experiments, humans in a laboratory setting who make prolonged eye contact produce more oxytocin and report feeling more bonded to strangers. However, note that a review found that peripheral (serum) oxytocin is not correlated with CNS (brain) oxytocin levels under baseline conditions, so many of the findings in the oxytocin literature may be misleading (Valstad et al., 2017). None of this nuance is discussed in the book.
I liked their idea that we can increase friendliness with repeated casual contact with people outside our in-group, but I've heard that perspective from thinkers in many fields and it certainly isn't their idea. In general, given their handling of evidence, I found it hard to trust anything they said without learning it also from a different more rigorous source. However, the book was accessible and reasonably well written, and did present some interesting ideas that piqued my interest enough to pick up other books.
Overall, they're presenting a very interesting theory that it appears they don't have a super good grasp on themselves. I'm very interested in what the evidence for human self-domestication actually is (a friend told me it's actually pretty controversial), and am planning on reading the Goodness Paradox next to hopefully gain a more data-driven view.
I was pretty underwhelmed by this book. The central idea that humans self-domesticated is introduced well (domestication phenotypes in dogs and bonobos, contrast with chimps) but ultimately not convincingly demonstrated. The clustering of domestication-related traits when all we've selected for is friendliness was perhaps the most interesting concept in the whole book, and yet was very sparely supported mechanistically (maybe it's migratory neural crest cells!).
My biggest problem with the book was the lack of scientific rigor. There are several fundamental faults with the way the authors approach the existing data:
1. The data is heavily cherry picked. For example, the authors don’t present a full discussion on traits found in domesticated mammals. Rather, they focus selectively on the ones that fit their particular hypothesis.
2. They make heavy use of one-off psychology findings that have long since fallen to the replication crisis (e.g. the marshmallow test).
3. They don't appropriately contextualize neurobehavioral findings. For example: The authors claim that “oxytocin may disrupt the connection between the mPFC and the amygdala…blunting the amygdala’s fear and disgust response.” However, they later state exactly the opposite: “by binding to neurons in the mPFC, oxytocin amplifies the amygdala threat signal and blunts the response of the mPFC during social interactions.” These contradictory pieces of information highlight the importance of presenting neurobiology findings complete with their specific context, lest they otherwise become totally meaningless. If you don't specify under what conditions neurohormones have certain effects and in which areas, or define terms carefully, you're not actually making a scientifically validated statement.
4. They make a TON of unsubstantiated reverse inferences. For example: the authors argue that “increasing eye contact would have promoted the expression of oxytocin, encouraging bonding and social communication” but they don’t present any evidence for this reverse inference, instead assuming it would have been true given that in some experiments, humans in a laboratory setting who make prolonged eye contact produce more oxytocin and report feeling more bonded to strangers. However, note that a review found that peripheral (serum) oxytocin is not correlated with CNS (brain) oxytocin levels under baseline conditions, so many of the findings in the oxytocin literature may be misleading (Valstad et al., 2017). None of this nuance is discussed in the book.
I liked their idea that we can increase friendliness with repeated casual contact with people outside our in-group, but I've heard that perspective from thinkers in many fields and it certainly isn't their idea. In general, given their handling of evidence, I found it hard to trust anything they said without learning it also from a different more rigorous source. However, the book was accessible and reasonably well written, and did present some interesting ideas that piqued my interest enough to pick up other books.
Overall, they're presenting a very interesting theory that it appears they don't have a super good grasp on themselves. I'm very interested in what the evidence for human self-domestication actually is (a friend told me it's actually pretty controversial), and am planning on reading the Goodness Paradox next to hopefully gain a more data-driven view.
June 17, 2022
This is a relatively short book in which Hare and Woods hypothesise that "friendliness" is the key factor is what makes humans different from other social animals and lead to our evolutionary success. This human self-domestication hypothesis postulates that natural selection affected the human species in favour of friendlier behaviour that enhanced our ability to cooperate and communicate more flexibly with others of our kind. Over many generations, individuals with hormonal and developmental profiles that favour friendliness, and therefore cooperative communication, were more successful. This theory predicts that there will be evidence for (a) selection for reduced emotional reactivity and heightened tolerance linked to new types of human cooprerative-communicative abilities, and (b) changes in our morphology, physiology, and cognition resembling the domestication syndrome seen in other animals. This is, indeed, what the authors' research finds.
The first half of the book covers various studies on animal domestication, cognition and behaviour, including Belyaev's famous fox experiments, dogs, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans, as they relate to "friendliness" and behaviour towards group and out-group members. The arguments relating animal domestication to human self-domestication are sound and particularly interesting. The comparison between humans and bonobos is also fascinating. The writing is pleasant and easy to follow.
However, the second half of the book deals with human aggression against what we consider "other", but any scientific information on the subject is overwhelmed by a diatribe on political ideologies. I wished to read about the science of the hypothesis, not to get inundated with the mostly-American-centric, author-biased, and overly simplified political ideologies the authors felt they needed to disgorge onto the page! I found this section of the book to be the weakest in terms of the science presented (sloppy!) and the style of presentation.
In short, this book provides an interesting, and easily digested, introduction to the self-domestication hypothesis, but Hare and Woods should have stuck with the science, included more information how "friendliness" affects relationships, minimized the politics, and included more bonobos!
OTHER BOOK:
~Domesticated: Evolution in a Man-Made World by Richard C. Francis
The first half of the book covers various studies on animal domestication, cognition and behaviour, including Belyaev's famous fox experiments, dogs, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans, as they relate to "friendliness" and behaviour towards group and out-group members. The arguments relating animal domestication to human self-domestication are sound and particularly interesting. The comparison between humans and bonobos is also fascinating. The writing is pleasant and easy to follow.
However, the second half of the book deals with human aggression against what we consider "other", but any scientific information on the subject is overwhelmed by a diatribe on political ideologies. I wished to read about the science of the hypothesis, not to get inundated with the mostly-American-centric, author-biased, and overly simplified political ideologies the authors felt they needed to disgorge onto the page! I found this section of the book to be the weakest in terms of the science presented (sloppy!) and the style of presentation.
In short, this book provides an interesting, and easily digested, introduction to the self-domestication hypothesis, but Hare and Woods should have stuck with the science, included more information how "friendliness" affects relationships, minimized the politics, and included more bonobos!
OTHER BOOK:
~Domesticated: Evolution in a Man-Made World by Richard C. Francis
October 29, 2020
Babies can find a prize under a cup with hints like pointing. By 9 months old, babies recognize the knowledge and intentions of others through “theory of mind”. Humans have cognitive skills that help us cooperate. Theory of Mind is sophisticated. Chimps won’t be able to understand the cup challenge. Dogs will understand more. Chimps don’t have the evolutionary trait. Scientist were able to domesticate foxes. Friendly group: genetic trait with better communication techniques. Friendly group: domesticated animal traits, byproducts of friendliness. Foxes from friendly group can communicate with humans and select the right group. Can a species self domesticate?
Early ancestors became more amenable, evidence on our faces. Modern humans are currently the dominates on this planet. Evolutionary pressure favored friendly people.
“Selecting for friendliness”
Gaze into someone’s eyes to form strong social bonds
Stable
Collaborative environments & mutual exchange.
Social networks beyond immediate family
Black Jews of Africa: marginalized and attacked
Cruel violence
Strong social bonds make outsiders less human - cultivate empathy between groups
*kindness clubs (prevent conflict) children learn by treating and taking care of animals.
*mix housing and break down barriers
Humans have evolved to be social. We need social skills and community. The same bonds call for empathy to outsiders.
Early ancestors became more amenable, evidence on our faces. Modern humans are currently the dominates on this planet. Evolutionary pressure favored friendly people.
“Selecting for friendliness”
Gaze into someone’s eyes to form strong social bonds
Stable
Collaborative environments & mutual exchange.
Social networks beyond immediate family
Black Jews of Africa: marginalized and attacked
Cruel violence
Strong social bonds make outsiders less human - cultivate empathy between groups
*kindness clubs (prevent conflict) children learn by treating and taking care of animals.
*mix housing and break down barriers
Humans have evolved to be social. We need social skills and community. The same bonds call for empathy to outsiders.
November 15, 2025
sporo ciekawych rzeczy, ale chyba to było za krótkie i momentami zbyt chaotyczne.
September 14, 2020
Why did Homo sapiens win and outlast the four other human like ancestors? Hare and Wood argue that Charles Darwin's evolutionary fitness has been interpreted as physical strength, tactical brilliance, and aggression. But recent psychology research reveals that what made us evolutionary fit was a remarkable kind of friendliness, an ability to coordinate and communicate with others that allowed us to achieve all the cultural and technical marvels in human history. But the cost of this friendliness was the ability to draw lines between insiders and outsiders. We are the most tolerant species on the planet and also the cruelest. This book urges the reader, and humanity, to observe our cultural and cognitive evolution so that we can expand our definition of who belongs.
Why I started this book: What a great title! I was ready to learn more and refute the "survival of the fittest" extremism that is preached.
Why I finished it: Fascinating research studies and I know that I will think about this book when when I'm around babies, dogs and momma bears. Interesting to think that the sclera in our eyes was an advantage, making to easier for us to see what someone is looking at, and therefore give us a hint about what they are thinking about. Plus I want a domesticated fox, so bad.
Why I started this book: What a great title! I was ready to learn more and refute the "survival of the fittest" extremism that is preached.
Why I finished it: Fascinating research studies and I know that I will think about this book when when I'm around babies, dogs and momma bears. Interesting to think that the sclera in our eyes was an advantage, making to easier for us to see what someone is looking at, and therefore give us a hint about what they are thinking about. Plus I want a domesticated fox, so bad.
November 25, 2020
Scientists are always coming up with new interpretations of old data, even as they compile their own. But rarely do they come together with such relevance to our highly-charged times. These authors explain our fear-driven conflicts: we have domesticated ourselves to cooperate very closely with people like us, but react with disgust and fear to those who are different; we can easily dehumanize them by comparing them to animals. But there is a way out: we can come to know and appreciate different kinds of people by simply living and attending to shared problems in physical proximity, especially if we do so by design. We can also develop empathy toward fellow humans by practicing it with animals. The scientific basis for this relies on reconstructions of how dogs domesticated themselves for their mutual benefit with humans.
August 26, 2020
The authors look at the notion of the "survival of the fittest" and show that the species (including humans) most likely to survive throughout history have not been the most aggressive and most violent but the friendliest and most cooperative. The authors explain that this friendliness and cooperation has a dangerously violent flip side, however, when a species is threatened by an outsider. Though the authors are scientists and provide extensive notes to support their explanations, the book is written in such a way that non-scientists (such as me) can understand it. I was surprised by how much the authors related their concepts to the current political climate but found their explanations for the animosity between different political groups well worth reading.
October 30, 2020
Амьтны ертөнцөд хүчтэй, хурдтай л үлдэж цааш хувьсан өөрчлөгддөг бол хүний ертөнцөд үүнээс гадна нөхөрлөл хамтын ажиллагаа ялгаагүй чухал болохыг баримт нотолгоотой харуулсан ном болжээ.
Хэрэгтэй жишээнээс дурдвал хот суурин газрын иргэд би биенээ таниж мэддэг бол илүү хүнлэг зөөлөн хандах талтай байдаг ийм ч учраас хот суурин газрыг байгуулахдаа энэ талыг бодолцох нь орчин үед улам улам хэрэгтэй болж байгаа аж.
Хэрэгтэй жишээнээс дурдвал хот суурин газрын иргэд би биенээ таниж мэддэг бол илүү хүнлэг зөөлөн хандах талтай байдаг ийм ч учраас хот суурин газрыг байгуулахдаа энэ талыг бодолцох нь орчин үед улам улам хэрэгтэй болж байгаа аж.
July 11, 2020
An absolutely fascinating discussion of domestication, friendliness, and exclusion, and how they’re all related. This book is unbelievably timely, as so many of us are struggling with how to be more empathetic to those who think and look different from us in ways that will keep our nation thriving for generations to come.
January 11, 2021
READ THIS and BECOME SMARTER about who you are who we are and why we are like this. Super approachable and also super deep dive into multidisciplinary scientific explanations into the evolutionary, physiological and social factors that favor friendliness (and sadly - it's opposite,
along for the ride)
along for the ride)
October 28, 2020
Survival of the Friendliest (2020) presents a scientific look at the origins of human sociability. This history of humanity demonstrates how evolutionary pressure made us the friendly, community-oriented species we are today.
December 27, 2024
This book is a fascinating journey through the intertwined narratives of neuroscience, evolution, and social science. By combining rigorous scientific research with profound sociocultural insights, the author invites readers to reflect on what makes humans unique and the implications of these traits for our societies, relationships, and shared future.
The central theme of the book revolves around cooperation and its evolutionary roots, offering comparisons across species like dogs, chimpanzees, and bonobos. It delves into the mechanisms that foster cooperation, such as serotonin and oxytocin, while also exploring the darker side of these mechanisms, including aggression and exclusion. The book’s multidisciplinary approach creates a rich tapestry that bridges biology, psychology, and sociology, making it a compelling read for both scientific and general audiences.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its ability to weave human history and evolution into contemporary societal issues. The author discusses the biology of traits such as self-control, empathy, and communication, illustrating how they evolved and how they manifest in modern behaviors. This scientific perspective is complemented by a sobering look at systemic dehumanization and its historical and ongoing consequences. Through examples like racial injustice and intergroup conflict, the book challenges readers to consider the societal structures that shape human interaction and their capacity for both harm and healing.
The exploration of oxytocin is particularly striking, as it reveals the duality of this “love hormone.” While it fosters bonding and cooperation within groups, it can also exacerbate division and aggression toward outsiders. This nuanced discussion highlights the complex interplay of biology and environment in shaping human behavior and societal dynamics.
Despite its heavy topics, the book maintains a hopeful tone, emphasizing the potential for change through education, socialization, and conscious effort. The conclusion underscores the importance of empathy and interpersonal contact as tools for reducing conflict and fostering understanding. The idea that architecture and spatial design can influence social harmony is an especially intriguing and forward-thinking concept.
Overall, this book is a thought-provoking and deeply relevant exploration of what it means to be human. It masterfully blends scientific inquiry with social critique, offering insights that are both intellectually stimulating and emotionally resonant. By examining our evolutionary past and its implications for our future, the author challenges us to envision a kinder, more cooperative world. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the intersections of science, society, and human nature.
The central theme of the book revolves around cooperation and its evolutionary roots, offering comparisons across species like dogs, chimpanzees, and bonobos. It delves into the mechanisms that foster cooperation, such as serotonin and oxytocin, while also exploring the darker side of these mechanisms, including aggression and exclusion. The book’s multidisciplinary approach creates a rich tapestry that bridges biology, psychology, and sociology, making it a compelling read for both scientific and general audiences.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its ability to weave human history and evolution into contemporary societal issues. The author discusses the biology of traits such as self-control, empathy, and communication, illustrating how they evolved and how they manifest in modern behaviors. This scientific perspective is complemented by a sobering look at systemic dehumanization and its historical and ongoing consequences. Through examples like racial injustice and intergroup conflict, the book challenges readers to consider the societal structures that shape human interaction and their capacity for both harm and healing.
The exploration of oxytocin is particularly striking, as it reveals the duality of this “love hormone.” While it fosters bonding and cooperation within groups, it can also exacerbate division and aggression toward outsiders. This nuanced discussion highlights the complex interplay of biology and environment in shaping human behavior and societal dynamics.
Despite its heavy topics, the book maintains a hopeful tone, emphasizing the potential for change through education, socialization, and conscious effort. The conclusion underscores the importance of empathy and interpersonal contact as tools for reducing conflict and fostering understanding. The idea that architecture and spatial design can influence social harmony is an especially intriguing and forward-thinking concept.
Overall, this book is a thought-provoking and deeply relevant exploration of what it means to be human. It masterfully blends scientific inquiry with social critique, offering insights that are both intellectually stimulating and emotionally resonant. By examining our evolutionary past and its implications for our future, the author challenges us to envision a kinder, more cooperative world. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the intersections of science, society, and human nature.
July 12, 2025
Po kilku poleceniach z Internetu i przykuwającej wzrok okładce zbudowałam spore oczekiwania i niestety zawartość książki im nie sprostała.
Książka zawiera sporo badań dotyczących ludzi i zwierząt - jedne ciekawsze, drugie mniej. Najbardziej jednak brak mi spójności pomiędzy rozdziałami i jakiegoś przewodniego wniosku.
Tak czy tak psychologię ewolucyjną kocham, dobrze było do niej wrócić.
Książka zawiera sporo badań dotyczących ludzi i zwierząt - jedne ciekawsze, drugie mniej. Najbardziej jednak brak mi spójności pomiędzy rozdziałami i jakiegoś przewodniego wniosku.
Tak czy tak psychologię ewolucyjną kocham, dobrze było do niej wrócić.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews