What do you think?
Rate this book
The Triumph of Sociobiology
In The Triumph of Sociobiology , John Alcock reviews the controversy that has surrounded evolutionary studies of human social behavior following the 1975 publication of E.O. Wilson's classic, Sociobiology, The New Synthesis . Denounced vehemently as an "ideology" that has justified social evils and inequalities, sociobiology has survived the assault. Twenty-five years after the field was named by Wilson, the approach he championed has successfully demonstrated its value in the study of animal behavior, including the behavior of our own species. Yet, misconceptions remain--to our disadvantage.
In this straight-forward, objective approach to the sociobiology debate, noted animal behaviorist John Alcock illuminates how sociobiologists study behavior in all species. He confronts the chief scientific and ideological objections head on, with a compelling analysis of case histories that involve such topics as sexual jealousy, beauty, gender difference, parent-offspring relations, and rape. In so doing, he shows that sociobiology provides the most satisfactory evolutionary analysis of social behavior today.
"A clear, evocative, and accurate account of the history and content on the subject, inviting to the student and the general reader alike."--Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University.
In this straight-forward, objective approach to the sociobiology debate, noted animal behaviorist John Alcock illuminates how sociobiologists study behavior in all species. He confronts the chief scientific and ideological objections head on, with a compelling analysis of case histories that involve such topics as sexual jealousy, beauty, gender difference, parent-offspring relations, and rape. In so doing, he shows that sociobiology provides the most satisfactory evolutionary analysis of social behavior today.
"A clear, evocative, and accurate account of the history and content on the subject, inviting to the student and the general reader alike."--Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
10 people are currently reading
230 people want to read
About the author
John Alcock
87 books21 followersJohn Alcock (b. 1942) is an American behavioral ecologist and author. He is currently the Emeritus' Professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University. His research interests include the evolution of diversity in insect populations, studying the adaptive value of different ways in which males find mating partners. He has authored several books, including The Kookaburras' Song: Exploring Animal Behavior in Australia (1988), Sonoran Desert Summer (1990), The Triumph of Sociobiology (2003), and Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach (ninth edition, 2009). He authored Sonoran Desert Spring (1994) which was illustrated by Marilyn Hoff Stewart, and also authored In a Desert Garden: Love and Death Among the Insects (1999) illustrated by Turid Forsyth.
Alcock is one of the original scientists to participate in the Ask A Biologist program and continues to participate in interviews as well as answering questions from students around the world.
Alcock is one of the original scientists to participate in the Ask A Biologist program and continues to participate in interviews as well as answering questions from students around the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 3, 2013
This was a thoroughly enjoyable book. I'm a bio-psychologist primarily interested in the neural differences that cause differences in personality and individual differences and in the role such individual differences played in evolution as well as the role evolution played in their formation. As such, I have a large degree of interest in sociobiology.
John Alcock is the author of the wonderful introductory textbook to sociobiology and ethology called Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. This text is no less well written. It is a elegantly defense of sociobiology that doesn't throw other researchers under the bus the way Steven Pinker did in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Steven Pinker makes a straw man out of B.F. Skinner and his radical behaviorism, showing a misunderstanding of his positions that is hard to attribute to sheer ignorance, and thus comes across as willful. Surely, the behaviorist paradigm is too limited to explain behavior, but this book does a better job explaining why evolutionary explanations are needed for a fuller understanding of behavior.
The book is also of a shorter length than The Blank Slate, and therefore wastes less time and is more concise. Yet, it's full of tons of wonderful information. The author never comes across as combative and works patiently to answer criticisms of sociobiology while explaining how it works. He discusses many studies showing how adaptationist hypotheses are tested, showing that they are not "just so" stories.
In conclusion, whether you are a biologically inclined psychologist, a layman interested in science, or a young student interested in pursuing a career in sociobiology, this book will be of great value.
John Alcock is the author of the wonderful introductory textbook to sociobiology and ethology called Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. This text is no less well written. It is a elegantly defense of sociobiology that doesn't throw other researchers under the bus the way Steven Pinker did in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Steven Pinker makes a straw man out of B.F. Skinner and his radical behaviorism, showing a misunderstanding of his positions that is hard to attribute to sheer ignorance, and thus comes across as willful. Surely, the behaviorist paradigm is too limited to explain behavior, but this book does a better job explaining why evolutionary explanations are needed for a fuller understanding of behavior.
The book is also of a shorter length than The Blank Slate, and therefore wastes less time and is more concise. Yet, it's full of tons of wonderful information. The author never comes across as combative and works patiently to answer criticisms of sociobiology while explaining how it works. He discusses many studies showing how adaptationist hypotheses are tested, showing that they are not "just so" stories.
In conclusion, whether you are a biologically inclined psychologist, a layman interested in science, or a young student interested in pursuing a career in sociobiology, this book will be of great value.
January 21, 2019
It's sad that a book-length treatment in defense of sociobiology against the accusations of those who dispute its validity in the first place need even be written. The stance positing the legitimacy of blank slate psychology and the existence of an infinitely malleable, all-purpose mind – espoused by such charlatans as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin – is indefensible on its face; both logic in general and evolutionary theory in particular omit it as a possibility, as it implies a universe, and therefore an ecological system, without temporal, material, and spatial constraint.
Alas, the prominence of such men as Gould and Lewontin – made possible not by scientific support or consensus but by the anti-rationalist, anti-empiricist agendas of politically connected Marxist journalists – makes such a necessity so. And John Alcock far exceeds mere competence in this task.
Alcock deftly employs the theoretical tools and empirical findings of sociobiological science to deflect the many strawman accusations levied against sociobiology: it does not posit "genetic determinism," it does not cite its purely descriptive evolutionary explanations for social behavior (human or otherwise) as a normative foundation for evil social interaction (e.g. just because rape has an evolutionary, adaptive explanation does not mean that rape is thereby justified, and no sociobiologist claims this), sociobiological hypotheses are falsifiable (sociobiologists can and do test them in the field), sociobiologists do not cite evolutionary explanations for social behavior as an endorsement of the status quo, sociobiology does not concern itself exclusively or even primarily with human behavior, sociobiology is not a right-wing conspiracy (most sociobiologists are center-left), etc.
Throughout his book, Alcock uses his distinction between "proximate" (functional) purposes of social behavior and their "ultimate" (evolutionary) causes to clarify and elaborate upon his claims (a typical dichotomy used to separate functional biology from evolutionary biology), including how sociobiology concerns itself chiefly with ultimate causes, but experiments with proximate purposes in the field to test its hypotheses of these evolutionary causes. He furthermore addresses the major theoretical and empirical problems with cultural determinism, supported by most social scientists though it may be. In covering the history of sociobiological thought, he also offers an interesting explanation of some of the differences of thought within sociobiology, particularly the controversy over group selectionism.
Since its firm emergence into academia in the sixties and seventies, sociobiology has long vindicated itself from the accusations of its detractors and claimed for itself the right to close the chasm between natural and social science. The content of the social sciences does not exist and operate in a vacuum, and academics who claim otherwise do not deserve to label themselves professional scientists. The Triumph of Sociobiology unequivocally establishes this fact.
I recommend to newcomers to these ideas that they read books like this before proceeding to the more advanced material of such works as Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson, foundational though that work may be. The latter was written far less with the layman reader in mind, and therefore employs far more arcane, esoteric terminology and jargon and resorts to far more technical analysis of the evidence. However, after reading Alcock's work, it should not be difficult to comprehend.
Alas, the prominence of such men as Gould and Lewontin – made possible not by scientific support or consensus but by the anti-rationalist, anti-empiricist agendas of politically connected Marxist journalists – makes such a necessity so. And John Alcock far exceeds mere competence in this task.
Alcock deftly employs the theoretical tools and empirical findings of sociobiological science to deflect the many strawman accusations levied against sociobiology: it does not posit "genetic determinism," it does not cite its purely descriptive evolutionary explanations for social behavior (human or otherwise) as a normative foundation for evil social interaction (e.g. just because rape has an evolutionary, adaptive explanation does not mean that rape is thereby justified, and no sociobiologist claims this), sociobiological hypotheses are falsifiable (sociobiologists can and do test them in the field), sociobiologists do not cite evolutionary explanations for social behavior as an endorsement of the status quo, sociobiology does not concern itself exclusively or even primarily with human behavior, sociobiology is not a right-wing conspiracy (most sociobiologists are center-left), etc.
Throughout his book, Alcock uses his distinction between "proximate" (functional) purposes of social behavior and their "ultimate" (evolutionary) causes to clarify and elaborate upon his claims (a typical dichotomy used to separate functional biology from evolutionary biology), including how sociobiology concerns itself chiefly with ultimate causes, but experiments with proximate purposes in the field to test its hypotheses of these evolutionary causes. He furthermore addresses the major theoretical and empirical problems with cultural determinism, supported by most social scientists though it may be. In covering the history of sociobiological thought, he also offers an interesting explanation of some of the differences of thought within sociobiology, particularly the controversy over group selectionism.
Since its firm emergence into academia in the sixties and seventies, sociobiology has long vindicated itself from the accusations of its detractors and claimed for itself the right to close the chasm between natural and social science. The content of the social sciences does not exist and operate in a vacuum, and academics who claim otherwise do not deserve to label themselves professional scientists. The Triumph of Sociobiology unequivocally establishes this fact.
I recommend to newcomers to these ideas that they read books like this before proceeding to the more advanced material of such works as Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson, foundational though that work may be. The latter was written far less with the layman reader in mind, and therefore employs far more arcane, esoteric terminology and jargon and resorts to far more technical analysis of the evidence. However, after reading Alcock's work, it should not be difficult to comprehend.
April 9, 2015
This book expertly balances surprising and enlightening accounts of animal and human behavior with deceitful unexamined arguments against positions that his targets don’t hold. The author is an animal behavior researcher, and it shows: his most clever and enjoyable writing comes in his analysis of arguments for evolutionary causes of the variations in animal behavior that we see. In one of my favorite sections, he shows how the sex investment ratio by workers in ant larvae changes depending on how many times the queen had mated. Since male ants only receive genes from the maternal line, two ants which are full sisters share (on average) twice as many genes as two ants that are brother and sister share, or two half-sisters would share. This gives rise to a prediction that it would be beneficial on a gene-selection level if a gene could increase the care a female worker gives to full-sisters over brothers or half-sisters; the data presented seem to show a finding that brothers are preferred when the genetic status of sisters is uncertain (multiple matings by the queen), and sisters preferred when the ants have ‘belief’ that they are full sisters. Also fascinating were his sections on the differing reproductive interests of males and females, and mothers and offsprings, especially regarding body size of offspring. He discusses the role of a gene in mice, the Igf2 gene, in stunting or promoting growth: the paternal copy promotes larger size while the maternal copy inhibits size. The particular mechanism, which I gather to be related to an epigenetic effect, isn’t mentioned, which confounded me for a while, but the argument for such a thing being selectable once it has appeared is convincing. Throughout, such rigorous scientific argumentation is well laid out, with alternative hypotheses and their implications discussed. These sections are worth reading.
The book’s weak point comes in its treatment of the meta-discussion. Alcock portrays several critics of the field’s applicability to human behavior in an inaccurate manner. He specifically claims that Stephen Jay Gould is a proponent of a ‘blank slate hypothesis’ which holds that the human brain is a general purpose machine with no predisposition toward any behavior. Gould’s actual position was that sociobiology had a tendency to try to prove too much, to lay claim to any particular human behavior as evolutionarily selected. This rewriting of the opponent into an absolutist position allows Alcock to argue against the untenable instead of the nuanced, an easier task by far. He also lambasts Gould for criticizing a sociobiologist’s work (which Alcock later states was wrong after all, it just took real sociobiologists instead of an outsider to point this out) as untested by evidence by stating that there was evidence, just woefully little and inadequate: Barash looked at two birds! This is weak. Gould’s actual argument, presented in an essay titled “Sociobiology: The Art of Storytelling”, is that the test Barash did was insufficient to give reason to believe Barash’s hypothesis instead of any number of alternatives. Alcock, again, rewrites the actual point into something much easier to attack. In this very Gould article, he writes “Not all sociobiology proceeds in the mode of storytelling for individual cases. It rests on firmer methodological ground when it seeks broad correlations across taxonomic lines, as between reproductive strategy and distribution of resources, for example, or when it can make testable quantitative predictions as in Bob Trivers and Hope Hare’s work on haplodiploidy and eusociality in Hymenoptera. Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well.” The Trivers and Hare mentioned here in conjunction with Hymenoptera are the ones who gathered the interesting data on investment on sisters over brothers by ants, bees and wasps I mentioned earlier. Their work and others’ followups were the subject of my favorite part of this book; it seems Gould, Alcock and I have similar opinions on what we believe to be the most worthy parts of sociobiology. Do Gould’s own words support Alcock’s claim that he is a zealot against an entire field of useful work? I don’t think so.
So Alcock argues against an absolute with a moderate position, acknowledging that behaviors can have many proximate causes, that behaviors are not genetically determined, that sometimes sociobiological analysis of a cultural practice is limited to a half-hearted “well it hasn’t be selected against yet”, and so on. He ignores the common ground the his and the critics he criticizes have. It’s a shame, because much of the work presented in this book, and in the field in general, is fascinating and worthwhile. Strident defenses of the weakest parts do no one any favors.
The book’s weak point comes in its treatment of the meta-discussion. Alcock portrays several critics of the field’s applicability to human behavior in an inaccurate manner. He specifically claims that Stephen Jay Gould is a proponent of a ‘blank slate hypothesis’ which holds that the human brain is a general purpose machine with no predisposition toward any behavior. Gould’s actual position was that sociobiology had a tendency to try to prove too much, to lay claim to any particular human behavior as evolutionarily selected. This rewriting of the opponent into an absolutist position allows Alcock to argue against the untenable instead of the nuanced, an easier task by far. He also lambasts Gould for criticizing a sociobiologist’s work (which Alcock later states was wrong after all, it just took real sociobiologists instead of an outsider to point this out) as untested by evidence by stating that there was evidence, just woefully little and inadequate: Barash looked at two birds! This is weak. Gould’s actual argument, presented in an essay titled “Sociobiology: The Art of Storytelling”, is that the test Barash did was insufficient to give reason to believe Barash’s hypothesis instead of any number of alternatives. Alcock, again, rewrites the actual point into something much easier to attack. In this very Gould article, he writes “Not all sociobiology proceeds in the mode of storytelling for individual cases. It rests on firmer methodological ground when it seeks broad correlations across taxonomic lines, as between reproductive strategy and distribution of resources, for example, or when it can make testable quantitative predictions as in Bob Trivers and Hope Hare’s work on haplodiploidy and eusociality in Hymenoptera. Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well.” The Trivers and Hare mentioned here in conjunction with Hymenoptera are the ones who gathered the interesting data on investment on sisters over brothers by ants, bees and wasps I mentioned earlier. Their work and others’ followups were the subject of my favorite part of this book; it seems Gould, Alcock and I have similar opinions on what we believe to be the most worthy parts of sociobiology. Do Gould’s own words support Alcock’s claim that he is a zealot against an entire field of useful work? I don’t think so.
So Alcock argues against an absolute with a moderate position, acknowledging that behaviors can have many proximate causes, that behaviors are not genetically determined, that sometimes sociobiological analysis of a cultural practice is limited to a half-hearted “well it hasn’t be selected against yet”, and so on. He ignores the common ground the his and the critics he criticizes have. It’s a shame, because much of the work presented in this book, and in the field in general, is fascinating and worthwhile. Strident defenses of the weakest parts do no one any favors.
January 17, 2021
Testo di risposta alle critiche mosse da Gould, Lewontin e colleghi.
Presenti alcune informazioni antiquate, anche quando prese nel contesto dell'anno di pubblicazione (es.: percezione gustativa secondo la mappatura linguale), e alcune delle argomentazioni iniziali meno rigorose delle successive. Non convincenti le argomentazioni che vorrebbero rispondere alla critica maggiore, secondo cui l'approccio sociobiologico intenderebbe rimandare qualsiasi comportamento umano alla selezione naturale.
Molte delle note a fine testo, legate a sezioni dei singoli capitoli, consistono di domande dal valore riflessivo e di potenziale applicazione didattica.
Presenti alcune informazioni antiquate, anche quando prese nel contesto dell'anno di pubblicazione (es.: percezione gustativa secondo la mappatura linguale), e alcune delle argomentazioni iniziali meno rigorose delle successive. Non convincenti le argomentazioni che vorrebbero rispondere alla critica maggiore, secondo cui l'approccio sociobiologico intenderebbe rimandare qualsiasi comportamento umano alla selezione naturale.
Molte delle note a fine testo, legate a sezioni dei singoli capitoli, consistono di domande dal valore riflessivo e di potenziale applicazione didattica.
June 27, 2018
Rating 3.7/5
A well written account of defending argument for contaversial new synthesis of sociobiology - a field where principle of evolution employed in explaining behaviour of animal kingdom, including humans.
That last words 'including humans' is what causing much of agitation in so called cultural determinists and prostmodern feminists and alike sociologists.
In this book Alcock give concise account of misconceptions about sociobiology.
I would suggest this for anyone interested in understanding basics of nature nurture debate, and it's relevance to sociobiology.
A well written account of defending argument for contaversial new synthesis of sociobiology - a field where principle of evolution employed in explaining behaviour of animal kingdom, including humans.
That last words 'including humans' is what causing much of agitation in so called cultural determinists and prostmodern feminists and alike sociologists.
In this book Alcock give concise account of misconceptions about sociobiology.
I would suggest this for anyone interested in understanding basics of nature nurture debate, and it's relevance to sociobiology.
February 13, 2016
I would have enjoyed this book much more if I hadn't read Pinker's "Blank Slate" first. Those who have already read a good dose of Pinker might not even have to read the book.
December 21, 2022
I read 4 chapters of this book. It was enough to give me the main ideas.
March 25, 2017
The dude is smart, more so than Wilson who was inevitably (if he wanted to sell science books or text books within academia) pushed by leftists and mutated into a less sensical identity unit within today's socially engineered society of metrosexuals. It happened to Brian Fagan also, but not as severely. It doesn't help that an area of study, created to be dumbed down and marketed to bimbo parenting nazis as a leftist feminist version of evolutionary biology, had to chew sociobiology up and regurgitate it as a bunch nonsense (any biological "psychology")
I love how he shows what an idiot Stephen Jay Gould is. Anyone who can't accept someone stating that "genes are essential for the development of behavior" without accusing them of biological determinism is experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance, as is the entire Left. Even the chemical nutrients required for genes to express themselves are supplied by the environment, as Alcock points out. Did Sociobiology's critics really believe he wasn't aware of that? No. They just ranted and raved about the evils of biological determinism without giving sociobiology any real consideration. Not that it was a new subject - the evolution of behavioral characteristics within species is not only fairly intuitive, it's been around awhile, and doesn't automatically take the form of a nazi bloodfest. The Left chose then, as it chooses today, to enter social justice warrior/virtue signaling mode rather than face reality and move further in many sciences, especially this one. Of course they're detrimental to much of science as the hypocrites claim to adore it and represent it so much. Their hatred of sociobiology only conveys their scientific motives - prestige, money, and a claim to moral and intellectual superiority. It's not about understanding. If they don't like the observational data and conclusions, they destroy the scientists behind them (or warp them via threats to their careers) or they widely criticize so bad that's it's nearly impossible to find anything real written about it while attempting to sift through the noise. It's the Leftist way. (In the case of climate, they just revert to fraud.)
So it's more of a rant than a review. I don't care. I can't wait to read his Animal Behavior text. It's not surprising he teaches at Arizona State.
I love how he shows what an idiot Stephen Jay Gould is. Anyone who can't accept someone stating that "genes are essential for the development of behavior" without accusing them of biological determinism is experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance, as is the entire Left. Even the chemical nutrients required for genes to express themselves are supplied by the environment, as Alcock points out. Did Sociobiology's critics really believe he wasn't aware of that? No. They just ranted and raved about the evils of biological determinism without giving sociobiology any real consideration. Not that it was a new subject - the evolution of behavioral characteristics within species is not only fairly intuitive, it's been around awhile, and doesn't automatically take the form of a nazi bloodfest. The Left chose then, as it chooses today, to enter social justice warrior/virtue signaling mode rather than face reality and move further in many sciences, especially this one. Of course they're detrimental to much of science as the hypocrites claim to adore it and represent it so much. Their hatred of sociobiology only conveys their scientific motives - prestige, money, and a claim to moral and intellectual superiority. It's not about understanding. If they don't like the observational data and conclusions, they destroy the scientists behind them (or warp them via threats to their careers) or they widely criticize so bad that's it's nearly impossible to find anything real written about it while attempting to sift through the noise. It's the Leftist way. (In the case of climate, they just revert to fraud.)
So it's more of a rant than a review. I don't care. I can't wait to read his Animal Behavior text. It's not surprising he teaches at Arizona State.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews