The Dragons of Eden
Ratings20
Average rating4.1
15
Reviewed
- It feels like non-fiction got a lot better since then at exploiting the curiosity gaps.
- We learned a lot about neuroscience since 1977, but still moved in the same direction, so the book is still correct about many things at large, although details are often important.
- Contrary to Geoffrey Miller, who tells that evolutionary psychology was extremely controversial at the moment (just two years after the Sociobiology release—which, by the way, is not mentioned at all), here's a Pulitzer winner that has a lot about how the human mind was defined by its evolution (although, admittedly, without many crucial details).
- A good book to learn something about the history of the area. If you want to learn about evolutionary psychology itself, you'd be better off starting elsewhere.
Reviewed
- It feels like non-fiction got a lot better since then at exploiting the curiosity gaps.2. We learned a lot about neuroscience since 1977, but still moved in the same direction, so the book is still correct about many things at large, although details are often important.3. Contrary to [a:Geoffrey Miller 15428 Geoffrey Miller https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1442358111p2/15428.jpg], who tells that evolutionary psychology was extremely controversial at the moment (just two years after the Sociobiology release—which, by the way, is not mentioned at all), here's a Pulitzer winner that has a lot about how the human mind was defined by its evolution (although, admittedly, without many crucial details).4. A good book to learn something about the history of the area. If you want to learn about evolutionary psychology itself, you'd be better off starting elsewhere.