The Science of Sin

Anyone with the least shred of moral sense recognizes that the “deadly sin” list is (at best) questionable. Having dismissed it years ago, the only thought I ever gave to it again was an occasional review to make sure I'm breaking all of them regularly. So when I saw a blurb in Science News about this book it went straight to my to-read list: I figured the book and I were starting off on the same page already. And we were, all the way through, and now I find myself with an aftertaste of confirmation bias and wondering what to read to get over it.I did enjoy the book. I found it lively, witty, honest, extremely well researched. Important, in the sense that more people should be aware of these topics. And I will recommend the book, heartily, to anyone who hasn't spent the last few years reading [a:Sapolsky 187 Robert M. Sapolsky http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1234040721p2/187.jpg] and [a:Gilbert 32049 Daniel Gilbert http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1273952791p2/32049.jpg] and [a:Haidt 55727 Jonathan Haidt http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1342196691p2/55727.jpg]. But for me, the only genuinely new information was the history of the “deadly sin” list... and all I remember is that it had something to do with popes and monks: interesting, just not memorable for someone who isn't superstitious. And the rest was, for me, a rehash.Again, this was fun and well written. Ten years ago I would've given it five stars. If you haven't been reading the same books I have, you might give it five stars too.