What do you think?
Rate this book
Nature via nurture: genes, experience and what makes us human
Armed with extraordinary new discoveries about our genes, acclaimed science writer Matt Ridley turns his attention to the nature-versus-nurture debate in a thoughtful book about the roots of human behavior.Ridley recounts the hundred years' war between the partisans of nature and nurture to explain how this paradoxical creature, the human being, can be simultaneously free-willed and motivated by instinct and culture. With the decoding of the human genome, we now know that genes not only predetermine the broad structure of the brain, they also absorb formative experiences, react to social cues, and even run memory. They are consequences as well as causes of the will.
328 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
About the author
Matt Ridley
30 books2,007 followersMatthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley DL FRSL FMedSci (born 7 February 1958, in Northumberland) is an English science writer, businessman and aristocrat. Ridley was educated at Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford where he received a doctorate in zoology before commencing a career in journalism. Ridley worked as the science editor of The Economist from 1984 to 1987 and was then its Washington correspondent from 1987 to 1989 and American editor from 1990 to 1992.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 170 reviews
August 22, 2012
I feel bad giving this book a rating, since it has been one of those rare ones that I decided to stop reading despite having only managed a few chapters. I did skim through a fair bit of the rest, and saw that the interesting facts and historical figures associated with the nurture-nature debate persist throughout the book. Those were the bits that made it informative and interesting. But I had some serious issues with some of Ridley's opinions disguised as fact, as well as some technical choices such as referring to a "Genome Organizing Device" or "GOD" which is responsible for the development of life. He says he does this so he can write in the active rather than the passive voice, but he could easily have used "natural selection" or some other substitute. He says he chooses GOD to "keep religious people happy", which I would find incredibly patronizing if I was religious. This is just one example among many when Ridley tries to say something clever or adopts a writing style that strays from scientific interest to being pompous at best and misleading at worst.
Oh, and his idea of what a meritocracy is (and how, as he says, it necessarily fails) is shudderingly narrow-minded. I could be ok with this if he put it forward as his opinion, but no, he writes facts that aren't facts. If you do read this book, it's good to keep that in mind.
Oh, and his idea of what a meritocracy is (and how, as he says, it necessarily fails) is shudderingly narrow-minded. I could be ok with this if he put it forward as his opinion, but no, he writes facts that aren't facts. If you do read this book, it's good to keep that in mind.
November 2, 2017
الطبيعة عبر التطبّع للكاتب مات ريدلي
في هذا الكتاب يحاول الكاتب تفكيك العقدة القديمة التي تقول بأن هناك تعارض بين الطبع والتطبّع أو الجينات والبيئة وأن أحدهما فقط هو الصحيح. في البداية يستعرض تاريخ هذا الجدل قبل أن يطرح الكثير من الأمثلة العلمية التي تؤكد أن كلا الفريقين خاطئين، فالجينات والبيئة لا يتنافسان على تحديد صفاة وسلوك البشر، بل يتعاونان، فلا تظهر الصفاة الجينية إلا عن طريق التفاعل مع البيئة.
في هذا الكتاب يحاول الكاتب تفكيك العقدة القديمة التي تقول بأن هناك تعارض بين الطبع والتطبّع أو الجينات والبيئة وأن أحدهما فقط هو الصحيح. في البداية يستعرض تاريخ هذا الجدل قبل أن يطرح الكثير من الأمثلة العلمية التي تؤكد أن كلا الفريقين خاطئين، فالجينات والبيئة لا يتنافسان على تحديد صفاة وسلوك البشر، بل يتعاونان، فلا تظهر الصفاة الجينية إلا عن طريق التفاعل مع البيئة.
April 11, 2020
A really good book.
Pro:
I takes a centrist view on things. It is basically science with no personal views or observations. This is the middle ground in the nature-nurture debate. Well written and short enough to not get boring. Basically all the basics on the debate and a great book.
Con:
Ridley knows a lot. He is a scientist. I would imagine that 90% of the non 5 stars reviews here are by people who got a bit stuck on the paragraphs talking about the studies and how they were done. It explains things well but some people might not even know how science works in practicality and have a hard time following some of the in-depth look at things. Some of the book can be a bit hard at times.
That said it is still a very recommended book for all type of readers. It is another must-read if you are in any shape or form interested in social science. If you don't understand the debate or the science on it this is a great way to learn about it.
Pro:
I takes a centrist view on things. It is basically science with no personal views or observations. This is the middle ground in the nature-nurture debate. Well written and short enough to not get boring. Basically all the basics on the debate and a great book.
Con:
Ridley knows a lot. He is a scientist. I would imagine that 90% of the non 5 stars reviews here are by people who got a bit stuck on the paragraphs talking about the studies and how they were done. It explains things well but some people might not even know how science works in practicality and have a hard time following some of the in-depth look at things. Some of the book can be a bit hard at times.
That said it is still a very recommended book for all type of readers. It is another must-read if you are in any shape or form interested in social science. If you don't understand the debate or the science on it this is a great way to learn about it.
November 7, 2007
My other favorite writer, next to Pinker. Ridley sets out to tear down the wall that has divided the "Nature vs Nurture" debate for centuries. Readable (as always from Ridley) and engrossing, this explains how environment can trigger genes, and how genes often determine which environments we choose.
If you entertain any notion that humans are unique, this book will seek to change your minds. By far my favorite parts are in his descriptions of Bonobos, Gorillas, and chimps.
If you entertain any notion that humans are unique, this book will seek to change your minds. By far my favorite parts are in his descriptions of Bonobos, Gorillas, and chimps.
July 6, 2020
This book is along the same lines as Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. The best thing I can do to review these two books together is list what I think their pros and cons are:
Pros:
1. Writing style: Ridley's writing style is engaging and humorous, yet not condescending. He respects his readers.
2. Scientific content: The science is very detailed and cutting edge. Ridley goes beyond the high-level science you'll find in other books and discusses the latest research.
3. Well sourced: The notes at the end reveal that Ridley is on top of the latest academic research and writing. Each chapter has about 20 citations from within a few years that the books were published.
4. Deep analysis: Ridley goes beyond the science and is willing to dig deep into the philosophical and political implications.
Cons:
1. Feels out-of-date: Because the scientific research cites is so cutting edge, it leaves you wondering if, in the approximately 20 years since the book was written, there has been more progress.
2. Organization: Each chapter reads somewhat like a stand-alone discussion. Although Ridley has a few central messages of the book, there isn't quite a narrative continuity that holds the book together.
Overall very much more enlightening and informative than you'll get from most other books.
Pros:
1. Writing style: Ridley's writing style is engaging and humorous, yet not condescending. He respects his readers.
2. Scientific content: The science is very detailed and cutting edge. Ridley goes beyond the high-level science you'll find in other books and discusses the latest research.
3. Well sourced: The notes at the end reveal that Ridley is on top of the latest academic research and writing. Each chapter has about 20 citations from within a few years that the books were published.
4. Deep analysis: Ridley goes beyond the science and is willing to dig deep into the philosophical and political implications.
Cons:
1. Feels out-of-date: Because the scientific research cites is so cutting edge, it leaves you wondering if, in the approximately 20 years since the book was written, there has been more progress.
2. Organization: Each chapter reads somewhat like a stand-alone discussion. Although Ridley has a few central messages of the book, there isn't quite a narrative continuity that holds the book together.
Overall very much more enlightening and informative than you'll get from most other books.
September 9, 2013
While I agree with the central theme of the book, the author struggles to find the balance between an academic publication and a book for the general public. This book assumes knowledge of psychology, neurobiology, genetics, cultural anthropology, and sociology that are likely to be found only in people who have at minimum a BS degree and supplemental reading, or work experience in these fields. Reviews of pertinent studies in these fields are boring to those with this prior knowledge and insufficient for lay persons.
May 26, 2007
Nicely written examination of a subject which everyone should understand. He does his best to put the "nature vs nuture" debate to rest. Informative without being dry.
August 24, 2014
Not really a surprising conclusion, but very interesting review of available studies and the historic nature/nurture debate.
January 1, 2021
Nature vs. Nurture is a false dichotomy. Any modern understanding of biology, psychology, or anthropology recognizes the interplay of genetics with culture, that results in human behavior. On the one hand, genes convey inheritance of physiological or psychological capabilities that may be realized to various extent during growth and development. And in the other direction, individual and social behaviors can change which genes are promoted evolutionarily in the population. And yet, unstated simplistic assumptions of one extreme or the other are commonplace. Genetics has even been weaponized politically - especially regarding issues of race, gender roles, sexual preference, and gender identity.
Apparently, there are a large number of books out there to explain genetics to the layman, and many of them slant towards a particular perspective. Ridley’s perspective is a somewhat moderate one, distancing himself from both pure nurture and pure nature. Yet he is especially caustic towards the blank slate argument that dominated liberal thinking during the middle of the twentieth century, while merely fine-tuning the genetic nature arguments. His main point is that genes are at the root of both nurture and nature, but not deterministically so. I think he makes a good point in that regard, but that his inclination on social issue examples tends towards politically conservative views.
His writing style is sensationalistic, making broad comparisons to what “science” might expect, when he is really contrasting with a popular distillation of science. To support his points, beyond a broad overview of scientific research studies, Ridley calls on the themes of literary works and philosophical movements. There are quite a few more of those non-scientific views, as Ridley moves back and forth through the various paradigms in the history of the topic, than I was looking for. I am interested mostly in learning in how things do work, to the best of current knowledge, and less in mistaken directions taken in the past. His argumentation is kept mostly at the level of psychology and anthropology. I don’t doubt that he does understand the molecular biology underlying some of the work, but by choosing to pass above that, he ends up using metaphors of language that are less helpful. I was reminded how psychology is not a hard science, with persuasive reasoning sometimes replacing knowledge of physical mechanism.
I don’t read enough of this subgenre of popular genetics, to be able to compare or contrast the various perspectives, so will have to settle for extracting the material here that seems factual, and suspending judgement on that which seems opinionated. In the last chapter (10 “A Budget of Paradoxical Morals”), he gives seven take-aways, some of which are actually newly introduced topics. In his own words:
Moral 1: Genes are Enablers – Don’t be frightened of genes. They are not gods; they are cogs.
Moral 2: Parents – Being a good parent still matters.
Moral 3: Peers – Individuality is a product of aptitude reinforced by appetite.
Moral 4: Meritocracy – Egalitarians should emphasize nature; snobs should emphasize nurture.
Moral 5: Race - The more we understand both our genes and our instincts, the less inevitable they seem.
Moral 6: Individuality – Social policy must adapt to a world in which everybody is different.
Moral 7: Free Will - is entirely compatible with a brain exquisitely prespecified by, and run by, genes.
Apparently, there are a large number of books out there to explain genetics to the layman, and many of them slant towards a particular perspective. Ridley’s perspective is a somewhat moderate one, distancing himself from both pure nurture and pure nature. Yet he is especially caustic towards the blank slate argument that dominated liberal thinking during the middle of the twentieth century, while merely fine-tuning the genetic nature arguments. His main point is that genes are at the root of both nurture and nature, but not deterministically so. I think he makes a good point in that regard, but that his inclination on social issue examples tends towards politically conservative views.
His writing style is sensationalistic, making broad comparisons to what “science” might expect, when he is really contrasting with a popular distillation of science. To support his points, beyond a broad overview of scientific research studies, Ridley calls on the themes of literary works and philosophical movements. There are quite a few more of those non-scientific views, as Ridley moves back and forth through the various paradigms in the history of the topic, than I was looking for. I am interested mostly in learning in how things do work, to the best of current knowledge, and less in mistaken directions taken in the past. His argumentation is kept mostly at the level of psychology and anthropology. I don’t doubt that he does understand the molecular biology underlying some of the work, but by choosing to pass above that, he ends up using metaphors of language that are less helpful. I was reminded how psychology is not a hard science, with persuasive reasoning sometimes replacing knowledge of physical mechanism.
I don’t read enough of this subgenre of popular genetics, to be able to compare or contrast the various perspectives, so will have to settle for extracting the material here that seems factual, and suspending judgement on that which seems opinionated. In the last chapter (10 “A Budget of Paradoxical Morals”), he gives seven take-aways, some of which are actually newly introduced topics. In his own words:
Moral 1: Genes are Enablers – Don’t be frightened of genes. They are not gods; they are cogs.
Moral 2: Parents – Being a good parent still matters.
Moral 3: Peers – Individuality is a product of aptitude reinforced by appetite.
Moral 4: Meritocracy – Egalitarians should emphasize nature; snobs should emphasize nurture.
Moral 5: Race - The more we understand both our genes and our instincts, the less inevitable they seem.
Moral 6: Individuality – Social policy must adapt to a world in which everybody is different.
Moral 7: Free Will - is entirely compatible with a brain exquisitely prespecified by, and run by, genes.
June 9, 2016
الطبع البشري ينشأ عن تفاعل الطبع مع التطبع، ويكون الطبع عبر التطبع، فالجينات هي خلاصة المشاعر، و الجينات ليست محركة دمى ولا مجرد ناقلات للوراثة، بل هي تنشط أثناء الحياة وتوقف بعضها البعض وتتفاعل مع البيئة، وهي من يتيح للعقل البشري أن يتعلم ويتذاكى ويتشرب الثقافة و يعبر عن غرائزه.
يقول داروين أن الاختلاف بين الإنسان والحيوانات هو في الدرجة وليس في النوع، فمن قال أن الإنسان الوحيد الذي يمارس الجنس من أجل المتعة أصبح مخطئاً مع وجود قرود البابون التي تمارس الجنس عند الاحتفال بالطعام، أو أن الإنسان هو الوحيد الذي له ثقافة متوارثة فقد وُجد أنثى شامبانزي تكسر جوز الهند باستخدام مطرقة خشبية وتعلم ذلك لأبنائها، و صرنا نعرف أن للحيوانات مشاعر وذكريات وأحاسيس وبديهيات وفضول ومحاكاة ومنطق لكن بدرجات متفاوتة، ومع وجود تشابه جيني بين الشمبانزي والبشر بنسبة تصل ٩٥٪ إلا أن هنالك فجوة ثقافية هائلة بين البشر و أذكى الكائنات الحية، فالبشر يمتلكون أسلحة نووية ويشعلون النار ولهم ما يعبدون وينظمون الشعر ويتعلمون الفلسفة من خلال الثقافة المتراكمة والمتوارثة بين الأجيال، فلم يكن من الممكن لرجل أعمال معاصر أن يقوم بعمله إلا بفضل الكتابة الصوتية الآشورية والطباعة الصينية والجبر العربي والأرقام الهندية ومسك الدفاتر وفق القيد المزدوج الإيطالي والقانون التجاري الهولندي الخ الخ ويرجع المؤلف سبب التطور والحداثة في العقل البشري إلى الجينات التي ساعدت العقل البشري في القيام بما يقوم به بشكل مختلف عما كان بخلاف الحيوانات الأخرى التي لم تتقدم ولم تتطور، فالجينات ليست ناقلة للمعلومات فحسب بل هي مستجيبة للخبرات البيئية.
يرى المؤلف إن البشر مثل باقي الثدييات -وخلافا للطيور- يكونون بحكم الطبيعة إناثاً ما لم تظهر عليهم علامات الذكورة، فالنساء هن الجنس الافتراضي للبشرية، ووجود هرمون التسترستيرون مثلاً هو من يشكل أعضاءهم الذكرية، ووجود جين SRY يجعلك ذكراً ولكي تكون أنثى لا تحتاج إلا إلى تعطيل عمل هذا الجين.
يرى بعض الباحثين أن النفور من زواج المحارم وأشباهه - وعلى ضوء دراسات أجريت في الصين- هو حالة واضحة لعادة تنطبع في العقل أثناء الفترة الحرجة للشباب، فهو تطبع نقي بدون تخيلات مسبقة عمن سينفر منه ممن كان رفيقاً له في طفولته.
يرفض المؤلف إلقاء اللوم على الحتمية البيولوجية لتبرير الشذوذ الجنسي، فمع أن تبريرهم يبدو عقلانياً إلا أنه في غاية الخطورة ، فالميل للعنف أيضاً أمر بيولوجي غريزي عند الذكور إلا أن ذلك لا يعطيهم الحق في ممارسة هذا العنف ولا يؤكد صحته لأنه من وحي الطببعة والغريزة.
أحيانا يكون هناك ميل لاختيار التطبع الذي يناسب الطبع والذي تسميه عالمة النفس ساندرا سكار ب"البحث عن البيئة المناسبة للتركيب الجيني"، فالناس تحب فعل ما تجيده وهم يجيدون فعل ما يحبون، وقد يكون مثال ذلك ميل الصبيان للعب بالأسلحة والمنافسة بينما تميل البنات إلى الدمى والقصص والعلاقات.
لاحظ عالم النبات السويسري "دي كاندول" أنه على مدى قرنين جاء العلماء العظام من مدن ذات تسامح ديني كبير وروابط تجارية ومناخ معتدل وحكومات ديمقراطية، وبذلك يقترح أن الإنجاز والشهرة العلمية ترجع في الغالب إلى الظروف والفرصة أكثر منها إلى العبقرية الفطرية، وخالفه في ذلك "جالتون" قائلاً أن العبقرية العلمية تورث ولا تكتسب، لكن الأقرب إلى الصواب أنه كلما جعلنا المجتمع متكافئاً زاد احتمال التأثير الجيني، فيكون مثلاً أفضل حامل أثقال هو الذي لديه أفضل جينات، في حين أنه في مجتمع متخلف سوف تحدد الخلفية البيئية والفرص من سيكون المنتصر.
البشر يفزعون غالبا من الثعابين، والخوف منهم هو واحد من أشهر أنواع الرهاب عند اليشر والذي قد يكون بسبب مشاهدتهم فزغ آبائهم من الثعابين، وهناك من يخاف من ��لعناكب والعتمة والمرتفعات والرعد والأماكن الضيقة والتي كانت تشكل تهديدا للبشر في العهد الحجري، أما تهديدات العصر الحديث كالبنادق والسيارات فأكثرها لا يسبب الرهاب ! هل هي الجينات من نقلت لنا هذه الخبرات والمعلومات من العصر الحجري؟ الجينات محتمات عنيدة صغيرة تتمخض عن رسائل تنبؤية قاطعة لكنها بعيدة عن كونها ثابتة في أعمالها بل هي أدوات لاستخلاص المعلومات من البيئة.
لعل ما يلخص فكرة الكتاب هو مثال نظرتنا إلى الجمال، فهو طبع متوراث وتطبع مكتسب كذلك ، فيمكن للحمية الغذائية والتمارين الرياضية والحلاقة والماكياج والعمليات جعل الشخص جميلاً بالتطبع، بل يكفي المال والرفاهية والراحة لجعل غير الجميل جذاباً تماما مثلما يحدث في هوليوود، ويمكن للفقر والضغط النفسي تدمير جمال الجميل.
مفاهيم كريهة مثل العنصرية قد تكون موجودة في الجينات تجعل الإنسان يتعصب ضد من يختلفون عنه عرقياً، فالتعصب العنصري قد يكون فطرياً، حتى أن علماء الوراثة في القرن العشرين اجتهدوا في اثبات أن الاختلافات بين البيض والسود أعمق من كونها مجرد اختلافات في لون البشرة بل هي تشمل العقل و التفكير !
يقول داروين أن الاختلاف بين الإنسان والحيوانات هو في الدرجة وليس في النوع، فمن قال أن الإنسان الوحيد الذي يمارس الجنس من أجل المتعة أصبح مخطئاً مع وجود قرود البابون التي تمارس الجنس عند الاحتفال بالطعام، أو أن الإنسان هو الوحيد الذي له ثقافة متوارثة فقد وُجد أنثى شامبانزي تكسر جوز الهند باستخدام مطرقة خشبية وتعلم ذلك لأبنائها، و صرنا نعرف أن للحيوانات مشاعر وذكريات وأحاسيس وبديهيات وفضول ومحاكاة ومنطق لكن بدرجات متفاوتة، ومع وجود تشابه جيني بين الشمبانزي والبشر بنسبة تصل ٩٥٪ إلا أن هنالك فجوة ثقافية هائلة بين البشر و أذكى الكائنات الحية، فالبشر يمتلكون أسلحة نووية ويشعلون النار ولهم ما يعبدون وينظمون الشعر ويتعلمون الفلسفة من خلال الثقافة المتراكمة والمتوارثة بين الأجيال، فلم يكن من الممكن لرجل أعمال معاصر أن يقوم بعمله إلا بفضل الكتابة الصوتية الآشورية والطباعة الصينية والجبر العربي والأرقام الهندية ومسك الدفاتر وفق القيد المزدوج الإيطالي والقانون التجاري الهولندي الخ الخ ويرجع المؤلف سبب التطور والحداثة في العقل البشري إلى الجينات التي ساعدت العقل البشري في القيام بما يقوم به بشكل مختلف عما كان بخلاف الحيوانات الأخرى التي لم تتقدم ولم تتطور، فالجينات ليست ناقلة للمعلومات فحسب بل هي مستجيبة للخبرات البيئية.
يرى المؤلف إن البشر مثل باقي الثدييات -وخلافا للطيور- يكونون بحكم الطبيعة إناثاً ما لم تظهر عليهم علامات الذكورة، فالنساء هن الجنس الافتراضي للبشرية، ووجود هرمون التسترستيرون مثلاً هو من يشكل أعضاءهم الذكرية، ووجود جين SRY يجعلك ذكراً ولكي تكون أنثى لا تحتاج إلا إلى تعطيل عمل هذا الجين.
يرى بعض الباحثين أن النفور من زواج المحارم وأشباهه - وعلى ضوء دراسات أجريت في الصين- هو حالة واضحة لعادة تنطبع في العقل أثناء الفترة الحرجة للشباب، فهو تطبع نقي بدون تخيلات مسبقة عمن سينفر منه ممن كان رفيقاً له في طفولته.
يرفض المؤلف إلقاء اللوم على الحتمية البيولوجية لتبرير الشذوذ الجنسي، فمع أن تبريرهم يبدو عقلانياً إلا أنه في غاية الخطورة ، فالميل للعنف أيضاً أمر بيولوجي غريزي عند الذكور إلا أن ذلك لا يعطيهم الحق في ممارسة هذا العنف ولا يؤكد صحته لأنه من وحي الطببعة والغريزة.
أحيانا يكون هناك ميل لاختيار التطبع الذي يناسب الطبع والذي تسميه عالمة النفس ساندرا سكار ب"البحث عن البيئة المناسبة للتركيب الجيني"، فالناس تحب فعل ما تجيده وهم يجيدون فعل ما يحبون، وقد يكون مثال ذلك ميل الصبيان للعب بالأسلحة والمنافسة بينما تميل البنات إلى الدمى والقصص والعلاقات.
لاحظ عالم النبات السويسري "دي كاندول" أنه على مدى قرنين جاء العلماء العظام من مدن ذات تسامح ديني كبير وروابط تجارية ومناخ معتدل وحكومات ديمقراطية، وبذلك يقترح أن الإنجاز والشهرة العلمية ترجع في الغالب إلى الظروف والفرصة أكثر منها إلى العبقرية الفطرية، وخالفه في ذلك "جالتون" قائلاً أن العبقرية العلمية تورث ولا تكتسب، لكن الأقرب إلى الصواب أنه كلما جعلنا المجتمع متكافئاً زاد احتمال التأثير الجيني، فيكون مثلاً أفضل حامل أثقال هو الذي لديه أفضل جينات، في حين أنه في مجتمع متخلف سوف تحدد الخلفية البيئية والفرص من سيكون المنتصر.
البشر يفزعون غالبا من الثعابين، والخوف منهم هو واحد من أشهر أنواع الرهاب عند اليشر والذي قد يكون بسبب مشاهدتهم فزغ آبائهم من الثعابين، وهناك من يخاف من ��لعناكب والعتمة والمرتفعات والرعد والأماكن الضيقة والتي كانت تشكل تهديدا للبشر في العهد الحجري، أما تهديدات العصر الحديث كالبنادق والسيارات فأكثرها لا يسبب الرهاب ! هل هي الجينات من نقلت لنا هذه الخبرات والمعلومات من العصر الحجري؟ الجينات محتمات عنيدة صغيرة تتمخض عن رسائل تنبؤية قاطعة لكنها بعيدة عن كونها ثابتة في أعمالها بل هي أدوات لاستخلاص المعلومات من البيئة.
لعل ما يلخص فكرة الكتاب هو مثال نظرتنا إلى الجمال، فهو طبع متوراث وتطبع مكتسب كذلك ، فيمكن للحمية الغذائية والتمارين الرياضية والحلاقة والماكياج والعمليات جعل الشخص جميلاً بالتطبع، بل يكفي المال والرفاهية والراحة لجعل غير الجميل جذاباً تماما مثلما يحدث في هوليوود، ويمكن للفقر والضغط النفسي تدمير جمال الجميل.
مفاهيم كريهة مثل العنصرية قد تكون موجودة في الجينات تجعل الإنسان يتعصب ضد من يختلفون عنه عرقياً، فالتعصب العنصري قد يكون فطرياً، حتى أن علماء الوراثة في القرن العشرين اجتهدوا في اثبات أن الاختلافات بين البيض والسود أعمق من كونها مجرد اختلافات في لون البشرة بل هي تشمل العقل و التفكير !
June 16, 2017
Having read "Genome" by Matt Ridley (and liking it very much), I am somewhat disappointed in this book. Ridley's thesis is clear: he believes that the conflict between nature and nurture is a false one, because in fact nature is expressed and manifested through nurture and therefore there is no conflict, but rather only the interaction of the two. In going about to support his thesis, he demolishes many strawmen along the way. Ridley also appears to embrace demoloshing what is often regarded as common and obvious - in other words, folksy myths.
Ultimately, as Ridely himself notes throughout the book, the conflict is really between free will and genetic determinism. This has traditionally been a philosophical issue. But as scientific methods, technology and tools have advanced, this issue is becoming more of a scientific one, with philosophical undertones in the background. If this is the ultimate issue, then Ridley does an inadequate job addressing it. To be sure, he does provide some cursory commentary on the issue, but nothing in depth.
On the other hand, this is a popular science book and not a scholarly one. And in that sense, Ridley's fast-paced, witty and easily understandable and digestible prose fits the bill. However, if you are looking for a serious discussion of free will vs. determinism issue, this book at best serves as an introductory material to the topic.
Ultimately, as Ridely himself notes throughout the book, the conflict is really between free will and genetic determinism. This has traditionally been a philosophical issue. But as scientific methods, technology and tools have advanced, this issue is becoming more of a scientific one, with philosophical undertones in the background. If this is the ultimate issue, then Ridley does an inadequate job addressing it. To be sure, he does provide some cursory commentary on the issue, but nothing in depth.
On the other hand, this is a popular science book and not a scholarly one. And in that sense, Ridley's fast-paced, witty and easily understandable and digestible prose fits the bill. However, if you are looking for a serious discussion of free will vs. determinism issue, this book at best serves as an introductory material to the topic.
May 5, 2020
Very well written and thorough, pleasantly accessible to the layman. Much of this material was familiar to me, but I read a lot about this topic. Nevertheless enjoyed it greatly, I really like Matt Ridley's style.
January 22, 2009
A detailed, readable and witty treatise on how life is controlled by genes (nature) and how life controls genes (nurture). The research, the ideas, the roots of various theories of understanding from 100 years or more to studies that are quite current are all layed out.
I've listened to audio tapes of the book for a couple of years, and am now going carefully through the book, to locate and home in on specific details that I need to study to fully grasp.
The book is a marvelously readable compendium of what we know about genetics and evolution, right up to the publication date. What is also revealed is how little is known in one or two or three decades past, what 5 or 10 years can add to the science. It would surely seem to be worth another book every 5 years at the rate we are going.
I've listened to audio tapes of the book for a couple of years, and am now going carefully through the book, to locate and home in on specific details that I need to study to fully grasp.
The book is a marvelously readable compendium of what we know about genetics and evolution, right up to the publication date. What is also revealed is how little is known in one or two or three decades past, what 5 or 10 years can add to the science. It would surely seem to be worth another book every 5 years at the rate we are going.
September 10, 2018
يعرض الكتاب الصراع و الجدل الدائر بين أنصار نظرية أن صفات البشر تتحدد من خلال الجينات (الطبع), و أنصار نظرية أن صفاتهم تتحدد من خلال البيئة (التطبع), يتحدث الكاتب عن اشهر التجارب التي أجريت من قبل الفريقين و الآراء المختلفة لكليهما، و يحاول أخيراً إثبات أن كلّاً من الجينات و البيئة لهما دور كبير في تشكيل الإنسان و أن كلّاً منهما يؤثر في الآخر بطرق معقدة و متشابكة.
June 2, 2014
This was my first science book that I read for leisure and I must say it has got me hooked on the genre. I loved Ridley's style - the humor, logic, experiments and his own thoughts. I wish there were more authors writing not-so-technical science books in my own area of expertise.
October 11, 2021
I wanted a decent scientific modern perspective on the nature vs nurture argument, but one that was suitable for the lay reader who does not have a strong academic background in science. This I picked up on a website as the book for me, and it certainly did not disappoint. Whilst there were a few bits that went over my head, and I certainly didn't absorb it all, I took in enough that I have a clear perspective on how the two exist in a mutually symbiotic relationship. Gone are the days of 'Is it nature or nurture that made them who they are?', and long live a truth that nature works with nurture to shape us into the people we are.
Ridley's tone was inviting to read, certainly not intimidating to those like me who aren't "science-minded", and all this despite him being extremely well-read on the topic. I would certainly read more of his works, and definitely agree with the recommendation of this book being a contemporary forerunner on the topic.
Ridley's tone was inviting to read, certainly not intimidating to those like me who aren't "science-minded", and all this despite him being extremely well-read on the topic. I would certainly read more of his works, and definitely agree with the recommendation of this book being a contemporary forerunner on the topic.
November 9, 2017
Decent book that bundles together the various ideas Ridley expounded in his earlier works. At the end he draws a set of conclusions that basically boils down to this: nature versus nurture is nonsense - it's nature via nurture.
Genotype and environment are locked in an endless cycle of mutual feedback. A gene leading to a certain disposition can be expressed or surpressed, depending on the environment the gene finds itself. Boys with criminal tendencies can be raised as good citizens within the right family setting.
I like the way Ridley devotes different chapters to different domains of the nature vs. nurture debate: nativism/instinctivism, genetic determinism and eugenics, behaviour genetics, developmental psychology, sociology. He gives a detailed description of the historical origins of these ideas and the fierce debates that led to the eventual demise or triumph of the different ideas.
I like the message Ridley delivers, I like the way he writes and I like his realism and erudition. Nonetheless, I found the book (too) lengthy at points and I missed the breath taking new insights he brought with his earlier books.
Genotype and environment are locked in an endless cycle of mutual feedback. A gene leading to a certain disposition can be expressed or surpressed, depending on the environment the gene finds itself. Boys with criminal tendencies can be raised as good citizens within the right family setting.
I like the way Ridley devotes different chapters to different domains of the nature vs. nurture debate: nativism/instinctivism, genetic determinism and eugenics, behaviour genetics, developmental psychology, sociology. He gives a detailed description of the historical origins of these ideas and the fierce debates that led to the eventual demise or triumph of the different ideas.
I like the message Ridley delivers, I like the way he writes and I like his realism and erudition. Nonetheless, I found the book (too) lengthy at points and I missed the breath taking new insights he brought with his earlier books.
January 6, 2020
I am enjoying Nature via Nurture, although it hasn’t aged well. It’s the second time I’ve read it and somehow it doesn’t flow as well as in 2003. It goes without saying that genetics has advanced massively in twenty years, rendering this book dated. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
In summary: is [issue X] a product of nature (genetics) or nurture (learned behaviour)? Why, it’s a product of BOTH! Rinse and repeat.
The language is excellent and the examples interesting, of which I am enjoying. However, in a new 2020 era of political correctness and general wokeness, some of the casual inferences of society jar - badly. A google search present Matt Ridley (to me) as a brilliant, aging, upper class British toff. I encourage you to make sweeping assumptions based on that information the same way Ridley makes sweeping assumptions of gay men.
Enjoy this book for its penetrating analysis, time capsule presentation of naughties genetics and general science history but try not to let Ridley’s boomer-esque tone get to you.
In summary: is [issue X] a product of nature (genetics) or nurture (learned behaviour)? Why, it’s a product of BOTH! Rinse and repeat.
The language is excellent and the examples interesting, of which I am enjoying. However, in a new 2020 era of political correctness and general wokeness, some of the casual inferences of society jar - badly. A google search present Matt Ridley (to me) as a brilliant, aging, upper class British toff. I encourage you to make sweeping assumptions based on that information the same way Ridley makes sweeping assumptions of gay men.
Enjoy this book for its penetrating analysis, time capsule presentation of naughties genetics and general science history but try not to let Ridley’s boomer-esque tone get to you.
March 20, 2016
The best book I have ever read on the nature-nurture debate. Ridley is an engaging author who weaves a tapestry of science, politics, history and anecdote. The binding thread is famous scientists and philosophers who have framed the nature-nurture debate over the past few hundred years. All of them have introduced profound insights, and if you were to put them all in a room together, then surely their bushy beards would all get tangled up.
Apart from the human and political element, I loved Ridley's description of state-of-the-art experimentation, and especially new experimental techniques that rely on recent innovations. A tremendous amount has been learned since Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It seems that the life sciences will only extend that knowledge exponentially in the next few decades as high technology allows experimentation that previous generations could never have dreamed about.
Informative and entertaining, hat goes off to Matt Ridley.
Apart from the human and political element, I loved Ridley's description of state-of-the-art experimentation, and especially new experimental techniques that rely on recent innovations. A tremendous amount has been learned since Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It seems that the life sciences will only extend that knowledge exponentially in the next few decades as high technology allows experimentation that previous generations could never have dreamed about.
Informative and entertaining, hat goes off to Matt Ridley.
August 19, 2011
I love this author. He is direct with his examples, moves quickly and yet you never feel like you miss a step. It's always very fluid and easy with Ridley. I preferred both the Genome and the Red Queen to this however, if you have yet to read much on the subject of genetics those would be a better start. Not because anything in this one is incomprehensible in the least bit without any other knowledge, but more just because if you had to pick any one of these awesome texts those would be a better choice. Still I found this a wonderful addition to my growing Ridley Collection and was pleased at his approach. He did not in any ways take sides in the Nature/Nurture debate. Instead he tells the tale of how one naturally leads to the other and how important both are to the human system/organism.
March 1, 2012
GREAT BOOK - lots of science and even though it was published before the Human Genome project was finished, we (my book discussion group) could find nothing out of date about the data - basic premise: that Genes are not static but are an active and varying and incredibly wondrous part of the development of homo sapiens from conception to death. Many genes change sometimes as often as every second and sometimes as often as once in a lifetime and sometimes never depending on DNA switches that respond to environment or conditions during post conception (which can include during the womb). Highly recommend.
May 2, 2014
Supreme!
I do not remember enjoying (which is very different from liking or learning from) any book more than I enjoyed reading Genome. This is a real sequel and in many ways it has the advantage of being focused.
The main idea expressed in this book is that Genes are the underlying mechanisms for BOTH nature and nurture and as such these two are not in a fight they are collaborating factors. No matter how common-sensical this may be, many people for long time were against it.
I do not remember enjoying (which is very different from liking or learning from) any book more than I enjoyed reading Genome. This is a real sequel and in many ways it has the advantage of being focused.
The main idea expressed in this book is that Genes are the underlying mechanisms for BOTH nature and nurture and as such these two are not in a fight they are collaborating factors. No matter how common-sensical this may be, many people for long time were against it.
August 19, 2008
Good book on the role played by genetics and experience on psychology and biology.
March 13, 2016
Quite a fascinating and an informative read.
Shelved as 'xx-dnf-skim-reference'
December 28, 2016I read prologue, epilogue, and discussion of free will. Considering how (relatively) old this is, that's plenty.
December 5, 2019
Yetiştirme aracılığı ile doğa
August 29, 2023
Starts off super theoretical to the point where it almost lost me but the last chapter really ties everything together really smoothly and I couldn't put it down for the last 75 pages or so. There were some key takeaways:
- One gene doesn't necessarily code for one trait. Sometimes there are genes who's sole purpose is to activate other genes which activate other genes. This was the author's clearest argument for why nature and nurture, as two ideas we usually understand on a spectrum opposite each other are really collaborators to making a human being who they are. There are countless examples in the book that describe experiments done in the late 90s and early 2000s (this book was written in 2003) that show that despite having genes that we know work together to code for a specific trait it isn't until an organism is put into an environment where those genes are catalyzed that the organism displays that trait. This alone turns the nature vs. nurture debate on its heels.
- We have a lot of the same exact genes as close relatives to ours, like various species of primates. I think it says somewhere in here that only 3% of genes are unique to homo sapiens, the rest are shared with common ancestors. The argument made here is that one gene most likely does multiple things within our cells.
I've been really enjoying reading scientific books because of how surprisingly philosophical they are. This book explores questions that deal with our basic understanding of humanity and culture. I was particularly fascinated by the idea that meritocracies could be considered eugenic in nature because of how little control individual humans have over the circumstances that control their lives. I know I don't have the whole picture, and that it could probably be debated, but that idea in and of itself was really interesting to me.
Another thing I loved about this book was how it didn't define what a gene was until the second to last chapter almost 200 pages in. And in that definition it gives seven different ways that the word gene is used to describe how living things work.
I'm glad I read this book for this sentence alone, that I think really encapsulates the author's theory that nature and nurture work together to determine an individual's life: "Genes themselves are implacable little determinists, churning out utterly predictable messages. But because of the way their promoters switch on and off in response to external instruction, genes are very far from being fixed in their actions. Instead, they are devices for extracting information from the environment" (P. 248).
- One gene doesn't necessarily code for one trait. Sometimes there are genes who's sole purpose is to activate other genes which activate other genes. This was the author's clearest argument for why nature and nurture, as two ideas we usually understand on a spectrum opposite each other are really collaborators to making a human being who they are. There are countless examples in the book that describe experiments done in the late 90s and early 2000s (this book was written in 2003) that show that despite having genes that we know work together to code for a specific trait it isn't until an organism is put into an environment where those genes are catalyzed that the organism displays that trait. This alone turns the nature vs. nurture debate on its heels.
- We have a lot of the same exact genes as close relatives to ours, like various species of primates. I think it says somewhere in here that only 3% of genes are unique to homo sapiens, the rest are shared with common ancestors. The argument made here is that one gene most likely does multiple things within our cells.
I've been really enjoying reading scientific books because of how surprisingly philosophical they are. This book explores questions that deal with our basic understanding of humanity and culture. I was particularly fascinated by the idea that meritocracies could be considered eugenic in nature because of how little control individual humans have over the circumstances that control their lives. I know I don't have the whole picture, and that it could probably be debated, but that idea in and of itself was really interesting to me.
Another thing I loved about this book was how it didn't define what a gene was until the second to last chapter almost 200 pages in. And in that definition it gives seven different ways that the word gene is used to describe how living things work.
I'm glad I read this book for this sentence alone, that I think really encapsulates the author's theory that nature and nurture work together to determine an individual's life: "Genes themselves are implacable little determinists, churning out utterly predictable messages. But because of the way their promoters switch on and off in response to external instruction, genes are very far from being fixed in their actions. Instead, they are devices for extracting information from the environment" (P. 248).
August 28, 2021
Matt Ridley doesn't disappoint. Similar to Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters or The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, both highly engrossing reads where he managed to be both accessible yet detailed enough to please lay readers willing to delve deeper than your usual pop science book, here's another masterpiece set to become a classic. Please note the telling title -it's not about nature vs nurture, but a view which seems to flip our understanding of human nature completely upside-down. Well, of course, we all know that what shapes our behaviours and capabilities are both a matter of genes and environment... or do we? The traps of determinism (be it biological or environmental) seem to loom large indeed, and reading around in the mass medias or the pop culture it still seem to be either/ or. Is the debate between the geneticists against the empiricists really over?
'Nature via Nurture' is wide encompassing, and as such it can be intimidating. As much as I love Matt Ridley, it's undeniable that he here gives his readers a lot to chew upon! It will be enthralling, engrossing, and fascinating as usual, but it will also requires some more efforts too. In fact, he structured his book by building a whole argument starting around an imaginary picture featuring crucial scientist and their theories -Darwin, Galton, James, Kraepelin, Freud, Boas, Durkheim, Piaget, Lorenz, De Vries, Pavlov, and Watson. Needless to say, from biology to anthropology and psychology and psychiatry and even linguistics, here's a multi-tentacles monster! Nevertheless, this is probably the best window offered into the fascinating interaction between genes and environment, a great lecture about the never ending feedbacks shaping us all as unique individuals.
Absolutely brilliant.
'Nature via Nurture' is wide encompassing, and as such it can be intimidating. As much as I love Matt Ridley, it's undeniable that he here gives his readers a lot to chew upon! It will be enthralling, engrossing, and fascinating as usual, but it will also requires some more efforts too. In fact, he structured his book by building a whole argument starting around an imaginary picture featuring crucial scientist and their theories -Darwin, Galton, James, Kraepelin, Freud, Boas, Durkheim, Piaget, Lorenz, De Vries, Pavlov, and Watson. Needless to say, from biology to anthropology and psychology and psychiatry and even linguistics, here's a multi-tentacles monster! Nevertheless, this is probably the best window offered into the fascinating interaction between genes and environment, a great lecture about the never ending feedbacks shaping us all as unique individuals.
Absolutely brilliant.
July 8, 2017
This book was hard to put down because of Ridley's extremely engaging approach, which, to me was his greatest strength and also his weakness.
Let me tell you about it really quickly.
Chapter 1 is perhaps my favorite. You won't understand the book nor follow its flow if you won't commit to the argument and style of chapter 1. IN that chapter, Ridley builds the foundation for his "one long argument", if I may borrow from Darwin.
His argument follows flawlessly, like a river undisturbed. The flow is both violent and calm. The strength lies in his effective method in strengthening his points. This mode of argumentation, does not just relies not on devious tricks of trade, but Ridley gives you a reason to believe him by amply supplying his arguments with the latest scientific results at the time of writing. The bevy of scientists he paints all join in together to form this dynamic, yet, important debate among themselves, and Ridley plays the part of mediator between the two in excellence - equally (for the most part) summarizing their points in quick, witty, and accessible form.
Which becomes a problem. Ridley is rich with facts and examples, and to add strength to his arguments, he quickly dispenses with individual facts quickly to move to the next one. There are extremely interesting examples that he mentions but leaves in the dust all of a sudden to call up another point, which I think is unfortunate. The quality of his argument is already there, but I think Ridley wanted to up it all up by banking on quantity.
This I feel is the book's greatest paradox. The premise of the debate regarding nurture against nature is paralleled with the choice between quantity and quality. It need not be one over the other. It should be one supplementing the other and vice versa, in an endless dialogue, which I feel, in Ridley's case, is lost in his crusade to marshal all the facts that he can in order to build his case by the sheer force of quantity. One need not to be agile in apportioning facts in order to illustrate the agility of genes.
Let me tell you about it really quickly.
Chapter 1 is perhaps my favorite. You won't understand the book nor follow its flow if you won't commit to the argument and style of chapter 1. IN that chapter, Ridley builds the foundation for his "one long argument", if I may borrow from Darwin.
His argument follows flawlessly, like a river undisturbed. The flow is both violent and calm. The strength lies in his effective method in strengthening his points. This mode of argumentation, does not just relies not on devious tricks of trade, but Ridley gives you a reason to believe him by amply supplying his arguments with the latest scientific results at the time of writing. The bevy of scientists he paints all join in together to form this dynamic, yet, important debate among themselves, and Ridley plays the part of mediator between the two in excellence - equally (for the most part) summarizing their points in quick, witty, and accessible form.
Which becomes a problem. Ridley is rich with facts and examples, and to add strength to his arguments, he quickly dispenses with individual facts quickly to move to the next one. There are extremely interesting examples that he mentions but leaves in the dust all of a sudden to call up another point, which I think is unfortunate. The quality of his argument is already there, but I think Ridley wanted to up it all up by banking on quantity.
This I feel is the book's greatest paradox. The premise of the debate regarding nurture against nature is paralleled with the choice between quantity and quality. It need not be one over the other. It should be one supplementing the other and vice versa, in an endless dialogue, which I feel, in Ridley's case, is lost in his crusade to marshal all the facts that he can in order to build his case by the sheer force of quantity. One need not to be agile in apportioning facts in order to illustrate the agility of genes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 170 reviews