What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱胤亘毓 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲胤亘毓: 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賵丕賱禺亘乇丞 賵賲丕 賷噩毓賱賳丕 丌丿賲賷賷賳
毓賱賶 賲丿丕乇 413 氐賮丨丞 賵毓卮乇丞 賮氐賵賱貙 賷噩賲毓 丕賱毓賲賱 禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱氐乇丕毓丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 丿丕乇鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘毓 賵丕賱鬲胤亘毓貨 賵賴賱 鬲鬲丨丿丿 氐賮丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 噩賷賳丕鬲賴賲 (丕賱胤亘毓) 兀賲 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱亘賷卅丞 (丕賱鬲胤亘毓)責 丨賷孬 氐丕乇 丕賱氐乇丕毓 賯賵賷賸丕 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲賲 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 丕賱噩賷賳賷賵賲 丕賱亘卮乇賶 丕賱匕賶 賷丨鬲賵賶 毓賱賶 毓丿丿 賯賱賷賱 賳爻亘賷賸丕 賲賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲貙 賮賴賳丕賰 賲賳 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賲賳 夭毓賲 亘兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 賲丕 賷賰賮賶 賲賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賱廿丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 丕賱胤丕乇卅丞 毓賱賶 丕賱亘卮乇貙 兀賲丕 賲丐賱賮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷噩夭賲 亘兀賳賴 賷賲賰賳 丕賱噩賲毓 亘賷賳賴賲貙 賵兀賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賲賴賷卅丞 賱兀賳 鬲兀禺匕 丿賵乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱鬲胤亘毓.
亘丨爻亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮貙 兀賳 賱賷賳賷賳 賯丿 兀丿乇賰 賮賶 毓卮乇賷賳賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賲丕囟賶貙 兀賳 賳噩丕丨 丕賱丨夭亘 丕賱卮賷賵毓賶 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮乇囟賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賳丕丿賶 亘兀賳 丕賱胤亘毓 丕賱亘卮乇賶 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 鬲丿乇賷亘賴 毓賱賶 賳馗丕賲 噩丿賷丿貙 賮賰丕賳 賷賯賵賱貙 廿賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷賲賰賳 鬲賯賵賷賲賴 賵賷賲賰賳 噩毓賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丨賵 丕賱匕賶 賳乇賷丿賴貙 賮廿賳 兀睾賱亘 丕賱氐乇丕毓 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賶 賰丕賳 賷丿賵乇 丨賵賱 賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱匕賶 爻賵賮 賷爻鬲睾乇賯 賮賶 廿賳鬲丕噩 賴匕丕 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱噩丿賷丿貙 賵賴匕丕 丕賱賴丿賮 賱賲 賷賰賳 賱賴 兀賶 賲毓賳賶 賲丕 賱賲 鬲賰賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 胤乇賵賯丞 鬲賲丕賲丕 賵賷爻賴賱 鬲卮賰賷賱賴丕.
亘丨爻亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮貙 賮廿賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱氐乇丕毓 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘毓 賵丕賱鬲胤亘毓貙 賱賲 賷賳鬲氐乇 賮賷賴 兀丨丿 賲賳賴賲丕貙 賮禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賶 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 兀馗賴乇鬲 兀賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賴賶 禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇貙 賮賴賶 丕賱爻亘賱 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 丕賱賲禺賱賵賯丕鬲 賲乇賳丞 賵賰兀賳賴丕 禺丕丿賲 賱賱鬲噩乇亘丞貙 賵賷禺賱氐 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賶 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 兀賳賴 毓賱賶 胤賵賱 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賷賰賵賳 丕賱胤亘毓 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲胤亘毓.
亘丨爻亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮貙 兀賳 賱賷賳賷賳 賯丿 兀丿乇賰 賮賶 毓卮乇賷賳賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賲丕囟賶貙 兀賳 賳噩丕丨 丕賱丨夭亘 丕賱卮賷賵毓賶 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮乇囟賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賳丕丿賶 亘兀賳 丕賱胤亘毓 丕賱亘卮乇賶 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 鬲丿乇賷亘賴 毓賱賶 賳馗丕賲 噩丿賷丿貙 賮賰丕賳 賷賯賵賱貙 廿賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷賲賰賳 鬲賯賵賷賲賴 賵賷賲賰賳 噩毓賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丨賵 丕賱匕賶 賳乇賷丿賴貙 賮廿賳 兀睾賱亘 丕賱氐乇丕毓 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賶 賰丕賳 賷丿賵乇 丨賵賱 賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱匕賶 爻賵賮 賷爻鬲睾乇賯 賮賶 廿賳鬲丕噩 賴匕丕 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱噩丿賷丿貙 賵賴匕丕 丕賱賴丿賮 賱賲 賷賰賳 賱賴 兀賶 賲毓賳賶 賲丕 賱賲 鬲賰賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 胤乇賵賯丞 鬲賲丕賲丕 賵賷爻賴賱 鬲卮賰賷賱賴丕.
亘丨爻亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮貙 賮廿賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱氐乇丕毓 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘毓 賵丕賱鬲胤亘毓貙 賱賲 賷賳鬲氐乇 賮賷賴 兀丨丿 賲賳賴賲丕貙 賮禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賶 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 兀馗賴乇鬲 兀賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賴賶 禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇貙 賮賴賶 丕賱爻亘賱 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 丕賱賲禺賱賵賯丕鬲 賲乇賳丞 賵賰兀賳賴丕 禺丕丿賲 賱賱鬲噩乇亘丞貙 賵賷禺賱氐 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賶 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 兀賳賴 毓賱賶 胤賵賱 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賷賰賵賳 丕賱胤亘毓 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲胤亘毓.
414 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
226 people are currently reading
6871 people want to read
About the author
Matt Ridley
34听books2,141听followersMatthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, is a British science writer, journalist and businessman. He is known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics, and has been a regular contributor to The Times newspaper. Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period it experienced the first run on a British bank in 130 years. He resigned, and the bank was bailed out by the UK government; this led to its nationalisation.
Ridley is a libertarian, and a staunch supporter of Brexit. He inherited the viscountcy in February 2012 and was a Conservative hereditary peer from February 2013, with an elected seat in the House of Lords, until his retirement in December 2021.
Ridley is a libertarian, and a staunch supporter of Brexit. He inherited the viscountcy in February 2012 and was a Conservative hereditary peer from February 2013, with an elected seat in the House of Lords, until his retirement in December 2021.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 173 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
丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲胤亘賾毓 賱賱賰丕鬲亘 賲丕鬲 乇賷丿賱賷
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 鬲賮賰賷賰 丕賱毓賯丿丞 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯賵賱 亘兀賳 賴賳丕賰 鬲毓丕乇囟 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘毓 賵丕賱鬲胤亘賾毓 兀賵 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賵丕賱亘賷卅丞 賵兀賳 兀丨丿賴賲丕 賮賯胤 賴賵 丕賱氐丨賷丨. 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 鬲丕乇賷禺 賴匕丕 丕賱噩丿賱 賯亘賱 兀賳 賷胤乇丨 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐賰丿 兀賳 賰賱丕 丕賱賮乇賷賯賷賳 禺丕胤卅賷賳貙 賮丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賵丕賱亘賷卅丞 賱丕 賷鬲賳丕賮爻丕賳 毓賱賶 鬲丨丿賷丿 氐賮丕丞 賵爻賱賵賰 丕賱亘卮乇貙 亘賱 賷鬲毓丕賵賳丕賳貙 賮賱丕 鬲馗賴乇 丕賱氐賮丕丞 丕賱噩賷賳賷丞 廿賱丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱鬲賮丕毓賱 賲毓 丕賱亘賷卅丞.
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 鬲賮賰賷賰 丕賱毓賯丿丞 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯賵賱 亘兀賳 賴賳丕賰 鬲毓丕乇囟 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘毓 賵丕賱鬲胤亘賾毓 兀賵 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賵丕賱亘賷卅丞 賵兀賳 兀丨丿賴賲丕 賮賯胤 賴賵 丕賱氐丨賷丨. 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 鬲丕乇賷禺 賴匕丕 丕賱噩丿賱 賯亘賱 兀賳 賷胤乇丨 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐賰丿 兀賳 賰賱丕 丕賱賮乇賷賯賷賳 禺丕胤卅賷賳貙 賮丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賵丕賱亘賷卅丞 賱丕 賷鬲賳丕賮爻丕賳 毓賱賶 鬲丨丿賷丿 氐賮丕丞 賵爻賱賵賰 丕賱亘卮乇貙 亘賱 賷鬲毓丕賵賳丕賳貙 賮賱丕 鬲馗賴乇 丕賱氐賮丕丞 丕賱噩賷賳賷丞 廿賱丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱鬲賮丕毓賱 賲毓 丕賱亘賷卅丞.
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 . 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.
June 9, 2016
丕賱胤亘毓 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賷賳卮兀 毓賳 鬲賮丕毓賱 丕賱胤亘毓 賲毓 丕賱鬲胤亘毓貙 賵賷賰賵賳 丕賱胤亘毓 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲胤亘毓貙 賮丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賴賷 禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇貙 賵 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賱賷爻鬲 賲丨乇賰丞 丿賲賶 賵賱丕 賲噩乇丿 賳丕賯賱丕鬲 賱賱賵乇丕孬丞貙 亘賱 賴賷 鬲賳卮胤 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵鬲賵賯賮 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賵鬲鬲賮丕毓賱 賲毓 丕賱亘賷卅丞貙 賵賴賷 賲賳 賷鬲賷丨 賱賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 兀賳 賷鬲毓賱賲 賵賷鬲匕丕賰賶 賵賷鬲卮乇亘 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 賷毓亘乇 毓賳 睾乇丕卅夭賴.
賷賯賵賱 丿丕乇賵賷賳 兀賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賴賵 賮賷 丕賱丿乇噩丞 賵賱賷爻 賮賷 丕賱賳賵毓貙 賮賲賳 賯丕賱 兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷賲丕乇爻 丕賱噩賳爻 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 兀氐亘丨 賲禺胤卅丕賸 賲毓 賵噩賵丿 賯乇賵丿 丕賱亘丕亘賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲丕乇爻 丕賱噩賳爻 毓賳丿 丕賱丕丨鬲賮丕賱 亘丕賱胤毓丕賲貙 兀賵 兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賴賵 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賱賴 孬賯丕賮丞 賲鬲賵丕乇孬丞 賮賯丿 賵購噩丿 兀賳孬賶 卮丕賲亘丕賳夭賷 鬲賰爻乇 噩賵夭 丕賱賴賳丿 亘丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賲胤乇賯丞 禺卮亘賷丞 賵鬲毓賱賲 匕賱賰 賱兀亘賳丕卅賴丕貙 賵 氐乇賳丕 賳毓乇賮 兀賳 賱賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賲卮丕毓乇 賵匕賰乇賷丕鬲 賵兀丨丕爻賷爻 賵亘丿賷賴賷丕鬲 賵賮囟賵賱 賵賲丨丕賰丕丞 賵賲賳胤賯 賱賰賳 亘丿乇噩丕鬲 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲丞貙 賵賲毓 賵噩賵丿 鬲卮丕亘賴 噩賷賳賷 亘賷賳 丕賱卮賲亘丕賳夭賷 賵丕賱亘卮乇 亘賳爻亘丞 鬲氐賱 侃佶侏鈥� 廿賱丕 兀賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賮噩賵丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賴丕卅賱丞 亘賷賳 丕賱亘卮乇 賵 兀匕賰賶 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丞貙 賮丕賱亘卮乇 賷賲鬲賱賰賵賳 兀爻賱丨丞 賳賵賵賷丞 賵賷卮毓賱賵賳 丕賱賳丕乇 賵賱賴賲 賲丕 賷毓亘丿賵賳 賵賷賳馗賲賵賳 丕賱卮毓乇 賵賷鬲毓賱賲賵賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱賲鬲乇丕賰賲丞 賵丕賱賲鬲賵丕乇孬丞 亘賷賳 丕賱兀噩賷丕賱貙 賮賱賲 賷賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 賱乇噩賱 兀毓賲丕賱 賲毓丕氐乇 兀賳 賷賯賵賲 亘毓賲賱賴 廿賱丕 亘賮囟賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丕賱氐賵鬲賷丞 丕賱丌卮賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱胤亘丕毓丞 丕賱氐賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱噩亘乇 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賵丕賱兀乇賯丕賲 丕賱賴賳丿賷丞 賵賲爻賰 丕賱丿賮丕鬲乇 賵賮賯 丕賱賯賷丿 丕賱賲夭丿賵噩 丕賱廿賷胤丕賱賷 賵丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱鬲噩丕乇賷 丕賱賴賵賱賳丿賷 丕賱禺 丕賱禺 賵賷乇噩毓 丕賱賲丐賱賮 爻亘亘 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 賵丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 賮賷 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 爻丕毓丿鬲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賮賷 丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘賲丕 賷賯賵賲 亘賴 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲賱賮 毓賲丕 賰丕賳 亘禺賱丕賮 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲鬲賯丿賲 賵賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇貙 賮丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賱賷爻鬲 賳丕賯賱丞 賱賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賮丨爻亘 亘賱 賴賷 賲爻鬲噩賷亘丞 賱賱禺亘乇丕鬲 丕賱亘賷卅賷丞.
賷乇賶 丕賱賲丐賱賮 廿賳 丕賱亘卮乇 賲孬賱 亘丕賯賷 丕賱孬丿賷賷丕鬲 -賵禺賱丕賮丕 賱賱胤賷賵乇- 賷賰賵賳賵賳 亘丨賰賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 廿賳丕孬丕賸 賲丕 賱賲 鬲馗賴乇 毓賱賷賴賲 毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞貙 賮丕賱賳爻丕亍 賴賳 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱丕賮鬲乇丕囟賷 賱賱亘卮乇賷丞貙 賵賵噩賵丿 賴乇賲賵賳 丕賱鬲爻鬲乇爻鬲賷乇賵賳 賲孬賱丕賸 賴賵 賲賳 賷卮賰賱 兀毓囟丕亍賴賲 丕賱匕賰乇賷丞貙 賵賵噩賵丿 噩賷賳 SRY 賷噩毓賱賰 匕賰乇丕賸 賵賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 兀賳孬賶 賱丕 鬲丨鬲丕噩 廿賱丕 廿賱賶 鬲毓胤賷賱 毓賲賱 賴匕丕 丕賱噩賷賳.
賷乇賶 亘毓囟 丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 兀賳 丕賱賳賮賵乇 賲賳 夭賵丕噩 丕賱賲丨丕乇賲 賵兀卮亘丕賴賴 - 賵毓賱賶 囟賵亍 丿乇丕爻丕鬲 兀噩乇賷鬲 賮賷 丕賱氐賷賳- 賴賵 丨丕賱丞 賵丕囟丨丞 賱毓丕丿丞 鬲賳胤亘毓 賮賷 丕賱毓賯賱 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱丨乇噩丞 賱賱卮亘丕亘貙 賮賴賵 鬲胤亘毓 賳賯賷 亘丿賵賳 鬲禺賷賱丕鬲 賲爻亘賯丞 毓賲賳 爻賷賳賮乇 賲賳賴 賲賲賳 賰丕賳 乇賮賷賯丕賸 賱賴 賮賷 胤賮賵賱鬲賴.
賷乇賮囟 丕賱賲丐賱賮 廿賱賯丕亍 丕賱賱賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱丨鬲賲賷丞 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 賱鬲亘乇賷乇 丕賱卮匕賵匕 丕賱噩賳爻賷貙 賮賲毓 兀賳 鬲亘乇賷乇賴賲 賷亘丿賵 毓賯賱丕賳賷丕賸 廿賱丕 兀賳賴 賮賷 睾丕賷丞 丕賱禺胤賵乇丞 貙 賮丕賱賲賷賱 賱賱毓賳賮 兀賷囟丕賸 兀賲乇 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 睾乇賷夭賷 毓賳丿 丕賱匕賰賵乇 廿賱丕 兀賳 匕賱賰 賱丕 賷毓胤賷賴賲 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 賲賲丕乇爻丞 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賳賮 賵賱丕 賷丐賰丿 氐丨鬲賴 賱兀賳賴 賲賳 賵丨賷 丕賱胤亘亘毓丞 賵丕賱睾乇賷夭丞.
兀丨賷丕賳丕 賷賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 賲賷賱 賱丕禺鬲賷丕乇 丕賱鬲胤亘毓 丕賱匕賷 賷賳丕爻亘 丕賱胤亘毓 賵丕賱匕賷 鬲爻賲賷賴 毓丕賱賲丞 丕賱賳賮爻 爻丕賳丿乇丕 爻賰丕乇 亘"丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱亘賷卅丞 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賱鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱噩賷賳賷"貙 賮丕賱賳丕爻 鬲丨亘 賮毓賱 賲丕 鬲噩賷丿賴 賵賴賲 賷噩賷丿賵賳 賮毓賱 賲丕 賷丨亘賵賳貙 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賲孬丕賱 匕賱賰 賲賷賱 丕賱氐亘賷丕賳 賱賱毓亘 亘丕賱兀爻賱丨丞 賵丕賱賲賳丕賮爻丞 亘賷賳賲丕 鬲賲賷賱 丕賱亘賳丕鬲 廿賱賶 丕賱丿賲賶 賵丕賱賯氐氐 賵丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲.
賱丕丨馗 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賳亘丕鬲 丕賱爻賵賷爻乇賷 "丿賷 賰丕賳丿賵賱" 兀賳賴 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 賯乇賳賷賳 噩丕亍 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱毓馗丕賲 賲賳 賲丿賳 匕丕鬲 鬲爻丕賲丨 丿賷賳賷 賰亘賷乇 賵乇賵丕亘胤 鬲噩丕乇賷丞 賵賲賳丕禺 賲毓鬲丿賱 賵丨賰賵賲丕鬲 丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞貙 賵亘匕賱賰 賷賯鬲乇丨 兀賳 丕賱廿賳噩丕夭 賵丕賱卮賴乇丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 鬲乇噩毓 賮賷 丕賱睾丕賱亘 廿賱賶 丕賱馗乇賵賮 賵丕賱賮乇氐丞 兀賰孬乇 賲賳賴丕 廿賱賶 丕賱毓亘賯乇賷丞 丕賱賮胤乇賷丞貙 賵禺丕賱賮賴 賮賷 匕賱賰 "噩丕賱鬲賵賳" 賯丕卅賱丕賸 兀賳 丕賱毓亘賯乇賷丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 鬲賵乇孬 賵賱丕 鬲賰鬲爻亘貙 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賯乇亘 廿賱賶 丕賱氐賵丕亘 兀賳賴 賰賱賲丕 噩毓賱賳丕 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賲鬲賰丕賮卅丕賸 夭丕丿 丕丨鬲賲丕賱 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱噩賷賳賷貙 賮賷賰賵賳 賲孬賱丕賸 兀賮囟賱 丨丕賲賱 兀孬賯丕賱 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賱丿賷賴 兀賮囟賱 噩賷賳丕鬲貙 賮賷 丨賷賳 兀賳賴 賮賷 賲噩鬲賲毓 賲鬲禺賱賮 爻賵賮 鬲丨丿丿 丕賱禺賱賮賷丞 丕賱亘賷卅賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇氐 賲賳 爻賷賰賵賳 丕賱賲賳鬲氐乇.
丕賱亘卮乇 賷賮夭毓賵賳 睾丕賱亘丕 賲賳 丕賱孬毓丕亘賷賳貙 賵丕賱禺賵賮 賲賳賴賲 賴賵 賵丕丨丿 賲賳 兀卮賴乇 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱乇賴丕亘 毓賳丿 丕賱賷卮乇 賵丕賱匕賷 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 亘爻亘亘 賲卮丕賴丿鬲賴賲 賮夭睾 丌亘丕卅賴賲 賲賳 丕賱孬毓丕亘賷賳貙 賵賴賳丕賰 賲賳 賷禺丕賮 賲賳 丕賱毓賳丕賰亘 賵丕賱毓鬲賲丞 賵丕賱賲乇鬲賮毓丕鬲 賵丕賱乇毓丿 賵丕賱兀賲丕賰賳 丕賱囟賷賯丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 鬲卮賰賱 鬲賴丿賷丿丕 賱賱亘卮乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱丨噩乇賷貙 兀賲丕 鬲賴丿賷丿丕鬲 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賰丕賱亘賳丕丿賯 賵丕賱爻賷丕乇丕鬲 賮兀賰孬乇賴丕 賱丕 賷爻亘亘 丕賱乇賴丕亘 ! 賴賱 賴賷 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賲賳 賳賯賱鬲 賱賳丕 賴匕賴 丕賱禺亘乇丕鬲 賵丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨噩乇賷責 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賲丨鬲賲丕鬲 毓賳賷丿丞 氐睾賷乇丞 鬲鬲賲禺囟 毓賳 乇爻丕卅賱 鬲賳亘丐賷丞 賯丕胤毓丞 賱賰賳賴丕 亘毓賷丿丞 毓賳 賰賵賳賴丕 孬丕亘鬲丞 賮賷 兀毓賲丕賱賴丕 亘賱 賴賷 兀丿賵丕鬲 賱丕爻鬲禺賱丕氐 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱亘賷卅丞.
賱毓賱 賲丕 賷賱禺氐 賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 賲孬丕賱 賳馗乇鬲賳丕 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賲丕賱貙 賮賴賵 胤亘毓 賲鬲賵乇丕孬 賵鬲胤亘毓 賲賰鬲爻亘 賰匕賱賰 貙 賮賷賲賰賳 賱賱丨锟斤拷賷丞 丕賱睾匕丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賲丕乇賷賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丞 賵丕賱丨賱丕賯丞 賵丕賱賲丕賰賷丕噩 賵丕賱毓賲賱賷丕鬲 噩毓賱 丕賱卮禺氐 噩賲賷賱丕賸 亘丕賱鬲胤亘毓貙 亘賱 賷賰賮賷 丕賱賲丕賱 賵丕賱乇賮丕賴賷丞 賵丕賱乇丕丨丞 賱噩毓賱 睾賷乇 丕賱噩賲賷賱 噩匕丕亘丕賸 鬲賲丕賲丕 賲孬賱賲丕 賷丨丿孬 賮賷 賴賵賱賷賵賵丿貙 賵賷賲賰賳 賱賱賮賯乇 賵丕賱囟睾胤 丕賱賳賮爻賷 鬲丿賲賷乇 噩賲丕賱 丕賱噩賲賷賱.
賲賮丕賴賷賲 賰乇賷賴丞 賲孬賱 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷鬲毓氐亘 囟丿 賲賳 賷禺鬲賱賮賵賳 毓賳賴 毓乇賯賷丕賸貙 賮丕賱鬲毓氐亘 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賮胤乇賷丕賸貙 丨鬲賶 兀賳 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賵乇丕孬丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 丕噩鬲賴丿賵丕 賮賷 丕孬亘丕鬲 兀賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱亘賷囟 賵丕賱爻賵丿 兀毓賲賯 賲賳 賰賵賳賴丕 賲噩乇丿 丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 賮賷 賱賵賳 丕賱亘卮乇丞 亘賱 賴賷 鬲卮賲賱 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 !
賷賯賵賱 丿丕乇賵賷賳 兀賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賴賵 賮賷 丕賱丿乇噩丞 賵賱賷爻 賮賷 丕賱賳賵毓貙 賮賲賳 賯丕賱 兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷賲丕乇爻 丕賱噩賳爻 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 兀氐亘丨 賲禺胤卅丕賸 賲毓 賵噩賵丿 賯乇賵丿 丕賱亘丕亘賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲丕乇爻 丕賱噩賳爻 毓賳丿 丕賱丕丨鬲賮丕賱 亘丕賱胤毓丕賲貙 兀賵 兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賴賵 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賱賴 孬賯丕賮丞 賲鬲賵丕乇孬丞 賮賯丿 賵購噩丿 兀賳孬賶 卮丕賲亘丕賳夭賷 鬲賰爻乇 噩賵夭 丕賱賴賳丿 亘丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賲胤乇賯丞 禺卮亘賷丞 賵鬲毓賱賲 匕賱賰 賱兀亘賳丕卅賴丕貙 賵 氐乇賳丕 賳毓乇賮 兀賳 賱賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賲卮丕毓乇 賵匕賰乇賷丕鬲 賵兀丨丕爻賷爻 賵亘丿賷賴賷丕鬲 賵賮囟賵賱 賵賲丨丕賰丕丞 賵賲賳胤賯 賱賰賳 亘丿乇噩丕鬲 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲丞貙 賵賲毓 賵噩賵丿 鬲卮丕亘賴 噩賷賳賷 亘賷賳 丕賱卮賲亘丕賳夭賷 賵丕賱亘卮乇 亘賳爻亘丞 鬲氐賱 侃佶侏鈥� 廿賱丕 兀賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賮噩賵丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賴丕卅賱丞 亘賷賳 丕賱亘卮乇 賵 兀匕賰賶 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丞貙 賮丕賱亘卮乇 賷賲鬲賱賰賵賳 兀爻賱丨丞 賳賵賵賷丞 賵賷卮毓賱賵賳 丕賱賳丕乇 賵賱賴賲 賲丕 賷毓亘丿賵賳 賵賷賳馗賲賵賳 丕賱卮毓乇 賵賷鬲毓賱賲賵賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱賲鬲乇丕賰賲丞 賵丕賱賲鬲賵丕乇孬丞 亘賷賳 丕賱兀噩賷丕賱貙 賮賱賲 賷賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 賱乇噩賱 兀毓賲丕賱 賲毓丕氐乇 兀賳 賷賯賵賲 亘毓賲賱賴 廿賱丕 亘賮囟賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丕賱氐賵鬲賷丞 丕賱丌卮賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱胤亘丕毓丞 丕賱氐賷賳賷丞 賵丕賱噩亘乇 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賵丕賱兀乇賯丕賲 丕賱賴賳丿賷丞 賵賲爻賰 丕賱丿賮丕鬲乇 賵賮賯 丕賱賯賷丿 丕賱賲夭丿賵噩 丕賱廿賷胤丕賱賷 賵丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱鬲噩丕乇賷 丕賱賴賵賱賳丿賷 丕賱禺 丕賱禺 賵賷乇噩毓 丕賱賲丐賱賮 爻亘亘 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 賵丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 賮賷 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 爻丕毓丿鬲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賮賷 丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘賲丕 賷賯賵賲 亘賴 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲賱賮 毓賲丕 賰丕賳 亘禺賱丕賮 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲鬲賯丿賲 賵賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇貙 賮丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賱賷爻鬲 賳丕賯賱丞 賱賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賮丨爻亘 亘賱 賴賷 賲爻鬲噩賷亘丞 賱賱禺亘乇丕鬲 丕賱亘賷卅賷丞.
賷乇賶 丕賱賲丐賱賮 廿賳 丕賱亘卮乇 賲孬賱 亘丕賯賷 丕賱孬丿賷賷丕鬲 -賵禺賱丕賮丕 賱賱胤賷賵乇- 賷賰賵賳賵賳 亘丨賰賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 廿賳丕孬丕賸 賲丕 賱賲 鬲馗賴乇 毓賱賷賴賲 毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞貙 賮丕賱賳爻丕亍 賴賳 丕賱噩賳爻 丕賱丕賮鬲乇丕囟賷 賱賱亘卮乇賷丞貙 賵賵噩賵丿 賴乇賲賵賳 丕賱鬲爻鬲乇爻鬲賷乇賵賳 賲孬賱丕賸 賴賵 賲賳 賷卮賰賱 兀毓囟丕亍賴賲 丕賱匕賰乇賷丞貙 賵賵噩賵丿 噩賷賳 SRY 賷噩毓賱賰 匕賰乇丕賸 賵賱賰賷 鬲賰賵賳 兀賳孬賶 賱丕 鬲丨鬲丕噩 廿賱丕 廿賱賶 鬲毓胤賷賱 毓賲賱 賴匕丕 丕賱噩賷賳.
賷乇賶 亘毓囟 丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳 兀賳 丕賱賳賮賵乇 賲賳 夭賵丕噩 丕賱賲丨丕乇賲 賵兀卮亘丕賴賴 - 賵毓賱賶 囟賵亍 丿乇丕爻丕鬲 兀噩乇賷鬲 賮賷 丕賱氐賷賳- 賴賵 丨丕賱丞 賵丕囟丨丞 賱毓丕丿丞 鬲賳胤亘毓 賮賷 丕賱毓賯賱 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱丨乇噩丞 賱賱卮亘丕亘貙 賮賴賵 鬲胤亘毓 賳賯賷 亘丿賵賳 鬲禺賷賱丕鬲 賲爻亘賯丞 毓賲賳 爻賷賳賮乇 賲賳賴 賲賲賳 賰丕賳 乇賮賷賯丕賸 賱賴 賮賷 胤賮賵賱鬲賴.
賷乇賮囟 丕賱賲丐賱賮 廿賱賯丕亍 丕賱賱賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱丨鬲賲賷丞 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 賱鬲亘乇賷乇 丕賱卮匕賵匕 丕賱噩賳爻賷貙 賮賲毓 兀賳 鬲亘乇賷乇賴賲 賷亘丿賵 毓賯賱丕賳賷丕賸 廿賱丕 兀賳賴 賮賷 睾丕賷丞 丕賱禺胤賵乇丞 貙 賮丕賱賲賷賱 賱賱毓賳賮 兀賷囟丕賸 兀賲乇 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 睾乇賷夭賷 毓賳丿 丕賱匕賰賵乇 廿賱丕 兀賳 匕賱賰 賱丕 賷毓胤賷賴賲 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 賲賲丕乇爻丞 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賳賮 賵賱丕 賷丐賰丿 氐丨鬲賴 賱兀賳賴 賲賳 賵丨賷 丕賱胤亘亘毓丞 賵丕賱睾乇賷夭丞.
兀丨賷丕賳丕 賷賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 賲賷賱 賱丕禺鬲賷丕乇 丕賱鬲胤亘毓 丕賱匕賷 賷賳丕爻亘 丕賱胤亘毓 賵丕賱匕賷 鬲爻賲賷賴 毓丕賱賲丞 丕賱賳賮爻 爻丕賳丿乇丕 爻賰丕乇 亘"丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱亘賷卅丞 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賱鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱噩賷賳賷"貙 賮丕賱賳丕爻 鬲丨亘 賮毓賱 賲丕 鬲噩賷丿賴 賵賴賲 賷噩賷丿賵賳 賮毓賱 賲丕 賷丨亘賵賳貙 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賲孬丕賱 匕賱賰 賲賷賱 丕賱氐亘賷丕賳 賱賱毓亘 亘丕賱兀爻賱丨丞 賵丕賱賲賳丕賮爻丞 亘賷賳賲丕 鬲賲賷賱 丕賱亘賳丕鬲 廿賱賶 丕賱丿賲賶 賵丕賱賯氐氐 賵丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲.
賱丕丨馗 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賳亘丕鬲 丕賱爻賵賷爻乇賷 "丿賷 賰丕賳丿賵賱" 兀賳賴 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 賯乇賳賷賳 噩丕亍 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱毓馗丕賲 賲賳 賲丿賳 匕丕鬲 鬲爻丕賲丨 丿賷賳賷 賰亘賷乇 賵乇賵丕亘胤 鬲噩丕乇賷丞 賵賲賳丕禺 賲毓鬲丿賱 賵丨賰賵賲丕鬲 丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞貙 賵亘匕賱賰 賷賯鬲乇丨 兀賳 丕賱廿賳噩丕夭 賵丕賱卮賴乇丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 鬲乇噩毓 賮賷 丕賱睾丕賱亘 廿賱賶 丕賱馗乇賵賮 賵丕賱賮乇氐丞 兀賰孬乇 賲賳賴丕 廿賱賶 丕賱毓亘賯乇賷丞 丕賱賮胤乇賷丞貙 賵禺丕賱賮賴 賮賷 匕賱賰 "噩丕賱鬲賵賳" 賯丕卅賱丕賸 兀賳 丕賱毓亘賯乇賷丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 鬲賵乇孬 賵賱丕 鬲賰鬲爻亘貙 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賯乇亘 廿賱賶 丕賱氐賵丕亘 兀賳賴 賰賱賲丕 噩毓賱賳丕 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賲鬲賰丕賮卅丕賸 夭丕丿 丕丨鬲賲丕賱 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱噩賷賳賷貙 賮賷賰賵賳 賲孬賱丕賸 兀賮囟賱 丨丕賲賱 兀孬賯丕賱 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賱丿賷賴 兀賮囟賱 噩賷賳丕鬲貙 賮賷 丨賷賳 兀賳賴 賮賷 賲噩鬲賲毓 賲鬲禺賱賮 爻賵賮 鬲丨丿丿 丕賱禺賱賮賷丞 丕賱亘賷卅賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇氐 賲賳 爻賷賰賵賳 丕賱賲賳鬲氐乇.
丕賱亘卮乇 賷賮夭毓賵賳 睾丕賱亘丕 賲賳 丕賱孬毓丕亘賷賳貙 賵丕賱禺賵賮 賲賳賴賲 賴賵 賵丕丨丿 賲賳 兀卮賴乇 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱乇賴丕亘 毓賳丿 丕賱賷卮乇 賵丕賱匕賷 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 亘爻亘亘 賲卮丕賴丿鬲賴賲 賮夭睾 丌亘丕卅賴賲 賲賳 丕賱孬毓丕亘賷賳貙 賵賴賳丕賰 賲賳 賷禺丕賮 賲賳 丕賱毓賳丕賰亘 賵丕賱毓鬲賲丞 賵丕賱賲乇鬲賮毓丕鬲 賵丕賱乇毓丿 賵丕賱兀賲丕賰賳 丕賱囟賷賯丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 鬲卮賰賱 鬲賴丿賷丿丕 賱賱亘卮乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱丨噩乇賷貙 兀賲丕 鬲賴丿賷丿丕鬲 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賰丕賱亘賳丕丿賯 賵丕賱爻賷丕乇丕鬲 賮兀賰孬乇賴丕 賱丕 賷爻亘亘 丕賱乇賴丕亘 ! 賴賱 賴賷 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賲賳 賳賯賱鬲 賱賳丕 賴匕賴 丕賱禺亘乇丕鬲 賵丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨噩乇賷責 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賲丨鬲賲丕鬲 毓賳賷丿丞 氐睾賷乇丞 鬲鬲賲禺囟 毓賳 乇爻丕卅賱 鬲賳亘丐賷丞 賯丕胤毓丞 賱賰賳賴丕 亘毓賷丿丞 毓賳 賰賵賳賴丕 孬丕亘鬲丞 賮賷 兀毓賲丕賱賴丕 亘賱 賴賷 兀丿賵丕鬲 賱丕爻鬲禺賱丕氐 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱亘賷卅丞.
賱毓賱 賲丕 賷賱禺氐 賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 賲孬丕賱 賳馗乇鬲賳丕 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賲丕賱貙 賮賴賵 胤亘毓 賲鬲賵乇丕孬 賵鬲胤亘毓 賲賰鬲爻亘 賰匕賱賰 貙 賮賷賲賰賳 賱賱丨锟斤拷賷丞 丕賱睾匕丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賲丕乇賷賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丞 賵丕賱丨賱丕賯丞 賵丕賱賲丕賰賷丕噩 賵丕賱毓賲賱賷丕鬲 噩毓賱 丕賱卮禺氐 噩賲賷賱丕賸 亘丕賱鬲胤亘毓貙 亘賱 賷賰賮賷 丕賱賲丕賱 賵丕賱乇賮丕賴賷丞 賵丕賱乇丕丨丞 賱噩毓賱 睾賷乇 丕賱噩賲賷賱 噩匕丕亘丕賸 鬲賲丕賲丕 賲孬賱賲丕 賷丨丿孬 賮賷 賴賵賱賷賵賵丿貙 賵賷賲賰賳 賱賱賮賯乇 賵丕賱囟睾胤 丕賱賳賮爻賷 鬲丿賲賷乇 噩賲丕賱 丕賱噩賲賷賱.
賲賮丕賴賷賲 賰乇賷賴丞 賲孬賱 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷鬲毓氐亘 囟丿 賲賳 賷禺鬲賱賮賵賳 毓賳賴 毓乇賯賷丕賸貙 賮丕賱鬲毓氐亘 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賮胤乇賷丕賸貙 丨鬲賶 兀賳 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賵乇丕孬丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 丕噩鬲賴丿賵丕 賮賷 丕孬亘丕鬲 兀賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱亘賷囟 賵丕賱爻賵丿 兀毓賲賯 賲賳 賰賵賳賴丕 賲噩乇丿 丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 賮賷 賱賵賳 丕賱亘卮乇丞 亘賱 賴賷 鬲卮賲賱 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 !
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鈥檚 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 鈥渟cience鈥� 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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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 鈥淎 Budget of Paradoxical Morals鈥�), he gives seven take-aways, some of which are actually newly introduced topics. In his own words:
Moral 1: Genes are Enablers 鈥� Don鈥檛 be frightened of genes. They are not gods; they are cogs.
Moral 2: Parents 鈥� Being a good parent still matters.
Moral 3: Peers 鈥� Individuality is a product of aptitude reinforced by appetite.
Moral 4: Meritocracy 鈥� 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 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 鈥渟cience鈥� 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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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 鈥淎 Budget of Paradoxical Morals鈥�), he gives seven take-aways, some of which are actually newly introduced topics. In his own words:
Moral 1: Genes are Enablers 鈥� Don鈥檛 be frightened of genes. They are not gods; they are cogs.
Moral 2: Parents 鈥� Being a good parent still matters.
Moral 3: Peers 鈥� Individuality is a product of aptitude reinforced by appetite.
Moral 4: Meritocracy 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 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
賷毓乇囟 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐乇丕毓 賵 丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱丿丕卅乇 亘賷賳 兀賳氐丕乇 賳馗乇賷丞 兀賳 氐賮丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇 鬲鬲丨丿丿 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 (丕賱胤亘毓), 賵 兀賳氐丕乇 賳馗乇賷丞 兀賳 氐賮丕鬲賴賲 鬲鬲丨丿丿 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱亘賷卅丞 (丕賱鬲胤亘毓), 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳 丕卮賴乇 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱鬲賷 兀噩乇賷鬲 賲賳 賯亘賱 丕賱賮乇賷賯賷賳 賵 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱賰賱賷賴賲丕貙 賵 賷丨丕賵賱 兀禺賷乇丕賸 廿孬亘丕鬲 兀賳 賰賱賾丕賸 賲賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賵 丕賱亘賷卅丞 賱賴賲丕 丿賵乇 賰亘賷乇 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵 兀賳 賰賱賾丕賸 賲賳賴賲丕 賷丐孬乇 賮賷 丕賱丌禺乇 亘胤乇賯 賲毓賯丿丞 賵 賲鬲卮丕亘賰丞.
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.
February 11, 2025
People want so badly to know鈥� is it nature or nurture, that makes beings what they are? Well, obviously, not only is it both, but it鈥檚 complicated. The conditions you鈥檙e raised with (nurture) enable or suppress expression of the genes you鈥檙e born with (nature). Which is more important? They both are. This is a highly readable book, pop science at its best.
January 23, 2018
馃挕馃挕馃挕馃挕馃挕馃挕
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鈥檛 aged well. It鈥檚 the second time I鈥檝e read it and somehow it doesn鈥檛 flow as well as in 2003. It goes without saying that genetics has advanced massively in twenty years, rendering this book dated. 炉\_(銉�)_/炉 .
In summary: is [issue X] a product of nature (genetics) or nurture (learned behaviour)? Why, it鈥檚 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鈥檚 boomer-esque tone get to you.
In summary: is [issue X] a product of nature (genetics) or nurture (learned behaviour)? Why, it鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.
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
Yeti艧tirme arac谋l谋臒谋 ile do臒a
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 or , 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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 173 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.