Nicholas Wade (1) (1942–)
Autor(a) de Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors
Para outros autores com o nome Nicholas Wade, ver a página de desambiguação.
About the Author
Born in Aylesbury, England, Nicholas Wade studies at Eton College and King's College, Cambridge. He has worked at nature and Science and is currently a science reporter for The New York Times. The author of four previous books, he lives in Montclair, New Jersey. (Bowker Author Biography)
Image credit: By Jane Gitschier - Gitschier J. (2005) "Turning the Tables—An Interview with Nicholas Wade". PLoS Genetics 1(3): e45. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0010045 doi:info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010045.g001, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19703939
Obras por Nicholas Wade
Life Script: How the Human Genome Discoveries Will Transform Medicine and Enhance Your Health (2001) 25 exemplares
Associated Works
Etiquetado
Conhecimento Comum
- Nome canónico
- Wade, Nicholas
- Nome legal
- Wade, Nicholas Michael Landon
- Data de nascimento
- 1942-05-17
- Sexo
- male
- Nacionalidade
- UK
- Educação
- Eton College
University of Cambridge (King's College) - Ocupações
- reporter
editor
author - Organizações
- New York Times
Membros
Discussions
Before the Dawn - SRH group read em 75 Books Challenge for 2014 (Maio 2017)
Críticas
Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our… por Nicholas Wade
As interesting as it was I had to work really hard to keep my attention on it.
I got a bit farther in this book than I got last time, but not much. It's odd, his writing is just not that good, somehow. But I have begun to thoroughly admire this old, well-educated Englishman who is so unafraid to follow the evidence where it leads.
It should be noted that he has written two books about science at its less than ideal and he does have a bit of an axe to grind. But he grinds it with facts and knowledge, not diatribes and threats. Hopefully he's got at least one more book in him.… (mais)
It should be noted that he has written two books about science at its less than ideal and he does have a bit of an axe to grind. But he grinds it with facts and knowledge, not diatribes and threats. Hopefully he's got at least one more book in him.… (mais)
I preferred [b:Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict|17942053|Big Gods How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict|Ara Norenzayan|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1376877965s/17942053.jpg|25154244], but this was a worthy follow up listen (I have a long, slow commute.) I almost hesitate to say too much, but like "Big Gods," I feel this listen will not leave anyone with a stake in promoting or demoting religion "happy." But it was interesting food for thought.
I'd give this 4 stars for discussing a topic that is almost completely taboo in polite company, and for understandable reasons. I've giving 3 because of some obvious issues I found (toward bottom of this.)
Basically, there is one core argument, in two parts:
Part 1.) Genes are always under selective pressure --> genes built our bodies (well... oh, right, no caveatting) --> our brains are part of our bodies --> your brain was built by genes --> your brain has been under selective pressure, continuously.
Or, simply, 'your' brain (your ancestors' brains) were under non-stop selective pressure, the same as their immune systems, bone structures, metabolisms, skin color, and so forth.
Part 2.) Since we've been under *continuous* selective pressure, and, broadly speaking, African, East Asians, and Caucasians were separate populations for several 10's of thousands of years, each major 'continental' race has had time to diverge a tiny bit. Witness skin color, facial structure, eye and ear differences, and so on. Clearly, the genetics for our brains could -in fact, given what we know of genetics and evolution, almost assuredly must have- had small changes selected for in that same time.
(And here is where people start to really freak out.)
The author does a good job of:
a.) Making the case that this general thesis is not only possible, but highly probable
b.) Pointing out some possible examples; highlighting supporting evidence
c.) Making the case that our *values* regarding possible differences are what matter,
d.) and making the case that a race simply having e.g. an average IQ a few points higher doesn't necessary determine/conclude/etc. anything in the 'real world' either (as opposed to the world of values). Think of, though not referenced in this book, semi-recent findings that 'stick-to-it-iveness' is actually a far better predictor of financial success and even happiness than IQ.
d.) Pointing out, again and again, that *individual* persons from any race or ethnic group will succeed and fail, be violent or not, etc.
There are some definite cons with this book.
1.) It gives perhaps too short shrift to cultural influences; there are too many instances of "culture can easily be copied, so the fact that people have not means that culture must have some tie to genetically determined propensities."
Well, may, maybe not. People cling e.g. to their particular religion, sometimes for thousands and thousands of years. Now, culture is not religion (or vice versa), but it seems to me that beliefs alone can survive intact despite tremendous pressures.
2.) At times the author shifts between the 3 major continental races, the 5 continental races (including Australian aborigines and N/S American aborigines --aka, 'American Indians'), and individual, example/discussion specific ethnic groups. This is problematic: is he arguing for ethnic level differences, down to sub-sub-populations, racial differences, differences within some large subset of a race, etc.? And how to 'apply up' a finding from an ethnic group to a race?
That's the end of my review, per se. However, some additional thoughts on who this book might be for, after reading some comments on this book:
If you are someone who is unable to stomach the idea that mental traits are, at least in part, genetically determined, this will be an exceedingly tough read (and I have met some people like this, at least one of who is a somewhat close friend).
If you are someone who cringes at the very though of linking race, genes, and brains, this will be a tough read.
If you're racist, you're probably also going to find this a tough read, as you're not going to get your delusions confirmed for you.
If you think of yourself as open minded, have even considered to yourself previously that if e.g. genes can make skin or hair or metabolisms different, then the brain could have been tweaked too... well, you'll probably still find this a hard read.
Which is somewhat odd. There isn't a whiff of e.g. 'racial superiority' in here -other than one or two mentions to discredit the idea, but I mean on the authors part. There's no bigotry. (There is a statement here or there I found, well, hamfisted.) It's just subject matter that is really, really uncomfortable. We can talk about e.g. lactose tolerance, racial differences in reactions to certain medicines, disease resistances, cancer/Rickets/folate protection (e.g. skin color). No one really has a problem talking about those. But we do draw a line around the brain.
Clearly this is because of (particular, here in the US) a history -and a present- of racism. But that is not a reason to run away from this kind of stuff, nor, despite some comments here, is “that's racist” an argument or disproof.… (mais)
Basically, there is one core argument, in two parts:
Part 1.) Genes are always under selective pressure --> genes built our bodies (well... oh, right, no caveatting) --> our brains are part of our bodies --> your brain was built by genes --> your brain has been under selective pressure, continuously.
Or, simply, 'your' brain (your ancestors' brains) were under non-stop selective pressure, the same as their immune systems, bone structures, metabolisms, skin color, and so forth.
Part 2.) Since we've been under *continuous* selective pressure, and, broadly speaking, African, East Asians, and Caucasians were separate populations for several 10's of thousands of years, each major 'continental' race has had time to diverge a tiny bit. Witness skin color, facial structure, eye and ear differences, and so on. Clearly, the genetics for our brains could -in fact, given what we know of genetics and evolution, almost assuredly must have- had small changes selected for in that same time.
(And here is where people start to really freak out.)
The author does a good job of:
a.) Making the case that this general thesis is not only possible, but highly probable
b.) Pointing out some possible examples; highlighting supporting evidence
c.) Making the case that our *values* regarding possible differences are what matter,
d.) and making the case that a race simply having e.g. an average IQ a few points higher doesn't necessary determine/conclude/etc. anything in the 'real world' either (as opposed to the world of values). Think of, though not referenced in this book, semi-recent findings that 'stick-to-it-iveness' is actually a far better predictor of financial success and even happiness than IQ.
d.) Pointing out, again and again, that *individual* persons from any race or ethnic group will succeed and fail, be violent or not, etc.
There are some definite cons with this book.
1.) It gives perhaps too short shrift to cultural influences; there are too many instances of "culture can easily be copied, so the fact that people have not means that culture must have some tie to genetically determined propensities."
Well, may, maybe not. People cling e.g. to their particular religion, sometimes for thousands and thousands of years. Now, culture is not religion (or vice versa), but it seems to me that beliefs alone can survive intact despite tremendous pressures.
2.) At times the author shifts between the 3 major continental races, the 5 continental races (including Australian aborigines and N/S American aborigines --aka, 'American Indians'), and individual, example/discussion specific ethnic groups. This is problematic: is he arguing for ethnic level differences, down to sub-sub-populations, racial differences, differences within some large subset of a race, etc.? And how to 'apply up' a finding from an ethnic group to a race?
That's the end of my review, per se. However, some additional thoughts on who this book might be for, after reading some comments on this book:
If you are someone who is unable to stomach the idea that mental traits are, at least in part, genetically determined, this will be an exceedingly tough read (and I have met some people like this, at least one of who is a somewhat close friend).
If you are someone who cringes at the very though of linking race, genes, and brains, this will be a tough read.
If you're racist, you're probably also going to find this a tough read, as you're not going to get your delusions confirmed for you.
If you think of yourself as open minded, have even considered to yourself previously that if e.g. genes can make skin or hair or metabolisms different, then the brain could have been tweaked too... well, you'll probably still find this a hard read.
Which is somewhat odd. There isn't a whiff of e.g. 'racial superiority' in here -other than one or two mentions to discredit the idea, but I mean on the authors part. There's no bigotry. (There is a statement here or there I found, well, hamfisted.) It's just subject matter that is really, really uncomfortable. We can talk about e.g. lactose tolerance, racial differences in reactions to certain medicines, disease resistances, cancer/Rickets/folate protection (e.g. skin color). No one really has a problem talking about those. But we do draw a line around the brain.
Clearly this is because of (particular, here in the US) a history -and a present- of racism. But that is not a reason to run away from this kind of stuff, nor, despite some comments here, is “that's racist” an argument or disproof.… (mais)
Listas
Prémios
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Estatísticas
- Obras
- 39
- Also by
- 1
- Membros
- 2,133
- Popularidade
- #12,068
- Avaliação
- 3.9
- Críticas
- 62
- ISBN
- 99
- Línguas
- 8
- Marcado como favorito
- 3