Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters: From Dating, Shopping, and Praying to Going to War and Becoming a Billionaire

Comments

1. Guest says

   July 30, 2015 at 12:00 am

   Awesome book for those interested in evolution and psychology. Tons of facts that now explain so much for me. Its an easy read too.

2. Guest says

   June 23, 2015 at 12:00 am

   This book is mind blowing

3. Guest says

   May 18, 2015 at 12:00 am

   So true full stories

4. Guest says

   May 12, 2015 at 12:00 am

   book had all pages ! nice read!

5. Guest says

   May 3, 2015 at 12:00 am

   Great condition

6. Guest says

   February 12, 2015 at 12:00 am

   A light and easy introduction to evolutionary psychology, a field I’ve been interested in since I read Sperm Wars and The Language Instinct in college, and more recently since listening to the Mating Grounds podcast (hosted by Tucker Max and Prof. Geoff Miller). Daughters is short–about three hours of reading–and broken into two sections. First is an introduction to ev psych and its stark comparison to the traditional view of human development and behavior taught in most liberal arts programs that emphasizes social conditioning on the "blank slate" of human nature. I think the authors here are too extreme in their characterization of that traditional social sciences model and its adherents, but the friction between that model and evolutionary psychology definitely exists, especially in their competing explanations of social interaction, power structures, and gender roles. After that intro, the book poses a series of intentionally inflammatory questions (Why Does Having Sons Reduce The Likelihood of Divorce? Why Are Almost All Violent Criminals Men? Why Are Most Suicide Bombers Muslim?) and provides explanations through the ev psych lens. The overall fault here, as other reviews have noted, is that the authors don’t back up the explanations with enough data or they use data that is at least questionable. Nonetheless, if you take the answers with a grain of salt and understand that that is the compromise they had to make stylistically to keep the book short and simple enough for a general audience, Daughters shows how evolutionary psychologists think and seek to explain life’s seemingly unexplained phenomena.

7. Guest says

   February 9, 2015 at 12:00 am

   Absolutely beautiful. A must read for all evolutionary scientists. Prof. Kanazawa is one of the top leading scientist in the field of EP.

8. Guest says

   August 19, 2014 at 12:00 am

   INTERESTING

9. Guest says

   July 28, 2014 at 12:00 am

   I was prompted to write a lengthy positive review of this book because of the numerous lengthy 1-Star reviews. The 1-star reviews can be summed up as: -Not enough evidence to support his claims -Sexist, racist, etc -Overly simplistic I do have to agree with some of the reviewers that he does not provide enough evidence for certain claims to warrant his level of authoritativeness in the book. More evidence is great. Contrary evidence is great too. Some of the commentators criticized the book for painting social scientists as environmental determinists, and broad-stroking the social sciences as myopic and close-minded to the influence of biology on human behavior. While it is possible to read the book that way, to do so would ignore the introductory chapters where he spends pages upon pages qualifying nearly every generalization he is about to make. For the pillars of the standard social science model, he mentions how most social scientists adhere to SOME (meaning perhaps 1-4/5) of them, and some adhere to all of them. He also mentions that he will portray human behavior in a biased, overly biological perspective in the book because most human behavior is discussed through the filter of the social sciences. He mentions that the conclusions CAN be construed as offensive (sexist, racist, etc.), but that their should be no room for either the moralistic or naturalistic fallacy to be applied to the conclusions. I think that the very notion that \\”not every human being is exactly identical to every other human being\\” comes across as radical, sexist, and racist shows how pervasive the moralistic fallacy has been. Now, I certainly understand why the reaction is the way it is. People have tried to use differences in human biology to justify genocide, segregation, and all sorts of other barbaric things throughout history. It’s almost akin to the Error-Management Theory mentioned in the book. If there are observable differences between the sexes, it’s probablysafer to err on the side of the moralistic fallacy than the naturalistic fallacy, because the naturalistic fallacy has the potential to be abused grotesquely, whereas the moralistic fallacy just gets you sent to \\”sensitivity training\\”. One of the other gripes about the book was that it was overly simplistic, and a common example was that of the blonde bombshell chapter. People complained about the fact that Africans clearly didn’t have blonde haired, blue-eyed women to idolize, and so it breaks down. But they clearly weren’t paying attention. He discussed how there would be certain universals about youth and fertility that would play stronger roles in different environments. How humans in warmer climates would be naked, and so bare physical cues would suffice, leaving the more nuanced indicators (like blonde hair) to more specific environments. As all humans evolved in the hotter climate before migrating, many of the physical indicators would be kept even while the original environment that spawned them had been replaced with something different. After discussing this book with some coworkers and friends, i have noticed in the reviews some of the same hypocrisies that he even calls out in the book. Many of the other commentators felt that his characterization of systematizing vs empathizing aptitudes in men and women was blatantly sexist. While I do think that the definition of \\”systematizing\\” has a LOT of subjectivity to it, the only gripe I ever heard was regarding the notion that women, on average, may be better at empathizing vs systematizing with regards to the average man. I never heard anyone complain about the converse notion, that men are poorer empathizers. This goes back to his characterization of what constitutes stereotypes. Men don’t want to be seen as shorter, or better empathizers, so no one balks at the categorization. But just because s***ty people in power have used possible slight variations in natural population level averages in aptitudesto exclude and discriminate against women, doesn’t make it not true. As other commentators have mentioned, more data would be helpful to be able to make a more informed decision on if it is in fact true. Socialization matters a ton. Studies have shown that women and minorities who are stereotyped to be less intelligent do worse on math tests when they are reminded of their gender or race beforehand. A claim about global gender aptitudes is an extraordinary claim, and as such, should require a tremendous amount of evidence. But what I enjoyed about this book (and what most of the negative reviewers found distasteful about it), was that it put forth the uncomfortable data, and made no remarks on what to do with it. There are clearly massive differences between the way the male brain and female brain works. It would be insanity to think that they were the same. The degree with which they differ is really the key aspect, and that is where a lot of this research is going. Was it one-sided? Yes, but they told us it was going to be at the beginning. Was it possibly offensive at times? Yes, but they also told us it might. Were the last couple chapters thinly cited? Yes, but once again, they prefaced it by saying that they would be a stretch. This book qualified its observations more times than any nonfiction book I have read so far, and yet most of the negative comments seemed to stem from the fact that they felt the positions were asserted too strongly. Overall, very interesting, and has gotten me to look into more evolutionary psychology, which was the overall intent of the book anyway.

10. Guest says

    March 7, 2014 at 12:00 am

    Traditional psychology sometimes seems to me a bit reaching, and the Standard Social Science Model, uh, not buying it at all. So far, from the little I know of it, evolutionary psychology makes the most sense to me, which is why I picked up this book.

    Everything’s about sex. I buy that. It isn’t all that novel to say so; but HOW it’s about sex is different in evolutionary psychology than in other disciplines. Reproducing is everything. All other pursuits are male pretension to get the women into bed, or female screening of candidates to choose the baby daddy. I find it hilarious (and true) that according to evolutionary psychology, if it were up to men, all of life would consist entirely of having sex. No other activities to speak of. Ah, people.

    The book covers a range of topics from standards of beauty to politics. Everything is kept basic and easy to understand, and the book itself is quite short– a quick read, for sure. A good introduction, with some great rec’s for further reading at the end.

11. Guest says

    January 8, 2014 at 12:00 am

    A former student claimed this book as his all-time favorite. For those looking for reasons to support most problems in the world or looking for answers as to why beautiful people have more daughters, this book has some interesting theories.

12. Guest says

    August 11, 2012 at 12:00 am

    First of all, I love the title of this book. It just makes you want to pick it up and look at it because it seems so outrageous. This book has many flaws, but will definitely entertain you and make you think.

    The Good:

    * Thought provoking. You will talk about this, as I have, with a lot of folks.
    * The chapters early on are great reading.
    * I found myself agreeing with much more than expected in this work. As a Christian who does not hold to a macroevolutionary view of the world, there is a lot here – almost all of it in fact – that lines up with a traditional Christian view of life. Freakish but true.

    The Bad:
    * Book fizzles out towards the end. The last two chapters in particular, on politics and religion, are hardly worth reading. In contrast to the earlier chapters, they seem very heavy on hypothesis and light on data.
    * It is meant to be a popular introduction, but feels too dumbed down at points.
    * The bias towards what the data means is clear in the book, and a stretch in many chapters. Some things will ring true from your own experience, some very false. Sex is important in human life, but from the author’s perspective it is everything.
    * I don’t think that women will enjoy this as much as men. The dominant focus is on men, and part of why its a good read is because so much of it can be easily confirmed through personal experience.

    The Ugly:
    * I hate books that constantly self-reference other chapters, and this is one of the worst offenders. On one page, there are three different chapters referenced. Ugh. Assume your reader remembers that they just read that a chapter ago, or at least knows how to use an index or a table of contents.

    Overall, its a very interesting read, sure to be controversial. I would recommend it to anyone who has a slight interest in the material, even if you think you will disagree with it – I found a lot to like, more than expected.

13. Guest says

    July 21, 2012 at 12:00 am

    This is an easy read but it gives an overview of evolutionary psychology and how and why that field comes to the conclusions it does. If you’ve read other books on the subject this may cover some new topics or questions but it doesn’t go very deep. Good introduction and recommended for those new to the topic. Read Stephen Pinker’s [[ASIN:0142003344 The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature]] for a more substantive work.

    On another topic I think that $12.99 for the Kindle edition of this small 5 year-old bargain book is outrageous. Don’t pay that for this book.

14. Guest says

    July 3, 2012 at 12:00 am

    If you’re simply dipping your toes in evolutionary psychology, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters is the perfect cursory starter book to stoke your curiosity. To get the most out of this book, however, you have to check notions of political correctness before reading or else most of the theories will make your blood boil.

    Evolutionary psychology is \\”the study of human nature\\” as it pertains to \\”evolved psychological adaptations.\\” Basically, how modern humans act and our motivations as a product of evolution.

    The way Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters is organized is unique and approachable. The authors dedicate the first two chapters with the fundamentals of evolutionary psychology and pointing out what fallacies to discard in approaching the field. One of the most startling things I learned was that our human brain has evolved very little since 10,000 years ago. We basically have Stone Age brains and Stone Age subconscious motivations. And despite what I hold idealogically, gender roles and stereotypes are not nurtured through socialization – men and women are just wired differently. Our brains show differences from the first day of life.

    From there, the book is organized in a question-answer format. The authors seemed to have taken the most common questions pertaining to gender differences and then some. In addition to the above, the authors ask then answer through the prism of evolutionary psychology concerns such as: \\”Why are there so many deadbeat dads but so few deadbeat moms?\\” \\”Why do men like blonde bombshells (and why do women want to look like them?\\” \\”Why do men so often earn more money and attain higher status than women?\\” This is what I mean about reading this book without certain biases. It can be tough to have an open mind, but the answers may surprise you. They certainly are thought-provoking, but leave room for more comprehensive explanation.

    Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters just brushes the surface of evolutionary psychology; it is more broad than deep. Although there is plenty of fodder for (heated) conversations, I would suggest reading other, more in depth books on this fascinating subject, such as The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller.

    And why do beautiful people have more daughters? This is shorthand but, here goes: Physical attractiveness is a heritable trait that ensures reproductive success, right? Beautiful people are desirable as mates so they have more opportunities to reproduce. However, although beauty benefits both men and women, it benefits women more, as men can rely upon other traits to make them attractive, such as wealth and status. Beautiful women, whether rich or poor, will have no shortage of potential mates. Therefore, beautiful people, according to the book’s hypothesis, should have more daughters than sons.

15. Guest says

    April 3, 2012 at 12:00 am

    The only thing this book proves is that some people will go to extraordinary lengths to justify being self-centered. You want evolutionary theory on male promiscuity? Fine. Stressed out females in the wild will kill, abandon or eat their young, or find a new mate and let him kill the young from the previous mating. Males who wanted their genetics to actually get passed on to future generations stayed and ensured their progeny survived. Not as sexy, is it?

    When you start this book, you give it the benefit of the doubt, but the more you read, the clearer it becomes that the authors decided what result they wanted and then made up science-sounding facts to support it. There’s just no clear support for anything they say.

16. Guest says

    March 27, 2012 at 12:00 am

    I haven’t had this much fun reading AND discussing a book in a long time. And how can you not pick this book up given its title? Begin with the premise that humans are merely another animal with the same needs as any other species, so we are not special. When analyzing every behavior you come down to the basic quest, we are just trying to propagate the species, i.e. we just want to have sex (aka evolutionary psychology). So the authors have gotten metrics on all sorts of human actions and traits and then tried to explain them using the lens of evolutionary psychology.

    Now this book just addresses the natural man so there is grains of truth to be found in all of it, but it totally ignores the spiritual man. So the book consists of a series of questions and their possible explanations using the latest research on the field. Remember just because it naturally happens doesn’t make it good and just because something is good doesn’t mean that is the way it is. The desparately try to just present things the way they are (i.e. that is what the statistics tell us) and leave out any judgements. So the text is not politically correct at all – Why do women get paid less? They want less.

    The midlife crisis is a myth–sort of
    Many believe that men go through a midlife crisis when they are in middle age. Not quite. Many middle-aged men do go through midlife crises, but it’s not because they are middle-aged. It’s because their wives are. From the evolutionary psychological perspective, a man’s midlife crisis is precipitated by his wife’s imminent menopause and end of her reproductive career, and thus his renewed need to attract younger women. Accordingly, a 50-year-old man married to a 25-year-old woman would not go through a midlife crisis, while a 25-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman would, just like a more typical 50-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman. It’s not his midlife that matters; it’s hers. When he buys a shiny-red sports car,he’s not trying to regain his youth; he’s trying to attract young women to replace his menopausal wife by trumpeting his flash and cash.

17. Guest says

    February 28, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Anyone who enjoyed reading \\”Freakonomics\\” or \\”Superfreakonomics\\” will enjoy this book. Fascinating and thought-provoking. It explains why men (in general) desire younger women, along with dozens of other odd quirks of the human race. I got this from the library, but I love it so much, I think I’ll have to buy a copy to loan to my friends. A must-read. A++

18. Guest says

    February 27, 2012 at 12:00 am

    This book puts together all the pieces of the puzzle and enables you to see where the world has gone wrong in its ethics and values and how Mother Nature will always correct it as the end game is always reproducing and surviving regardless of what species we are talking about.

19. Guest says

    December 11, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Overall this book hits on all areas its intended to cover and provides superb linear logic for meeting answering lingering social questions. Other reviews will give a more comprehensive synopsis on the Socratic questions posed and covered; however there are a few snags along the way.

    Although heavy on analysis this book lacks in leaving the reader options. A reoccurring trend in the book is that ‘…all men perform at their careers/hobbies (write computer code, play music, etc.) in order to get laid…’ As accurate as is blunt, this point falls short on the area of self exploration. For example, if an accomplished and married painter (in his 30s) were to change careers to computer programming or medical science, would this would he be doing this due to a subconscious desire to get laid? Or could he could have a desire to perform in an area he’s more acclimated towards?

    Unfortunately this false dichotomy is laden throughout the book. Sadly events in people’s lives bear more complex routes besides a \\”If A+B then C\\” fallacy. The author leaves leaves the reader with no other alternative.

    Another point left to the reader but no covered in the book is the concept of being a ‘biological failure’ which again, a bit harsh, but quite real. This book could have used more definition on failure, as not having children does not make one a ‘failure’ by any means. Simply because a couple has children does not deem them a \\”success\\” nor does it make them economically, socially ready to do so. It simply means a couple, coming into a relationship with whatever baggage they may have, now has children.

    Because this book only covers the role of male finance’s towards being the father, its sadly lacking. There are plenty of couples out there who would fit the author’s criteria of ‘success’ yet this is simply not enough to make them healthy parents who’ll raise healthy children.

    A better book for laypeople on evolutionary psychology would be Joe Quirk’s ‘It’s Not You, It’s Biology.: The Science of Love, Sex, and Relationships’ which has a small amount of overlapping material, but leaves the reader with more options to draw on. It also gives a more positive spin not based on ‘failure’ or ‘success’ but rather on understanding. If you liked this book, you’ll like Quirk’s work far[[ASIN:B001M5JVDY It’s Not You, It’s Biology.: The Science of Love, Sex, and Relationships]] better.The Science of Love, Sex, and Relationships’ which has a small amount of overlapping material, but leaves the reader with more options to draw on. It also gives a more positive spin not based on ‘failure’ or ‘success’ but rather on understanding. If you liked this book, you’ll like Quirk’s work far[[ASIN:B001M5JVDY It’s Not You, It’s Biology.: The Science of Love, Sex, and Relationships]] better.

20. Guest says

    July 14, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Its writing style made it very difficult to get into and it seemed light on facts and more like someone spouting beliefs. I loved Freakonomics and was hoping for something similar and was very disappointed.

21. Guest says

    May 17, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Tell me, why would anyone in their natural mind read this stupid book, with its stupid title? This delusional so called psychologist obviously has problems with getting him a good looking woman so he writes a book with a dumb title to show the world how backed up he is! beauty is on the inside you big dummy!

22. Guest says

    March 1, 2011 at 12:00 am

    I received this book as a Christmas gift and was very excited about it because it promised to be a gritty, non-PC look at the latest research in Evolutionary Psychology. I enjoyed the title, and laughed all the way through the wonderful forward, expecting to fully enjoy the rest of the book. The main author (Satoshi Kanazawa, although he lists his name second) is an infinitely digestible writer with a wonderful sense of humor. However, once I made it past the forward, I found that the quality of the book plummeted quickly. I was educated and trained as a scientist (Biology/Biochemistry), and expected to read something new in the field. What I found, unfortunately, was chapter after chapter of bad science. The book takes time to challenge the Standard Social Science model (which needs to be challenged) and uses excellent examples to disprove various assumptions of the model. But then, each chapter immediately turns around and uses flawed reasoning to defend the assumptions of Evolutionary Psychology. Nearly all of the studies cited in this book rely on correlation, small sample sizes, and self-reporting – ALL of them are suspect for their methods and conclusions. This bothered me so much that despite being a quick read, I actually found it difficult to finish the book. Many other reviewers have mentioned the weak science aspects of this book, but I would like to add that if you’re looking for an introduction to the science of behavior in a digestible form, THIS BOOK IS NOT IT!

23. Guest says

    February 4, 2011 at 12:00 am

    This book entertains beginning with the title. I used it for my class and it was a fun way to learn about gender. Quick delivery and perfect condition.

24. Guest says

    January 26, 2011 at 12:00 am

    If Malcolm Gladwell had written this book, it would have been on NYT’s bestseller list. A very readable book on the impact of Darwinian principles on human beings’ behavior, across cultures. The broad stroke, macro insights in this book on evolutionary psychology are plausible and probable. An important book for anyone who deals with people/customers and is curious about human behavior and its motivations. In this case, it’s only about propagation of the species, sex and survival. The tongue-in-cheek humorous slant made it a page turner.

25. Guest says

    December 29, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Unfortunately, I gave a copy of this to someone for Christmas before I read it myself. I finished reading it myself yesterday. It was fairly interesting, which was a good thing. However, it was apparent that although the book contained many very interesting, and in some cases novel, ideas, the authors really didn’t have the technique as to how to make a successful book and a really good reading experience with them. The book is largely in a question and answer format. However, many of the questions they seek to answer have the same explanations. So at the root, the book should probably have been structured differently so we didn’t have to read variations of the same explanations over and over again in various sections. That being said, the authors still present interesting facts. So if you don’t mind the fact that you’ll have to skim it in order not to get too bored, then you won’t get too frustrated.

    Oh, and the other insult to injury is that the Kindle is a full thirteen bucks, more expensive than the paperback, which is disappointing once you find out that there’s little substance and nearly half the book is end notes and bibliography. Oh, and there are quite few errors in the Kindle edition as well, so no one even proofread it.

26. Guest says

    October 23, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Alan Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa are seemingly the worst kind of glib, shallow scientists possible. They spout off theories, find often just a single data point to support their theories, and then conclude that their theory is the only possible and reasonable explanation for the behavior or observation. Their grasp of history (and putting history into context) is also shallow and glosses over atrocities committed in the name of numerous religions over time.

    I couldn’t make it past Chapter 4 either. I expect a scientist to back up their findings with not just a random dissertation or data point, but with multiple studies all supporting the same conclusion. Otherwise, citing such data is no better than citing a personal story or analogy. Science only works when it is replicated; when it’s not replicated, it’s an un-verified finding. Such un-verified findings certainly shouldn’t be the groundwork for a book you want others to take seriously.

    Sadly, the authors’ writing reflects their lack of objectivity. Time and time again, the authors appear to ignore the science, cherry-pick the evidence, and basically appear to engage in many behaviors characteristic not of science, but of personal beliefs. Which is a great way to keep one’s career going or to start a new religion, but a horrible way to put research data into perspective to support what otherwise could have been an innovative and novel theory.

    This book is a good purchase only if you want to understand how NOT to write a popular science book. Or if you want to read two authors trying to become the next Malcolm Gladwell, but failing spectacularly.

27. Guest says

    October 17, 2010 at 12:00 am

    A very interesting book aimed at a popular audience on the new and controversial field of Evolutionary Psychology. EP believes that much of human behavior is innate and genetically determined. In that regard, we are not that different from the rest of biological species. This position is not new (the debate of nurture versus nature is decades if not centuries old), but EP has many ingenious explanations of human behavior that conventional psychological theories that deny behavior has a genetical basis, can’t provide. EP holds that much, if not almost all, of human behavior has the ultimate aim of spreading our genes – to have as much progeny as we can. But because of the obvious differences between males and females in that regard – a man can potentially have much more offspring than females, who therefore has to stand for quality over quantity – their mating strategies are different and so is much of their behavior. Not every explanation given by author Kanazawa is totally convincing, and many times he tries to pass good guesses as established scientific truths (and sometimes the explanations are not even believable at all – the part where the book tried to explain Islamic suicide bombers is particularly poor), but all in all, this book is very interesting and shows evolutionary psychology as far more grounded on truth than what he call the standard social science model – conventional psychology and sociology that deny evolution has any role in the way people behaves. Such position, Kanazawa convincingly shows, is completely untenable today in light of decades of scientific findings.

28. Guest says

    June 20, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Luckily, I checked this book out of the local public library, so have wasted no money. I did not make it past the 4th chapter. While the much-discussed \\”blonde bombshell\\” theory was frustrating for its lack of evidence, I was thoroughly fed up by similarly blanket statements purported to be fact, such as \\”a preference for blue eyes seems both universal and undeniable.\\” One would expect such a confident statement to have several citations following it, pointing readers to multiple, rigorous studies that replicated the same findings, well, universally. No, there was just one article, published in 1978. THEN, Kanazawa continues by stating the only plausible explanation for this preference was suggested by an undergraduate student in one of her term papers! While undergraduates no doubt have the capability of developing new theories that are later proven true, a quick Google search revealed research in 2006 (while the author was writing his book) that suggested why blue-eyed men preferred blue-eyed women. Interestingly, in my brief skimming of the articles describing this research, none mentions that blue eyes are universally preferred. I should have known to stop reading when the authors admitted that the \\”Savanna principle\\” – upon which much of the book is based – is \\”not yet part of the established literature\\” and \\”its implications have yet to be subjected to rigorous experimental testing\\” (p. 24).

29. Guest says

    April 14, 2010 at 12:00 am

    I don’t know how or why but I’ve always intuitively \\”sensed\\” some of the things that the authors write about in this book — e.g. that it can’t be possible that all men are simple a** holes and that’s why they cheat, that the pursuit and acquisition of women seems to be the main motivator of men, that married men lose their drive and accomplish less than their unmarried counterparts. This book is outstanding and hits the nail on the head in explaining why men and women behave the way they do. I noticed that most of the negative reviews are from women, probably feminists that feel somehow insulted by this book. I’m not sure why, the author makes it clear from the beginning that the book is not about good vs. bad or right vs. wrong, but rather simply about objective observations and irrefutable facts.

    Highly recommended.

30. Guest says

    February 7, 2010 at 12:00 am

    You know how when you read a really good nonfiction book, you come away with a sense of exhilaration, a feeling that the world is a little clearer, a little richer than it was before?

    Now imagine starting to read a book on evolutionary psychology, getting a bit of that feeling, then reaching the middle of the book and realizing that the authors have been cheating you the entire time.

    That’s WHY BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE HAVE MORE DAUGHTERS in a nutshell. The authors sound great for a while, but then they’ll make an assertion that makes you go, \\”Wait…\\” and you’ll discover, upon investigation, that they’re stating things as fact without citing any support, and ignoring any evidence that conflicts with their conclusions.

    Take, for example, their assertion that \\”Islam [is] the only religion that motivates its followers to commit suicide missions,\\” and \\”while suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, when religion is involved, it is always Islam.\\”

    Except it’s not. Christians and Hindus have been known to commit religiously-motivated suicide attacks.

    The authors assert that the explanation for Muslim suicide bombing is that Islam allows polygyny, meaning that many young men will have no access to wives, and promises the suicide bombers 72 virgins in heaven. By the standards of evolutionary psychology, then, suicide bombing makes perfect sense for Muslim men with poor marital prospects: it is logical to leave this life in which they have no access to women for one in which they will have access to a large number of women.

    What’s missing is any sort of information on how strongly that belief is held by bombers. Belief in that particular passage would have to be extremely strong to override the evolutionary urge to survive and pass on your genes in this world.

    Or take women’s income versus men’s. The authors conclude that \\”the sex gap in earnings and the so-called glass ceiling are caused not by employer discrimination or any other external factors, but by the sex differences in internal preferences…\\” and proceed to assert that women in liberal capitalist societies can achieve whatever they want. Any difference in achievement is because women don’t care as much as men about status.

    Any woman who’s worked her way up in a male-dominated industry (myself included) can tell you that our lack of desire for success and promotion is not the sole factor – or even the primary factor – in holding us back.

    The authors ignore mountains of evidence that opposes their conclusion. For example, women asking for raises or promotions are perceived more negatively than men asking for the same. Ambition in men is perceived more positively than in women. Identical resumes will be perceived as representing less competence and value if a female name is attached to them. And so on.

    The authors claim that men harass each other, so in the case of hostile work environments, \\”men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.\\”

    This ignores different types of teasing, such as those used to strengthen ties between members of an in-group versus those used to exclude non-members. It ignores differences in attitudes toward and perceptions of women between men who promote a hostile work environment and men who don’t. Basically, it ignores anything that doesn’t fit with the authors’ hypotheses. Which is the exact opposite of appropriate use of the scientific method. You don’t get to ignore what doesn’t fit.

    The most egregious abuse of the reader’s trust is probably in the section entitled \\”Why are single women more likely to travel abroad – and why are young single men more likely to be xenophobic?\\” It starts out by asserting that if you ask a group of unmarried friends what their hobbies are, women will list traveling, men won’t. This is because indicators of status are culturally-determined, so single men abroad won’t have their status markers recognized by foreign women, and therefore won’t get a chance to mate with them (this explains their xenophobia). They cite studies that show that unmarried women are far less likely to express xenophobic attitudes than unmarried men. They then claim that the differences disappear when people marry – married women are no less likely to express xenophobic attitudes than married men. Wait, what? Otherwise open-minded young women suddenly become xenophobic when they marry? Seem a little hard to believe? Well, guess what: the authors don’t have any citation for that piece of \\”evidence.\\”

    I could go on and on (language isn’t apparently a system because men are better than women at systems, but women are better at language, ergo language is not logical and systematic) but I think this sampling is representative enough.

    There are more enlightening ways to spend your time.ign women, and therefore won’t get a chance to mate with them (this explains their xenophobia). They cite studies that show that unmarried women are far less likely to express xenophobic attitudes than unmarried men. They then claim that the differences disappear when people marry – married women are no less likely to express xenophobic attitudes than married men. Wait, what? Otherwise open-minded young women suddenly become xenophobic when they marry? Seem a little hard to believe? Well, guess what: the authors don’t have any citation for that piece of \\”evidence.\\” I could go on and on (language isn’t apparently a system because men are better than women at systems, but women are better at language, ergo language is not logical and systematic) but I think this sampling is representative enough. There are more enlightening ways to spend your time.

31. Guest says

    February 1, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Are the authors considering a sequel to this book? If the Nordic blonde is a universal standard of beauty and has been so for the past 1000 years why are there any darkskinned people left on earth? I guess the males of Asia and Africa did not get the memo that they are supposed to be mating with blonde Nordic females. As another reviewer stated, I could see it if this book was written in the 19th century or was a manuscript found in Adolph Hitler’s or Dr. Josef Mengele’s secret files but this book was written in 2006 when it is OBVIOUS that Europe’s population is not even at the replacement level of 2.1 children per female. If his \\”logic\\” is true then why are not the Nordic countries producing the most children yet Africa and Asia’s population while not skyrocketing is way above that of the Nordic regions. And as the other reviewer stated, it is sad that a Japanese male would co-sign this obviously racist theory of white superiority. I am waiting for that sequel which would explain why the so-called \\”beautiful\\” blonde Nordic race has apparently closed down it’s blonde babymaking factory and why said babymaking factory seems to have been outsourced to the nations in which the people (by his racist standards) are producing children in far greater numbers? I guess his book is a \\”feel good\\” treatise for those who want to keep their fantasies of the Aryan master race alive in the face of an obvious decline in the population of said race. Oh well, if you want a feel good fantasy piece of work instead of an actual realistic picture of the racial demographics of the earth then I guess this book ROCKS!

32. Guest says

    January 19, 2010 at 12:00 am

    At first I thought this book was fascinating and it explained a lot of what you see going on around you- men running off with their secretaries etc. It was an easy read and enjoyable. But the logic is far-fetched in places and it has an overall negative treatment of women, which is pretty sick when you think about it more. It kind of scares me that people might start thinking like this now that evo psycho is becoming more popular. That would not be a benefit to our culture. Good quote I found: As a biologist, I do enjoy and giggle happily at the idea that what we do is more rational and constrained by reality than the kind of theorizing that goes on in psychology. And to a certain extent, this may be true, although most psychologists do (to be fair) have less concrete material to work with than most biologists. So it makes me sad to point out that evolutionary psychology is a spin-off from a branch of biology called sociobiology which is… pretty much evo psych, only originally involving biologists and more inclusive of traits outside of behavior. So, really, it appears that any group of scientists are perfectly capable of finding a way to reinforce their beliefs and/or superstitions through allegedly scientific means. The annoying thing is, evo psych is potentially useful, so it’s really frustrating that its principle application appears to be putting a pseudo-scientific facade on social norms and gender roles that are really not organic at all. After all, there is clearly some evolutionary history behind human behavior, e.g. why we are social instead of solitary, why we need sleep, etc. Where evo psych goes wrong is: 1. The insistence that there must be some selective pressure behind every behavior, making emergent behaviors rare (I happen to think that MOST of our culture and social norms are emergent… which is why I’m not an evolutionary psychologist), and 2. Pretending that we know….about early human social structure during the period in which our social behavior is supposed to have evolved. This of course means that the bulk of evo psych claims are just-so stories using whatever presumptive notions about early human social structure that we wish to have. Which, curiously, is usually oddly reminiscent of 1950’s America. The sad part is that a lot of bright scientific minds buy into this nonsense. Even smart people will happily embrace questionable hypotheses (and here’s the other problem with evo psych – not very testable) if they confirm their preexisting biases, especially about something so powerful as social norms and conditioning.

33. Guest says

    July 3, 2009 at 12:00 am

    I can’t believe this book was even written and published in this decade. I am a serious fan of evolutionary psychology and anthropology books (I majored in anthro in college). After reading just a few random chapters in this book, I am very shocked that this is a new book. If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought they wrote this book in 1880. I usually see a book in the bookstore then browse over it to see if the headings and chapters seem interesting enough to order as I don’t like to read for very long in bookstores. I saw about 13 \\”1 star\\” reviews on Amazon, which was more than the 4 or 5 stars reviews (at the time I bought it). I really should have paid attention to some of the reviews and NOT bought the book.

    Let me give you an example: The authors claim that blonde bomshells are the ideal beauty all over the world and they claim this standard of beauty is NOT a result of media influence (as the nay-sayers would argue) but more of an evolutionary acquired preference. Here is one sentence from pages 49-50: \\”To claim that girls and women want to look like blonde bombshells because of the [media]..makes little sense as to claim that people become hungry because they are bombarded with images of food in the media. If only the media would stop inundating people with images of food, they would never be hungry! Anyone can see the absurdity of this argument…The advertisements are the consequences of our tendency to become hungry, not the causes. They exploit our innate needs but do not create them.\\” But the authors fail to realize that it’s the media that influences our decisions. When you’re bombarded with images that a juicy hamburger tastes good, you will think it does taste good and want it. The same is true with perceptions of beauty….there is no doubt about that. If hamburger joints stopped advertising, maybe I wouldn’t crave a juicy burger but might eat Chinese food instead! Just like if modern media didn’t bombard us with sexy blonde playboy bunnies, we may not think blondes are as sexy as say a \\”healthy African woman\\” or \\”feminine Asian woman\\”, per se. They go on to say that women have dyed their hair blonde to fit this model of beauty as far as recorded history goes back. I guess in ancient Africa and China, they dyed their hair blonde too?? Ridiculous!

    I am so surprised that this book was co-authored by a Japanese author saying that blonde and blue eyes is a universal beauty. I thought this book had interesting chapters and headings and it was well printed…so, I thought it would be a fun read. But so far, I have been disappointed. It’s like it was written by some very one-sided amateur teenager trying to prove his biased opinions. Please let this reviewer be the one to make you realize that this book is terrible: SAVE YOUR $[…] or so!

34. Guest says

    January 16, 2009 at 12:00 am

    On the surface, I thought this book would be interesting and fun. And while that was true to a certain extent, it was more difficult to enjoy because of the enormous lack of credible research involved. The book relies on societal myth, case studies, and poorly done research (many of the studies cited were done by disreputable research centers, with very few study participants.) For instance, in the chapter about the evolutionary reasons for men preferring blondes….who says that they do? No research was ever presented that a single male had been polled on this subject. The author also makes the leap that ‘dumb blonde’ jokes come from humans 10000 years ago, making fun of barely pubescent girls (who were likely the only blondes at the time.) In the chapter about xenophobia, a similar claim is made that men are more xenophobic than women…but with no research or proof cited for that claim. It seems as though the author’s method is simply to say to himself ‘I have a xenophobic male friend…so therefore all young men are xenophobic.’ The author himself claims that any adverse review to this book can be attributed to the politically incorrect subject matter. I’m much less offended by his claim that women have always been the caregivers of their children, and therefore are much better at it, than I am at the shoddy excuse for research that this book uses. I would recommend this book only to someone intelligent enough not to believe everything they read.

35. Guest says

    December 31, 2008 at 12:00 am

    wow, extremely disappointed with this book. The lack of logic and scientific reasoning was too overwhelming for me. For example, the author asserted that blonde hair evolved with women in Scandinavia and northern Europe, (where women stayed bundled up) as an indication of their youth and fertility. In contrast to the people of Africa, where fertility can be visually assessed because they stay naked. The authors did not consider other possible explanations such as genetic mutation, or simply difference in ideal. After reading that chapter, I gave up on the book entirely.

36. Guest says

    December 24, 2008 at 12:00 am

    I am mortified that by purchasing this book, I might have supported the \\”research\\” of pseudo-scientist Satoshi Kanazawa, the principle author. I urge potential buyers to at least google Kanazawa, whose research shows that African countries are entrenched in poverty because of their low IQs, that women (regardless of race or culture) want to look like Barbie (the blond one) and that men enjoy pornography because their feeble brains can’t distinguish between porn and the real thing. I will leave it to the adventurous reader to find the even more ridiculous theory for why women don’t like porn. Kanazawa begins with tenuous assumptions of what IS and uses some tricky methods of backwards induction and guesses of what WAS to explain WHY. He combines interesting research conducted by people who seem to understand the scientific method with his own half-baked ideas to reveal his true bigotry. Please, don’t fall for the catchy title like I did. Kanazawa is trying to bring eugenics and misogyny back into legitimate scientific discourse, and while I am all for freedom of speech, I sure wish I hadn’t bought the book.

37. Guest says

    December 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

    I found this book interesting, but the biggest flaw is the title. The authors imply that somehow, our DNA is programmed so that Beautiful People Will Have More Daughters, because it is evolutionarily more advantageous to be beautiful if you are a woman rather than a man. However, there are scientific studies that show that caloric restriction leads to more females than males being born. Imagine back on the veld: if there was a shortage of food, the population would be more likely to survive & propogate if there were more females than males. If there was an abundance of food, then the population could support more males than females, and only the best males would mate — leading to better offspring. Weight is often cited as an objective criterion of beauty. Suppose all of the ‘Beautiful Women’ are dieting to stay thin & beautiful (think of all of the starlets starving themselves), thus leading to more Beautiful Daughters. The authors never address this, thus throwing into question the scientific rigor of the book. The book is also sexist because it talks mostly about what men want — markers of physical attractiveness. But in modern societies, in non-rape situations, women effectively get to choose which men have success mating. The authors spend little time talking about the traits that women seek, other than material wealth.