Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#11

Post by juskrey »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #8

My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures). In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done. Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken? Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two ch…

"Selfish gene" notion was debunked by Novak et al. Also Taleb extensively writes in his books about how this contradicts evolution.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#12

Post by FabHK »

juskrey wrote: post #11
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #8

My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures). In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done. Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken? Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two ch…

"Selfish gene" notion was debunked by Novak et al. Also Taleb extensively writes in his books about how this contradicts evolution.

I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading.

Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the "Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#13

Post by amadeuspagel »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #8

My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures). In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done. Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken? Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two ch…

What unit of selection other then the gene is there?

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#14

Post by oceanofsolaris »

FabHK wrote: post #12
juskrey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Selfish gene" notion was debunked by Novak et al. Also Taleb extensively writes in his books about how this contradicts evolution.

I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading. Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the "Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...

I think this refers to Nowak et al and I assume refers to the discussion mentioned in the Wikipedia article of the book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Units_of_sele...).

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#16

Post by sarosh »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #13
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #8

My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures). In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done. Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken? Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two ch…

What unit of selection other then the gene is there?

In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[35] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outlines group selection, which Wilson argues is a more realistic model of social evolution. He criticises earlier approaches to social evolution, saying: "...unwarranted faith in the central role of kinship in social evolution has led to the reversal of the usual order in which biological research is conducted. The proven best way in evolutionary biology, as in most of science, is to define a problem arising during empirical research, then select or devise the theory that is needed to solve it. Almost all research in inclusive-fitness theory has been the opposite: hypothesize the key roles of kinship and kin selection, then look for evidence to test that hypothesis." According to Wilson: "People must have a tribe...Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong." (pp. 57, 59) According to Wilson: "Different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness." (p. 61) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Units_of_sele...

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#17

Post by iainmerrick »

wodenokoto wrote: post #4
adamnemecek wrote: post #3

Most of these are a bit pop sciency. Idk why people say they like Lolita.

You could argue that Pinker too is a pop-science writer.

Unless you have training and experience in the specific topic area, you probably won’t get much out of a “real” science book. We all need pop science.

(There’s good and bad pop science, of course, just as with anything else.)

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#18

Post by holowire »

FabHK wrote: post #12
juskrey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Selfish gene" notion was debunked by Novak et al. Also Taleb extensively writes in his books about how this contradicts evolution.

I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading. Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the "Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...

> I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading.

Why do you say that? I’m broadly familiar with Taleb’s writing, but have yet to fully read any of his books. So I’m curious of your perspective here and what is informing that sentiment.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#19

Post by jamesrcole »

sarosh wrote: post #16
amadeuspagel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What unit of selection other then the gene is there?

In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[35] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outline…

You can read Dawkins' response to it here http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-soc...

This part is worth noting:

I would not venture such strong criticism of a great scientist were I not in good company. The Wilson thesis is based on a 2010 paper that he published jointly with two mathematicians, Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita. When this paper appeared in Nature it provoked very strong criticism from more than 140 evolutionary biologists, including a majority of the most distinguished workers in the field. They include Alan Grafen, David Queller, Jerry Coyne, Richard Michod, Eric Charnov, Nick Barton, Alex Kacelnik, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Geoffrey Parker, Steven Pinker, Paul Sherman, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Stephen Emlen, Malte Andersson, Stuart West, Richard Wrangham, Bernard Crespi, Robert Trivers and many others. These may not all be household names but let me assure you they know what they are talking about in the relevant fields.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#20

Post by nabla9 »

sarosh wrote: post #16
amadeuspagel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What unit of selection other then the gene is there?

In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[35] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outline…

Wilson's approach is widely rejected.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...

Post reply on HN