Frans de Waal is clearly an expert on primates (chimps and bonobos in particular). That's where he should have stayed in this book. Unfortunately, it's a wandering, rambling, often flawed look at morality and atheism that is clearly hindered by de Waal's personal grudges against prominent atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchins. The subtitle of the book is "in search of humanism among the primates." That defines about 25-33% of the book, and it's clearly the best part. When we hear stories (mostly anecdotal, but some experimental) about how our primate cousins display a shockingly advanced degree of morality and even, potentially, supernatural beliefs, it makes for fascinating reading. de Waal is at his best when he talks about the primates he knows so well, as well as other animal examples. His thesis, that morality is a bottom-up process driven by our evolved minds is one that I am sympathetic to, although he's not the first person to make such a claim, so it's not a terribly original book in that regard.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, this makes up the minority of the book. Much of the book is spent either on a rambling discussion of a piece of artwork that he likes (The Garden by Bosch) or on misguided attacks against scientists (which I will discuss below). I have no problem with anyone liking art, but de Waal repeatedly refers to it as if it were evidence for his ideas. It's certainly an inspiration for him, but it could well be the work of a schizophrenic painter rather than a masterful statement about morality and human nature. I certainly wasn't expecting a significant portion of this particular book to be an essay on art (or one work of art) and morality. That's a topic for an entirely different kind of book, and it severely detracted from my taking his argument seriously.

As did his repeated and nonsensical attacks against atheists and scientists. He's mad at Dawkins et al. because they attack religion, rather than just leaving it be and promoting humanism. I think he misses their point. They view aspects of some practicing religions as promoting poor morals and/or deliberately promoting ignorance. Both of those are worth attacking in view, even if other aspects of religion (e.g., promoting community) are laudable. True, you can't prove that there is no god, but I think they are attacking specific religions rather than the notion of any kind of supernatural deity. And that is within the realm of science. Science has clearly shown the religious texts of the world to be fictions. The earth isn't 11,000 years old, Thor doesn't control lightning, and the Earth doesn't sit atop a giant turtle shell. The idea that there could be an infinite being is of course impossible to falsify, and believing that it is falsifiable is religious in a sense. But I think the vast majority of atheists would consider themselves technically agnostic, but functionally atheist. As in it's possible there's an infinite being, but none of the current religions are likely to be true beyond a reasonable doubt and so worshiping such a being makes no sense. He chastises scientists for trying to determine morality (e.g., Moral Landscape) at the same time as he uses evolutionary science to promote his theory that our natural evolved morals gave rise to religion, rather than religion giving rise to our morals. Again, I agree with his theory/thesis, but it's not new and it is based on science. He also seems to believe that the selfish gene theory rules out any true appreciation of cooperation or altruism. I think it does offer such an appreciation as it explains how and why genuine feelings of altruism could have come to exist. He also rails against evolutionary psychology for having too many just-so stories, which is one of the laziest and most disingenuous arguments out there. Just-so stories, a term the late Stephen Jay Gould popularized, suggest that because evolution is such a powerful theory, you can create any kind of story to explain why a trait has evolved (e.g., noses evolved to support glasses). The problem with this lazy critique is that all those "stories" are really theories or hypotheses that can be tested and falsified. That's a triumph, rather than a failure. He also attacks scientists for not being open-minded, so how can they criticize religious people for sticking to their biases? Again, we've got another biased de Waal opinion. Of course some scientists are slow to accept new truths. They should be, otherwise every new paper could reshape the entire theoretical landscape. Science should be cautious, but over time it corrects itself. de Waal is angry that some of his ideas took time to be accepted. Sorry, but that's the nature (and purpose!) of science- to carefully evaluate competing hypotheses and to only accept new theories once they have been sufficiently proven. I also wish he had spent more time discussion hunter-gatherer morals beyond sharing and reciprocity.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. This book has some fascinating information about animal morality. It is also a decent introduction to the idea that our morals are heavily influenced by our evolutionary past. Those are its strong points. But it's also burdened by aimless speculation about a work of art we know very little about and repeated but distorted attacks against anyone involved in science or atheism who has disagreed with de Waal over the years. It's petty, it's specious, and it detracts from what could otherwise have been a very interesting book. The writing is clear enough, but be forewarned that this is like sitting down with a guy over a few beers and getting a long, rambling story. Some of it is good, much of it is just rambling about people or causes he doesn't like. He's welcome to present his opinions, but frankly I really just care about his data. So I give this book a generous three stars because I so very much enjoyed the animal data, even if I had to read through a lot of fluff to get to it.

This story probably would have been more gripping when it was written in the 1980s and the Cold War was still on. The absence of the Soviet Bear tames the story significantly for modern readers, but it's still a fun book. The essence of the story is an American military test pilot is shot down by the Soviets so they can capture him and pick his brain about the new planes he's flying. Unfortunately for them, he quickly escapes and seeks to get back to America the only way he knows how- by the route of his aboriginal ancestors crossing the Bering Sea. Being a Native American who was raised in the Western mountains Major Mack (yes, it's kind of a silly name) has the skills, aptitude, and cultural determination to survive on his own in the harsh Siberian wilderness for a very long time as he tries to evade capture and make his way home. As someone who spends some time outdoors and knows a bit about primitive technology, I think there's almost no way he could accomplish the things he does so easily (e.g., make a bow and arrows, easily hunt game, make clothing, etc.). So you can't expect this story to be a highly realistic tale of northern survival. But it is good enough, and reasonably plausible enough, to allow one to ignore some of the details and concentrate on the ride. Because it is a very entertaining ride to see the hero try to survive both the wilderness and the Soviets, the reactions of Soviet citizens who he runs into, and his interactions with his former captors. A friend said that in many ways this book reads like a movie, and it does. Some people have complained that the ending is a bit abrupt, and perhaps L'Amour (who died shortly after writing this book) intended on writing a sequel. But I found the ending to be more than satisfying enough and it fit well with the general tenor of the book. His characters are OK, but nothing amazing. His description of the scenery was quite vivid and his writing keeps the plot moving long at a good pace. Overall then, this is a fun bit of "popcorn" writing that's good a for quick and easy read whenever you are in the mood for some good action.

This book has a basic message- cook more from raw products. I greatly enjoyed Pollan's earlier book, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, and got this one with the hope. They are indeed quite similar in that they espouse small-scale approaches to food. In the Omnivore's Dilemma he looked at the impact of our food choices relative to how they are made (e.g., factory farming of livestock). Here he looks at the impact of our decision to cook those foods versus to have someone else cook them for us. Which food companies are only too happy to do.

It's a basic fact of economics that the more processing that is involved, the greater the cost. It's more expensive to buy a fully finished chair than it is to buy a kit from Ikea than it is to buy lumber and nails from a store. The same applies to food, explaining why there is so much pressure applied by big food companies to get us to buy their pre-made food. Cooking is a waste of precious time as we are told to buy pre-cooked, or pre-prepared foods that can give us what we want in a fraction of the time with a fraction of the effort. However, they come at a cost.

That cost is not just financial as Pollan makes the case that cooking not only produces healthier foods, but that it's good for the soul as cooking can create communities or shared time. Both of these points are hard to dispute. By loosely tying cooking to the four elements Pollan tours the world of cooking. Fire is related to BBQ with an excellent section involving Carolina BBQ masters. My favorite section, perhaps because I love to do genuine BBQ (not just grilling) myself. Water is related to cooking with liquids, such as braising. Pollan works with a top chef to try and create a masterpiece from humble ingredients. Air involves baking, so naturally he turns to making bread. Earth is perhaps the least direct, where he uses the "magical" alchemy of fungi and bacteria to explore fermentation. As someone who enjoys many kinds of fermented products (especially the liquid ones!) this was also a fun chapter. In all, he examines how the cooking process can make nutrients more available to our bodies. He also examines the irony of how we watch more cooking TV than ever before (by a large margin) yet we cook ourselves less and less often.

I do have some reservations about the book. First, it really is about inspiration rather than teaching how to cook. There's a recipe to go with each of the four elements, but this isn't a recipe book or even a good cook book (i.e., teaching how to cook). It's really a why you should cook book. I loved the message, and if you enjoy cooking, I think you will too. Second, I think for those who don't know how to cook, or really don't have the time, this book might not do as much as a good and effective cook book that teaches you how to cook. Yes, motivation is important, but so is how to actually do it. Particularly when the competition is easier, faster, and in some cases, cheaper (at least in the short run). Still, Pollan encourages folks to cook more than they did before, as it's probably not possible for everyone to cook every day (that's certainly true for me). Overall though, I still rather enjoyed this book. If you like cooking, or miss cooking, or are nostalgic about when you used to eat home-cooked foods, this book is an excellent read and a great reminder of some of the reasons why cooking is a wonderful creative process that can be so very rewarding. It can remind us why its sometimes better to spend time than it is to spend money on our food. Because when push comes to shove, it's pretty hard to beat well-prepared home cooking!

This book is about what to expect in the future as population birth rates drop below replacement levels. That is, more people die than are born. That's actually happening in most modernized countries right now, and the trend is spreading to most countries on the planet. At its face level, this is a disaster. Ultimately, if not reversed, it would mean the extinction of the human species! Hard to think of a modern trend more severe than that! This book is an attempt to explore where, when, and why this is happening, what its implications might be, and what can be done about it. The author starts off by stating that he's conservative, but will do his best to not let that interfere with his discussion of the topic at hand. He fails at that, in some cases, badly.

The positives of the book is that it does offer a lot of statistics, although many are from think-tanks whom I'm not familiar with and so I'm a little wary of their data. But I think his general points, about birth rates, are pretty solid. He paints a grim picture of what a future with fewer babies will be like. In particular, it will mean that elderly entitlements like Social Security or Medicare will increasingly either have to be cut or have bigger shares passed on to younger generations. I'm not sure of the situation in Canada, but the author is clear that US social security works by paying today for today's elderly. Tomorrow's elderly need to be paid by tomorrow's youth, and if there's far more elderly relative to youths, then that's going to be a big problem. He also points out how its the youth who spend more money, invest in riskier capital, and are more likely to be inventors or entrepreneurs. Extinction aside, these are all very important economic reasons for being concerned about demographics and birth rates. This stuff is very interesting, and on its own, could have been worth four or five stars.

The downside is that the author keeps dragging the argument through the muck of his own beliefs. He starts off trying not to, but it's obvious from the start that he has his bias. For example, one good thing about fewer people is that we will pose less of a burden on the planet. But he completely dismisses this, saying that technology has always solved our population problems. Well, look around buddy and see how the oceans are doing, how the forests are doing, how world pollution is doing. Even the strongest global warming denier can't claim that our world is getting healthier with time (in some limited areas, sure, but not overall). What's strange is his belief in science solving all problems doesn't extend to the problem at hand. Instead, he pushes for religion as one of a few key solutions to this problem. It's true that religious people (practicing religious) have more children, but his statement that there's no good reason for having a second child other than God wanting you to have more than one is just ridiculous. I have more than one (three) because I love kids, and I wanted my children to have siblings to grow up with and lean on when they are older. God's wishes didn't enter that equation. If they did for you, fine, but that's clearly not the only reason people have more than one child. He also says he won't discuss his attitudes about abortion (a clear, if not massive, cause of lower birth rates) and then bashes it almost every time it comes up. Putting your moral condemnation in a large footnote at the bottom of the page isn't staying neutral. His condemnation of liberals is more subtle, but it's also present. He also suggests that fewer people go to university so that they can instead starting earning money and having kids. Especially women. Now I agree that there are plenty of people in university who don't belong there, but education is a good thing. I've never heard someone curse themselves for being too smart. Why not instead make it easier for women to pursue university and an early career while still becoming mothers as a solution to creeping 1st baby maternal age rates? I'd rather give prospective parents support rather than restrict their educational choices.

All of this is too bad as I agree that falling birth rates are a very important issue worth serious public consideration. From an economic perspective, I'm not sure if we won't balance things out eventually, but it's certain to involve some pain or sacrifice and if the issue continues or gets worse, that pain and sacrifice are really going to hurt. I do wish that the author spent more time discussing psychological reasons why a species would not choose to reproduce at its maximum rate, that's something that humans seem to be unique at. Australian rabbits, cane toads, etc. didn't have that problem. But we do- why? Unfortunately, beyond issues like having to buy safety seats and mini-vans, the author offers precious few reasons. Certainly, modern life is less conducive to family life in many ways, but why is that? Why do people tolerate that? How can we rebel against our genetic mission to procreate so successfully? To me, that's the million dollar question and it goes unanswered in this book. So fascinating topic, OK discussion equals three stars. If you don't mind lots of subtle right-wing jibs then this is probably four stars.

TWD started off strong, and then for me, it got a little lost in parts of Season 1 (e.g., the gang) and for much of Season 2. It's as if in Season 2 the writers and the characters forgot they were in the middle of a zombie apocalypse as they lived in a Little Farm in the Forest. Not so in Season 3 where the zombies are back with a vengeance! But as well, we have another, deadlier threat- rival humans. The infamous Governor makes his appearance. Easily one of the most controversial comic book villains (where he practiced bizarre torture, S&M, and possible necromantic incest), he was rewritten for the TV series. And they did a great job, as does the actor who plays him. The evolution of his character is one of the better parts of Season 3. Of course, the rest of the characters aren't standing still with Rick, Carl, and Daryl (becoming my favorite character) all playing major roles. The return of an old character is handled well (especially towards the end of the show). Andrea spends most of the season as one of the most annoying characters ever, but she is fully redeemed by the end of the season. It's interesting how different decisions made by the characters result in increasingly large differences from the comic series. It's like watching the same story start, and then unfold two different ways which is both interesting and refreshing as it means you can't just "cheat" by reading ahead in the comics.

The action is strong, featuring both zombies and humans as foes. There are moral dilemmas aplenty as Rick and his group have to try to negotiate living with each other, past members, new members, and the Governor and his community. All this takes place in the back drop of the prison that Rick and his group have chosen as their new home. Characters are still expendable, but the writers do a good job introducing new characters to care about. All in all, this season isn't perfect, especially towards the beginning. But it gets stronger and stronger, building on all the strengths of the series (action, setting, characters, and themes) until it left me once again excited about the series and definitely looking forward to the next season.

Harry Harrison is perhaps most famous for his character Slippery Jim, The Stainless Steel Rat. Here we meet Jason dinAlt, whose cast in a similar mold. A semi-psychic professional gambler, Jason craves excitement more than money. So when he's approached for a do-or-die betting scheme, he has to go for it. Only it leads to him decided to go to Pyrrus, the deadliest planet in the universe. Every plant, insect, bird, and mammal exists solely to kill human life. The name of the planet is appropriate for though its citizens are perhaps the toughest in the universe, they are fighting an everlasting battle against a planet that is slowing killing them off. Jason has to solve the mystery of why Pyrran life is so hostile to humans. How quickly he can will influence just how many Pyrrans are left to appreciate his victory.

In the second story, Jason is kidnapped from Pyrrus by an ultra-moralist who wants to hold him accountable for past crimes. Jason manages to foil the kidnapping by wrecking the space ship they are on. This forces them to crash on a strange backwards planet. Jason has to fight his way up the ladder of several backwards and violent cultures (roughly cavemen, then early civilization, then Renaissance). This is a fun story as Jason gets to use his knowledge of science to work "magic" and advance up the ladder towards both survival and rescue. He relucatantly keeps his kidnapper with him, as the hopeless ethicist would otherwise die. So we get a steady stream of moral thought throughout the book, but Harrison keeps it light enough for the action and fun to be the real stars of this book.

In the final entry of the series, Jason is reunited with his Pyrran friends. He decides to lead some of them in an effort to tame a planet that is rich in minerals, but populated by vicious Mongol-type hordes that have wiped out all attempts at settling on their planet. Can the uber-tough Pyrrans succeed were all others have failed? If they can, you can be sure it will be in large part thanks to Jason's schemes and ideas. This book again looks at the clash of cultures and technology, but is almost a recreation of life under Genghis Khan or Tamerlane. It's another fun romp that moves along at a brisk pace.

All of these stories are fast, fun, and full of interesting SciFi technology and creatures. Harrison seems to be at his best when writing a witty, sarcastic character. Think of Roger Moore's James Bond and you're not too far from the mark. So this is an excellent collection for both Harrison fans as well as for people who just want a fun SciFi read. It includes a bonus short story at the end that briefly continues the adventures of Jason and his friends. Given all that, I have no problem giving this book five stars. It's not world-shattering fiction, but it is an awfully fun way to spend a bit of your time.

This book is very much in the tradition of the smash hit Go the F*** to Sleep. To me, the latter book was 6-star comedy. I laughed and laughed at it. I still do. This book isn't quite as funny, but don't get me wrong, it's still darn funny (and it's a whole lot longer). It follows from her apparently popular online blog. I took a quick look at her blog (with the caveat that I don't regularly follow it) and much of this book seems like new material. Like Go the..., it's a view of parenting from the trenches that's aimed at fellow parents who are in, or remember being in, the trenches. It also shares a penchant for swearing. So if you don't like dark humor or foul language, then this definitely isn't the book for you!

But if you don't mind that, and if you've ever been frustrated by your wonderful kids, then this book is awesome fun. I laughed, my wife laughed, and then I laughed some more. It's written by a mom who's husband doesn't apparently spend a ton of time it the trenches. He makes it into some of the stories, but it's largely written from her perspective so don't expect a lot of guy humor other than from her kid stories (rightly so as she's the one who spends the most time in the trenches). The book is a series of short stories illustrated with her drawings (that obviously, aren't very good- funny, but not very good). The book has nine sections of content based on themes like sleeping, eating, pooping, playing, traveling, etc. The last section consists of 50 rules of parenting that are all variations on Murphy's Law. Time and again I could see myself or my kids in the stories. For example, she says, "One toy and two children is a recipe for war. In fact, that's how war was invented." I laughed and laughed because the illustrations show the kids fighting over the toy, then each getting one, then tossing them away as soon as the other kid didn't want it. I can't count the number of times my kids have frustrated me with that gem of behavior!

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Dusick is careful to point out now and then that she really does love her kids (as I do mine). And that's an important point because this book is about giving a funny salute to fellow parents, not about bashing kids. Yes we love our kids, and yes they can drive us nuts. This book supports my view that sometimes the best thing to do about that is to get together and laugh (rather than cry) about the stories. Hopefully the next time you (or I) are in one of those awful parenting situations, you can step back and think how funny a story this will be once it's over. Because sometimes that little chuckle in the middle of that great big mess is all you need to get through it. Dusick's book will definitely help with that, so it's an easy 5 stars from me!

I have to start off by saying that in my opinion, almost everything Daniel Day Lewis touches turns to movie gold. He's such a talented actor, and this movie shows off that talent to its fullest (he won his third Best Actor Academy Award for it). The movie covers the last few months of Lincoln's life as he tries to get support for the 13th Ammendment that outlaws slavery. The plot focuses as much on Lincoln as it does history, making it interesting and it moves along at a good pace thanks to Spielberg's focus. The history here is real and interesting, making it a pleasure to learn while you watch. Lewis is not alone in this star-studded cast. Sally Fields does an excellent job as Lincoln's wife, while Tommy Lee Jones plays the radical Republican fighting for abolition (funny how the Republican party has changed, isn't it?). Both earned Academy Award nominations for their performances, and there are numerous other talented actors packing this film with talent. The scene of Licoln's death is handled tastefully, so this is a movie that older children shouldn't have a problem watching (the depth of the content probably means younger kids won't last through it). While understandably patriotic, it doesn't overkill on the pro-USA sentiment as the horror of the Civil War lingers in the background throughout the film.

As for the movie itself, the musical score is strong and suitable. The cinematography is crisp and dramatic. Spielberg occassionally produces a clunker, but he's at his top form in Lincoln. The writing and dialogue is excellent and powerful. Historians have quibbled over some of the details, which is not surprising for events around 150 years ago, but they generally agree it's close enough to the truth. The Blu-Ray transfer does not disappoint, delivering superb sound and video quality. The full four-DVD set is supposed to have 80 minutes of extra content, but there's not that much in terms of extras for the 2-disc pack (two short features 9min/4min on making the film). So the extras you get apparently depend on the cash you spend, which is fine with me as it lets the buyer decide if they want to pay the extra $6 (currently) to get these extra features. Overall then, this is a very easy film to recommend if you like history, great acting, great directing, and/or very good writing. Five stars.

Napoleon Chagnon was made famous by studying the Yanomamo, one of the last "pristine" cultures at the time. His studies took place in the late 60's and early 70's, an almost "golden era" for anthropology when anthropologists realized that the clock was ticking for trying to study pre-modern cultures. The Yanomamo live in Venezuala and Brazil, with Chagnon doing most of his work in Venezuala. His naivete at the start of his studies was almost charming. For example, he thought he could go in, stay for a few weeks, then bring his wife and two children (both under 3 years) into the middle of the jungle! Needless to say, that doesn't work out so well, but Chagnon does persevere on his own and ends up making significant contacts with a large number and variety of different Yanomamo groups. His subsequent monograph "Yanomamo: The Fierce People" is one of the staples of anthropology. It depects the Yanomamo as a polygnyous, aggressive group of agriculturalist/hunter-gatherers. The very obvious shattering of the "noble savage" image of aboriginals lead to significant problems for Chagnon. More on that later. For now, this book does an admirable job of explaining the life of the Yanomamo. There are some new details, some missing details, compared to The Fierce People. Overall, it's an excellent picture of traditional anthropology where the scientist spends significant time living with the people they are studying. The Yanomamo were indeed violent, and data shows that violent men actually had significantly higher reproductive/evolutionary success. My one quibble with his science is that he believes too strongly that the Yanomamo were representative of the human environment of evolutionary adaptation. A significant part of their violence (as admitted by Chagnon) is due to their immobile yet productive agricultural gardens that both allow larger groups and remove the chance of moving quickly away when violence threatens. I think somewhere in between the !Kung and the Yanomamo is probably where the "typical" human EEA lies.

OK. So now with the politics. The first attack on Chagnon came from Christian missionaries. Particularly the Catholic missionaries who realized too late, and in part thanks to Chagnon's data, that their providing shotguns to natives resulted in significant casualties. As did their reluctance to support vaccination programs. Some good priests stand out as genuinely caring, but others (according to Changon) care primarily about their power over the natives and the reputation of their "brand name". This leads them to slander Chagnon, to threaten him, and to intervene against him amongst Venezualan politics.

The second attack comes from postmodernist anthropologists who view Chagon's evolutionary theory and violent data as immoral and a threat to natives. Despite having virtually no real first-hand understanding of the Yanomamo, they engaged in a proactive smear campaign against Chagnon and his collaborators. The American Association of Anthropologists was shamefully coerced into supporting these baseless attacks even as the leaders of that organization privately acknowledged it was a baseless witch hunt. Frankly, I'm quite surprised no one was sued by Chagnon, but he admits to being deeply emotionally drained by the unwarrented attacks on his person, reputation, and work. In that sense, maybe it's best for him to just let things go away (the society itself voted against its leadership in rejecting the charges against Chagnon by a wide margin).

So overall, this is a very interesting book to read. I found the science to be much more enjoyable to read about than the vicious politics from ultra-left wing academics and ultra-strict Catholic groups. The irony of those latter two groups being aggressive isn't lost on this reader, but it's more sad than entertaining to read about. Still, they don't outweight the fact that this is an interesting book from one of the last few trained researchers to spend time with truly "pristine" populations. Whether or not you believe that tells us about our own evolutionary past (I think it does in part), the fact that the Yanomamo society is going the way of so many Amazonian organisms makes this a book worth reading about. There will never be another chance for a researcher to study them in the same way, so this unique book furthers a unique contribution by a unique anthropologist.

I was a big fan of Bronson and Merryman's earlier book NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children. In it they summarized several specific lines of developmental/child psychology research. This book is different in that it focuses on a sole topic- winning and losing. The essential thesis of this book is that competition is good and that we should encourage its development in our children and in ourselves.

The authors compile a pretty strong case that competition fosters creativity and best efforts from individuals. Drawing largely on the worlds of sports and business, they suggest that competition is a necessary component for success. They also cite neurological and hormonal evidence for how the body responds positively to competition, at least for people who embrace rather than fear competition. They build a relatively compelling case, but there are some important flaws.

First, they do not discuss the science of losing and how the body and brain respond to inevitable failures. In this regard, the recent book The Hour Between Dog and Wolf offers a more complete science of winning and losing. Second, by failing to ignore the consequences of failure, they overestimate the value of competition. Look at Wall Street and what rampant competition for bonuses has done. Granted, there is government protection from failure, but that is due to another form of competition- lobbying. Competition has also failed to bring more women into high finance, despite their superior performance in that arena. Third, some of their evidence is misleading. The top 10% of physicists publish 50% of the research because they win 50% of the grant money. There is actually good evidence that creativity in science is a matter of chance. More frequent publishers make more frequent significant discoveries, but it's hard to tease apart whether that's because they have the better funding, labs, and students to do so versus the better mental ability to do so. Fourth, there are many times when competition and risk taking is not your best choice. It helps win wars, but it also helps get you killed in war. Fifth, they don't discuss the biggest competitors and risk-takers: young men. Daly & Wilson's book Homicide does a great job illuminating how young men are programmed to task risks to gain status (and thus mates). This underlies much of the risk-taking and competitive differences the authors see between men (who are relatively blind to risk when chasing rewards) versus women (who need good odds before chasing rewards). Drawing on the same evolutionary evidence as Bronson and Merryman, we now know that an "ancestral" woman who dies in competition will almost certainly result in the death of her young children. The same is not true of a man, as the man stands to benefit much more from winning status competitions such as multiple mates (most human societies were polygynous). This naturally biases men to be reward-focused while women are risk-averse (in general). It also explains why women are dyadic in their competitions while men are both individual and group-oriented. As I discussed with Joyce Beneson (the researcher's whose work they cite on this issue), men can be ruthlessly dyadic under the right circumstances (e.g., competing over a woman) while also capable of ignoring dyadic issues (e.g., when threatened by another group of men). It's not that men don't compete dyadically, they simply have a higher threshold for when such competition becomes important as it could otherwise be a threat to male solidarity and group defense. I could go on, but suffice to say I think the authors tackled a really big topic and are missing out on numerous details (some small, some major).

So why four stars? Well, there's still plenty of solid science here and the authors are good writers. They do a good job bringing an interesting issue to light. The book could benefit from better balance in discussing all sides of competition, including losing and a lack of risk taking in order to fully be the science of winning and losing. If you're looking for a book on the science of winning and losing, this is a two or three star book. Instead, this book should be called Top Dog: The Science of Competing. In that regard, especially if you take the results with a grain of salt, it's definitely a four-star book and one I enjoyed reading. I certainly sympathize with their overall conclusion that healthy competition is a good thing that we should both encourage and strengthen ourselves towards.