What do you think?
Rate this book
Sociobiology
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
View a collection of videos on Professor Wilson entitled "On the Relation of Science and the Humanities"
Harvard University Press is proud to announce the re-release of the complete original version of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis--now available in paperback for the first time. When this classic work was first published in 1975, it created a new discipline and started a tumultuous round in the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Although voted by officers and fellows of the international Animal Behavior Society the most important book on animal behavior of all time, Sociobiology is probably more widely known as the object of bitter attacks by social scientists and other scholars who opposed its claim that human social behavior, indeed human nature, has a biological foundation. The controversy surrounding the publication of the book reverberates to the present day.
In the introduction to this Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition, Edward O. Wilson shows how research in human genetics and neuroscience has strengthened the case for a biological understanding of human nature. Human sociobiology, now often called evolutionary psychology, has in the last quarter of a century emerged as its own field of study, drawing on theory and data from both biology and the social sciences.
For its still fresh and beautifully illustrated descriptions of animal societies, and its importance as a crucial step forward in the understanding of human beings, this anniversary edition of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis will be welcomed by a new generation of students and scholars in all branches of learning.
Harvard University Press is proud to announce the re-release of the complete original version of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis--now available in paperback for the first time. When this classic work was first published in 1975, it created a new discipline and started a tumultuous round in the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Although voted by officers and fellows of the international Animal Behavior Society the most important book on animal behavior of all time, Sociobiology is probably more widely known as the object of bitter attacks by social scientists and other scholars who opposed its claim that human social behavior, indeed human nature, has a biological foundation. The controversy surrounding the publication of the book reverberates to the present day.
In the introduction to this Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition, Edward O. Wilson shows how research in human genetics and neuroscience has strengthened the case for a biological understanding of human nature. Human sociobiology, now often called evolutionary psychology, has in the last quarter of a century emerged as its own field of study, drawing on theory and data from both biology and the social sciences.
For its still fresh and beautifully illustrated descriptions of animal societies, and its importance as a crucial step forward in the understanding of human beings, this anniversary edition of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis will be welcomed by a new generation of students and scholars in all branches of learning.
720 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
About the author
Edward O. Wilson
204 books2,296 followersEdward Osborne Wilson, sometimes credited as E.O. Wilson, was an American biologist, researcher, theorist, and author. His biological specialty is myrmecology, a branch of entomology. A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular-humanist ideas pertaining to religious and ethical matters. He was the Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
April 28, 2019
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Edward O. Wilson
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975; 25th anniversary edition 2000) is a book by the biologist E. O. Wilson. Edward O. Wilson popularized the term "Sociobiology" as an attempt to explain the evolutionary mechanics behind social behavior such as altruism, aggression, and the nurturing of the young.
Contents:
Part I. Social Evolution: 1. The Morality of the Gene; 2. Elementary Concepts of Sociobiology; 3. The Prime Movers of Social Evolution; 4. The Relevant Principles of Population Biology; 5. Group Selection and Altruism.
Part II. Social Mechanisms: 6. Group Size, Reproduction, and Time-Energy Budgets; 7. The Development and Modification of Social Behavior; 8. Communication: Basic Principles; 9. Communication: Functions and Complex Systems; 10. Communication: Origins and Evolution; 11. Aggression; 12. Social Spacing, Including Territory; 13. Dominance Systems; 14. Roles and Castes; 15. Sex and Society; 16. Parental Care; 17. Social Symbioses.
Part III. The Social Species: 18. The Four Pinnacles of Social Evolution; 19. The Colonial Microorganisms and Invertebrates; 20. The Social Insects; 21. The Cold-Blooded Vertebrates; 22. The Birds; 23. Evolutionary Trends within the Mammals; 24. The Ungulates and Elephants; 25. The Carnivores; 26. The Nonhuman Primates; 27. Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: از روز بیست و هفتم ماه آوریل سال 2006 میلادی تا روز بیستم ماه می سال 2006 میلادی
عنوان: سوسیوبیولوژی (زیست شناسی اجتماعی)؛ نویسنده: ادوارد ویلسون؛ مترجم: عبدالحسین وهاب زاده؛ مشهد، جهاد دانشگاهی، 1384؛ در 352 ص؛ شابک: 9643241025؛ کتابنامه 331 تا 352؛ موضوع: عادات و رفتار اجتماعی از نویسندگان امریکایی - سده 20 م
فهرست: سوسیوبیولوژی در پایان سده بیستم میلادی؛ 1. اخلاق ژن؛ 2. مفایم اولیه سوسیوبیولوژی؛ پیشتاز تکاملی و رانش اجتماعی؛ مفهوم جمعیت شناسی سازشی؛ کیفیات جامعه گرایی؛ مفهوم سنجه رفتاری؛ 4. محرک‌های اصلی تکامل اجتماعی؛ ماند تباری؛ فشار بوم شناختی؛ بازگشت پذیری در تکامل اجتماعی؛ 4. اصول مرتبط با زیست شناسی جمعیت؛ جورآمیزی و ناجورآمیزی؛ وابستگی به تراکم؛ جبران متقابل؛ 5. انتخاب گروهی و فداکاری؛ انتخاب گروهی؛ انتخاب بین جمعی؛ انتخاب خویشاوندی؛ فداکاری متقابل؛ رفتارهای فداکارانه
ا. شربیانی
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975; 25th anniversary edition 2000) is a book by the biologist E. O. Wilson. Edward O. Wilson popularized the term "Sociobiology" as an attempt to explain the evolutionary mechanics behind social behavior such as altruism, aggression, and the nurturing of the young.
Contents:
Part I. Social Evolution: 1. The Morality of the Gene; 2. Elementary Concepts of Sociobiology; 3. The Prime Movers of Social Evolution; 4. The Relevant Principles of Population Biology; 5. Group Selection and Altruism.
Part II. Social Mechanisms: 6. Group Size, Reproduction, and Time-Energy Budgets; 7. The Development and Modification of Social Behavior; 8. Communication: Basic Principles; 9. Communication: Functions and Complex Systems; 10. Communication: Origins and Evolution; 11. Aggression; 12. Social Spacing, Including Territory; 13. Dominance Systems; 14. Roles and Castes; 15. Sex and Society; 16. Parental Care; 17. Social Symbioses.
Part III. The Social Species: 18. The Four Pinnacles of Social Evolution; 19. The Colonial Microorganisms and Invertebrates; 20. The Social Insects; 21. The Cold-Blooded Vertebrates; 22. The Birds; 23. Evolutionary Trends within the Mammals; 24. The Ungulates and Elephants; 25. The Carnivores; 26. The Nonhuman Primates; 27. Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: از روز بیست و هفتم ماه آوریل سال 2006 میلادی تا روز بیستم ماه می سال 2006 میلادی
عنوان: سوسیوبیولوژی (زیست شناسی اجتماعی)؛ نویسنده: ادوارد ویلسون؛ مترجم: عبدالحسین وهاب زاده؛ مشهد، جهاد دانشگاهی، 1384؛ در 352 ص؛ شابک: 9643241025؛ کتابنامه 331 تا 352؛ موضوع: عادات و رفتار اجتماعی از نویسندگان امریکایی - سده 20 م
فهرست: سوسیوبیولوژی در پایان سده بیستم میلادی؛ 1. اخلاق ژن؛ 2. مفایم اولیه سوسیوبیولوژی؛ پیشتاز تکاملی و رانش اجتماعی؛ مفهوم جمعیت شناسی سازشی؛ کیفیات جامعه گرایی؛ مفهوم سنجه رفتاری؛ 4. محرک‌های اصلی تکامل اجتماعی؛ ماند تباری؛ فشار بوم شناختی؛ بازگشت پذیری در تکامل اجتماعی؛ 4. اصول مرتبط با زیست شناسی جمعیت؛ جورآمیزی و ناجورآمیزی؛ وابستگی به تراکم؛ جبران متقابل؛ 5. انتخاب گروهی و فداکاری؛ انتخاب گروهی؛ انتخاب بین جمعی؛ انتخاب خویشاوندی؛ فداکاری متقابل؛ رفتارهای فداکارانه
ا. شربیانی
July 27, 2010
Read the original in college...will always be relevant. Humans are animals, get over it. Humans are special, so is every living thing.
January 29, 2016
"Camus said that the only serious philosophical question is suicide. That is wrong even in the strict sense intended. The biologist, who is concerned with questions of physiology and evolutionary history, realizes that self-knowledge is constrained and shaped by the emotional control centers in the hypothalamus and limbic system of the brain. These centers flood our consciousness with all the emotions–hate, love, guilt, fear, and others–that are consulted by the ethical philosophers who wish to intuit the standards of good and evil. What, we are then compelled to ask, made the hypothalamus and limbic system? They evolved by natural selection."
October 11, 2022
Sociobiology – The Field That Dare Not Speak its Name
On publication, the reception accorded Wilson’s ‘Sociobiology’ was divided.
Among biologists, the reception was unanimously laudatory. My 25th anniversary edition proclaims on its cover that it was voted by officers and fellows of the Animal Behavior Society as the most important ever book on animal behavior.
Yet, on the other side of campus, the reception was very different. Indeed, sociobiology became almost a dirty word in the social sciences, to such an extent that the word fell into disuse and was replaced by euphemisms like behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.
Indeed, even those researchers whose work carried on the sociobiological approach in all but name almost always played down the extent of their debt to Wilson.
Thus, books on evolutionary psychology typically begin with disclaimers acknowledging that the sociobiology of Wilson was, of course, crude and simplistic, and that their own approach is, of course, infinitely more sophisticated.
Indeed, reading some recent works on evolutionary psychology, one could be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary approaches in social science began around 1989 with Tooby and Cosmides.
What then is ‘sociobiology’?
Today, the term has largely fallen into disuse, save among some social scientists as a term of abuse for any theory of human behavior perceived as placing too great a weight on biological factors, including many areas of research quite separate from sociobiology (e.g. behavioral genetics).
Wilson himself did not coin the term. However, he did popularize (and ultimately unpopularize) it.
Wilson defined sociobiology as:
The hormonal, neuroscientific, or genetic causes of behavior are just as much part of “the biological basis of behavior”, yet these lie outside of sociobiology. As Wilson himself admitted:
A Book Much Read About, But Rarely Actually Read
Wilson proudly proclaims that the book was:
Indeed, I suspect this was a factor in the hostile reception accorded the book. It was so big that most social scientists were disinclined to read it for themselves, especially since most of it concerned non-human species and was thus, as they saw it, irrelevant to their own work.
Thus, their entire knowledge of the field was filtered to them by the critiques of other social scientists, who presented a straw man caricature of the field. Indeed, reading these critiques, one suspects that those not bothering to read the work for themselves included many of those taking it upon themselves to write about it!
As a result, it became, among social scientists and the educated public, a book much read about, but rarely actually read—and, like other books falling into this category (e.g. the Bible and The Bell Curve), myths have emerged regarding its contents.
Humans
Thus, it is often claimed Wilson extended his gaze to humans only in his final chapter. In fact, humans are mentioned before.
His chapter on “Roles and Castes” closes with a discussion of “Roles in Human Societies” (p312-3); the final section of the chapter on “Aggression” is titled “Human Aggression” (p254-5); and in his chapter on “Sex and Society”, he discusses the association between adultery and violent retribution in humans (p327).
Another misconception is that, while he did not found the field of sociobiology, Wilson attracted most of the flak because he was the first biologist brave, foolish, ambitious, farsighted or naïve enough to apply sociobiology to humans.
In fact, much of Trivers’ 1971 paper on reciprocal altruism discussed human emotions, like guilt and gratitude (Trivers 1971).
Reductionism?
Among the familiar charges levelled against sociobiology is that of ‘reductionism’.
It is thus a surprise to find in the opening pages of ‘Sociobiology’ Wilson defending “holism” against “the triumphant reductionism of molecular biology” (p7).
This passage is even more surprising for anyone who has read Consilience, where Wilson champions “reductionism” as “the cutting edge of science… breaking down nature into its constituent components” and “the primary and essential activity of science” (Consilience: p59).
Many opponents of ‘reductionism’ seem to promote an untestable and unscientific obscurantism, whereby any attempt to explain behavior in terms of causes is dismissed as ‘reductionism’ and ‘determinism’.
Wilson’s writings on this topic must be understood as responses, not to the controversies these works provoked, but rather the controversies that preceded them.
Thus, just as Wilson’s defence of reductionism in Consilience was a response to the sociobiology debates, so Wilson’s defence of holism in ‘Sociobiology’ was a response an earlier academic controversy, in which molecular biologists led by James Watson had contended that molecular biology was the only biology, and that traditional fieldwork and experiments were positively passé (see Naturalist).
Wilson responded:
Among the key breakthroughs that formed the basis for sociobiology was Williams’s critique of group-selection.
A focus the individual, or even the gene, as the sole unit of selection came to be viewed as an integral part of the sociobiological paradigm.
It is therefore surprising to discover that Wilson was himself apparently a group-selectionist all alone.
This is apparent not only in his recent work but also in ‘Sociobiology’ itself.
Certainly, Wilson regurgitates the familiar criticisms of group-selection (p106-7). However, he continues to offer group-selectionist explanations (e.g. p275) and concludes:
From Sociobiology to Evolutionary Psychology
Returning to Wilson’s infamous last chapter today, it is, I feel, disappionting.
Inevitably, any science book will be dated after forty years. However, while true of the whole book, this is especially true of this last chapter, which bears little resemblance to modern evolutionary psychology.
This is perhaps inevitable. While the application of sociobiological theory to other species was already well underway, the application of sociobiological theory to humans was in its infancy.
Yet, while the substance of the chapter is dated, the general approach is spot on.
Indeed, even some of the advances claimed by evolutionary psychologists as their own were anticipated by Wilson. Thus, Wilson recognises:
Wilson proposes study human behavior from the disinterested perspective of an alien zoologist and concludes, “In this macroscopic view the humanities and social sciences shrink to specialized branches of biology” (p547).
However, Wilson actually urged caution:
Ambition
The scale of Wilson’s ambition was enormous. First, he sought to synthesize the field of animal behavior under the rubric of sociobiology and in the process produce the ‘New Synthesis’ promised in the subtitle, by analogy with the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics that forms the basis for modern biology.
Then, in a final chapter, he decided to add human behavior to his synthesis.
This meant, not just providing a new foundation for a single subfield within biology (i.e. animal bahavior), but for several whole disciplines formerly virtually unconnected to biology—i.e. psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics.
Oh yeah… and moral philosophy and perhaps epistemology too. I forgot to mention that.
Philosophy
Wilson’s forays into philosophy proved even more controversial than those into social science. Though limited to a few paragraphs in his first and last chapter, they were among the most critiqued in the whole book.
Not only were opponents of sociobiology (and philosophers) indignant, but even those taking up the sociobiological gauntlet were mostly skeptical.
In proposing to reconstruct moral philosophy on the basis of biology, Wilson was widely accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy.
If a behavior is natural, this does not make it right, any more than the fact that dying of tuberculosis is natural means that it is morally wrong to treat tuberculosis with such ‘unnatural’ interventions as vaccination or antibiotics.
Most evolutionary psychologists are only too happy to reiterate the sacrosanct inviolability of the fact-value chasm, not least because it allows them to investigate the evolutionary function of such behaviors as infidelity, sexual coercion, war and infanticide, without being seen as thereby justifying these behaviors.
Yet if we cannot derive values from facts, whence can values be derived? Only from other values? Whence then are our ultimate moral values, from which other moral values are derived, themselves to be derived? Must they be simply taken on faith?
Wilson has recently argued:
Yet these same moral philosophers take these emotions for granted. They treat the brain as a “black box” rather than a biological entity the nature of which is the subject of scientific study (p562).
Our moral preferences are themselves the product of our brains, which are themselves a product of natural selection, as well as our socialization and environments.
The philosophical implications of recognising that moral intuitions are themselves a product of the evolutionary process have since been investigated by both biologists and philosophers, not least Wilson himself in collaboration with philosopher or biology Michael Ruse (Ruse & Wilson 1986).
What applies to ethics also applies to the other major subfield of philosophy, namely epistemology, to which Wilson devotes only a single parenthesis (p3). What humans are capable of knowing is, like morality, a product of the brain, which is itself a product of natural selection (see Taking Darwin Seriously).
Dated?
Is ‘Sociobiology’ worth reading today? At 700 pages, it represents no idle investment of time.
Wilson has the unusual honour for a working scientist of being a twice Pulitzer-Prize winner. However, ‘Sociobiology: The New Synthesis’ is not a book one would read for its literary merits alone.
As a textbook, Sociobiology is dated.
Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a true science is the speed at which cutting-edge work becomes obsolete.
Religious believers still cite holy books written millennia ago, while adherents of pseudo-sciences like psychoanalysis and Marxism still paw over the words of Freud and Marx.
However, the scientific method is a cumulative process based on falsificationism and is no respecter of persons. Scientific works become obsolete almost as fast as they are published.
The speed with which Wilson’s work became obsolete is hence a marker of the success of the research project it inspired.
If you want a textbook summary of the latest research in sociobiology, I would instead recommend the latest edition of Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach or An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology; or, if your primary interest is human behavior, the latest edition of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind.
The continued value of ‘Sociobiology’ lies in the field, not of science, but ‘History of Science’.
References
Ruse & Wilson (1986) Moral Philosophy as Applied Science. Philosophy 61(236):173-192
Trivers (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46:35–57
On publication, the reception accorded Wilson’s ‘Sociobiology’ was divided.
Among biologists, the reception was unanimously laudatory. My 25th anniversary edition proclaims on its cover that it was voted by officers and fellows of the Animal Behavior Society as the most important ever book on animal behavior.
Yet, on the other side of campus, the reception was very different. Indeed, sociobiology became almost a dirty word in the social sciences, to such an extent that the word fell into disuse and was replaced by euphemisms like behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.
Indeed, even those researchers whose work carried on the sociobiological approach in all but name almost always played down the extent of their debt to Wilson.
Thus, books on evolutionary psychology typically begin with disclaimers acknowledging that the sociobiology of Wilson was, of course, crude and simplistic, and that their own approach is, of course, infinitely more sophisticated.
Indeed, reading some recent works on evolutionary psychology, one could be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary approaches in social science began around 1989 with Tooby and Cosmides.
What then is ‘sociobiology’?
Today, the term has largely fallen into disuse, save among some social scientists as a term of abuse for any theory of human behavior perceived as placing too great a weight on biological factors, including many areas of research quite separate from sociobiology (e.g. behavioral genetics).
Wilson himself did not coin the term. However, he did popularize (and ultimately unpopularize) it.
Wilson defined sociobiology as:
“The systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior” (p4; p595).However, sociobiology came to be associated with the question of why behaviors evolved and the evolutionary function they serve (i.e. one of Tinbergen’s Four Questions).
The hormonal, neuroscientific, or genetic causes of behavior are just as much part of “the biological basis of behavior”, yet these lie outside of sociobiology. As Wilson himself admitted:
“Behavioral biology… is now emerging as two distinct disciplines centered on neurophysiology and… sociobiology” (p6).Yet Wilson’s definition was also too narrow. Behavioral ecologists have come to study all forms of behavior, not just social behavior (e.g. optimal foraging theory).
A Book Much Read About, But Rarely Actually Read
Wilson proudly proclaims that the book was:
“Written with the broadest possible audience in mind and most of it can be read with full understanding by any intelligent person whether or not he or she has had any formal training in science” (p577)However, the size of the work was probably enough to deter most such readers long before they reached p577 where these words appear.
Indeed, I suspect this was a factor in the hostile reception accorded the book. It was so big that most social scientists were disinclined to read it for themselves, especially since most of it concerned non-human species and was thus, as they saw it, irrelevant to their own work.
Thus, their entire knowledge of the field was filtered to them by the critiques of other social scientists, who presented a straw man caricature of the field. Indeed, reading these critiques, one suspects that those not bothering to read the work for themselves included many of those taking it upon themselves to write about it!
As a result, it became, among social scientists and the educated public, a book much read about, but rarely actually read—and, like other books falling into this category (e.g. the Bible and The Bell Curve), myths have emerged regarding its contents.
Humans
Thus, it is often claimed Wilson extended his gaze to humans only in his final chapter. In fact, humans are mentioned before.
His chapter on “Roles and Castes” closes with a discussion of “Roles in Human Societies” (p312-3); the final section of the chapter on “Aggression” is titled “Human Aggression” (p254-5); and in his chapter on “Sex and Society”, he discusses the association between adultery and violent retribution in humans (p327).
Another misconception is that, while he did not found the field of sociobiology, Wilson attracted most of the flak because he was the first biologist brave, foolish, ambitious, farsighted or naïve enough to apply sociobiology to humans.
In fact, much of Trivers’ 1971 paper on reciprocal altruism discussed human emotions, like guilt and gratitude (Trivers 1971).
Reductionism?
Among the familiar charges levelled against sociobiology is that of ‘reductionism’.
It is thus a surprise to find in the opening pages of ‘Sociobiology’ Wilson defending “holism” against “the triumphant reductionism of molecular biology” (p7).
This passage is even more surprising for anyone who has read Consilience, where Wilson champions “reductionism” as “the cutting edge of science… breaking down nature into its constituent components” and “the primary and essential activity of science” (Consilience: p59).
“The love of complexity without reductionism makes art; the love of complexity with reductionism makes science (Consilience:p59).Of course, reductionism is a matter of degree. Dennett distinguishes “greedy reductionism”, which oversimplifies the world , from “good reductionism”, which attempts to explain it in all its complexity.
Many opponents of ‘reductionism’ seem to promote an untestable and unscientific obscurantism, whereby any attempt to explain behavior in terms of causes is dismissed as ‘reductionism’ and ‘determinism’.
Wilson’s writings on this topic must be understood as responses, not to the controversies these works provoked, but rather the controversies that preceded them.
Thus, just as Wilson’s defence of reductionism in Consilience was a response to the sociobiology debates, so Wilson’s defence of holism in ‘Sociobiology’ was a response an earlier academic controversy, in which molecular biologists led by James Watson had contended that molecular biology was the only biology, and that traditional fieldwork and experiments were positively passé (see Naturalist).
Wilson responded:
“Raw reduction is only half the scientific process… the remainder consist[ing] of the reconstruction of complexity by an expanding synthesis under the control if laws newly demonstrated by analysis… reveal[ing] the existence of novel emergent phenomena” (On Human Nature: p11).Group Selection?
Among the key breakthroughs that formed the basis for sociobiology was Williams’s critique of group-selection.
A focus the individual, or even the gene, as the sole unit of selection came to be viewed as an integral part of the sociobiological paradigm.
It is therefore surprising to discover that Wilson was himself apparently a group-selectionist all alone.
This is apparent not only in his recent work but also in ‘Sociobiology’ itself.
Certainly, Wilson regurgitates the familiar criticisms of group-selection (p106-7). However, he continues to offer group-selectionist explanations (e.g. p275) and concludes:
“Group selection and higher levels of organization, however intuitively implausible… are at least theoretically possible under a wide range of conditions” (p30).Unlike Dawkins, Wilson did not regard group selection as a terminally discredited theory.
From Sociobiology to Evolutionary Psychology
Returning to Wilson’s infamous last chapter today, it is, I feel, disappionting.
Inevitably, any science book will be dated after forty years. However, while true of the whole book, this is especially true of this last chapter, which bears little resemblance to modern evolutionary psychology.
This is perhaps inevitable. While the application of sociobiological theory to other species was already well underway, the application of sociobiological theory to humans was in its infancy.
Yet, while the substance of the chapter is dated, the general approach is spot on.
Indeed, even some of the advances claimed by evolutionary psychologists as their own were anticipated by Wilson. Thus, Wilson recognises:
“One of the key questions [in human sociobiology] is to what extent the biogram represents an adaptation to modern cultural life and to what extent it is a phylogenetic vestige” (p458)He thus anticipates the key evolutionary psychological concept of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness.
Wilson proposes study human behavior from the disinterested perspective of an alien zoologist and concludes, “In this macroscopic view the humanities and social sciences shrink to specialized branches of biology” (p547).
“Sociology and the other social sciences, as well as the humanities, are the last branches of biology waiting to be included in the Modern Synthesis” (p4).The idea that the behavior of a single species is alone exempt from principles of general biology, such that it must be studied in entirely different university faculties by entirely different researchers, the vast majority with little knowledge of biology reflects an indefensible anthropocentrism.
However, Wilson actually urged caution:
“Whether the social sciences can be truly biologicized in this fashion remains to be seen” (p4)The evidence of the ensuing decades suggests that they indeed can be and are being ‘biologicized’. The only stumbling block has proven social scientists themselves.
Ambition
The scale of Wilson’s ambition was enormous. First, he sought to synthesize the field of animal behavior under the rubric of sociobiology and in the process produce the ‘New Synthesis’ promised in the subtitle, by analogy with the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics that forms the basis for modern biology.
Then, in a final chapter, he decided to add human behavior to his synthesis.
This meant, not just providing a new foundation for a single subfield within biology (i.e. animal bahavior), but for several whole disciplines formerly virtually unconnected to biology—i.e. psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics.
Oh yeah… and moral philosophy and perhaps epistemology too. I forgot to mention that.
Philosophy
Wilson’s forays into philosophy proved even more controversial than those into social science. Though limited to a few paragraphs in his first and last chapter, they were among the most critiqued in the whole book.
Not only were opponents of sociobiology (and philosophers) indignant, but even those taking up the sociobiological gauntlet were mostly skeptical.
In proposing to reconstruct moral philosophy on the basis of biology, Wilson was widely accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy.
If a behavior is natural, this does not make it right, any more than the fact that dying of tuberculosis is natural means that it is morally wrong to treat tuberculosis with such ‘unnatural’ interventions as vaccination or antibiotics.
Most evolutionary psychologists are only too happy to reiterate the sacrosanct inviolability of the fact-value chasm, not least because it allows them to investigate the evolutionary function of such behaviors as infidelity, sexual coercion, war and infanticide, without being seen as thereby justifying these behaviors.
Yet if we cannot derive values from facts, whence can values be derived? Only from other values? Whence then are our ultimate moral values, from which other moral values are derived, themselves to be derived? Must they be simply taken on faith?
Wilson has recently argued:
“The posing of the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy” (Consilience: p273).His point in ‘Sociobiology’ is narrower, namely that, in contemplating the appropriateness of different theories of prescriptive ethics (e.g. utilitarianism, Kantian deontology), moral philosophers consult “the emotional control centers in the hypothalamus and limbic system of the brain” (p3).
Yet these same moral philosophers take these emotions for granted. They treat the brain as a “black box” rather than a biological entity the nature of which is the subject of scientific study (p562).
Our moral preferences are themselves the product of our brains, which are themselves a product of natural selection, as well as our socialization and environments.
The philosophical implications of recognising that moral intuitions are themselves a product of the evolutionary process have since been investigated by both biologists and philosophers, not least Wilson himself in collaboration with philosopher or biology Michael Ruse (Ruse & Wilson 1986).
What applies to ethics also applies to the other major subfield of philosophy, namely epistemology, to which Wilson devotes only a single parenthesis (p3). What humans are capable of knowing is, like morality, a product of the brain, which is itself a product of natural selection (see Taking Darwin Seriously).
Dated?
Is ‘Sociobiology’ worth reading today? At 700 pages, it represents no idle investment of time.
Wilson has the unusual honour for a working scientist of being a twice Pulitzer-Prize winner. However, ‘Sociobiology: The New Synthesis’ is not a book one would read for its literary merits alone.
As a textbook, Sociobiology is dated.
Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a true science is the speed at which cutting-edge work becomes obsolete.
Religious believers still cite holy books written millennia ago, while adherents of pseudo-sciences like psychoanalysis and Marxism still paw over the words of Freud and Marx.
However, the scientific method is a cumulative process based on falsificationism and is no respecter of persons. Scientific works become obsolete almost as fast as they are published.
The speed with which Wilson’s work became obsolete is hence a marker of the success of the research project it inspired.
If you want a textbook summary of the latest research in sociobiology, I would instead recommend the latest edition of Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach or An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology; or, if your primary interest is human behavior, the latest edition of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind.
The continued value of ‘Sociobiology’ lies in the field, not of science, but ‘History of Science’.
References
Ruse & Wilson (1986) Moral Philosophy as Applied Science. Philosophy 61(236):173-192
Trivers (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46:35–57
June 11, 2009
Wow. WAAAAAAAAAAAAY over my head on this one, but when I could parse out meaning, it was pretty cool stuff. I mean, cool in the sense that it validated all of my thinking with regards to why animals, people in particular, act like they do.
I imagine that this book is to modern animal behavior science what the Pythagorean theorem is to geometry: a very simple representation of some very basic principles that, when expounded upon, lead to some real revelatory shit.
That being said, I picked at this - it's a textbook after all - so I can't claim to have read it cover to cover. Nor can I vouch for the legitimacy of all the of the science, which a lot of Creationists evidently have a big problem...although I'm the type to think that if you drive your car to a church heated through a modern heating system, you've already basically given the edge to science in that little debate...
Anyway - I'd recommend this for people who are much smarter than me, who have long attention spans. Surprisingly, I'd also recommend this to Creationists, if only because I wouldn't mind hearing about their heads exploding while trying to rationalize actual science with their beliefs.
I imagine that this book is to modern animal behavior science what the Pythagorean theorem is to geometry: a very simple representation of some very basic principles that, when expounded upon, lead to some real revelatory shit.
That being said, I picked at this - it's a textbook after all - so I can't claim to have read it cover to cover. Nor can I vouch for the legitimacy of all the of the science, which a lot of Creationists evidently have a big problem...although I'm the type to think that if you drive your car to a church heated through a modern heating system, you've already basically given the edge to science in that little debate...
Anyway - I'd recommend this for people who are much smarter than me, who have long attention spans. Surprisingly, I'd also recommend this to Creationists, if only because I wouldn't mind hearing about their heads exploding while trying to rationalize actual science with their beliefs.
January 13, 2008
I'm a sociologist and Wilson is kind of the boogey man to us. I was pleasantly surprised though when finally reading this. Not because I think he explains much human social stuff, but because he's much more modest than reductionists like Dawkins, and he at least nominally recognizes the issue of multiple levels of reality and analysis that probably can't be simply collapsed into each other. So; not a major threat to socials science, but ants are definitely cool.
July 3, 2017
Incredible text; a book to double check through one's library before purchasing a copy. There is nothing I can add here or elsewhere, and so this is more of a digital note to self than a review. You'll never have to do anything save suppress a philosophical roll of the eyes the next time one hears, "It doesn't make sense why so many ______ people do ________!" Well, it actually makes perfect sense if one is willing to skip the futile political protest and give E.O. Wilson some serious time.
Then again if the majority of human beings took to critical reading, research, and unbiased contemplation of presented facts, they would have much less to complain about. And now that none of the hundreds of thousands who promised to leave the country last November have - Suprise! - decided to stay, it has become glaringly obvious that a good deal of human beings live to complain. And I mean literally live lives that revolve around the act of complaining. Without the ability to complain, be it brought on by enlightenment or some sort of of technological fascist ploy, the suicide rate would indeed skyrocket. And since trust fund money goes into the child's bank account much quicker with the States, we can become witnesses to ceaseless chimpanzee howling for several years, the soundtrack of suicidal delusions gone optimistically haywire, or one can remove one's self from all scenarios whereby one is witness to mass mental retardation, preferably with a big sociobiological masterpiece in one hand, machiato in the other. Yrstruly suggests the latter.
Then again if the majority of human beings took to critical reading, research, and unbiased contemplation of presented facts, they would have much less to complain about. And now that none of the hundreds of thousands who promised to leave the country last November have - Suprise! - decided to stay, it has become glaringly obvious that a good deal of human beings live to complain. And I mean literally live lives that revolve around the act of complaining. Without the ability to complain, be it brought on by enlightenment or some sort of of technological fascist ploy, the suicide rate would indeed skyrocket. And since trust fund money goes into the child's bank account much quicker with the States, we can become witnesses to ceaseless chimpanzee howling for several years, the soundtrack of suicidal delusions gone optimistically haywire, or one can remove one's self from all scenarios whereby one is witness to mass mental retardation, preferably with a big sociobiological masterpiece in one hand, machiato in the other. Yrstruly suggests the latter.
February 3, 2022
This isn’t hardline biological determinism, as was thought at the time, and most of it is rigorous recapitulation of evolved animal behaviour. But the speculative claims about humanity bookending it are not very convincing, and basically amount to unacknowledged ideology. Still, the basic project of sociobiology doesn’t strike me as intrinsically problematic, and I think we should read and learn from Wilson.
April 12, 2023
In Chapter 1 of “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” Edward O. Wilson writes, “Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.”
Sociobiology can also be seen as the assertion that human behavior is influenced by instincts we share with other animal species, instincts that place restrictions on social reform.
The publication of Professor Wilson’s book in 1975 did not confront the left with the existential challenge the publication of “The Bell Curve” did nineteen years later.
It still aroused anger, and caused Professor Wilson to suffer some harassment at his teaching position at Harvard.
Sociobiology takes note of the fact that human societies everywhere in the world, and always throughout history have been similar in ways that cannot be explained by cultural transmission. Everywhere we find status hierarchies, religions, different roles for men and women, male dominance, long periods of child dependency, incest taboos, marriage, ethnocentricism, and war.
When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published many on the left accused Professor Wilson of defending institutions they wanted to change or eliminate. Deriding Wilson as a reactionary was unfair. In his writings he advocates protection of the environment and acceptance of homosexuals.
Nevertheless, sociobiology has implications that are more congenial to the philosophy of Edmund Burke than that of Karl Marx. Burke argued, and Wilson would agree, that before trying to eliminate an institution we should try to understand why it came into existence.
Since 1975, the political successes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of Islamic fanaticism, the failure of the war on poverty, disappointments connected with the civil rights movement, and the failure of No Child Left Behind ought to have inspired humility on those to the left of liberalism. Good intentions are not good enough. Charles Murray wrote in “The Inequality Taboo” “specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.”
In a retrospective on the failure of the new left held in the early 1980’s. Jerry Rubin said, “We are refugees from a future that never happened.”
According to sociobiology status hierarchies exist because innate human inequality exists. Some people are congenitally more able to contribute to the success of a social group than others. Different sex roles exist because there are intrinsic differences between the nature of men and women. Male dominance exists because men tend to be more aggressive and competitive than women. Men tend to make more money than women, because women prefer successful men, but men do not prefer successful women. Ethnocentricism exists because there is never enough of what humans value to go around. More for Them usually means less for Us. War exists because life is a struggle for scarce resources. War is one of the ways the struggle is carried out.
This does not mean that reform is pointless. It does mean that it should restrained by prudence. There is often wisdom in tradition. Wisdom includes pessimism about human nature and human potential.
In “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” Professor Wilson frequently illustrates his points with calculus equations. His bibliography includes books in French and German. He knows his book is going to start a fight. He does not believe in coming to a gun fight with a knife.
The vast majority of this book describes animal societies. This is justified, because we can see how features we may consider unique to humans were anticipated millions of years earlier, sometimes tens of millions of years earlier. There are ants, for example, that tend livestock. There are ants that grow crops. There are ants that capture slaves from other ant colonies. Ants of all ant species wage wars with ants of other colonies. Baboons were living in African grasslands before our ancestors began doing so. Wolfs practiced social hunting before our ancestors learned how to.
When nectar is plentiful bees allow bees from other nests to enter their own. When nectar is scarce bees exclude intruders. We can see this in the way economic conditions influence attitudes about immigrants.
“Sociobiology the New Synthesis” is a large, heavy book that does not make for light reading. It might be a good idea to read “Sociobiology and Behavior,” by Professor David P. Barash of the Department of Psychology and Zoology of the University of Washington first.
Professor Wilson could have gone into more detail about how human societies are similar, and how these similarities are related to instincts that had survival in the past, even though some might be dysfunctional now. He does this in his book, “On Human Nature.”
The sociobiology of human sexual behavior is aptly covered in “The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” by Professor Donald Symons of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
I anticipated the findings of “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” before reading it. In the early 1970’s I was appalled by the continuation of the War in Vietnam, which seemed obviously to be tragically futile. I was afraid by the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were spending vast sums of money preparing to fight a nuclear war that would destroy both sides. I disliked the fact that white blue collar workers were voting Republican in larger numbers, despite the fact that the GOP had always advanced the economic interests of management, not labor.
I concluded that human behavior was influence by instincts that had survival value during human evolution, even though many of these instincts threatened us now with extinction. I began reading books about physical and cultural anthropology. When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published most of it seemed self evident to me.
Sociobiology can also be seen as the assertion that human behavior is influenced by instincts we share with other animal species, instincts that place restrictions on social reform.
The publication of Professor Wilson’s book in 1975 did not confront the left with the existential challenge the publication of “The Bell Curve” did nineteen years later.
It still aroused anger, and caused Professor Wilson to suffer some harassment at his teaching position at Harvard.
Sociobiology takes note of the fact that human societies everywhere in the world, and always throughout history have been similar in ways that cannot be explained by cultural transmission. Everywhere we find status hierarchies, religions, different roles for men and women, male dominance, long periods of child dependency, incest taboos, marriage, ethnocentricism, and war.
When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published many on the left accused Professor Wilson of defending institutions they wanted to change or eliminate. Deriding Wilson as a reactionary was unfair. In his writings he advocates protection of the environment and acceptance of homosexuals.
Nevertheless, sociobiology has implications that are more congenial to the philosophy of Edmund Burke than that of Karl Marx. Burke argued, and Wilson would agree, that before trying to eliminate an institution we should try to understand why it came into existence.
Since 1975, the political successes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of Islamic fanaticism, the failure of the war on poverty, disappointments connected with the civil rights movement, and the failure of No Child Left Behind ought to have inspired humility on those to the left of liberalism. Good intentions are not good enough. Charles Murray wrote in “The Inequality Taboo” “specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.”
In a retrospective on the failure of the new left held in the early 1980’s. Jerry Rubin said, “We are refugees from a future that never happened.”
According to sociobiology status hierarchies exist because innate human inequality exists. Some people are congenitally more able to contribute to the success of a social group than others. Different sex roles exist because there are intrinsic differences between the nature of men and women. Male dominance exists because men tend to be more aggressive and competitive than women. Men tend to make more money than women, because women prefer successful men, but men do not prefer successful women. Ethnocentricism exists because there is never enough of what humans value to go around. More for Them usually means less for Us. War exists because life is a struggle for scarce resources. War is one of the ways the struggle is carried out.
This does not mean that reform is pointless. It does mean that it should restrained by prudence. There is often wisdom in tradition. Wisdom includes pessimism about human nature and human potential.
In “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” Professor Wilson frequently illustrates his points with calculus equations. His bibliography includes books in French and German. He knows his book is going to start a fight. He does not believe in coming to a gun fight with a knife.
The vast majority of this book describes animal societies. This is justified, because we can see how features we may consider unique to humans were anticipated millions of years earlier, sometimes tens of millions of years earlier. There are ants, for example, that tend livestock. There are ants that grow crops. There are ants that capture slaves from other ant colonies. Ants of all ant species wage wars with ants of other colonies. Baboons were living in African grasslands before our ancestors began doing so. Wolfs practiced social hunting before our ancestors learned how to.
When nectar is plentiful bees allow bees from other nests to enter their own. When nectar is scarce bees exclude intruders. We can see this in the way economic conditions influence attitudes about immigrants.
“Sociobiology the New Synthesis” is a large, heavy book that does not make for light reading. It might be a good idea to read “Sociobiology and Behavior,” by Professor David P. Barash of the Department of Psychology and Zoology of the University of Washington first.
Professor Wilson could have gone into more detail about how human societies are similar, and how these similarities are related to instincts that had survival in the past, even though some might be dysfunctional now. He does this in his book, “On Human Nature.”
The sociobiology of human sexual behavior is aptly covered in “The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” by Professor Donald Symons of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
I anticipated the findings of “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” before reading it. In the early 1970’s I was appalled by the continuation of the War in Vietnam, which seemed obviously to be tragically futile. I was afraid by the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were spending vast sums of money preparing to fight a nuclear war that would destroy both sides. I disliked the fact that white blue collar workers were voting Republican in larger numbers, despite the fact that the GOP had always advanced the economic interests of management, not labor.
I concluded that human behavior was influence by instincts that had survival value during human evolution, even though many of these instincts threatened us now with extinction. I began reading books about physical and cultural anthropology. When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published most of it seemed self evident to me.
April 30, 2010
As a nature writer, I deeply enjoy E.O. Wilson's work. In Sociobiology (and the new edition with lots of lovely photos, etc.), I am less thrilled.
Sociobiology tends to assume (and not necessarily demonstrate) that all behaviors are genetically determined. This may be a tempting assumption to make when speaking about, say, insects, but the assumption is held throughout the animal kingdom. It is quite easy to fall into the adaptationism viewpoint; easy, but not necessarily scientifically accurate or honest.
I'd give this 2 to 3 stars - two for the flaws in the approach, but 3 for the attempt in this new volume to bring more about evolution, animal behavior, and diversity to the mass market in a lovely, glossy book.
Sociobiology tends to assume (and not necessarily demonstrate) that all behaviors are genetically determined. This may be a tempting assumption to make when speaking about, say, insects, but the assumption is held throughout the animal kingdom. It is quite easy to fall into the adaptationism viewpoint; easy, but not necessarily scientifically accurate or honest.
I'd give this 2 to 3 stars - two for the flaws in the approach, but 3 for the attempt in this new volume to bring more about evolution, animal behavior, and diversity to the mass market in a lovely, glossy book.
December 16, 2021
Edward O. Wilson is an American biologist among many other things and was nicknamed 'darwin's natural heir' and the "father of biological diversity."https://www.britannica.com/biography/..." He gained those names because of his huge attributes to sociobiology, which is the integrative study of social behaviors, based on the idea that all behavior is adaptive. And "Sociobiology attempts to understand and explain animal (and human) social behavior in the light of natural selection and other biological processes." https://www.britannica.com/science/so...) In simpler terms "all behavior is a solution to an environmental challenge." (Dr. Suarez Lecture video)
Basically putting science behind the behavior. He kicks up a lot of controversies thanks to his last few thoughts in the book, pertaining to human behavior. In the chapter "Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology" E.O Wilson admits to how complex and intricate the Homo sapiens species is, anatomically speaking and behaviorally. He says "We have leaped forward in mental evolution in a way that continues to defy self - analysis." (Pg.548) At this point, he has not yet lost his reader, by admitting to humanity's great achievements and complimenting its ego he has hooked his reader further in. And when he admits "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Even I'm blushing.
The controversy began more so when he said that social behaviors were genetically inherited and programmed into a species for survival purposes (the nickname Darwin's heir is starting to make sense) and that "with altruism— self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others—bred into their bones." (EO Wilson's Theory of Altruism Shakes Up Understanding of Evolution | Discover Magazine)
By doing this he introduces altruism and claims human behavior is genetic, a science, and not so much a product of the environment. These claims frustrated a lot of people and ignited a defensive backlash. Most people have control issues and need to feel as if they have some control of who they are and why they are the way they are.
Throughout these chapters, he also popularized altruism and self-destructive behavior and how one could benefit from such a sacrifice. Even though he later debunked these theories it is important to note their significance in the world of science.
Going back to his logic on human behavior being controlled by genes, this comment(s) upset and stepped on the toes of many psychologists, cultural anthropologists, and disagreeing sociologists. While it is easy to see E.O Wilson's thought process here, he is simply continuing the logic from his early chapters and applying it to humans. It is just too complex. He said it himself, "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Maybe we should credit the human intelligence and not the inherited genetic behaviors.
I gave this book a four out of five stars. I did enjoy it and learned a lot but I will be grouping myself in with the defensive, need for control, people. As someone who does spend more time studying psychology, philosophy, and sociology I think behavior is a societal and environmental thing, hardly a genetic thing.
But kudos to Edward O. Wilson for probing many brains, popularizing theories, and debunking them years later.
4/5 stars.
Basically putting science behind the behavior. He kicks up a lot of controversies thanks to his last few thoughts in the book, pertaining to human behavior. In the chapter "Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology" E.O Wilson admits to how complex and intricate the Homo sapiens species is, anatomically speaking and behaviorally. He says "We have leaped forward in mental evolution in a way that continues to defy self - analysis." (Pg.548) At this point, he has not yet lost his reader, by admitting to humanity's great achievements and complimenting its ego he has hooked his reader further in. And when he admits "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Even I'm blushing.
The controversy began more so when he said that social behaviors were genetically inherited and programmed into a species for survival purposes (the nickname Darwin's heir is starting to make sense) and that "with altruism— self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others—bred into their bones." (EO Wilson's Theory of Altruism Shakes Up Understanding of Evolution | Discover Magazine)
By doing this he introduces altruism and claims human behavior is genetic, a science, and not so much a product of the environment. These claims frustrated a lot of people and ignited a defensive backlash. Most people have control issues and need to feel as if they have some control of who they are and why they are the way they are.
Throughout these chapters, he also popularized altruism and self-destructive behavior and how one could benefit from such a sacrifice. Even though he later debunked these theories it is important to note their significance in the world of science.
Going back to his logic on human behavior being controlled by genes, this comment(s) upset and stepped on the toes of many psychologists, cultural anthropologists, and disagreeing sociologists. While it is easy to see E.O Wilson's thought process here, he is simply continuing the logic from his early chapters and applying it to humans. It is just too complex. He said it himself, "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Maybe we should credit the human intelligence and not the inherited genetic behaviors.
I gave this book a four out of five stars. I did enjoy it and learned a lot but I will be grouping myself in with the defensive, need for control, people. As someone who does spend more time studying psychology, philosophy, and sociology I think behavior is a societal and environmental thing, hardly a genetic thing.
But kudos to Edward O. Wilson for probing many brains, popularizing theories, and debunking them years later.
4/5 stars.
August 7, 2021
I skimmed a lot of this because much is out of date. It is very long--large pages with 2 columns, and this is the abridged version! I wish the last chapter had not been cut so much because the arguments are interesting but not lengthy enough to be more than simply hints in particular directions. Also, Wilson's ideas about the future growth of scientific knowledge are optimistic enough to be funny.
There are some interesting concepts but of course the most entertaining parts are the descriptions of unusual animal behavior. Wilson, like the best naturalists since Darwin, is adept at this kind of writing and communicates a lot of his enthusiasm for the subject.
There are some interesting concepts but of course the most entertaining parts are the descriptions of unusual animal behavior. Wilson, like the best naturalists since Darwin, is adept at this kind of writing and communicates a lot of his enthusiasm for the subject.
December 4, 2020
Wilson was excoriated by many prominent "leftish intellectuals" when this book came out and for some time thereafter. Since then Sociobiology applied to non-human animals has become dogma and human Sociobiology has re-emerged under the name Evolutionary Psychology. In other words, "The New Synthesis" has won! Despite so many people coming down hard on him, E.O. Wilson is a wonderful, gentle, civilized good human, deep thinker and great scientist. I'm glad for this abridged version of his magnum opus as it's already big enough. Jeeze, these Biologists and their massive compendiums!
November 14, 2017
Amazing that so many nuts object to this book. Basically humans are just another animal, behave like animals and have instincts like animals, below the veneer of civilisation and intelligence. Only egotistical people (such as creationists) would believe otherwise. Get over yourselves!
Wilson has been assaulted and vilified for daring to articulate this simple fact! A science hero!
Wilson has been assaulted and vilified for daring to articulate this simple fact! A science hero!
January 17, 2024
Pros:
- I found concepts useful and cited them in my own work
- Citation heavy
- Famous and socially signficant; started a movement and founded the term sociobiology
In-between:
- extremely long, however, in this case most the length is interested encyclopedic knowledge as opposed to fluff.
Cons:
- completely verbal
- I found concepts useful and cited them in my own work
- Citation heavy
- Famous and socially signficant; started a movement and founded the term sociobiology
In-between:
- extremely long, however, in this case most the length is interested encyclopedic knowledge as opposed to fluff.
Cons:
- completely verbal
July 6, 2018
A classic. Long and requires a significant commitment, this book is a text that serves better as a reference. Reading the chapters on primates for a full appreciation of its significance and controversy
April 7, 2023
Always provocative, E. O. Wilson's work nevertheless demands wrestling with his ideas. He does wade into anthropological waters in ways that clearly annoy professionals, but his interest in seeing if it's possible to generalize evolutionary patterns across life forms is curious.
July 6, 2018
This tome was very informative and very thorough. It was also way too dense for most lay people. If it was intended as a textbook, it serves the purpose well. Not so much as a little light reading.
July 16, 2023
Probably the best science textbook ever written.
February 16, 2017
Makes so much sense....
May 30, 2023
A very comprehensive foray into the lives of animals and their behavior. Why animals behave the way they do? How they behave. Where you can find them and how you can make sense of their behavior. Why is the lion pride structured the way it is, why do matriarchs lead elephant herds, and why do wildebeest run around wildly? Answer these questions and more. A fascinating read. Highly recommended.
Edward O. Wilson is another of my heroes, if you read "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson and enjoyed it I would also recommend a rather pithy read... "Sociobiology" by Edward O. Wilson. He is sadly no longer with us, but this eminent Professor of Biology and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner left behind an incredible resource for anyone interested in zoology. The book takes an in-depth look at a variety of animals and their behaviors. It is a fascinating read and I would highly recommend reading it. It was first published in 1975, but is just as relevant today. He is best-known for his studies on invertebrates, especially ants.
I particularly enjoyed the sections about Ungulates and Elephants, as well as Carnivores. The information and illustrations are spot on. There even is a section on wild dogs.
The book has close to 600 pages of detailed information and is a great read. I would describe it as a picture book for adults with factual information akin to a university textbook.
Edward O. Wilson is another of my heroes, if you read "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson and enjoyed it I would also recommend a rather pithy read... "Sociobiology" by Edward O. Wilson. He is sadly no longer with us, but this eminent Professor of Biology and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner left behind an incredible resource for anyone interested in zoology. The book takes an in-depth look at a variety of animals and their behaviors. It is a fascinating read and I would highly recommend reading it. It was first published in 1975, but is just as relevant today. He is best-known for his studies on invertebrates, especially ants.
I particularly enjoyed the sections about Ungulates and Elephants, as well as Carnivores. The information and illustrations are spot on. There even is a section on wild dogs.
The book has close to 600 pages of detailed information and is a great read. I would describe it as a picture book for adults with factual information akin to a university textbook.
April 17, 2016
Quite amazing how social structures span so many different species, from communication, hierarchies, leaders, learning, groups, love, emotions and altruism. We as a species are advanced but not so unique. Fascinating how certain species naturally adapt in a few generations (or perish) in response to resource constraints and overpopulation. How little we know of life, intertwined nature and our past.
Shelved as 'to-keep-reference'
May 12, 2016Si no entiendo mal, este libro es la base de la sociobiología, defendida por Pinker y que fue acusada de eugenesica al darle relevancia a la participación biológica en la toma de decisiones, con lo que echa por tierra la teoría de La tabla rasa.
November 14, 2011
Contains full text of the hardcover first published in the 1970's. I read and studied the hardcover during the early 1980's. An impressive work whether or not you have the same or different perspectives, assumptions, analogies as the author.
May 17, 2012
It is a long time since this has come out and the subject has moved an enormous distance since then, as well as, being renamed 'evolutionary psychology' along the way. This is, though, a brilliant and entertaining book and is, one can say aptly, seminal.
March 15, 2007
As a Lewontin-esq person myself, I was suprized I still enjoyed this book so much.
Read
June 27, 2007Fascinating and surprisingly easy to read for such a dense and esoteric subject.
Read
August 10, 2007It is a bedrock in modern biology, as well as modern sociology. A muct-read for multidisciplinary science believers.
January 5, 2014
Originally published in the '70s, this book is about as controversial as they come. E.O. Wilson specializes in the social networks of ants. Really interesting stuff. Still relevant.
Want to read
May 26, 2008The very controversial presentation of Dr. Wilson's ideas concerning the behavior of all living beings as discussed on the 5/20/08 Lord of the Ants program on NOVA.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews