What do you think?
Rate this book
The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene
People commonly view evolution as a process of competition between individuals—known as “survival of the fittest”—with the individual representing the “unit of selection.” Richard Dawkins offers a controversial reinterpretation of that idea in The Extended Phenotype, now being reissued to coincide with the publication of the second edition of his highly-acclaimed The Selfish Gene. He proposes that we look at evolution as a battle between genes instead of between whole organisms. We can then view changes in phenotypes—the end products of genes, like eye color or leaf shape, which are usually considered to increase the fitness of an individual—as serving the evolutionary interests of genes.
Dawkins makes a convincing case that considering one’s body, personality, and environment as a field of combat in a kind of “arms race” between genes fighting to express themselves on a strand of DNA can clarify and extend the idea of survival of the fittest. This influential and controversial book illuminates the complex world of genetics in an engaging, lively manner.
Dawkins makes a convincing case that considering one’s body, personality, and environment as a field of combat in a kind of “arms race” between genes fighting to express themselves on a strand of DNA can clarify and extend the idea of survival of the fittest. This influential and controversial book illuminates the complex world of genetics in an engaging, lively manner.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews
March 26, 2023
Picture this: Contemplating the Navier-Stokes equations, (i.e. partial differential equations which describe the motion of fluid substances through the kidney cracker of randy stud horses the world over by treating no jizz, (be it equine, platypii, or giraffine), as inviscid, and thus operating as a parabolic equation - having better analytic properties, at the expense of having less mathematical structure - and telling Euler to go lipsmack a chocolate starfish), and their ability to model approximations of complex phenomena such as weather and the diffusion of Cthulhu's piss into the Pacific Ocean, causes you to begin pleasuring yourself (like any decent mathematician). Whilst getting a little fapidextrous and performing the five knuckle shuffle on the piss pump (eg. voiding the warranty and causing the bald man to puke) you begin, as is your way, to talk dirty to your Alienware 34 QD-OLED (AW3423DW) gaming monitor: "The above considerations apply to the Cauchy problem with the scale-invariant initial data. Can such consideration be taken even further, to some solutions with finite energy obtained by a suitable “truncation at infinity” *grunts* of the scale-invariant initial data? If this is the case, *labored breathing* then we might not only have non-uniqueness for the scale-invariant initial data, but also non-uniqueness for finite-energy initial data, and – in particular – for the Leray-Hopf weak solutions. Moreover, the non-uniqueness would appear right at the borderline of the classes.... HNNNNNNNG! for which uniqueness can be proved via the weak-strong uniqueness theorems mentioned earlier. It is interesting to note the opinion of some prominent mathematicians on the question of the uniqueness of Leray-Hopf weak solut..." And about this time your mother bursts in screaming like a bastard, "PORK CHOP RELATED GREASE FI.... OH MY GODDDDDDD!" Causing your balls to depressurize like the worst Isothermal and Adiabatic Leak Processes of Zeotropic Refrigerant Mixtures, which precipitates a massive stampede of frightened gametes through the escape hatch of your meat thermometer while you scream, "GET OUT OF MY EXTENDED PHENOTYPE MOMMMM!"
If this has ever happened to you - this is your book.
Have you ever, while plumb blown in the creek on lead-tainted moonshine pissed from a noisy radiator, grew irate while watching a spider craft a beautiful web and systematically took a sledge hammer to all the toilets in your house, while screaming: “Competence without comprehension makes me sick!”?
This is your book.
Dawkins’ is best known for his seminal work: The Selfish Peen, which argued persuasively for the value of the Peen’s-Eye-View of evolution. This is a continuation of The Elfish Dean which concerns itself with extending that concept to better understand how Beavers can be such good engineers without attending classes. How termites, obeying relatively simple local rules, can work together to construct magnificent castles. How spiders can weave silk tapestries of such intense beauty that you wake up to a house riven by porcelain shrapnel. For my money, although less accessible than The Shellfish Gene, this little ditty contains the most exciting ideas that Mr. Dawkins’ has produced since being urinated upon by Nagapies in Sub-Saharan Africa (citation needed). And he agrees.
This book seeks to expand the Neo-Darwinian synthesis to include not only how genes encode the instructions for producing the proteins necessary for assembling bodies, (the phenotype), but also how they instill instinctual competencies, which instruct parasitic and symbiotic behaviors, catalyze evolutionary arms races, inform mating strategies, and facilitate the construction of fitness enhancing artifacts external to the organism (extended phenotype). This last bit, seeing the reach of the gene extended beyond its normal purview of the physical body, is a real humdinger, and, if taken fully on board, constitutes a paradigmatic panty obliteration. You’ll stand before the grandeur of nature forevermore without recourse to undergarments.
Unfortunately, a fair amount of the book is dedicated to beating recalcitrant ideologues about the neck and chest for their wishy washy objections. The barest whiff of genetic determinism, and the most timid formulations of evolutionary psychology, send people tumbling down slippery slopes and into seizures of unreason. Perhaps understandably, given how perverse incentives have motivated bad actors to alloy theories of this kind with bullshit political dogmas. Still, it’s important work. Let me assure you that, despite the voluminous amount of confabulatory drivel that has been hurled the man’s way, primarily by people who have only read the title of The Delphic Routine, Dawkins is anything but careless when putting forward these ideas. Lucky for our species that, heretical though they may seem at the time, there exist people who are not satisfied with the low hanging fruit of our wishful preconceptions, and reach instead for truer approximations of the reality we inhabit.
“Of course genes are not directly visible to selection. Obviously they are selected by virtue of their phenotypic effects, and certainly they can only be said to have phenotypic effects in concert with hundreds of other genes. But it is the thesis of this book that we should not be trapped into assuming that those phenotypic effects are best regarded as being neatly wrapped up in discrete bodies (or other discrete vehicles). The doctrine of the extended phenotype is that the phenotypic effect of a gene (genetic replicator) is best seen as an effect upon the world at large, and only incidentally upon the individual organism—or any other vehicle—in which it happens to sit.” -This Book.
"That rug really tied the room together, did it not?" -Walter Sobchak.
If this has ever happened to you - this is your book.
Have you ever, while plumb blown in the creek on lead-tainted moonshine pissed from a noisy radiator, grew irate while watching a spider craft a beautiful web and systematically took a sledge hammer to all the toilets in your house, while screaming: “Competence without comprehension makes me sick!”?
This is your book.
Dawkins’ is best known for his seminal work: The Selfish Peen, which argued persuasively for the value of the Peen’s-Eye-View of evolution. This is a continuation of The Elfish Dean which concerns itself with extending that concept to better understand how Beavers can be such good engineers without attending classes. How termites, obeying relatively simple local rules, can work together to construct magnificent castles. How spiders can weave silk tapestries of such intense beauty that you wake up to a house riven by porcelain shrapnel. For my money, although less accessible than The Shellfish Gene, this little ditty contains the most exciting ideas that Mr. Dawkins’ has produced since being urinated upon by Nagapies in Sub-Saharan Africa (citation needed). And he agrees.
This book seeks to expand the Neo-Darwinian synthesis to include not only how genes encode the instructions for producing the proteins necessary for assembling bodies, (the phenotype), but also how they instill instinctual competencies, which instruct parasitic and symbiotic behaviors, catalyze evolutionary arms races, inform mating strategies, and facilitate the construction of fitness enhancing artifacts external to the organism (extended phenotype). This last bit, seeing the reach of the gene extended beyond its normal purview of the physical body, is a real humdinger, and, if taken fully on board, constitutes a paradigmatic panty obliteration. You’ll stand before the grandeur of nature forevermore without recourse to undergarments.
Unfortunately, a fair amount of the book is dedicated to beating recalcitrant ideologues about the neck and chest for their wishy washy objections. The barest whiff of genetic determinism, and the most timid formulations of evolutionary psychology, send people tumbling down slippery slopes and into seizures of unreason. Perhaps understandably, given how perverse incentives have motivated bad actors to alloy theories of this kind with bullshit political dogmas. Still, it’s important work. Let me assure you that, despite the voluminous amount of confabulatory drivel that has been hurled the man’s way, primarily by people who have only read the title of The Delphic Routine, Dawkins is anything but careless when putting forward these ideas. Lucky for our species that, heretical though they may seem at the time, there exist people who are not satisfied with the low hanging fruit of our wishful preconceptions, and reach instead for truer approximations of the reality we inhabit.
“Of course genes are not directly visible to selection. Obviously they are selected by virtue of their phenotypic effects, and certainly they can only be said to have phenotypic effects in concert with hundreds of other genes. But it is the thesis of this book that we should not be trapped into assuming that those phenotypic effects are best regarded as being neatly wrapped up in discrete bodies (or other discrete vehicles). The doctrine of the extended phenotype is that the phenotypic effect of a gene (genetic replicator) is best seen as an effect upon the world at large, and only incidentally upon the individual organism—or any other vehicle—in which it happens to sit.” -This Book.
"That rug really tied the room together, did it not?" -Walter Sobchak.
August 15, 2021
Genes are replicators and the fundamental unit of natural selection and the individual organism is just a vehicle in order to preserve and pass down these replicators. Therefore, organisms are temporary and perishable, and genes, the basic elements of life, are immortal and continually evolving.
Dawkins favors individual selection rather than group selection, and the organisms that work in the interest of other organisms are often a result of manipulation where natural selection will impassively favor the behavior traits of the manipulator.
Hence, we, and other organisms, are a product of a historical sequence of events, in which the inclination of natural selection, through the process of evolution, chooses a superior alternative of a genetic pattern of an organism at that moment available without foreseeing and having in mind the future product of our design.
But what about the extended phenotype (which was only covered in the last quarter of the book)? Dawkins claims that genes can even reach outside of their organisms. As it is in the case with a bird's-nest or a beavers dam that can be viewed as a functioning extension of the bird's or beaver's body which is there to increase their likelihood of survival and reproduction and behaves like an organ. Namely, the genes are the ones producing this behavior, and as a result, this behavior produces the artifact (bird-nest, beaver dam).
Also, another example of an extended phenotypic expression is when the genes of a particular parasite induce the modification or thickening of a snail's shell. Furthermore, the far-reaching effects of the genes can be perceived in the "cuckoo's egg" scenario in which the cuckoo's manipulating genes inflict a phenotypic expression on the host's behavior all for the benefit of the cuckoo.
For many of us, this gene's eye point of view is hard to swallow as we know that genetic determinism is not the whole story of evolution, especially not the exclusive determining factor of behavior. Although, this book is there to give us a new way of perceiving and thinking about natural selection. The book's content could have been better organized but I would still recommend The Extended Phenotype (1982) to anyone interested in biological evolution, but prior to reading it, one best start off with Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (1976), which can be considered a prequel to this book, and then his The Blind Watchmaker (1986) to get better acquainted with the Darwinian theory and terminology.
Dawkins favors individual selection rather than group selection, and the organisms that work in the interest of other organisms are often a result of manipulation where natural selection will impassively favor the behavior traits of the manipulator.
Hence, we, and other organisms, are a product of a historical sequence of events, in which the inclination of natural selection, through the process of evolution, chooses a superior alternative of a genetic pattern of an organism at that moment available without foreseeing and having in mind the future product of our design.
But what about the extended phenotype (which was only covered in the last quarter of the book)? Dawkins claims that genes can even reach outside of their organisms. As it is in the case with a bird's-nest or a beavers dam that can be viewed as a functioning extension of the bird's or beaver's body which is there to increase their likelihood of survival and reproduction and behaves like an organ. Namely, the genes are the ones producing this behavior, and as a result, this behavior produces the artifact (bird-nest, beaver dam).
Also, another example of an extended phenotypic expression is when the genes of a particular parasite induce the modification or thickening of a snail's shell. Furthermore, the far-reaching effects of the genes can be perceived in the "cuckoo's egg" scenario in which the cuckoo's manipulating genes inflict a phenotypic expression on the host's behavior all for the benefit of the cuckoo.
For many of us, this gene's eye point of view is hard to swallow as we know that genetic determinism is not the whole story of evolution, especially not the exclusive determining factor of behavior. Although, this book is there to give us a new way of perceiving and thinking about natural selection. The book's content could have been better organized but I would still recommend The Extended Phenotype (1982) to anyone interested in biological evolution, but prior to reading it, one best start off with Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (1976), which can be considered a prequel to this book, and then his The Blind Watchmaker (1986) to get better acquainted with the Darwinian theory and terminology.
January 5, 2014
The book is a logical continuation of his devastating book The Selfish Gene. Here Dawkins turns his critical eye and razor sharp words to evolutionary views that take the individual organism as the definitive playing field for natural selection to operate.
Using the gene's eye view of life that he developed so well in The Selfish Gene, he shows that animal artifacts are better understood as objects engineered by natural selection, rather than as by products of the behavior of organisms. He also makes the case that many phenomena incidental to parasitism and symbiosis are better understood if the organism level view of biological agents is abandoned. Dawkins' explores these and similar topics with his characteristic clarity, and the reader is exposed to the full power of evolutionary thinking.
A quote often seen on the cover of Dawkins' books is "Richard Dawkins climbs mental Everests". This book illustrates the point and then some. Dawkins concise language is without peer in the biological sciences. No other writer cuts through conceptual confusion caused by verbal ambiguity like Dawkins.
5/5
Using the gene's eye view of life that he developed so well in The Selfish Gene, he shows that animal artifacts are better understood as objects engineered by natural selection, rather than as by products of the behavior of organisms. He also makes the case that many phenomena incidental to parasitism and symbiosis are better understood if the organism level view of biological agents is abandoned. Dawkins' explores these and similar topics with his characteristic clarity, and the reader is exposed to the full power of evolutionary thinking.
A quote often seen on the cover of Dawkins' books is "Richard Dawkins climbs mental Everests". This book illustrates the point and then some. Dawkins concise language is without peer in the biological sciences. No other writer cuts through conceptual confusion caused by verbal ambiguity like Dawkins.
5/5
May 21, 2021
Great but fatiguing
Contrary to Dawkin's most famous "Selfish Gene," this book is much more challenging to read for a non-biologist person. Some parts required me to google terms definitions and problem backgrounds each paragraph, if not line.
Despite this, the whole reading experience is very satisfying. A lot of new concepts that bring up interesting ideas, numerous facts, and remarkably great language - all of this teams up to build the great book. It's excellent reading for everyone ready to grind through the complexities of material.
Contrary to Dawkin's most famous "Selfish Gene," this book is much more challenging to read for a non-biologist person. Some parts required me to google terms definitions and problem backgrounds each paragraph, if not line.
Despite this, the whole reading experience is very satisfying. A lot of new concepts that bring up interesting ideas, numerous facts, and remarkably great language - all of this teams up to build the great book. It's excellent reading for everyone ready to grind through the complexities of material.
Read
March 13, 2011The essentials of life's story: Biodiversity is more than a buzzword for ecologists. Variation gives life its grandeur, and Richard Dawkins gives us a description of the workings of variation. Fortunately, with a sharp mind and sharper wit, he has the ability to deliver this portrayal so that nearly everyone can understand it. That's not to say this book is an easy read. Although he delivers his narration as if sitting with you in a quiet study, you may still need to review his words more than once. That's not a challenge or a chore, it's a pleasure.
Dawkins, unlike other science writers, is forthright in declaring his advocacy in writing this book. It's a refreshing start to his most serious effort. After publication of The Selfish Gene led to a storm of fatuous criticism, Extended Phenotype comes in response with more detail of how the gene manifests itself in the organism and its environment. It's clear that Dawkins' critics, who label him an "Ultra-Darwinist" [whatever that is] haven't read this book. His critics frequently argue that The Selfish Gene doesn't operate in a vacuum, but must deal within some kind of environment, from an individual cell to global scenarios. Dawkins deftly responds to critics in describing how genes rely on their environment for successful replication. If the replication doesn't survive in the environment it finds itself, then it, and perhaps its species, will die out.
The child's favourite question, "why" is difficult enough for parents and teachers to answer. Yet, as thinking humans we've become trained to deal with that question nearly every context. So well drilled that we consider something for which that question has no answer to be suspicious if not insidious. Part of Dawkins presentation here reiterates that there is no "why" to either the process of evolution nor its results. It isn't predictable, inevitable or reasonable. It's a tough situation to cope with, but Dawkins describes the mechanism with such precision and clarity, we readily understand "how" if not "why" evolution works. We comprehend because Dawkins does such an outstanding job in presenting its mechanics.
This edition carries three fine finales: Dawkins well thought out bibliography, a glossary, and most prized, indeed, an Afterword by Daniel C. Dennett. If any defense of this book is needed, Dennett is a peerless champion for the task. Dennett's capabilities in logical argument are superbly expressed here. As he's done elsewhere {Darwin's Dangerous Idea], Dennett mourns the lack of orginality and logic among Dawkins' critics. Excepting the more obstinate ones, these seem to be falling by the wayside. It's almost worthwhile reading Dennett's brief essay before starting Dawkins. It would be a gift to readers beyond measure if these two ever collaborated on a book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
March 21, 2013
The language of the book cannot be called simple and it takes some efforts to follow the authors reasoning, but these efforts will reap big reward. In process of reading you will experience the happiness of discovers time and again, have finished the book you will get another angle of view of the phenomenon of life. Don't panic, extend your mind.
December 16, 2014
I'm sure this is great, but I'm not a scientist and as one of Dawkins least accessible books, this one was overkill. It's an expansion of topics covered in The Selfish Gene, which I'd previously enjoyed, but there was too much detail for me to take in. I'll skip back to some of his later books.
December 27, 2021
He has a good argument but why he needs to write a whole book on it... you don't read to read whole book to understand the concept the last chapter of its prequel the selfish gene was enough to understand what is the concept of extended phenotype.... the whole book is for people who really want to disprove him or understand his exact reasoning to cone to the conclusion if not its not for you. you can just read summary and that will be enough.
August 5, 2014
In this book, Dawkins picks up his selfish gene theme and extends its influence to organs and systems within the body and then to the external environment. In doing so, Dawkins never strays from his central themes: Genes are in charge, pursuing their self-interest; the body and its behavior is their vehicle; and the germ-line replicator is the unit of selection.
Dawkins argues* that the gene replicators first begin to transcend their gene-only behavior within the body when they cooperate with other genes for mutual benefit (forming organs and bodily systems) and those genes that work well with other genes are selected through “within body selection”. This is where the selfish gene becomes in effect a cooperative gene, although the gene’s self-interest remains always as the driving force (Dawkins also allows for “outlaw” genes that seek advantage at the expense of other genes).
Dawkins writes that through behavior, the phenotypic effects of genes “feed back on those genes’ chances of surviving, and as a result gene frequencies change in succeeding generations in adaptive directions.” As I understand it, mutation and alternate forms for each gene (alleles) create a range of variation that natural selection then works on, tossing out options that don’t work and keeping those that do. This argument on the surface appears similar to what Jean Piaget puts forward in his book, Behavior and Evolution. And, in the glossary, Dawkins adds this supporting sentence about evolution’s role in selecting behavior that works: “From the point of view of this book, the significant feature of the Lamarckian theory is the idea that new genetic variation tends to be adaptively directed, rather than ‘random’ (i.e., non-directed) as in the Darwinian theory.”
This same process extends to phenotype behavior in the environment. Beaver bodies, as collections of selfish genes, build ponds and habitats because they are conducive to gene-level survival within all beavers. This same extension of gene-level behavior applies to bees and termites as well. (Dawkins writes in such a way that bees and termites seem to be specialized cells that operate outside of the body.) Dawkins also adds that this sort of extended behavior within one species is applied toward other species through parasitic, manipulative behavior. In short, Dawkins writes, “We must think of each replicator as the centre of a field of influence on the world at large.”
After defending his gene replicator as the unit of selection for evolutionary purposes, Dawkins’ last chapter is titled, “Rediscovering the Organism.” This chapter comes across as flat. I can understand Dawkins’ reluctance to support in any shape or form the individual as the unit of selection for evolution. Dawkins states that genes only care about copies of themselves, not about the welfare of the body-vehicle for all the genes. Yet, if the gene’s success depends on the body vehicle’s success as an extended phenotype, then the body vehicles take on a near equal importance. As in any part-whole relationship, there’s a mutual dependence and one is not more important than the other. If the body as the gene’s vehicle is not viable prior to reproduction, then all the genes, so to say, go down with the ship.
Interestingly, as a side note to his main theme, Dawkins allows for two different strategies for sexual behavior. Both the “faithful” and “philander” models (and a continuum that lies in between?), are variable strategies to move genes into the next generation. If this is true for sex, might this equally apply to genetic-based character types where both self-oriented (manipulative) and other –oriented (cooperative) types are equally valid survival types? Elsewhere (“Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection") he writes, “To stick my neck out a little, it seems to me that, far from genes for altruistic behavior being implausible, it may even be that a majority of behavioural mutations will turn out to be properly describable as either altruistic or selfish.” Recognizing the speculation here, could this be the ground for what seems to be a fairly basic character division between two poles of human nature?
This is an excellent book. It is strong and stimulating. It would be improved if Dawkins were less preoccupied with defending himself against his detractors, if he better separated his broad points from his technical detail, and if he made clearer distinctions between his criticisms of others and his own positions. Dawkins endlessly cites his previous works, which seems a bit biased when the reader is looking for additional and independent support for what Dawkins is putting forward.
*Dawkins is writing for the more technically oriented reader. Lay readers do the best they can.
Dawkins argues* that the gene replicators first begin to transcend their gene-only behavior within the body when they cooperate with other genes for mutual benefit (forming organs and bodily systems) and those genes that work well with other genes are selected through “within body selection”. This is where the selfish gene becomes in effect a cooperative gene, although the gene’s self-interest remains always as the driving force (Dawkins also allows for “outlaw” genes that seek advantage at the expense of other genes).
Dawkins writes that through behavior, the phenotypic effects of genes “feed back on those genes’ chances of surviving, and as a result gene frequencies change in succeeding generations in adaptive directions.” As I understand it, mutation and alternate forms for each gene (alleles) create a range of variation that natural selection then works on, tossing out options that don’t work and keeping those that do. This argument on the surface appears similar to what Jean Piaget puts forward in his book, Behavior and Evolution. And, in the glossary, Dawkins adds this supporting sentence about evolution’s role in selecting behavior that works: “From the point of view of this book, the significant feature of the Lamarckian theory is the idea that new genetic variation tends to be adaptively directed, rather than ‘random’ (i.e., non-directed) as in the Darwinian theory.”
This same process extends to phenotype behavior in the environment. Beaver bodies, as collections of selfish genes, build ponds and habitats because they are conducive to gene-level survival within all beavers. This same extension of gene-level behavior applies to bees and termites as well. (Dawkins writes in such a way that bees and termites seem to be specialized cells that operate outside of the body.) Dawkins also adds that this sort of extended behavior within one species is applied toward other species through parasitic, manipulative behavior. In short, Dawkins writes, “We must think of each replicator as the centre of a field of influence on the world at large.”
After defending his gene replicator as the unit of selection for evolutionary purposes, Dawkins’ last chapter is titled, “Rediscovering the Organism.” This chapter comes across as flat. I can understand Dawkins’ reluctance to support in any shape or form the individual as the unit of selection for evolution. Dawkins states that genes only care about copies of themselves, not about the welfare of the body-vehicle for all the genes. Yet, if the gene’s success depends on the body vehicle’s success as an extended phenotype, then the body vehicles take on a near equal importance. As in any part-whole relationship, there’s a mutual dependence and one is not more important than the other. If the body as the gene’s vehicle is not viable prior to reproduction, then all the genes, so to say, go down with the ship.
Interestingly, as a side note to his main theme, Dawkins allows for two different strategies for sexual behavior. Both the “faithful” and “philander” models (and a continuum that lies in between?), are variable strategies to move genes into the next generation. If this is true for sex, might this equally apply to genetic-based character types where both self-oriented (manipulative) and other –oriented (cooperative) types are equally valid survival types? Elsewhere (“Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection") he writes, “To stick my neck out a little, it seems to me that, far from genes for altruistic behavior being implausible, it may even be that a majority of behavioural mutations will turn out to be properly describable as either altruistic or selfish.” Recognizing the speculation here, could this be the ground for what seems to be a fairly basic character division between two poles of human nature?
This is an excellent book. It is strong and stimulating. It would be improved if Dawkins were less preoccupied with defending himself against his detractors, if he better separated his broad points from his technical detail, and if he made clearer distinctions between his criticisms of others and his own positions. Dawkins endlessly cites his previous works, which seems a bit biased when the reader is looking for additional and independent support for what Dawkins is putting forward.
*Dawkins is writing for the more technically oriented reader. Lay readers do the best they can.
June 21, 2017
First half 3*, Second 5*
This is a good book. Off the back of reading The Selfish Gene, and reading that The Extended Phenotype is Dawkin's favourite of his products, I was expecting big things. From the get-go, the style of the book is a lot more science-heavy—more jargon, more in depth scientific ideas and reasoning, which (as a scientist myself) I enjoyed: Dawkins is terrific at scientific reasoning, and this was a good outing from him, even by his standards.
The problem with the first half (maybe even more) of the book, is the content. Dawkins spends a very long time addressing criticism from The Selfish Gene, as well as some criticism with his extended phenotype theorem. Genetic determinism, group selection, green beards (etc. etc.) are all delved into in detail. Whilst this is very well done, it shows the age of the book. Almost all of these criticisms are no longer pertinent (which shows how correct Dawkins was at the time, might I add), so some arguments seem a little trivial.
What the first half lacks, Dawkins makes up for in the second half. The theorem of the extended phenotype is a fantastic way of viewing the impact replicators have on the world, and is almost flawless (plus, Dawkins addresses the few issues that arise with the theorem). He even ends with an optimistic view of life, presumably addressing the sadness (?) that this way of thinking brought at the time.
Overall, a very good book, but unless you wish to get into the knitty-gritty of many different theories (some very pertinent and some a bit less), you might be best off reading the last few chapters. Alternatively, the summary of the extended phenotype theorem that Dawkins provides in the recent editions of The Selfish Gene might be a good option.
This is a good book. Off the back of reading The Selfish Gene, and reading that The Extended Phenotype is Dawkin's favourite of his products, I was expecting big things. From the get-go, the style of the book is a lot more science-heavy—more jargon, more in depth scientific ideas and reasoning, which (as a scientist myself) I enjoyed: Dawkins is terrific at scientific reasoning, and this was a good outing from him, even by his standards.
The problem with the first half (maybe even more) of the book, is the content. Dawkins spends a very long time addressing criticism from The Selfish Gene, as well as some criticism with his extended phenotype theorem. Genetic determinism, group selection, green beards (etc. etc.) are all delved into in detail. Whilst this is very well done, it shows the age of the book. Almost all of these criticisms are no longer pertinent (which shows how correct Dawkins was at the time, might I add), so some arguments seem a little trivial.
What the first half lacks, Dawkins makes up for in the second half. The theorem of the extended phenotype is a fantastic way of viewing the impact replicators have on the world, and is almost flawless (plus, Dawkins addresses the few issues that arise with the theorem). He even ends with an optimistic view of life, presumably addressing the sadness (?) that this way of thinking brought at the time.
Overall, a very good book, but unless you wish to get into the knitty-gritty of many different theories (some very pertinent and some a bit less), you might be best off reading the last few chapters. Alternatively, the summary of the extended phenotype theorem that Dawkins provides in the recent editions of The Selfish Gene might be a good option.
September 6, 2022
This book is not just continuation/explanation of last chapter of Selfish Gene as someone mentioned rather it further explored gene-eye-view of evolution, with his amazing thought experiments and eloquent explanations, interaction of genes with environment and other organisms through their physiological affects and/or artifacts produced during translation of genes. language of this book is more professional than that of selfish gene and needs basic vocabulary of genetics and evolution .
A must read for anyone interested in Evolution or Darwinism.
A must read for anyone interested in Evolution or Darwinism.
August 28, 2020
What a beautiful book. Simple yet radical. A worthy descendant of The Selfish Gene, the book delves into the intricacies and technicalities of gene selectionism and enlarges it into the extended phenotype theory. A truly fascinating read. Dawkins never fails to achieve radicality with simplicity.
July 21, 2019
Difficult but eminently worthwhile
This is a long and difficult book, although not as long and difficult as it might be if it had been written by somebody without Richard Dawkins' gift for clarity of thought and expression.
The crux of Dawkins' thesis is expressed early on and much of what follows is a very detailed supporting argument. What he wants us to see is that the "selfish gene" has a reach that extends beyond the confines of the individual organism that houses the gene. The phenotype of our genes is the human organism in all its glory; however the extended phenotype of our genes is not only the human organism but part of the environment in which the organism finds itself. In other words, the gene has the power to influence not only our behavior but the behavior and structure of elements in the world in which we live.
This thesis is not as striking to me as it has been to many others mainly because I have studied Eastern religious views, and it is a tenant of such views that the distinction between ourselves (the "selfish organism," in Dawkins' terminology) and the environment is an artificial one, an illusion actually. We are part and parcel of all that is around us and within us, and the boundary of our skin is merely functional. We cannot be understood by looking at only our bodies. Dawkins makes the point that looking at a beaver and microscopically examining it and its genes is not sufficient to an understanding of what a beaver is. We have to also consider the dams that the beaver builds, the trees that it gnaws down and even the streams that it dams and turns into lakes.
Presenting a point of view somewhat at odds with that of Dawkins (and one that I think that Dawkins does not sufficiently appreciate) is Franklin M. Harold in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001). He writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware.... [S]ending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (p. 221)
Dawkins tries to discount the view of those he calls "group selectionists" who see life from a "group benefit" viewpoint. Dawkins has, since writing this book, stepped back from this position to allow that some group selection may take place. I believe some day he may see the world not from a "selfish gene" point of view, and not from a "selfish organism" point of view, but from a "selfish ecosystem" perspective--well, more likely his successors will see this, since the work of a lifetime is not easily amended in one's later years.
Dawkins gives what he calls "our own 'central theorem' of the extended phenotype" on page 233: "An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it."
This is a mouthful. Clearly we can say that the genes of the reed warbler code for behavior that benefits the genes of the cuckoo who has laid its egg in the warbler's nest. This is what Dawkins has in mind. But then arises the question, "how far afield can the phenotype extend?" Here Dawkins gets cautious and writes, "The farthest action at a distance I can think of is a matter of several miles." (p. 233) Note the chosen terminology, "action at a distance." This is from physics of course causing Dawkins to ask if there is "a sharp cut-off" of the genes' reach or "an inverse square law" at work?
It is here that I believe Dawkins has come so, so close to that which he will not see (or couldn't see then), namely that everything works toward an ecology and that the idea of selfish genes and selfish organisms is a limited view. In truth the reach of the genes should be governed by something like an inverse square law since humans are now reaching beyond the solar system.
When we look at such great distances we might want to credit the dreaded and verboten "group selection" that Dawkins is at pains to reject. Just as some see our earth as "Gaia," an organism itself, so too might we see those organisms that have the means to survive the destruction of the home planet by migrating to other planets as being selected by group as opposed to other groups who have no such ability. Planet A produces beings that extend beyond their solar system; planet B produces beings that do not. Both planets blow up. Who is "selected" by the (extended) environment and who is not?
Dawkins is one of the geniuses of science, and I don't mean to argue with the great insights he has brought to biology, but my point is that it is always something of an artificiality to speak of living systems as confined to one level of existence or expression. We may think of earth creatures as being completely separate from the rest of the universe, yet without the sun, 93 million miles away, we would not exist; and come a supernova even many light years away, we will be affected.
So all is one and one is all in some extended sense. And using the word "selfish" (as Dawkins knows) at any level of life is merely to be anthropomorphic.
Daniel Dennett, in a new afterword written in 1999, asks if this book is science or philosophy, and he answers both. I agree, and it is science and philosophy of the highest order, aimed equally at the professional and at the educated layperson.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
This is a long and difficult book, although not as long and difficult as it might be if it had been written by somebody without Richard Dawkins' gift for clarity of thought and expression.
The crux of Dawkins' thesis is expressed early on and much of what follows is a very detailed supporting argument. What he wants us to see is that the "selfish gene" has a reach that extends beyond the confines of the individual organism that houses the gene. The phenotype of our genes is the human organism in all its glory; however the extended phenotype of our genes is not only the human organism but part of the environment in which the organism finds itself. In other words, the gene has the power to influence not only our behavior but the behavior and structure of elements in the world in which we live.
This thesis is not as striking to me as it has been to many others mainly because I have studied Eastern religious views, and it is a tenant of such views that the distinction between ourselves (the "selfish organism," in Dawkins' terminology) and the environment is an artificial one, an illusion actually. We are part and parcel of all that is around us and within us, and the boundary of our skin is merely functional. We cannot be understood by looking at only our bodies. Dawkins makes the point that looking at a beaver and microscopically examining it and its genes is not sufficient to an understanding of what a beaver is. We have to also consider the dams that the beaver builds, the trees that it gnaws down and even the streams that it dams and turns into lakes.
Presenting a point of view somewhat at odds with that of Dawkins (and one that I think that Dawkins does not sufficiently appreciate) is Franklin M. Harold in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001). He writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware.... [S]ending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (p. 221)
Dawkins tries to discount the view of those he calls "group selectionists" who see life from a "group benefit" viewpoint. Dawkins has, since writing this book, stepped back from this position to allow that some group selection may take place. I believe some day he may see the world not from a "selfish gene" point of view, and not from a "selfish organism" point of view, but from a "selfish ecosystem" perspective--well, more likely his successors will see this, since the work of a lifetime is not easily amended in one's later years.
Dawkins gives what he calls "our own 'central theorem' of the extended phenotype" on page 233: "An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it."
This is a mouthful. Clearly we can say that the genes of the reed warbler code for behavior that benefits the genes of the cuckoo who has laid its egg in the warbler's nest. This is what Dawkins has in mind. But then arises the question, "how far afield can the phenotype extend?" Here Dawkins gets cautious and writes, "The farthest action at a distance I can think of is a matter of several miles." (p. 233) Note the chosen terminology, "action at a distance." This is from physics of course causing Dawkins to ask if there is "a sharp cut-off" of the genes' reach or "an inverse square law" at work?
It is here that I believe Dawkins has come so, so close to that which he will not see (or couldn't see then), namely that everything works toward an ecology and that the idea of selfish genes and selfish organisms is a limited view. In truth the reach of the genes should be governed by something like an inverse square law since humans are now reaching beyond the solar system.
When we look at such great distances we might want to credit the dreaded and verboten "group selection" that Dawkins is at pains to reject. Just as some see our earth as "Gaia," an organism itself, so too might we see those organisms that have the means to survive the destruction of the home planet by migrating to other planets as being selected by group as opposed to other groups who have no such ability. Planet A produces beings that extend beyond their solar system; planet B produces beings that do not. Both planets blow up. Who is "selected" by the (extended) environment and who is not?
Dawkins is one of the geniuses of science, and I don't mean to argue with the great insights he has brought to biology, but my point is that it is always something of an artificiality to speak of living systems as confined to one level of existence or expression. We may think of earth creatures as being completely separate from the rest of the universe, yet without the sun, 93 million miles away, we would not exist; and come a supernova even many light years away, we will be affected.
So all is one and one is all in some extended sense. And using the word "selfish" (as Dawkins knows) at any level of life is merely to be anthropomorphic.
Daniel Dennett, in a new afterword written in 1999, asks if this book is science or philosophy, and he answers both. I agree, and it is science and philosophy of the highest order, aimed equally at the professional and at the educated layperson.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
June 3, 2021
Interesting topic but takes a while to get into the actual meat of the argument. The first 3/4 of the book is set up and background information for discussing the extended phenotype. The hypothesis itself is fascinating and is a useful way to look at biology.
You could read this without a decent amount of biological knowledge but I think it would be quite difficult.
You could read this without a decent amount of biological knowledge but I think it would be quite difficult.
June 10, 2020
Typical Dawkins. Solid work, possibly great, but I’ve never viewed him as the most scintillating writer. Still, I’ve always viewed his content over his writing style and I find little fault with most any of his content. Definitely recommended.
March 24, 2008
I'd give it 5 stars if I knew enough biology to be able to confirm it (or 1 if I could refute it).
January 13, 2017
2015: Built upon and more advanced than The Selfish Gene. Readers beware!
2017: Re-read this after re-reading The Selfish Gene. It definitely makes more sense to me this time around.
2017: Re-read this after re-reading The Selfish Gene. It definitely makes more sense to me this time around.
May 25, 2020
"It doesn't matter if you ever read anything else of mine, please at least read this." -Richard Dawkins
As someone who has read a lot of Dawkins's books, I wholeheartedly disagree with this request. I can understand his claim that this book is his most unique contribution to science, but the only way this should be your first Dawkins book is if you are already familiar with biological concepts. After all, the book was written for professionals, not laypeople. I started with River out of Eden, an easier one, and, although my mind was blown, I struggled with some of it. It was only after I read a lot of other things that I was ready for this, and it was still hard. The middle of the book was probably the hardest part. I think I got frustrated at some point and put it down, then picked it up again later. I do that a lot. I probably should've just powered through in the first place, because the end of the book references a lot of concepts that he builds on in the beginning. The glossary in the back and I recommend you take note of it and use it frequently instead of Googling the words. I'm sure the glossary terms will be more relevant to the text than Google's version. It's essential to have an understand of terms like "gamete," "germ-line," and other words that he uses. If you don't know these words, you won't understand the book. Another science book I'm reading, Origins, by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, has a glossary, so you should check for one if you're reading something like that. Whether you are new to Dawkins or a long-time fan, The Extended Phenotype will probably be difficult, but rewarding if you are willing to put in the time.
As someone who has read a lot of Dawkins's books, I wholeheartedly disagree with this request. I can understand his claim that this book is his most unique contribution to science, but the only way this should be your first Dawkins book is if you are already familiar with biological concepts. After all, the book was written for professionals, not laypeople. I started with River out of Eden, an easier one, and, although my mind was blown, I struggled with some of it. It was only after I read a lot of other things that I was ready for this, and it was still hard. The middle of the book was probably the hardest part. I think I got frustrated at some point and put it down, then picked it up again later. I do that a lot. I probably should've just powered through in the first place, because the end of the book references a lot of concepts that he builds on in the beginning. The glossary in the back and I recommend you take note of it and use it frequently instead of Googling the words. I'm sure the glossary terms will be more relevant to the text than Google's version. It's essential to have an understand of terms like "gamete," "germ-line," and other words that he uses. If you don't know these words, you won't understand the book. Another science book I'm reading, Origins, by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, has a glossary, so you should check for one if you're reading something like that. Whether you are new to Dawkins or a long-time fan, The Extended Phenotype will probably be difficult, but rewarding if you are willing to put in the time.
November 17, 2020
Ну що ж, я прочитав чергову книгу Річарда Докінза і ось моя "коротка думка" (або ж мем) про цю книгу. У першу чергу маю відзначити, що "Розширений фенотип" це на мою думку найвагоміша книга автора, позаяк це збір усіх його ідей, які стосуються генетики, еволюції та етології. Тут Р. Докінз продовжує і поглиблює те, що розпочав у його найвідомішій книзі і за сумісництвом найкращій науково популярній книзі 20 століття "Егоїстичний ген", яка є своєрідним вступом до розуміння генетики, еволюції та природнього відбору назагал, так і своєрідне бачення організму з позиції одиниці генома, себто гена. Ну і також тут автор присвятив свою увагу "мемам", тобто культурним одиницям, які є розширеним фенотипічним ефектом людини ( і так популяризатором цього терміну у масовій культурі є саме Докінз).
А тепер коротко про саму роботу. Ця книга не рекомендується для людей, які не читали до того вже вище згаданий "Егоїстичний ген" або принаймні ще одну книгу Докінза "Сліпий годинникар" а також тим хто не цікавиться подібною тематикою або вирішив зацікавитися. Справедливо сказати, що "Розширений фенотип" є складною роботою, яка потребує відповідних знань у біології, генетиці, еволюції та природному відборі.
Не буду лукавити і признаюсь ця книга (як і попередні дві) потребує перечитки адже деякі речі я просто не зміг або не захотів зрозуміти. Але все таки це чергова, чудова книга Річарда Докінза наповнена цікавими ідеями, залізною логікою, ствердними аргумнтами і тонкими жартами. Це та книга, яка хоче, щоб ти в неї повернувся і перечитав щоб ще більше зацікавити і задавати ще більше запитань.
А тепер коротко про саму роботу. Ця книга не рекомендується для людей, які не читали до того вже вище згаданий "Егоїстичний ген" або принаймні ще одну книгу Докінза "Сліпий годинникар" а також тим хто не цікавиться подібною тематикою або вирішив зацікавитися. Справедливо сказати, що "Розширений фенотип" є складною роботою, яка потребує відповідних знань у біології, генетиці, еволюції та природному відборі.
Не буду лукавити і признаюсь ця книга (як і попередні дві) потребує перечитки адже деякі речі я просто не зміг або не захотів зрозуміти. Але все таки це чергова, чудова книга Річарда Докінза наповнена цікавими ідеями, залізною логікою, ствердними аргумнтами і тонкими жартами. Це та книга, яка хоче, щоб ти в неї повернувся і перечитав щоб ще більше зацікавити і задавати ще більше запитань.
May 18, 2022
This is one of the denser Richard Dawkins books, at least of the ones that I’ve read. In fact, it was so dense that from time to time, I struggled to wrap my head around the science and to understand what he was talking about.
That’s not surprising really, considering that the guy’s an evolutionary biologist. He works in a complex area and even though he tries to make what he’s talking about as understandable as he can for the layman, there are a few places where he struggles with it.
Still, I do feel as though I learned quite a lot, even though I already find it tricky to put my finger on anything specific. That happens a lot when I read Dawkins though, and I’m not sure whether that’s because of his writing style or his subject matter. I don’t mind though, I’m cool with that.
This one is also one of his earlier books, and so in some ways it feels a little dated, even though I’m sure that the concepts that he talks about still hold up. There’s some really good stuff here, so I was pretty happy to tick this one off, even though it was also a big old brain drain. It can be tough to read books like this because of how in-depth they go.
Because of that, I ended up switching this out to be a bedtime book. It was a rare example of one that I didn’t switch out because I didn’t enjoy it, but rather that was just such a challenging and taxing read that I preferred to dip in and out of it to read it slowly so that I could properly process what I was reading about. Although as you can probably imagine, I had some pretty unusual dreams. Ha.
That’s not surprising really, considering that the guy’s an evolutionary biologist. He works in a complex area and even though he tries to make what he’s talking about as understandable as he can for the layman, there are a few places where he struggles with it.
Still, I do feel as though I learned quite a lot, even though I already find it tricky to put my finger on anything specific. That happens a lot when I read Dawkins though, and I’m not sure whether that’s because of his writing style or his subject matter. I don’t mind though, I’m cool with that.
This one is also one of his earlier books, and so in some ways it feels a little dated, even though I’m sure that the concepts that he talks about still hold up. There’s some really good stuff here, so I was pretty happy to tick this one off, even though it was also a big old brain drain. It can be tough to read books like this because of how in-depth they go.
Because of that, I ended up switching this out to be a bedtime book. It was a rare example of one that I didn’t switch out because I didn’t enjoy it, but rather that was just such a challenging and taxing read that I preferred to dip in and out of it to read it slowly so that I could properly process what I was reading about. Although as you can probably imagine, I had some pretty unusual dreams. Ha.
January 21, 2024
„Fenotyp rozszerzony” jest kontynuacją i uzupełnieniem „Samolubnego genu”. W początkowych rozdziałach autor poszerza swoją koncepcję samolubnego genu, oraz polemizuje z krytycznymi uwagami, jakie wywołała jego poprzednia książka.
Ostatnie i najciekawsze rozdziały dotyczą fascynującego zjawiska – koncepcji fenotypu rozszerzonego, czyli wpływu genów jednego organizmu na drugi. Dla rozjaśnienia tej koncepcji przytoczę tu jeden z przykładów, jaki Dawkins opisał w swojej książce:
„Mnie zależy na ustaleniu kilku tylko przykładów, w których objawy występujące u żywicieli można z dużą pewnością potraktować jako przystosowanie pasożyta. Należy do nich syndrom Piotrusia Pana, charakteryzujący się niechęcią do stania się dorosłym, jaki zaobserwowano u larw Tribolium znajdujących się pod działaniem hormonu juwenilnego produkowanego przez pasożytnicze pierwotniaki. W przypadku takich niewątpliwych przystosować moje wnioski nie mają charakteru spekulacji. Jeśli fizjologiczne lub behawioralne cechy gospodarza są adaptacjami pasożyta, pasożyt musi (lub musiał) posiadać geny modyfikujące cechy żywiciela. Rozszerzony fenotyp rozciąga się poza ciało, a którym zlokalizowane są te geny, i sięga żywych tkanek innego organizmu”.
Książka nie należy do tych porywających, wymaga od czytelnika sporej wiedzy biologicznej, ale warta jest poświęconej jej uwagi.
7/10
Ostatnie i najciekawsze rozdziały dotyczą fascynującego zjawiska – koncepcji fenotypu rozszerzonego, czyli wpływu genów jednego organizmu na drugi. Dla rozjaśnienia tej koncepcji przytoczę tu jeden z przykładów, jaki Dawkins opisał w swojej książce:
„Mnie zależy na ustaleniu kilku tylko przykładów, w których objawy występujące u żywicieli można z dużą pewnością potraktować jako przystosowanie pasożyta. Należy do nich syndrom Piotrusia Pana, charakteryzujący się niechęcią do stania się dorosłym, jaki zaobserwowano u larw Tribolium znajdujących się pod działaniem hormonu juwenilnego produkowanego przez pasożytnicze pierwotniaki. W przypadku takich niewątpliwych przystosować moje wnioski nie mają charakteru spekulacji. Jeśli fizjologiczne lub behawioralne cechy gospodarza są adaptacjami pasożyta, pasożyt musi (lub musiał) posiadać geny modyfikujące cechy żywiciela. Rozszerzony fenotyp rozciąga się poza ciało, a którym zlokalizowane są te geny, i sięga żywych tkanek innego organizmu”.
Książka nie należy do tych porywających, wymaga od czytelnika sporej wiedzy biologicznej, ale warta jest poświęconej jej uwagi.
7/10
July 8, 2018
Richard Dawkins asks us (again) to try to think of evolution in terms of selfish *genes*.
The book promotes concepts called replicators (genes, DNA) and vehicles (organisms, groups, species...). Examples are given of how this replicator/gene-centric view of evolution tries to make sense of evolutionary phenomena that otherwise we would have a hard time explaining if we stuck to the traditional, organism-centric view.
I got to about mid-way through the book, then Dawkins went on a "Lamarckism bash", and some other academic debates regarding (neo?)Darwinism. Not being a scientist myself and having little formal context in evolutionary biology, I got a bit lost. Will retry the latter half of the book in the future!
The book promotes concepts called replicators (genes, DNA) and vehicles (organisms, groups, species...). Examples are given of how this replicator/gene-centric view of evolution tries to make sense of evolutionary phenomena that otherwise we would have a hard time explaining if we stuck to the traditional, organism-centric view.
I got to about mid-way through the book, then Dawkins went on a "Lamarckism bash", and some other academic debates regarding (neo?)Darwinism. Not being a scientist myself and having little formal context in evolutionary biology, I got a bit lost. Will retry the latter half of the book in the future!
July 10, 2021
''The Selfish Gene' was written for educated lay readers . . . . 'The Extended Phenotype' was written for the professional biologist, but so graceful and lucid is Dawkins's writing that even outsiders who are prepared to exercise their brains vigorously can follow the arguments, and appreciate the subtlety of the issues.'
As Daniel Dennett suggests in the afterword, the book is, at moments, a cognitively very demanding read. Persistence pays off, however. The concept of the extended phenotype is, just as that of the selfish gene was, revolutionary in the sense that it offers an alternative and better understanding of evolution.
As Daniel Dennett suggests in the afterword, the book is, at moments, a cognitively very demanding read. Persistence pays off, however. The concept of the extended phenotype is, just as that of the selfish gene was, revolutionary in the sense that it offers an alternative and better understanding of evolution.
April 23, 2020
I have picked up and put this book down a few times over the past 5 years, and it took the better part of a biology degree to finally understand it. But well worth the work! Nearly every page was thought-provoking and brought a deeper understanding of how evolution works.
January 14, 2023
Brilliant
My first thought after finishing The Extended Phenotype was, "That's obvious." Of course it wasn't obvious before reading the book. My second thought was, "All Dawkins did was change the definition of phenotype." But that is no mean feat and I suspect the definition has stuck. Finally, one of the best, and funniest, parts of the book was the glossary.
My first thought after finishing The Extended Phenotype was, "That's obvious." Of course it wasn't obvious before reading the book. My second thought was, "All Dawkins did was change the definition of phenotype." But that is no mean feat and I suspect the definition has stuck. Finally, one of the best, and funniest, parts of the book was the glossary.
March 8, 2018
Dawkins is a contemporary genius with fresh perspectives in several fields. Good read.
October 18, 2022
Definitely more challenging than the other books by RD that I've read, but he knows how to write, so it's still pretty good.
May 8, 2015
Richard Dawkins here explains his view that the largest unit on which natural selection can reasonably be said to operate is the gene rather than the organism, and explores this idea’s consequences for the standard conceptions of organisms, groups, and selection. The motif he introduces to show this best is a Necker Cube, which is a simple line drawing of all the edges of a cube: when looked at for the first time, it seems to be an overhead view of the cube. But with some visual effort, you can make your brain interpret the exact same stimulus as a view from below. Your two perspectives can be shifted between without many problems at all. This an slightly off analogy, because the two views of the cube have no reason to prefer one over the other, whereas Dawkins clearly believes that his focus on the gene is more proper than some biologists’ focus on the organism. Another analogy: we often hear from nature documentaries and wide-eyed wonderers how harmonious the biological systems of Earth are: how fortunate that some things breathe carbon dioxide and some breathe oxygen, that both cheetah and gazelle are lithe and fast in their dance of predation, that symbiotic pairs of species fill each other’s needs so well.
But this is an illusion: the different organisms of the planet do not evolve their interplay from any interest in harmony on the part of nature. Rather, given that every other organism already exists, a certain organism will have its various genotypes selected for or against depending on how their expressed phenotypes allow them to be ruthless exploiters and reproducers. Similarly, the genes that make up a genotype are not selected for their harmonious interaction. Instead, at each locus, the alleles that are best able to propagate themselves via their modifications of the expressed phenotype, given their fellow genes, will be selected for. The key difference is that the balance is not driven by a push towards harmony but the ruthless interactions and pushes for self-replication between a myriad of different genes.
Dawkins pushes this concept far in this book: he explores parasitism, evolutionary arms races, sex ratios, and embryology with an expert’s touch. But by far the most gripping part comes from his title: the extended phenotype is what happens when a gene’s reach extends beyond the physical boundaries of its host organism. A gene can influence the structure of the containing organism, and this surely is a phenotype, but Dawkins gradually pushes this further: a baby bird’s gene influences its parent to feed it, a beaver’s gene pushes it to build a larger dam, and a songbird’s gene summons another bird to come and mate, transferring the risk of travel to that other creature. The most difficult to grasp concept in this book, but in my mind the most fruitful, is the idea that an organism’s behavior tends to increase the success of the gene responsible for that behavior, no matter whether that gene resides in that organism (or indeed even in the same species) or not. While this is a book starting its fourth decade, it still feels very fresh and eye-opening. A word of warning: the book is more technical than various popular books from Dawkins; if you feel like you could tackle a college-level evolutionary biology class you can handle this, though.
But this is an illusion: the different organisms of the planet do not evolve their interplay from any interest in harmony on the part of nature. Rather, given that every other organism already exists, a certain organism will have its various genotypes selected for or against depending on how their expressed phenotypes allow them to be ruthless exploiters and reproducers. Similarly, the genes that make up a genotype are not selected for their harmonious interaction. Instead, at each locus, the alleles that are best able to propagate themselves via their modifications of the expressed phenotype, given their fellow genes, will be selected for. The key difference is that the balance is not driven by a push towards harmony but the ruthless interactions and pushes for self-replication between a myriad of different genes.
Dawkins pushes this concept far in this book: he explores parasitism, evolutionary arms races, sex ratios, and embryology with an expert’s touch. But by far the most gripping part comes from his title: the extended phenotype is what happens when a gene’s reach extends beyond the physical boundaries of its host organism. A gene can influence the structure of the containing organism, and this surely is a phenotype, but Dawkins gradually pushes this further: a baby bird’s gene influences its parent to feed it, a beaver’s gene pushes it to build a larger dam, and a songbird’s gene summons another bird to come and mate, transferring the risk of travel to that other creature. The most difficult to grasp concept in this book, but in my mind the most fruitful, is the idea that an organism’s behavior tends to increase the success of the gene responsible for that behavior, no matter whether that gene resides in that organism (or indeed even in the same species) or not. While this is a book starting its fourth decade, it still feels very fresh and eye-opening. A word of warning: the book is more technical than various popular books from Dawkins; if you feel like you could tackle a college-level evolutionary biology class you can handle this, though.
October 8, 2008
An animal's behavior tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behavior, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.
Well written. Directed at actual biologists. Sometimes hard to understand. I needed more basic biology background.
The idea is that the phenotypic effects of genes have no reason to stop at the boundaries of the specific individual.
Quotes:
"There is a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."
"When a geneticist speaks of a gene 'for' red eyes in Drosophila, he is not speaking of the cistron which acts as template for the synthesis of the red pigment molecule. He is implicitly saying: there is variation in eye color in the population; other things being equal, a fly with this gene is more likely to have red eyes than a fly without the gene. That is all that we ever mean by a gene 'for' red eyes."
Evolutionary boundaries on perfection
pg. 35 "Time lags, Historical constraints, Available genetic variation, Constraints of costs and materials, Imperfections on one level due to selection on another, Mistakes due to environmental unpredictability or 'malevolence'"
"Life/dinner principle...The rabbit runs faster than the fox, because the rabbit is running for his life while the fox is only running for his dinner. The general point here is that for an animal on one side of the arms race the penalty of failure is more severe than for an animal on the other side of the arms race."
"If the individual manipulator has more to lose by failing to manipulate than the individual victim has to lose by failing to resist manipulation, we should expect to see successful manipulation in nature."
"What is the optimon?"
"Workers care for their reproductive siblings who carry germ-line copies of the caring genes."
"The unit of selection is a function in part of the intensity of selection: the more intense the selection, the more the whole genome tends to hold together as a unit."
"An active replicator is a chunk of genome that, when compared to its alleles, exerts phenotypic power over its world, sch that its frequency increases or decreases relative to that of its alleles."
"A vehicle is any unit, discrete enough to seem worth naming, which houses a collection of replicators and which works as a unit for the preservation and propagation of those replicators."
"The inclusive fitness of an organism is not a property of himself, but a property of his actions or effects. Inclusive fitness is calculated from an individual's own reproductive success plus his effects on the reproductive success of his relatives, each one weighed by the appropriate coefficient of relatedness."
"The living world can be seen as a network of interlocking fields of replicator power."
"The significance of the difference between growth and reproduction is that reproduction permits a new beginning, a new developmental cycle and a new organism which may be an improvement, in terms of the fundamental organization of complex structure, over its predecessor."
Well written. Directed at actual biologists. Sometimes hard to understand. I needed more basic biology background.
The idea is that the phenotypic effects of genes have no reason to stop at the boundaries of the specific individual.
Quotes:
"There is a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."
"When a geneticist speaks of a gene 'for' red eyes in Drosophila, he is not speaking of the cistron which acts as template for the synthesis of the red pigment molecule. He is implicitly saying: there is variation in eye color in the population; other things being equal, a fly with this gene is more likely to have red eyes than a fly without the gene. That is all that we ever mean by a gene 'for' red eyes."
Evolutionary boundaries on perfection
pg. 35 "Time lags, Historical constraints, Available genetic variation, Constraints of costs and materials, Imperfections on one level due to selection on another, Mistakes due to environmental unpredictability or 'malevolence'"
"Life/dinner principle...The rabbit runs faster than the fox, because the rabbit is running for his life while the fox is only running for his dinner. The general point here is that for an animal on one side of the arms race the penalty of failure is more severe than for an animal on the other side of the arms race."
"If the individual manipulator has more to lose by failing to manipulate than the individual victim has to lose by failing to resist manipulation, we should expect to see successful manipulation in nature."
"What is the optimon?"
"Workers care for their reproductive siblings who carry germ-line copies of the caring genes."
"The unit of selection is a function in part of the intensity of selection: the more intense the selection, the more the whole genome tends to hold together as a unit."
"An active replicator is a chunk of genome that, when compared to its alleles, exerts phenotypic power over its world, sch that its frequency increases or decreases relative to that of its alleles."
"A vehicle is any unit, discrete enough to seem worth naming, which houses a collection of replicators and which works as a unit for the preservation and propagation of those replicators."
"The inclusive fitness of an organism is not a property of himself, but a property of his actions or effects. Inclusive fitness is calculated from an individual's own reproductive success plus his effects on the reproductive success of his relatives, each one weighed by the appropriate coefficient of relatedness."
"The living world can be seen as a network of interlocking fields of replicator power."
"The significance of the difference between growth and reproduction is that reproduction permits a new beginning, a new developmental cycle and a new organism which may be an improvement, in terms of the fundamental organization of complex structure, over its predecessor."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 18, 2012
"[The] 'central theorem' of the extended phenotype: An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal
performing it." p233
Dawkin's theory of the extended phenotype is given full expression in this his self-proclaimed favorite work. It is only now that I realize the publication of The Extended Phenotype (TEP) was in 1982, a mere three years after my favorite work of his The Selfish Gene (TSG). This close publication date explains why these two books are so similar, and why I felt like TEP was dragging its heels for the first ~200 pages.
It was not until chapter 11 that Dawkins began explicating his theory, the pages spent before this point were designed to undercut the reader's focus on the individual organism as the unit of adaptive benefit and instead place his/her faith in the gene. Chapters on Arms Races and Manipulation, Active Germ-line Replicators, and Selfish DNA were slightly modified extractions from TSG and although very relevant to TEP these chapters will be redundant to anyone who is familiar with TSG. It is because of this redundancy that I can say I really liked this book, but wouldn't consider it "amazing".
Apart from redundancy, TEP is a fairly accessible concept especially for anyone who's familiar with Dawkin's previous work. Genes exert a phenotypic effect, but this isn't limited to the physical body of the organism; genes also affects behavior. A beaver's dam-building behavior is equally the result of its genes as a thick coat of fur, and so it is equally valid to claim a gene 'for' fur as one 'for' dam building.
There are also genes 'for' the behavior of other organisms; parasites burrow into ants (their temporary host) and modify their behavior to cause the ant to climb blades of grass and therefore becomes more susceptible to being eaten by grazing sheep (the parasite's permanent host). Here we have genes in one animal for the control of another animal.
The "Bruce Effect" where male mice exude a pheromone which causes a recently inseminated female mouse to block her pregnancy shows phenotypic action at a distance. A male mouse has in his DNA a gene 'for' phenotypic effect within the DNA of a female mouse.
The logical progression of this theory is awesome, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in evolution and genetics. For those who aren't familiar with evolutionary theory there's a glossary in the back to aid reading, but even with a good foundation in evolutionary theory it was a difficult read. Like all Dawkin's books on evolution I highly recommend this.
performing it." p233
Dawkin's theory of the extended phenotype is given full expression in this his self-proclaimed favorite work. It is only now that I realize the publication of The Extended Phenotype (TEP) was in 1982, a mere three years after my favorite work of his The Selfish Gene (TSG). This close publication date explains why these two books are so similar, and why I felt like TEP was dragging its heels for the first ~200 pages.
It was not until chapter 11 that Dawkins began explicating his theory, the pages spent before this point were designed to undercut the reader's focus on the individual organism as the unit of adaptive benefit and instead place his/her faith in the gene. Chapters on Arms Races and Manipulation, Active Germ-line Replicators, and Selfish DNA were slightly modified extractions from TSG and although very relevant to TEP these chapters will be redundant to anyone who is familiar with TSG. It is because of this redundancy that I can say I really liked this book, but wouldn't consider it "amazing".
Apart from redundancy, TEP is a fairly accessible concept especially for anyone who's familiar with Dawkin's previous work. Genes exert a phenotypic effect, but this isn't limited to the physical body of the organism; genes also affects behavior. A beaver's dam-building behavior is equally the result of its genes as a thick coat of fur, and so it is equally valid to claim a gene 'for' fur as one 'for' dam building.
There are also genes 'for' the behavior of other organisms; parasites burrow into ants (their temporary host) and modify their behavior to cause the ant to climb blades of grass and therefore becomes more susceptible to being eaten by grazing sheep (the parasite's permanent host). Here we have genes in one animal for the control of another animal.
The "Bruce Effect" where male mice exude a pheromone which causes a recently inseminated female mouse to block her pregnancy shows phenotypic action at a distance. A male mouse has in his DNA a gene 'for' phenotypic effect within the DNA of a female mouse.
The logical progression of this theory is awesome, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in evolution and genetics. For those who aren't familiar with evolutionary theory there's a glossary in the back to aid reading, but even with a good foundation in evolutionary theory it was a difficult read. Like all Dawkin's books on evolution I highly recommend this.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews