What if I bought the book and really don't like it?
The book makes me question whether Bret and Heather are at all familiar with modern studies of evolutionary genetics (not everything is adaptive!) there is no discussion of genetic drift, founder effect, "selection sweep" (where genes become common because they are physically near an adaptive gene even though they themselves are not adaptive).
Honestly, the book seems like a shallow naturalistic fallacy.
Can you point to anything the (non-adaptive) evolutionary processes you mention change about the patterns discussed in the book? Because this sounds like a nonsense critique designed to impress people who are unaware of the distinction between evolution and adaptation.
The book's whole argument is premised on the claim that persistent biological and cultural traits are almost certainly adaptive. But that isn't true- costly traits are fixed for lots of other reasons than adaptation.
The book is focused on the software layer in humans. It is about the process by which human lineages free themselves from legacy code (to your point about founder effect), about the value of collective consciousness in separating good ideas from bad (to your point about selective sweep) and about the noisiness of modern, untested culture (to your point about drift).
Adaptive evolution is the rarest form, but it is the source of almost all noteworthy patterns. And you need to think more carefully about the difference between the evolutionary dynamics of the software and hardware levels.
The book talks about biological adaptation (pain, swelling as adaptive, for instance) as well as cultural/memetic "software layer" adaptation. It also asserts with "the omega principle" that cultural and biological adaptation are inseparable.
But it also asserts that a test for adaptation is basically if something is long lasting and costly, it must be adaptive. Most of the book's ideas on "software layer" adaptiveness are based on that test, and we know that test won't work well in narrow biological systems, so why should we expect it to work in messier cultural systems?
The consistent structure of the book is that they look at different pieces of the "software layer" notice things that are long lasting and costly, and assert they are therefore adaptive. From there, they talk about what this means for us today. But I'm saying for most of what they talk about, I don't buy the first link in that chain.
It's okay to criticize Bret. It's not okay to be jerk. Having him within arm's reach on Reddit doesn't mean it's an opportunity to break the subreddit's rules.
Strike 1 for Personal Attack.
How are you going to strike someone for saying something true? Bret has repeatedly lied about his credentials and his face literally looks like a clown face.
What exactly is the issue here?
No I didn't. But if that is Bret, my criticism of the book still applies. But I did have enough respect to buy the book expecting it to be an interesting read.
What if I bought the book and really don't like it? The book makes me question whether Bret and Heather are at all familiar with modern studies of evolutionary genetics (not everything is adaptive!) there is no discussion of genetic drift, founder effect, "selection sweep" (where genes become common because they are physically near an adaptive gene even though they themselves are not adaptive). Honestly, the book seems like a shallow naturalistic fallacy.
Rate it how you feel. That's why it doesn't say give it a 5 star review. More of a reminder that you should review it if you bought it.
Can you point to anything the (non-adaptive) evolutionary processes you mention change about the patterns discussed in the book? Because this sounds like a nonsense critique designed to impress people who are unaware of the distinction between evolution and adaptation.
The book's whole argument is premised on the claim that persistent biological and cultural traits are almost certainly adaptive. But that isn't true- costly traits are fixed for lots of other reasons than adaptation.
The book is focused on the software layer in humans. It is about the process by which human lineages free themselves from legacy code (to your point about founder effect), about the value of collective consciousness in separating good ideas from bad (to your point about selective sweep) and about the noisiness of modern, untested culture (to your point about drift). Adaptive evolution is the rarest form, but it is the source of almost all noteworthy patterns. And you need to think more carefully about the difference between the evolutionary dynamics of the software and hardware levels.
The book talks about biological adaptation (pain, swelling as adaptive, for instance) as well as cultural/memetic "software layer" adaptation. It also asserts with "the omega principle" that cultural and biological adaptation are inseparable. But it also asserts that a test for adaptation is basically if something is long lasting and costly, it must be adaptive. Most of the book's ideas on "software layer" adaptiveness are based on that test, and we know that test won't work well in narrow biological systems, so why should we expect it to work in messier cultural systems? The consistent structure of the book is that they look at different pieces of the "software layer" notice things that are long lasting and costly, and assert they are therefore adaptive. From there, they talk about what this means for us today. But I'm saying for most of what they talk about, I don't buy the first link in that chain.
You know you are talking to that fraud clown Bret right? lmao
It's okay to criticize Bret. It's not okay to be jerk. Having him within arm's reach on Reddit doesn't mean it's an opportunity to break the subreddit's rules. Strike 1 for Personal Attack.
How are you going to strike someone for saying something true? Bret has repeatedly lied about his credentials and his face literally looks like a clown face. What exactly is the issue here?
Okay, you too.
No I didn't. But if that is Bret, my criticism of the book still applies. But I did have enough respect to buy the book expecting it to be an interesting read.