Brilliant! Not for nothing I encountered so many citations from it in other books. So much fodder for thought and contemplation. I would only deduct half a star for the effort it took me to wade through the first four chapters. I actually finished the book in two goes, and I am absolutely happy I did it. This book is a perfect example of a reward for perseverance. ( )

First off, I found this book very hard to read. Not because I'm illiterate, but because it just wasn't enjoyable. I've finally just finished it, 14 months after buying it, because I never felt like picking it up and reading another chapter. It feels as though he just restates the same ideas over and over again with too many words. (Though I suppose verbosity might be a good way to impress certain potential mates.)

Despite the praise of science and the chapter's worth of references in the back, it felt less like a scientific exploration and more like a speculative argument, stating the conclusion first and then rounding up a bunch of evidence to back it up. I guess any evolutionary psychology book is going to sound mostly speculative, though.

Though not engrossing, I didn't find much to disagree with. Simply put, he argues that most of the evolved behaviors that are unexplainable by kin selection or reciprocity can actually be explained by runaway sexual selection, in the same way as handicap fitness indicators in other animals like peacocks or bowerbirds. It takes a lot of energy, health, and control of natural resources to create art (or make money to buy art), learn a large vocabulary, write fiction, practice religion, give to charity, and so on, yet none of these things provide much of a direct survival benefit. The conclusion is that they serve mostly to impress potential mates and compete against other suitors.

For example, he points out the way very rich and powerful people will volunteer their time to work at a soup kitchen for a day, when they could have used that time to earn money and pay a hundred other people to work in the soup kitchen for them. The primary reason for charity is to show off your helpfulness to potential mates, not to actually maximize the altruistic benefit to other people.

In the conclusion, he talks about how science is a subversion of these natural instincts to push them towards other ends. This is a very useful idea, as is the idea of consciously manipulating equilibrium selection to push society towards a more desirable equilibrium, which I've also had kicking around in my head for a while, but didn't have a name for until now.

His glossary definition of "marriage" is amusing: "A socially legitimated sexual relationship in which sexual fidelity and parental responsibilities are maintained through the threat of social punishment."

Other favorite quotes: "Existing political philosophies all developed before evolutionary game theory, so they do not take equilibrium selection into account. Socialism pretends that individuals are not selfish sexual competitors, so it ignores equilibria altogether. Conservatism pretends that there is only one possible equilibrium—a nostalgic version of the status quo—that society could play. Libertarianism ignores the possibility of equilibrium selection at the level of rational social discourse, and assumes that decentralized market dynamics will magically lead to equilibria that yield the highest aggregate social benefits. Far from being a scientific front for a particular set of political views, modern evolutionary psychology makes most standard views look simplistic and unimaginative."

"Scientific theories never dictate human values, but they can often cast new light on ethical issues. From a sexual selection viewpoint, moral philosophy and political theory have mostly been attempts to shift male human sexual competitiveness from physical violence to the peaceful accumulation of wealth and status. The rights to life, liberty, and property are cultural inventions that function, in part, to keep males from killing and stealing from one another while they compete to attract sexual partners." ( )

I am always impressed when very smart people in very technical fields can effectively explain their work to the rest of us. Miller does this, and he does it in an entertaining (and sexy) way.What I was most impressed with was how compelling this book was, even when laying a foundation that included some things I already knew. Parts of the book even read like fiction, where I was intrigued to turn the page and find out where we were headed next. Miller does a very good job of explaining concepts in a clear and engaging manner, and his own excitement for the topic really comes through.Substantively, I'd say it felt like the first 2/3 of the book or so are setting up a foundation, while only the last 1/3 offers Miller's thesis/new ideas. My only criticism is that by the time we did get to the chapters on art, morality, and creative intelligence, it felt a little anti-climactic. However, this is largely because he had done such a good job in the set-up that I could anticipate exactly how it would be applied to each of these three areas. For the record, I would consider that a success. I was interested throughout the book, I felt persuaded (if not actually convinced) by the arguments, and I could follow Miller's logic as he constructed his theory.This book has everything from the basics of natural selection, to a (possible) explanation of the evolution of human sex organs, to a theory of sports and creativity as a mating tool. I don't know much about evolutionary psychology and its place in the science world, but this book makes me want to know more. ( )