Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

Product Information

Liberals believe that our best days are ahead of us where is conservatives view our best days is behind us. (‘make America great again’)

While I am definitely not at the level of some autodidacts I know, during a typical year I read about 40 books, listen to about 20 audiobooks, listen to at least 500 podcast episodes, read countless blog posts and have over 100 conversations on my podcast with thought leaders in their field. In a particularly dense beginning (with appendices for the underlying science) we get primers on the brain and neurons, their structure and how they work. We see how the interplay of their many component parts modulates behavior leading to impulsiveness or restraint. In addition we learn how we are influenced by the way we produce and process neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin) and of course hormones (testosterone, oxytocin). Sapolsky shows that the effects of these chemicals are not as straightforward as commonly presented. For example, oxytocin, the widely heralded pair-bonding hormone, causes us to draw closer to family but also to be more distant to strangers, in effect, amplifying the “Us Versus Them” syndrome.This guide has covered numerous factors that influence our behaviors, but at the end of the day, can we still make a conscious choice about what to do? Sapolsky doesn’t think so— he believes that free will is an artificial construct we use to fill the gaps in our understanding of human behavior. If this is right, then, logically, someday we’ll close up all of those gaps and have no more need (or space) for the idea of free will. In the shortest possible summary, let me start by saying that Behave is a stupendous book, and among the best science books I have read. While it is a book of science, and very detailed in parts at that – it is still highly recommended reading for everybody. After all, who is not curious about why we behave the way we do. This book is certainly a tribute to the remarkable progress science has made in understanding our brain and our behaviours. However, be warned that it is a big book, which has a lot of detail and you might be in for a slower read than many other books. In one study conservatives and liberals when asked about the causes of poverty with candid toward personal attributions such as lazy, but only if they are to make snap judgements. Give a more time liberals shifted towards situation or explanations however conservatives start with their gut and stay with their gut, liberals go from gut to head. Sapolsky is engagingly cranky about various things: traditional misogynies, war. He uses the neologism "pseudospeciation" (i.e. the dehumanising kind of racism) about 50 times. Angier, Natalie (April 13, 2004). "No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture". New York Times Archives. New York Times Company . Retrieved August 5, 2014.

Various genes have been attributed to behavior patterns. But even this is complicated. The so-called "warrior gene" is not really a significant factor, except in a very limited set of circumstances. No single gene is responsible for a behavior pattern, but only in large collections do genes play some role in behavior. Increasing cognitive word makes liberals more conservative. The time pressure of snap judgements is a version of increased cognitive load. Likewise people become more conservative when tired in pain or distracted with a cognitive task or when blood alcohol levels rise. On the uncertain environment we find ourselves in; well calibrated risks are said to be addictive to the brain (eg. gambling) whereas total ambiguity is just agitating. If you’re looking to play in an environment that is fraught with uncertainty, use calculated risks to make the sell/get stakeholder buy-in/make the decision etc.

Drone pilots, who sit somewhere far-removed from battle, but can blow up a group of men sitting around a campfire just by pushing a button, and watch the whole thing (you know, body parts) on their computer screen, have the same rate of Post-Traumatic Stress as soldiers in the field. It remains debatable, though, whether strict determinism is compatible with Sapolsky’s final message of hope for humanity, as he tells inspiring stories about moral heroism in history – the helicopter officer who stopped the My Lai massacre, the Christmas Day football match during the first world war. Sapolsky is on the side of Steven Pinker’s argument, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, that humanity is overall getting less violent and nasty, and points to some lessons from the “social plasticity” demonstrated in troops of baboons, one of Sapolsky’s own specialities. He thus sets himself against conservative pessimism about brutish human nature. “Anyone who says that our worst behaviours are inevitable knows too little about primates, including us.” Interestingly, studies show that our most deeply held values aren’t things that we consciously think about following. For example, someone who’s been raised to be honest doesn’t decide to tell the truth or overcome the temptation to lie; that temptation never arises in the first place. In other words, you’ll reflexively follow whatever core values you were raised with, unless you make an active effort to do otherwise. At home with: Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky; Family Man With a Foot In the Veld, By PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN, New York Times, APRIL 19, 2001 Dehumanisation and pseudospeciation are the tools that propagandists use to pedal hate. Their tools used to making them seem disgusting to make them seem like rodent has cancer as transitional species to make them as reading Lee malodorous as living in hives and chaos that to normal human would.