Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Nature Via Nurture

4.04 of 5 stars 4.04 · rating details · 1,136 ratings · 67 reviews

Following his highly praised and bestselling book "Genome: The Autobiography of a Species" in 23 Chapters, Matt Ridley has written a brilliant and profound book about the roots of human behavior. "Nature via Nurture" explores the complex and endlessly intriguing question of what makes us who we are.

In February 2001 it was announced that the human genome contains not 100,00...more

Paperback, 328 pages

Published May 4th 2004 by HarperPerennial (first published January 1st 2003)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 2,245)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Aug 08, 2012 Aurochz rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science, psychology, neuorscience-evolution

Ahh damn. I have now read all three of Matt Ridley's major publications. I have an overall mixed feeling about him, he seems to represent some of the worst aspects of pop science and yet he is at least good at making the things he talks about entertaining. The problem is he relies on theories and ideas that are highly speculative at best or outright false at worst.

Lets take the chapter which starts off about gender differences, since it is something that I know a bit about. He says what the aud...more Ahh damn. I have now read all three of Matt Ridley's major publications. I have an overall mixed feeling about him, he seems to represent some of the worst aspects of pop science and yet he is at least good at making the things he talks about entertaining. The problem is he relies on theories and ideas that are highly speculative at best or outright false at worst.

Lets take the chapter which starts off about gender differences, since it is something that I know a bit about. He says what the audience wants to hear, which is that gender differences are innate to a large extent. Not fully, no pop scientist is really willing to take a strong stance on anything, but he implies things enough that the differences between males and females seem insurmountable to the lay reader.

The problem is hes wrong. He relies on two things that I can easily show to be false, the story of David Reimer and the studies of Simon Baron Cohen. The sad story of David Reimer is often presented as an insurmountable case study in favor of genetic differences. Yet when you look at the real facts of the story it is anything but. David Reimer was a boy almost a full two years between his birth and his surgery. All throughout that time his parents called him a boy and treated him like one. They also repeatedly told him even after the surgery that he explicitly was an identical twin to his brother. Unless Reimer was made an idiot through the chemical transfers and the surgery it wouldn't be hard for him to surmise what had happened. Especially when we consider that, much like the problem plaguing most conspiracy theories there were so many people involved with David's life that knew the truth of his gender and since most people cant even keep minor secrets under the hatch, it isn't hard to see how David might have known outside of instinctual drives that he was born a male. There have been studies like those outlined in the book PINK BRAIN, BLUE BRAIN that show most people or at least a large amount of them who go through sex reassignment surgery early in life take no notice of their original gender in any regard and she further illustrates the problems associated with Reimer's case.

Lets pretend for a second though that everything about Reimer's story is unassailable and undeniable. "So what," is my answer to that. Stories like his and others are anecdotal evidence and despite the fact that they can tug at the emotional heartstrings of idiots that don't know anything about this debate, other than touting platitudes. His story in and of itself doesn't really tell us anything on a scientific level.

Simon Baron Cohen's studies are almost wholly conjecture and have been widely attacked in real academic circles. Because they make for intriguing headlines and stupid slogans like "extreme male brain" his studies have been canonized in pop science circles as the gospel. For one, in regards to the studies of children, babies in particular no effort was made to neutralize the setting the babies were in during the study. At almost all times the researchers were aware of the gender of the child they working with and this may have caused them to be biased during the experiment. Those who would throw this out as minor concern should note, that many studies of children dressed as the gender opposite to what they're, are treated drastically different even if the setting warrants no reason to make a fuss over gender differences. It might also be good to note, that those who have redone Cohen's studies with a more neutral setting and tone to their infants have not been able to reproduce the results Cohen's studies did. As outlined in the book DELUSIONS OF GENDER.

In regards to his views on Autism I would say he is almost completely false on an anatomical/neurological level. Both men and women get Aspergers, women with Aspergers do not act like men in fact they seem better able to cope with their Aspergers, for reasons that may be entirely in favor of women on an environmental level. That being, that women are expected to be more social so they're "forced" into more social situations and roles and thus learn through experience to accommodate themselves to these situations. This isn't just the case with women. We know it albeit anecdotal, that even men with extreme forms of autism can learn to cope more on a social level through experience. Kim Peek, the inspiration for the movie Rain Man, being a prime example of an autistic person who is forced into social situations. Learning through these "forced" experiences to acclimatize himself more to social experiences.

Let me also note though on the hard science side, that the side effects of autism may not have anything to do with the chemicals in a persons brain, but in how the brain wires itself or in how much room it has to do so. A young woman who was missing one half of her neo-cortex since birth showed many of the side effects of autism, she also showed other side effects, none of which resulted though in her being more masculine or boyish then other women. So what exactly does autism have to do with being male or extremely rational by proxy?

On the chemical level though, autism does not seem to be effected by androgens or testosterone specifically, something we would expect if Cohen's ideas were at all true. What about women bathed in male hormones at birth? A condition the name of which I cant remember right now, results in women showing some slightly masculine qualities in regards to visuospatial advantages. Differences that can ultimately be corrected for in regular women without the condition. These women show absolutely none of the characteristics inherent in the so called "extreme male brain" and yet on some level they would be the perfect exception to prove the rule, especially if they all happened to show more of a propensity for aspergers/vanilla autism. Alas they don't even seem less social then women with a regular chemical balance at birth.

His ideas rely almost entirely on another long debunked myth tied with gender issues regarding the left/right hemispheres, one of them supposedly being more rational the other intuitive/emotional. This too has long been debunked. The brain has "modules," but these are only rough areas of interest that don't always work the same way in individual brains and secondly the brain is an extremely plastic organ in the sense that it can accommodate for differences in individuals the way other anatomical localities cant quite seem to match in versatility. I would also say this relies on the compositional fallacy, early on in neuroscience they took a few parts of each side of the Neocortex to represent the whole of how each side functions. The brain is too interconnected to really work this way except as a working model for studying it and even on that level it has its problems.

I would like to also state, that his insistence on children liking specific toys and colors is something that has historically changed from culture to culture. Parents assuming that they "tried" to be as gender neutral to their children as possible, treat them differently anyway without noticing it. Ridley even admits as much near the end of the book and also alludes to the the pink/blue studies I mentioned earlier in regards to adults treating babies differently if they can even just guess at what their perceived gender might be. Parents aren't the whole world of their children either, they have other kids, their extended family and the media to shape their opinions about what their gender entails. The belief that a child's life starts and ends with its parents is as false as any other bit of "folk psychology" he attempts to debunk in this book.

The rest of the book gives out either general facts or things coaxed in such a way that they're supposed to shock you. Why does he in the rest of the book insist on the "nature via nurture" slogan and then turn his back on women in a completely heriditarian stance? One that I might add, if he took on race, his book wouldn't be published and he would most likely would lose friends and get fired from whatever job he has. Why doesn't he or Pinker make a soft hereditarian book in favor of light racism? His reasons in this are associated with nuances regarding his nature via nurture position, but he contradicts this wildly in specific instances. Why? Because Ridley like all pop scientists wants to come off as "controversial" but only as controversial as the fringes within the mainstream will allow him to be. It is fashionable to hate on feminism and women's issues. So in the most cowardly way possible he coaxes his book as being "anti-political correctness" along with other authors taking his particularly soft hereditarian stance such as Stephen Pinker to generate controversy over their work , but not in such a way that it will really get them into trouble. Women's lives and issues are always the canon fodder for men to get ahead, I'm not surprised by his cowardice in this regard, I'm surprised that people so eagerly lap it up and think these views are "concrete" and "real science."

I'm of the opinion that nature and nurture are the same thing as well. I agree with the central thesis of this book. I would even take the side of those who prize natural selection/sexual selection over the alternatives in the "evolution wars" of the last few decades. I'm just sick of authors peddling out bullshit, it is obvious they didn't research just so they can seem "edgy" and "shocking." I didn't really care for this book to say the least.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

May 26, 2007 Sarah rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Nicely written examination of a subject which everyone should understand. He does his best to put the "nature vs nuture" debate to rest. Informative without being dry.

3 likes · like · see review

Nov 07, 2007 Galen Maleficarum rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

My other favorite writer, next to Pinker. Ridley sets out to tear down the wall that has divided the "Nature vs Nurture" debate for centuries. Readable (as always from Ridley) and engrossing, this explains how environment can trigger genes, and how genes often determine which environments we choose.

If you entertain any notion that humans are unique, this book will seek to change your minds. By far my favorite parts are in his descriptions of Bonobos, Gorillas, and chimps.

1 like · like · see review

Oct 11, 2012 Henri Hämäläinen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The Agile Gene is book from Matt Ridley about genetics, evolution and how people are people. It starts form really early in first studies about human and behaviors. It tells a full journey to the latest genetics researches.

The main question in the book is the long lasting debate on nature, meaning the DNA and inherited things and nurture, the things that environment effects on people. It goes trough studies from both sides and digs deep in to the main pillars of the both explanations.

One by one...more

like · see review

Jan 22, 2009 Gerald Berke rated it 5 of 5 stars

A detailed, readable and witty treatise on how life is controlled by genes (nature) and how life controls genes (nurture). The research, the ideas, the roots of various theories of understanding from 100 years or more to studies that are quite current are all layed out.
I've listened to audio tapes of the book for a couple of years, and am now going carefully through the book, to locate and home in on specific details that I need to study to fully grasp.
The book is a marvelously readable compendi...more

like · see review

Nov 20, 2010 Igor Korousic rated it 3 of 5 stars

I've accepted the fact that nature combines with nurture to shape most things that constitute life. Matt repeats this like a communist parole in this book. Ok, i got that. But he has filled me up with so much information that i feel that i should read this book again and write down the essential stuff and then look at the extract and try to figure out the rules. Although i learned a lot from this book, i don't know much more about how nurture influences nature than i knew before i started readin...more

like · see review

Aug 19, 2011 Cassandra Silva rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science

I love this author. He is direct with his examples, moves quickly and yet you never feel like you miss a step. It's always very fluid and easy with Ridley. I preferred both the Genome and the Red Queen to this however, if you have yet to read much on the subject of genetics those would be a better start. Not because anything in this one is incomprehensible in the least bit without any other knowledge, but more just because if you had to pick any one of these awesome texts those would be a better...more

like · see review

Jul 09, 2012 Rob rated it 4 of 5 stars

Basic question - were you born with your personality/talents, or are you the product of the environment in which you were raised? The author argues it's not a nature or nurture debate, but a combination. The book is a great refresher course on many classic experiments (Pavlov's dog, teaching fear in animals, imprinting parents onto newborns, etc). I found the chapters on human instincts, and whether they are taught or innate, the most fascinating.

I found the theme of the book best expressed by...more

like · see review

Aug 22, 2012 Seán Hudson rated it 2 of 5 stars

I feel bad giving this book a rating, since it has been one of those rare ones that I decided to stop reading despite having only managed a few chapters. I did skim through a fair bit of the rest, and saw that the interesting facts and historical figures associated with the nurture-nature debate persist throughout the book. Those were the bits that made it informative and interesting. But I had some serious issues with some of Ridley's opinions disguised as fact, as well as some technical choice...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 29, 2013 Meghan Britz rated it 4 of 5 stars

Excellent book. I paid 75 cents for a book that gives me unlimited knowledge. I'm extremely satisfied, and I'm craving to find more books like this.I would recommend it to anyone interested in biology, or simply just intrigued in the argument nature vs nurture. I was absolutely thrilled to find Ridley taking neither side (such a petty argument). But what I loved most about this book is the fact ANYONE could pick it up and understand.

I'm excited to pick up more of his books, and find authors simi...more

like · see review

Aug 19, 2008 Brandon Clark rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Good book on the role played by genetics and experience on psychology and biology.

1 like · like · see review

Nov 17, 2011 David rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science

Ridley is quickly becoming one of my favorite science writers yet. The Agile Gene was a nice follow up to Genome, exploring the nature-nurture link more in depth. He does a wonderful job summarizing the latest (and not so latest) research findings in the field and painting a pretty accurate picture for the layman with great analogies.

He gives a summary of the major 20th century trends in psychology: including the usual (mostly deserved) jabs at Freud (he also gives Freud credit for his emphasis...more

like · see review

Jan 15, 2011 Toni Daugherty rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Our genes and the promoters that switch them are what determine many of our decisions and physical outcomes. The dominant theme of Ridley's book is that the human genome is not simply a blueprint that will determine what an animal ends up physically, but rather, a flexible entity that also affects the processes of daily life and choices. He argues that environment also plays a role, and the nature v. nurture debate is a ridiculous one, once one sees this. When one studies the effects of genes, p...more Our genes and the promoters that switch them are what determine many of our decisions and physical outcomes. The dominant theme of Ridley's book is that the human genome is not simply a blueprint that will determine what an animal ends up physically, but rather, a flexible entity that also affects the processes of daily life and choices. He argues that environment also plays a role, and the nature v. nurture debate is a ridiculous one, once one sees this. When one studies the effects of genes, promoters, proteins, neurons, it is hard to give dignity to a nature/nurture debate. A gene can be affected by its environment adding another layer to the outcome of an expressed gene. Ridley explains how propogating nerve cells are sensitive to the environment - allowing a switching off/on effect that determines the outcome of that cell or many outcomes. However, it is not a linear effect, but rather a circular one, with environment and heredity playing a role. This makes for a complicated understanding of the processes of the animal body and the brain.

I thought it was especially interesting that once again the environment, in the development of children, which has the greatest effect on the outcomes of children is not the household or the parents. I've read this many times before and this idea is well explained in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, which offers explanations of how children's environments are their peers - not their parents. It must be then, that in situations where it seems their parents have a huge impact, that in fact, the parents have merely chosen to spend time with other parents just like them, whose children probably have the same values. In societies that are homogenous, it's expected that it will appear that the parents have a huge impact but it's probably the peers that are affecting other children's behavior.

That is really a side note, however. Ridley's book is really about the agility of a gene and how there is a complex number of things affecting that gene at different times, and how it will respond differently and sometimes numerously. One cause is not one effect. One cause can be many effects.(less)

like · see review

Mar 01, 2012 Elphaba rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

GREAT BOOK - lots of science and even though it was published before the Human Genome project was finished, we (my book discussion group) could find nothing out of date about the data - basic premise: that Genes are not static but are an active and varying and incredibly wondrous part of the development of homo sapiens from conception to death. Many genes change sometimes as often as every second and sometimes as often as once in a lifetime and sometimes never depending on DNA switches that resp...more

like · see review

Jul 13, 2011 Aaron Michaux rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The best book I have ever read on the nature-nurture debate. Ridley is an engaging author who weaves a tapestry of science, politics, history and anecdote. The binding thread are famous scientists and philosophers who have framed the nature-nurture debate over the past few hundred years. All of them have introduced profound insights, and if you were to put them all in a room together, then surely their bushy beards would all get tangled up.

Apart from the human and political element, I loved Ridl...more

like · see review

Nov 20, 2008 Jon rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book is a great introduction to modern genetics. It's an easy read, which covers a great breadth of topics, while going into detail only when needed. Using examples seen in nature (mostly from various scientific studies), this book explores how genes are affected by the environment and how the genetic machinery works in general. This book is defiantly worth reading if you are interested in genetics

like · see review

Dec 07, 2010 Kirsty Darbyshire rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: paperback

Fabulous look into the relationship between genes and environment. Though it's left me more confused than ever. Though more informed than ever too. In summary, and as the title of the book sums up very neatly, there is no "versus" in the nature v. nurture debate. Great writer - the amount of information is enormous but the text is eminently readable all the same.

like · see review

Nov 24, 2008 Sarah rated it 4 of 5 stars

I read this on the beach a few years ago. While baking my skin cells in the sun wasnt highly conducive to my brain cells retaining statistical information and theories on genetics, one theory did manage to lodge itself in my toasted brain- the argument for biological gay-ness, which I still cite today when embattled with homophobes.

like · see review

Dec 30, 2011 Randy rated it 4 of 5 stars

More in-depth than other Ridley books I've read (and that makes it more satisfying somehow).

In a nutshell, Ridley is discussing the nature vs. nurture argument: are organisms the product of their genes? or their upbringing?

He spends a chapter examining the history of the argument from Plato through Darwin... then the rest of the book on the pendulum swings since Darwin.

In short, he holds that the answer is "Yes." Genes help determine development, but are affected by events and chance.

Lots of t...more

like · see review

Sep 01, 2011 Voodoochilli rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science

To me this book felt like a padded out version of Genome, incidentally an excellent book. If you have read Genome recently, then you will notice many, many facts being repeated here almost verbatim. On it's own, this book is probably great, but it is a lousy read if Genome is still fresh in your memory.

like · see review

May 30, 2012 Hugo Luis rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

La eterna polémica entre los que afirman que son los genes los que dirigen el desarrollo de un organismo y lo que afirman que es el entorno. El autor nos presenta un esquema en el que ambos elementos establecen un diálogo constructivo que determina el camino que sigue el desarrollo de los organismos.

like · see review

Dec 28, 2010 Jeff Herman rated it 4 of 5 stars

This books offers some interesting perspectives on a topic that has perplexed scienctists for decades. After reading the book I still believe that both nature (our biochemistry) and nuture together both play a prominent role in who we are as individuals.

like · see review

Apr 18, 2012 Fernando del Alamo rated it 3 of 5 stars

El título en castellano es "Qué nos hace humanos". Es un libro que analiza de dónde viene el comportamiento del hombre, si es genético o sólo depende del ambiente. Para ello, habla de diferentes tesis. Está muy bien porque justifica que todas las teorías tienen parte de razón: no somos totalmente genéticos en ese aspecto ni dependemos totalmente del entorno. Tiene algunos párrafos realmente buenos. Muy recomendable.

like · see review

Dec 22, 2008 Laura rated it 4 of 5 stars

Matt Ridley has the amazing ability to take science and make it completely understandable without trivializing it or making it mundane. As a total psych nerd, I loved this book!

like · see review

Oct 11, 2011 Brenda Clough rated it 4 of 5 stars

I love the clarity of Ridley's writing. With his books I feel I really do understand the subject -- compare and contrast with Stephen Hawking, where I can feel my cortex starting to smoke.

like · see review

Jan 17, 2009 Katrina rated it 5 of 5 stars

Probably now completely outdated, but really interesting nonetheless. Planning on reading The Agile Gene next. Matt Ridley reminds me that I don't hate science.

like · see review

Apr 30, 2010 Christopher rated it 4 of 5 stars

Great book. I've read a few by Matt Ridley now and I find myself agreeing with many of his conclusions. His writing style is mediocre, but the content is golden.

like · see review

Nov 01, 2012 Kallie Desruisseaux rated it 5 of 5 stars

Really good book in a subject that I love. Anyone who has ever asked the question "Nature or Nurture?" should read this book. Really well done!

like · see review

Jul 13, 2011 Meesh rated it 4 of 5 stars

Everything is not written in our genes or by our parents. We determine much of it through the choices we make on our paths. So many factors shape us.

like · see review

Jan 26, 2012 Robin rated it 4 of 5 stars

This really should be 3.5 stars, but I'll round up. Some of it was too technical (aka boring) for me so I skipped over, but it did include many interesting studies. I read the entire book and STILL have no idea what the point of writing it was except to give the reader a lot of seemingly unconnected information. But it was written simply enough that a non-science person could mostly understand.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 74 75 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (15)

More editions...

Genres

Science

113 users

Non Fiction

43 users

Science > Biology

18 users

Biology > Genetics

17 users

Biology > Evolution

15 users

Psychology

14 users

Science > Popular Science

6 users

Philosophy

2 users

Culture > Society

2 users

Biology > Neuroscience

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Matt Ridley

The Hon. Matthew White Ridley (born 7 February 1958, in Northumberland) is an English science writer, businessman and aristocrat. Ridley was educated at Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford where he received a doctorate in zoology before commencing a career in journalism. Ridley worked as the science editor of The Economist from 1984 to 1987 and was then its Washington correspondent from 1987 to 1989...more

More about Matt Ridley...

Books by Matt Ridley

Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation

Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Nature Via Nurture

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: Nature Via Nurture
avg rating	preview: Nature Via Nurture Goodreads rating: 4.04 (1136 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/80035.Nature_Via_Nurture?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348690229l/80035.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/80035.Nature_Via_Nurture?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Nature Via Nurture by Matt Ridley[/url]

Nature Via Nurture

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website