Good: Nice layout and interesting details in the info boxes.
Bad:
1) Some sentences are so poorly written so that the point of the researches that it refers to is lost or easily misunderstood. F.ex. page 361 (2014 edition): ”Men are more likely to think about their secuality in terms of power than are women (Andersen, Cyranowski, Espindle, 1999).” I was left to think about what did this sentence mean. Surely it provokes thoughts and probably everyone who reads it quickly might make a vague idea of it based on his or her personal experiences and schemas. However, it’s a very vague sentence indeed. ”In terms of” and ”power” are extremely vague words and make me wonder if the writer knew what the original source meant with this either. Who has power over what or who? Power is always in relation of something to something but these are not defined here. ”In terms of” can also mean multiple different relations of things in my opinion. Nothing else is said on the page to explain this sentence so I actually learned zero and was just left with confusion and potentially even worse: misconceptions that tell more about my cultural background and experiences than about whatever the original reasearch has said. This is not the only sentence like this in the same chapter 12. (I admit, I left the book half unread and will try to find a more informative alternative, any suggestions?)
2) By now the book is very outdated. I bet there would be much newer research on many of the phenomena, like mental disorders, Alzheimer or sexuality that are still being actively studied on.
3) If you don’t operate in the US, you may be left wondering whether certain researches and results apply to other than American population. In many points, the book doesn’t clear out from which population the research results are based on, or to which cultures they can be applied to. Some of them apply only to the US while for example in my country Finland things are very different.