Rating: 
Summary: Non Zero 1, Author 0
Review: While the over all theme of the book is almost unassailable, the author lends himself to criticism on almost every page. For example, "There is today a lot more pig DNA around than its undomesticated kin, wild boar DNA. In that sense--in the Darwinian Sense--getting eaten is the best thing that ever happened to pork." It almost seems the author does more to invalidate his position than to justify it.
Rating: 
Summary: It makes perfect sense
Review: Nonzero is the most interesting non-fiction book I've ever read. It has given me a new perspective on history, not to mention biology as well. The application of game theory to evolution - both cultural and biological - makes perfect sense. It evinces the essence of evolution and natural selection. For such a heavy subject Wright's writing style is nicely conversational, and rather witty. But this does not mean that the book lacks rigor. Anyone who claims that he doesn't convincingly argue points and back up his thesis with facts is, well, crazy. A 16 page bibliography, 51 pages of endnotes (that are as informative as the text itself) and 2 appendices, prove that he has done his share research. He synthesizes a wealth of diverse information into clear, concise chapters. He presents other viewpoints and demonstrates their faults and merits. But the most impressive thing about the book is its unwavering logic. There is no mathematical/scientific proof of evolutionary direction in this book, only constant and persuasive logic. It makes sense.
Rating:
Summary: Ambitious, erudite, extraordinary
Review: Wright's ambition is no less than to offer an analog of physical science's elusive unified theory. He wants to explain the entire course of human history. To an astonishing degree, he succeeds. His erudition is almost overwhelming. He ranges fluidly from cellular biology to Chinese history to Islamic theology. And he does so in a style that is both friendly and accessible. Reading Nonzero is like having a pleasant, extended conversation over brandy with a wise friend who's had time to read and ponder all the books you've wished you read but haven't gotten to yet. No doubt this will expose Wright to scads of petty complaints from academics who are so narrowly focused on departmental politics and the minutiae of their dissertations that they not only can't see the forest, but have forgotten its existence. For the rest of us, though, Nonzero is a treat.
Rating: 
Summary: when right trite when nocel wrong
Review: This book is a pretentious regurgitation of a half-digested science. The logic of the book goes like this. First, cooperation problems are ubiquitous in social and economic interactions (a common place idea). Second, human societies cope with these problems by devising institutions aimed at detecting cheaters and spreading information about them (also a common place idea barely worth repeating). And third, successful cooperation not only creates immediate material gains, but also gives rise to the need of more cooperation as some interactions that were hitherto impossible become viable (this idea, despite being the key for the whole book, is barely stated and never convincingly proved). If you want to write about science, it makes sense to use some method. State your hypothesis first and then show the evidence. Wright mixes up theory and evidence, perhaps knowing that his arguments wouldn't withstand any serious scrutiny.
Rating:
Summary: a popular spin on a heavy subject
Review: This is a brave attempt to bring a very intimidating and contentious subject to popular attention. It is fashionable to insist that science has poven that life has no purpose or direction. Wright argues instead for the idea of evolution as having "complexity", intelligence , and, hopefully, some measure of moral progress as its goal. Contrary to making modern life meaningless, science of evolution has opened up the possibility that human consciousness has a place in an ongoing process towards a better world. I thought his speculations on "meta evolution" and religion were particularly insightful. It is a much more personal, speculative, and far reaching book than his excellent " Moral Animal". Wright is taking some personal risks in stating his beliefs so openly -something that most scientist cannot or will not reveal. I can think of few subjects that become so pretentious and overbearing, yet Wright very deliberiately attempts this important subject in a direct and down to earth manner designed not to impress but to communicate to as wide a readership as possible. It is a record of a man trying to think through a difficult subject as earnestly as he can, knowing that he cannot have all the answers. It his best honest guess about one of the most important issues of the day. If anyone has ever read a better spin on this subject I would love to know about it. One caution: I would read "The Moral Animal" first. "Non Zero" is very much a follow up.
Rating: 
Summary: Nonzero adds more light to our dark corner
Review: Twenty five years ago, Albert Camus' The Stranger overwhelmed me; it seemed to speak directly to my teenage angst. I plunged into the stacks to read (or try to read) other "existential" writers, and though I didn't find the answers I was seeking, Camus' book started me down a path of my own making. Robert Wright's Moral Animal had the same dramatic impact on my thinking; my interest in evolution started with Stephen Jay Gould's Reflections on Natural History series and accelerated with Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct, but Wright's book articulated evolutionary theory by speaking to the most personal of human experiences: relations between men and women. The ideas weren't his, he just provided the magnifying glass and suddenly many things came into focus: never seen before but now perfectly obvious. My book list swerved heavily through his bibliography, and reading suddenly felt urgent. One quickly realizes, however, bold new ideas in this field are hard to come by. In many cases, writers such as Gould and Stephen Dawkins, appear to have been distracted by their public relations battle with the forces of creationism. Their books read like it. Wright and Pinker seem to have a different perspective, one that assumes the world accepts evolution as fact and settles into the next stage of the discussion: what does it truly mean? In his new book, Nonzero, Robert Wright offers a few ideas of his own. As a result, whereas Moral Animal had a crisp pace, now he must spend more ink detailing the evidence that supports his credibility. The book reads long but as anyone who has perserved through Stephen Dawkins' books knows, the ideas are what matter most. Is evolution directional? Is it directional because we tend to cooperate. I believe and hope our children will look back from a better future and wonder what all the fuss was about. Most of those publishing commercial books on human evolutionary theory are academics; as an accomplished journalist and a writer incapable of writing a boring sentence, Robert Wright has little competition. His ability to attract a mainstream audience makes him one of the most important voices on this subject.
Rating: 
Summary: pothole
Review: This is a very preliminary reaction. Got to page 5. Decided to check referenced "prisoners dilemma" on pg 341. My dilemma is why does "you" wind up with two 10yr options while "him" does not get any. They both are shown with equal 3yr and 1yr options. Is that what is meant by a non-zero-sum?
Rating:
Summary: Tenative Review
Review: I am having a bit of trouble seeing Wright's "ghost in the machine" (I do not doubt that there is one!) but is Wright trying to emphasize 'emergence and chaos theory as the "elan vital" for human evolution? I will re-read-but it seems to me that conclusions are scarce in Wright's Non-Zero. I think the problem is that I tend to aim for reductionist analysis (gear A turning Spindle B) and Wrights more or less Holistic perspective-which is equally true but damn hard to demonstrate.
Rating:
Summary: Middle Brow Nonsense
Review: Theoretically it shouldn't take much time to get through this psuedo intellectual romp, for the writing is breezy. But even the few hours seems time ill spent. This is poorly reasoned, poorly argued tripe, so riddled with falacies and misleading interpretations of the evidence that it does not merit serious consideration.
Rating:
Summary: Selectionism and Directionality
Review: ... Kauffman's At Home in the Universe is careful thus to distinguish his different processes. The fanstastic use of the theory of games is not evidence, but hypothetical speculation. We have no evidence whatever that genes for altruism arose through natural selection.(David Stowe, Darwinian Fairytales),and the theory of games, as a mathematical toy, however interesting, will not resolve the issue and is too lightweight to be a candidate for the 'logic of destiny'! This book is the second this year on evolutionary directionality to cite Kant's seldom cited essay Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose. It is not clear if he is responding to this other book (by John Landon, World History and the Eonic Effect)which answers Kant's challenge to find 'nature's hidden plan' directly through periodization and shows the only simple way to infer directionality as this can be taken in world history, data that springs from observations beginning in the nineteenth century. Evolution in history shows a clear global character with long range sequential and parallel evolution, a far cry from anything in Darwinism. And we see that the 'evolution of ethics' is presented to us directly in history if we can see it. No theory of history can omit this data. Wright's misleading treatment of the theme of 'asocial sociability' might seem plausible to some in Kant's at first puzzling essay, but fails to consider the background of his famous Critiques and also that this is not given as a solution but a problem to be solved. Kant cannot be made a Darwinian and was wise to the fallacy of mechanical explanations of ethical will long before the onset of sociobiology (although he would seem to have supported 'evolution').Along with this we find the obligatory citation of Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper on historicism. Wright actually claims he will bypass their objections and find a novel escape from their strictures, but it is hard to see his answer. The total confusion of directionality and teleology is evident everywhere. The problem of historical laws is connected to the famous Kantian antinomies, the third of freedom and causality being the ultimate source of Berlin and Popper's views. To attempt a hybrid between natural selection and teleology via the theory of games is notably confusing and won't stand. The point is that there is no 'theory' that is causal unless you renounce 'freedom', this and a host of variants that were prominent in the golden age of Universal History. Evolutionists make fun of this and promptly fall into all the traps. In Kant's wake dealing with the evolution of freedom in explicit terms we find such as Hegel, lately Fukuyama. Sociobiologists are noted for their blundering in this area with conservative renditions of liberalism and fail to consider that one of the proper themes of historical evolution is just this 'evolution of freedom', which cannot be made scientific (and prone no doubt to whiggish confusion). The philosophers of history were at least clear about their subject. Wright's argument summons all the old phantoms of historicism and hardly passes muster beside Popper's critique of the original leftist versions.
John Landon ...
|
