“Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst” by Robert Sapolsky

This is a book that has been on my list for a while, and I am glad that I finally got around to reading it. Sapolsky’s writing style is very approachable, and he has included multiple appendices for those that need a quick recap on the basics of science. But you can also totally skip that if you want.

One of the aspects of this book that I liked the best was how the information was organized. Essentially, Sapolsky is looking backwards from the moment that an action has taken place. So the first section focuses on what happened seconds before, then minutes, then hours, then childhood, then culture, and so on. The radius of focus continually gets larger and larger throughout the book. It is a really great way to structure the information, since that also means that we move from the more concrete and accessible examples (as in hormones and the like) to the more abstract like cultural norms and childhood events. Each chapter investigates in depth what causes our actions and what influences our choices (if we have them, it gets philosophical towards the end as free will is discussed). This lends the information a logical flow and makes it readable.

Another aspect of this book that I really enjoyed was how Sapolsky includes all of the different viewpoints on a topic. In particular, a while ago I read Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature and really enjoyed it (post here). However, Sapolsky takes the time to really examine and present the critics of Pinker in order to show his limitations and points of controversy. As a result, I feel like I have a better understanding of both Pinker and Sapolsky. Many theories are given a similar treatment to show how little we still know about ourselves as species and our choices over time.

Having discussed all of that, there is an aspect of Sapolsky’s writing style that drives me up a friggin wall. He uses footnotes way too much and for objectively useless reasons. No joke, there’s a footnote that simply reads “I have no idea what this means” towards the end of one of the chapters. I get that he is trying to make his style more user-friendly and accessible no matter what your background is, but it is also annoying as hell when you have to continually break focus from the chapter to read an inane comment like that. Granted, not all of them are that irritating. Most are personal anecdotes that understandably do not contribute to the main passage. But still, so many of them are incredibly pointless and it irked me throughout the book.

So to summarize, this is a well thought-out book about science that could have been written better. It is still a fascinating read that synthesizes the available information well. Just do not expect too much from the author’s voice.