Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Learn more Handmade Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Pre-order now Shop now


Your rating(Clear)Rate this item
Share your thoughts with other customers

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 23 May 2012
There's never been a shortage of advice on how to have the perfect relationship, and on how to fix it when it goes wrong. Rather less attention is paid to whether such "conflict-free relationships" are even possible, let alone attainable. In this fascinating book, Paul Seabright explains why conflict comes as a package deal with the kind of cooperation that is unique to our species and that characterizes all our relationships, personal or professional. The romantics among us will be reassured that understanding the biology of human evolution does not mean the end of love. And although this book will leave you a little less misty-eyed about the business of coupling, there is still plenty of mystery to keep you on your toes.

Seabright's central claim is that conflict "exists in a particularly complicated form between men and women because human beings are the most cooperative species on earth". Driving the evolution of cooperation was our ancestors' colonization of a very risky evolutionary niche: the long childhood. Giving birth to helpless offspring and having them hang around for years in a state of utter dependence on kin does not sound like a recipe for evolutionary success, and it nearly didn't work out for us (every other hominin species went extinct). Yet here we are, not only in vast numbers on the planet but working together in groups of a size not seen elsewhere in nature. (Seabright has written about this in The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life (Revised Edition) and Jonathan Haidt emphasizes our capacity for non-kin groupishness in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.)

The book "is about the traces our evolutionary past have left on the economic relations between men and women in the twenty-first century". If "economic relations" sounds a bit dry, Seabright is referring here to the systematic ways in which we negotiate over things we value, "whether these are obviously economic goods like money and food, or other, nonmonetary resources like time, effort, and self-esteem". In other words, all those things familiar to anyone who's ever been in a relationship. And how do we negotiate? Rationally, as perfect economic agents with access to complete information? Or do we sometimes rely more on our instincts and emotions to do the work?

Many thinkers from David Hume to Robert Frank (Passions within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions) have recognized the power of the emotions (which fact has also kept many novelists and poets in work). The importance of the emotions in decision making is also becoming better appreciated (see, for example, Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain). Seabright emphasizes their evolutionary history, that while our emotions "started out as natural selection's way of directing our attention to things that mattered for our fitness" they "have become the things that matter in themselves". That can be a problem, when the fitness landscape (which now includes things like contraception) they used to help navigate has changed beyond all recognition.

Add to this that natural selection "does not fashion optimal relationships, not even in the limited sense in which it has fashioned optimal physical hearts", and it's not surprising that evolution has not given us relationships that last a lifetime. "If relationships do last a lifetime, it is because the parties can be lucid and constructive about reconciling their conflicting interests."

What has any of this got to do with the world of work? How can it explain why women represent only 32 percent of lawyers and 1.3 percent of airline pilots, or why women's salaries continue to be lower than men's even within occupations, or why "many of the most prestigious and highly remunerated positions continue to have startlingly low rates of representation of women"?

These are highly puzzling facts. Before the 20th century there would of course have been nothing strange about the absence of women from many workplaces. Now, given the remarkable and unprecedented century-long social experiment to remove obstacles to the division of labour between men and women, it's a different story. There are many more women in the labour market, and they are even in a slight majority in "management, professional and related occupations". However, inequalities remain. Seabright argues that a combination of two factors is responsible. There are differences in preferences for which woman pay a high price, and there are subtle differences "between men and women that can operate to make the talents of women less conspicuous to potential colleagues and employers than those of equivalently talented men." For example, women "caring for children signal a quality - conscientiousness - that employers really value [but] employers are not present to observe them with their children, and women continue to pay a high price for their absence from the workplace during those years."

One thing both sides of the war between the sexes can agree on is that we have bigger brains than peacocks. Unlike the peacock, we humans can devise "less wasteful ways to reveal our talents and motivations to each other" and so escape the signalling trap that condemns the male birdbrain to an arms race of tail feathers and strutting to and fro. Whether we will is another question, of course, although our chances will be improved by reading Paul Seabright.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
There are two main themes to Seabright's book. One is an attempt to place human beings in an evolutionary context. The other is an examination of the question why women are less well paid than men in today's workplace in developed countries.

While I learned something from both parts/themes of the books, neither was quite as enlightening as I'd hoped it would be.

The point from which it starts, and the main theme of its first part, is placing human being in the context of evolution and the behaviour of other species. There's a role for 'salesmanship' as Seabright puts it (deception and self-deception is the way in which I've seen it described by Robert Trivers) in many species - you big up your offerings, they're not altogether without truth but you're definitely putting the best spin you can on things, whether you are human or some other species. We are 'hard-wired' through our emotions for 'rule of thumb' type judgements - and for example think people who can produce genuine smiles will be more trustworthy and richer than those who can't (and actually we are right). We also rate tall people (who are actually smarter than those who are shorter, for the most part) but we over-rate them. We carry in our bodies the traces of our evolution - judging by comparisons with chimpanzees, bonobos etc, we've certainly had periods when we weren't uniquely monogamous and women, in particular, had relationships with many men...We both compete and cooperate in our lives generally and in our love lives and our signalling reflects that - how much of our signalling is like the male peacock and its displays or male song-birds (those who are good at singing do have better brains!) - is not terribly clear, though. (Presenteeism ind the office is like this though, Seabright suggests.)

But, moving on to the theme of the second part of the book, we are social animals and our societies are many and various (hunter gatherer, farmer, modern day). A puzzle that Seabright works on is why, in the modern world, do women have a lower share of resources than men. He thinks maybe they take time out for children (men who take time out from their careers also earn less than those who don't). And maybe they have different kinds of network (more strong ties, fewer weak ties) that don't serve them so well in the workplace when it comes to getting back on or up to the top of a career ladder. Moreover, we need to reflect that the nature of jobs changes - and that what will be uniquely rewarded are jobs that only you can do well and others can't do so well (ie jobs that it's hard to commoditise - Seabright refers to this as jobs that require 'charm').

So, there is some interest here and I certainly learned something from this book. But for a practical book about women in the workplace, Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In would be a strong recommendation. And for a theoretical book based on statistical research. Alison Wolf's The XX Factor is full of interest.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 February 2016
Some interesting ideas and facts about the reasons for Early societies to have inequality between the sexes, but I did not find much that was new in the discussion of present day situations.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)