When I read Sapiens, the real shift in perspective was not in the details but in the perspective the author was using to view humanity. The boldness and firmness in answering the big questions is what I enjoyed the most. Things like what made humanity dominant, the big trends on human cultures, the subject/object and intersubjective realties, the important role of fiction etc..
In the end what he's telling is half fact half myth, in that he's making a narrative to justify things which though convincing may not be entirely true or the entire truth. So as with all history to be taken with a grain of salt. But yes it was a very good narrative and I have read other books by him that are as captivating such as Homo Deus.
After reading Debt by David Graeber, I felt like the treatment of early economics in Sapiens was a bit superficial. This isn't to say that I think one is "wrong", and I'm certainly no expert in the area. Debt made me think in ways that those parts of Sapiens didn't.
As just one example of very poor reasoning, I found his treatment of how/why patriarchy is so common to be rather poorly reasoned. He basically says:
"It can't be strength because the strongest person doesn't usually rule societies." Then moves on to, "men are more violent and therefore may make better soldiers, but fighting doesn't mean you'll be successful at leadership." Finally he says, "maybe there are evolutionary pressures that would make men more competitive and ambitious and make women more subservient, but women could gain power by cooperating amongst themselves and we see matriarchal societies among animals so that can't be it."
The first 2 are basically restatements of themselves, and he completely ignores how strength or violence can establish conditions where the stronger party would gain power without the strongest individual within that party necessarily leading the whole group. In essence, strength contributes to patriarchy, which then is self-reinforcing and within the group of strong people there are many qualities that can bring out a leader. He glosses over the volumes of examples from history of military leaders taking over societies. Those leaders had to be good fighters to rise through the ranks and earn their soldier's respect. Then they had the army to impose their will. Seems plausible, fairly obvious, but he doesn't address it.
The 3rd is really oddly toxic because it suggests maybe a genetic subservience. I personally find that hard to square with the people I know and what I understand about genetics, particularly that very complex traits such as social behavior are extremely unlikely to have strong genetic ties at a population level. So much gets influenced by culture. See for example the tribe of baboons that went from patriarchal to matriarchal [1]. It's good that he dismisses it, but he should have emphasized culture more.
Essentially he doesn't consider that reasons 1+2 could predispose to one type of dynamic (stronger people have more power) which will then tip over into patriarchy, and once a social system is established it takes a lot to change that system. Many arguments in the book could have been made in 1/3 the amount of text, and could have been made better.
Small other annoyance: at one point he says that until modern times nobody wanted to travel, that the desire to travel is a consumerist urge and a demonstration of wealth. Nevermind that for most of human history it would have been insane to even think of traveling more than a few dozen miles from home and BTW that would have taken months/years, and anyway you probably wouldn't have known that things like the pyramids (picking a random example) existed at all. So how exactly does he conclude people didn't want to travel for leisure because they weren't poisoned by consumer culture?
I agree. Discounting the "men are better fighters but that doesn't make them leaders" is pretty silly. To me this is such an obvious driver for patriarchal society it's amazing anyone would argue with it.
I've spent some time in areas immediately after a natural disaster, when looting is a possibility and governments and law enforcement is no longer effective. Even those times are relatively safe, but strong people with guns immediately become very appealing people to have on your side in situations like that.
Thinking about tribal societies and evolution, those societies that are best able to protect their reproductive capacity (women and children) from the elements and other humans are obviously going to survive in much greater numbers over those that are not. This has to have an effect on gender roles. You can lose half the men and reproduce at the same rate. You can't lose the women.
One form of travel important in the pre-modern world was the religious pilgrimage. Considering the risks it’s surprising people undertook them at all.
The reason fighters were leaders probably had as much to do with practicality as “domination”, because organizing society for war was a big undertaking and extended into peace time. Even in societies where women are now acknowledged to have held considerable power, like the historical Cherokee, the military hierarchy had considerable social power during peace time and was majority male.
The second point is also toxic because it suggests a genetic anti-social behavior. I find that to go against current research into genetics and behavioral genetics, with aggression and violence being complex social traits which is extremely unlikely to have strong genetic ties at a population level. So much gets influenced by culture.
> The nature of the book necessitates gross generalizations. It literally could not be anything else.
If you say so.
I don't think that's a shield against criticism. His treatment of humanism is asinine. In addition to engaging in gross generalizations on the topic, he is - to use your words - "really wrong." Getting the history of modern ideas right seems like it ought to be the easy part with a book like this, particularly if you're content with generalizations.
This particular critique of Hariri - that his characterization of humanism is stupid - is apparently rather unpopular here. It'd be interesting to understand why.
It’s interesting that science-minded people seem to like it so much. I gave up pretty quickly as it seemed like he was just writing a narrative without much science to back it up.
Do you not think that science is filled with similar myth making based on scientific facts?... which are then quickly revised when new information which contradicts those facts is discovered.
