Skip to main content

Tribal - Michael Morris ****

Before I got into popular science books I was a big fan of the really impressive business book - something like, for instance, Maverick, Ricardo Semler's astonishing account of transforming a family business. Now mostly a reader of popular science, I find most business books facile and full of padding - so it was refreshing to read this business-popular science crossover on the nature of our 'tribal' cultural instincts - primarily relating to peers, heroes and ancestors in the broadest sense and how these influence our interactions.

Although in some ways I'd dispute Michael Morris's approach in putting tribalism central - I personally am more inclined to see the way we tell each other stories as central to what he describes, with tribalism just as symptom of that - it is still an engaging hypothesis. Morris gives us plenty of examples from around the world of the benefits that these instincts have brought over the millennia.

Perhaps particularly interesting at a time when American politics has been described as 'toxic tribalism' is Morris's take on this. He starts strongly with a story of sharing a cab with a Republican on the night Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016, emphasising the shock realisation that his own Democrat tribalism was just as much based on poor understanding as was his opponent's Republican equivalent. There is also an attempt to suggest a way to reduce the toxicity by moving from an 'anti-them' approach to a 'pro-us' approach, though this is a little short on practical solutions. 

All in all, I found the book engaging, but part of the reason I consider it a business book crossover is that, unlike a true popular science book it is very shallow in the way it engages with the science, using lots (and lots) of passing references to studies which hardly ever give any detail of what was involved or the science behind them. (I also consider it a business book as it was shortlisted for the FT business book of the year.)

Worryingly, there is not a mention of the replication crisis that has rocked psychology and other soft sciences - not only are many of the studies referenced from the pre-2012 period when it has been suggested around two thirds of studies were useless, Morris even references some that have been specifically debunked.

Because, however, we are presented with quite a shallow take, this is more forgivable than in book with a purer popular science approach. Even though the grounding in academic research may be limited, it's hard not to feel that there is a genuine basis for this concept. I can't entirely forgive the author for ignoring the replication crisis, but this doesn't nullify the engaging nature of the premise.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more