What do you think?
Rate this book
The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill
Though we may like to believe that murderers are pathological misfits and hardened criminals, the vast majority of murders are committed by people who, until the day they kill, would seem to be perfectly normal. The Murderer Next Door is a riveting look into the dark underworld of the human psyche, an exploration of when and why we kill and what might push any one of us over the edge. A leader in the innovative field of evolutionary psychology, David Buss conducted an unprecedented set of studies investigating the underlying motives and circumstances of murders, from the bizarre outlier cases of serial killers to those of the friendly next-door neighbor who one day kills his wife.
Reporting on findings that are often startling and counter-intuitive, he puts forth a bold new general theory of homicide, arguing that the human psyche has evolved specialized adaptations whose function is to kill. Taking readers through the surprising twists and turns of the evolutionary logic of murder, he explains exactly when each of us is most at risk, both of being murdered and of becoming a murderer.
Featuring gripping storytelling about specific murder cases, The Murderer Next Door will be necessary reading for those fascinated by books on profiling, lovers of true crime and murder mysteries, and readers intrigued by the inner workings of the human mind.
Reporting on findings that are often startling and counter-intuitive, he puts forth a bold new general theory of homicide, arguing that the human psyche has evolved specialized adaptations whose function is to kill. Taking readers through the surprising twists and turns of the evolutionary logic of murder, he explains exactly when each of us is most at risk, both of being murdered and of becoming a murderer.
Featuring gripping storytelling about specific murder cases, The Murderer Next Door will be necessary reading for those fascinated by books on profiling, lovers of true crime and murder mysteries, and readers intrigued by the inner workings of the human mind.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
About the author
David M. Buss
50 books653 followersDavid M. Buss is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, known for his evolutionary psychology research on human sex differences in mate selection.
Buss earned his PhD in psychology at University of California, Berkeley in 1981. Before becoming a professor at the University of Texas, he was assistant professor for four years at Harvard University, and he was a professor at the University of Michigan for eleven years.
The primary topics of his research include mating strategies, conflict between the sexes, social status, social reputation, prestige, the emotion of jealousy, homicide, anti-homicide defenses, and—most recently—stalking. All of these are approached from an evolutionary perspective. Buss is the author of more than 200 scientific articles and has won many awards, including an APA Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology in 1988 and an APA G. Stanley Hall Lectureship in 1990.
Buss is the author of a number of publications and books, including The Evolution of Desire, The Dangerous Passion, and The Murderer Next Door, which introduces a new theory of homicide from an evolutionary perspective. He is also the author of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, whose fourth edition was released in 2011. In 2005, Buss edited a reference volume, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. His latest book is Why Women Have Sex, which he coauthored with Cindy Meston.
Buss is involved with extensive cross-cultural research collaborations and lectures within the U.S.
Education:
Ph.D.University of California,Berkeley:1981
B.A.University of Texas, Austin: 1976
Academic Employment History:
1996-Present Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin.
1991-1996 Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1985-1991 Associate Professor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1981-1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard University (promoted to Associate Professor, Harvard, 1985)
Buss earned his PhD in psychology at University of California, Berkeley in 1981. Before becoming a professor at the University of Texas, he was assistant professor for four years at Harvard University, and he was a professor at the University of Michigan for eleven years.
The primary topics of his research include mating strategies, conflict between the sexes, social status, social reputation, prestige, the emotion of jealousy, homicide, anti-homicide defenses, and—most recently—stalking. All of these are approached from an evolutionary perspective. Buss is the author of more than 200 scientific articles and has won many awards, including an APA Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology in 1988 and an APA G. Stanley Hall Lectureship in 1990.
Buss is the author of a number of publications and books, including The Evolution of Desire, The Dangerous Passion, and The Murderer Next Door, which introduces a new theory of homicide from an evolutionary perspective. He is also the author of Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, whose fourth edition was released in 2011. In 2005, Buss edited a reference volume, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. His latest book is Why Women Have Sex, which he coauthored with Cindy Meston.
Buss is involved with extensive cross-cultural research collaborations and lectures within the U.S.
Education:
Ph.D.University of California,Berkeley:1981
B.A.University of Texas, Austin: 1976
Academic Employment History:
1996-Present Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin.
1991-1996 Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1985-1991 Associate Professor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
1981-1985 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard University (promoted to Associate Professor, Harvard, 1985)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
September 20, 2018
David M. Buss, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas, has developed a theory about murder. It is his contention that people kill largely in competition over resources and reproductive opportunity. Should some antagonist threaten a person's assets, livelihood, sexual relationship, progeny - or sabotage the effort to obtain these things - he will be firing up the circuitry of a murderous impulse.
And?...you might say. And? And? Because it certainly seems that we already know this. Don't steal other people's stuff. Not their money or their possessions or their jobs or their lovers. Don't mess around with their families or stand in the way of their genetic legacy. And definitely don't ruin their chance to acquire any of these things by undercutting them or publicly shaming them; destroying their attractiveness, viability and prestige. People don't like that. People really don't like that. And a lot of people take action. Especially if you push them too far.
Professor Buss's point, though, is based on a more subtle series of distinctions. He's coming at this from the perspective of evolutionary psychology (the field that brought us the lizard brain), and suggesting that we're actually hard-wired, all of us, to contemplate murder when someone attacks our means of survival. We have, in essence, a literal kill switch that lifts murder from an abstract concept to a personal option when under a certain level of existential distress. The trigger is automatic; an evolutionary encodement developed over eons in the fittest who survived - such survival frequently dependent upon resorting to murder to protect the position of progenitor of the species. And while most of us in modern times will content ourselves with the fantasy of killing our opponents, the fantasy itself, according to Professor Buss, exists as a signal of this encodement.
Buss provides the fruit of his research on murder in many countries around the world, along with data culled from questionnaires that focused on the fantasy of killing. He applies his theory to several interesting twenty-first century dynamics - sexual predators, serial killers, stalkers, mate "poachers" - and delivers some uncomfortable insights into the strain of the step-parent bond and the danger of cheating on a man between the ages of twenty and forty-nine. A careful reading will provide much food for thought. Also, perhaps, as it did for me, a wee bit of annoyance. Work on evolutionary matters is not known for its enlightened approach to gender equality. This material is a case in point. I found it irksome to read about men attempting to fortify their genetic rights while women seemed only able to attempt to increase their reproductive viability. I'm sure it was unintentional, and this is a particular sensitivity of mine. Apart from that, a solid and pleasantly accessible study of the topic.
And?...you might say. And? And? Because it certainly seems that we already know this. Don't steal other people's stuff. Not their money or their possessions or their jobs or their lovers. Don't mess around with their families or stand in the way of their genetic legacy. And definitely don't ruin their chance to acquire any of these things by undercutting them or publicly shaming them; destroying their attractiveness, viability and prestige. People don't like that. People really don't like that. And a lot of people take action. Especially if you push them too far.
Professor Buss's point, though, is based on a more subtle series of distinctions. He's coming at this from the perspective of evolutionary psychology (the field that brought us the lizard brain), and suggesting that we're actually hard-wired, all of us, to contemplate murder when someone attacks our means of survival. We have, in essence, a literal kill switch that lifts murder from an abstract concept to a personal option when under a certain level of existential distress. The trigger is automatic; an evolutionary encodement developed over eons in the fittest who survived - such survival frequently dependent upon resorting to murder to protect the position of progenitor of the species. And while most of us in modern times will content ourselves with the fantasy of killing our opponents, the fantasy itself, according to Professor Buss, exists as a signal of this encodement.
Buss provides the fruit of his research on murder in many countries around the world, along with data culled from questionnaires that focused on the fantasy of killing. He applies his theory to several interesting twenty-first century dynamics - sexual predators, serial killers, stalkers, mate "poachers" - and delivers some uncomfortable insights into the strain of the step-parent bond and the danger of cheating on a man between the ages of twenty and forty-nine. A careful reading will provide much food for thought. Also, perhaps, as it did for me, a wee bit of annoyance. Work on evolutionary matters is not known for its enlightened approach to gender equality. This material is a case in point. I found it irksome to read about men attempting to fortify their genetic rights while women seemed only able to attempt to increase their reproductive viability. I'm sure it was unintentional, and this is a particular sensitivity of mine. Apart from that, a solid and pleasantly accessible study of the topic.
December 31, 2021
كتاب ساحر يقدمه ديفيد باس بموضوع جدا مثير.
يعتمد ديفيد باس عالم النفس التطوري في تحليل سلوكياتنا كاملة لتفسير المنشأ الإجرامي للسلوك البشري على علم النفس التطوري, ليثبت بأن سلوك القتل هو سلوك متأصل في طبيعتنا البشرية نشأ عند أسلافنا بسبب مئات الضغوطات التطورية التي واجهتهم.
الكتاب مثير جدا في كل صفحة وفي كل فصل.
يعتمد ديفيد باس عالم النفس التطوري في تحليل سلوكياتنا كاملة لتفسير المنشأ الإجرامي للسلوك البشري على علم النفس التطوري, ليثبت بأن سلوك القتل هو سلوك متأصل في طبيعتنا البشرية نشأ عند أسلافنا بسبب مئات الضغوطات التطورية التي واجهتهم.
الكتاب مثير جدا في كل صفحة وفي كل فصل.
October 1, 2017
Evolutionary Psychology is controversial and the author, David Buss, has certainly contributed his fair share in entrenching that controversy with his ability to justify every reprehensible action by men with "evolution." There is nothing about sexism, misogyny, or male perpetrated violence he can't seem to credit to natural selection and this gets trite and tedious at times. His point of view has a lot of unexamined bias towards men that he seems to think is balanced out when he remarks that it's rational that women are attracted to money and status.
But this isn't anything that his many, many detractors among formal scientists and lay people haven't said many times over.
So why did I even read it or give it 2 stars?
Setting aside his "reasonable explanations" for domestic violence and the murder of unfaithful wives, I do think that his exploration of our anti-homicide instincts were compelling and worth their own examination (preferably by a different scientist). I don't think it's unreasonable that any animal has a preternatural sense of being stalked or in danger and I don't doubt we have lots of microperceptions that have been selected for that are hard to pin down. Whether it's the pheromones of danger, subtle breathing differences, or tiny changes in musculature we are able to pick up on something we may not be conscious of that can be quantified better in the future. It's been annoyingly summed up as "intuition" but I think that fails to credit the brain well enough. It's not magic, it's not supernatural, it's not a guardian angel or outside influence: it's our brains and sensory organs doing everything possible to keep us alive.
So, I did bear with the tedious to read the anti-homicide responses and very basic theories he presents.
But blechhhhhhhhhh to the idea it's "only natural" that husbands want to both stray from commitment and cause harm to partners who do the same.
But this isn't anything that his many, many detractors among formal scientists and lay people haven't said many times over.
So why did I even read it or give it 2 stars?
Setting aside his "reasonable explanations" for domestic violence and the murder of unfaithful wives, I do think that his exploration of our anti-homicide instincts were compelling and worth their own examination (preferably by a different scientist). I don't think it's unreasonable that any animal has a preternatural sense of being stalked or in danger and I don't doubt we have lots of microperceptions that have been selected for that are hard to pin down. Whether it's the pheromones of danger, subtle breathing differences, or tiny changes in musculature we are able to pick up on something we may not be conscious of that can be quantified better in the future. It's been annoyingly summed up as "intuition" but I think that fails to credit the brain well enough. It's not magic, it's not supernatural, it's not a guardian angel or outside influence: it's our brains and sensory organs doing everything possible to keep us alive.
So, I did bear with the tedious to read the anti-homicide responses and very basic theories he presents.
But blechhhhhhhhhh to the idea it's "only natural" that husbands want to both stray from commitment and cause harm to partners who do the same.
November 23, 2009
Are humans pre-programmed to kill? Is there a potential murderer inside each of us? Evolutionary psychologist, David Buss argues that we are all killers deep inside, and he presents chilling evidence on the high percentages of people who have either fantasized about murder or would be willing to kill someone if they knew they could get away with it. Murder is presented as just another viable reproductive strategy, one that could be used to remove rivals and coerce mating partners to be faithful. Although I agree with the general point that there is some evolved potential to kill, I do not believe there is enough evidence to conclude that we have anything remotely close to a "prewired" mental module for this (comparable to say, Broca's area for language). Nevertheless, this is an interesting book to read, and I couldn't help but shudder when I wondered how many rapists and murderers I have as (hopefully distant) ancestors.
December 26, 2022
Even though killing someone, or homicide, is perhaps the most perplexing, and yet pervasive, human acts globally, the body of research around why humans perpetrate violence, and resulting theories, seem woefully inadequate. On one hand, the reasoning is readily apparent: violence is complex, and the myriad subsets under killing someone — infanticide, siblicide, parricide, mass murder, serial killers, interpersonal killings, gang and mafia killings, and so on — make it all the more complex to find any sort of unifying theory of why people kill other people. And yet, David Buss in his 2005 book, The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill, proffers evolutionary psychology as one such unifying theory.
One small, if perhaps pedantic point stemming from my journalism days: As you’ve seen, I’ve referred to killing another person or persons as homicide and will continue to do so. However, throughout the book, Buss refers to it as murder. My problem with that terminology is that murder is a legal term with a legal meaning, and even throughout the book, Buss points to cases that ended up being legally ruled self-defense as murder. That would still qualify as killing someone, but murder? Not quite.
The essence of Buss’ theory is that when you look at generations of humans and the adaptations that evolved over time for Darwinian “survival of the fittest” — that is, characteristics we developed to continue our existence — humans developed killing as an adaptive strategy to continue to survive and ensure our progeny would manifest and continue on, but like other animal species, those who are the potential targets of a homicide also developed adaptive strategies to survive, what Buss calls “antihomicide strategies.” Then the killers get more adept at killing to evade those strategies. We are in a never-ending bout of survival in this yin-yang way. Sure, we obviously made it to a point of having a civilization with a legal structure that prohibits homicide with few exceptions — if we all were just killers, we probably would’ve died out long ago, and of course, some think it’s still possible the end of our species will be us nuking each other out of existence — but as the subheading of the book indicates, Buss’ theory is that the evolutionarily adaptation to see killing as advantageous at times is still within all of us and can be triggered by various contexts, even if thankfully, relatively rarely. Buss has a great line about this, saying, “In an evolutionary since the real mystery is not why killing has been so prevalent over our evolutionarily history, but why killing has not been more prevalent.” The answer goes back to civilization, which has rendered many of the things we evolutionarily adapted to possess and survive, such as the fight or flight response, or in this case, murder, moot. By offering this theory, Buss decidedly rejects other, more common theories of why we commit violence, such as popular media influence on killing, parental practices, and pathological and biological reasonings (mental abnormalities and/or abnormal and/or damaged brain functioning). Across cultures and societies, some of which cannot plausibly be said to have any mass media influence, commit homicidal violence, most people who have whatever we would consider suboptimal parenting never harm someone else (again, homicide is quite relatively rare), and only an exceedingly small number of such killers can be reliably diagnosed as insane and deranged or having some physical condition leading to outlier violence.
Buss touches briefly on the biggest concern the detractors of evolutionary psychology as a theory of violence have: It is an explanation of what is not what ought to be. My philosophy friends might recognize that important distinction. By documenting, as Buss does through various case studies and research, reality as it unfurls before us and unfurled prior, does not mean we condone it or believe it is morally right. That is, even though Buss is saying a select few humans made it to the top of society by seeing homicide as a viable adaptive solution, he is not saying it ought to be a viable adaptive solution. An additional point I would make, is that I believe people’s aversion to evolutionary psychology — especially when Buss makes analogies to other species, and certainly, we are not the only species that kills our own kind — is that we don’t like to think of ourselves, humans, as animals akin to the lion, the chimpanzee, and so on. We are supposed to be a civilized, highly intelligent creature beyond nature, and so, any explanation of why we do things that deviate from civilization, like homicide, must have something to do with what we are doing to ourselves (mass media influence), or that happened to us biologically (malformed brains) rather than like all animals and life on Earth, and we know this to be true of ourselves, being part of the evolutionary process.
I also think Buss makes a radical point that also doesn’t align with what a lot of people believe in that emotions, and more specifically, our passions, are rational. People like to think those who commit a homicide must be irrational, but that goes back to thinking all killers are deranged when it’s the complete opposite, and goes back to Buss’ point of the “murderer next door.” While it may seem difficult for us who couldn’t conceive of killing another person, to Buss, when viewed through an evolutionarily psychology context — these adaptive strategies — they can explain how someone arrives at such a point.
To go deeper, much of these adaptive strategies are in response to mating competition and achieving successful mating to ensure one’s genes carry on. Whether from the anecdotal case studies Buss presents or reasoning through the adaptive strategies from evolutionary psychology, it seems like the vast majority of what motivates people to kill, to consider killing, or to consider themselves potential victims of a killer (Buss presents these cases, too), is related to finding the best mate (or conversely, “losing” them), and if not that, then killings are related to the usual hallmarks of power, envy, and greed. A side point to that bigger discussion Buss presents is that he talks about how men view certain physical characteristics, such as clear complexion and a slim waist, as ideal in a suitable mate because those markers reflect health, i.e., such a mate is capable of healthy reproduction, but didn’t women with bigger hips in the Victorian era signal health owing to them being rich enough to eat well? But perhaps the changing viewpoint on that is more of a cultural thing rather than evolutionary.
This mating competition, along with the secondary issues of pride, status, reputation, greed, envy and thirst for power, can all at once explain why men do most of the killing, are most of the victims of killing, and why so many women are killed by men. To the latter, this mating competition and the resulting danger that it could lead to men (and occasionally, women) viewing homicide as a viable solution, the most dangerous time to be a woman is when separating from a man, even months or years after the fact. Evolutionarily speaking, Buss argues such a separation triggers the brain because now you’re depriving this person of potential progeny, losing that mate to another mating rival, and with the loss of status. Most persons react to it with either only thoughts of killing, or nothing violent at all, but some will see homicide as a solution. I thought that was an interesting aspect of the book, too, with Buss showing the many cases of adults, male and female, not only fantasizing about killing someone, but having a detailed plan of how they would do it, and for the most part, being stopped by the fear of punishment. I can’t say I’ve ever fantasized about killing someone; if anything, because of my periods of depression, I’ve only ever fantasized about offing myself. Again, an aside, but I’m surprised Buss didn’t offer whether he has fantasized about killing anyone since he thinks such fantasizing is normal and common.
Despite this ominous line from Buss, “All men have an evolved psychology of mate killing that lies latent in their brains,” it’s obviously not “activated” in all men because homicide isn’t a common occurrence. But even saying that it’s latent within us is a controversial position for Buss to take, but he provides ample evidence for its soundness. One question that might stem from that ominous Buss line is, shouldn’t we be able to predict who will commit a homicide then? At the very least, we seem to know that if a woman dies, statistically, it’s most likely that her significant other did it (or just generally, the victim’s killer would have been known to the victim), but, as I’ve emphasized a number of times now, predicting a rare event, as homicide is, is still difficult — which is also why I’ve written extensively about how difficult it is to predict and prevent public mass shootings, an even rarer form of homicide.
Since it undergirds his main thesis, Buss spends a great deal of time diving into mating competition, mate poaching (often resulting from killing or motivating the killing) and cuckolding, but I feel like you can’t talk about mate poaching and cuckolding without talking about the KKK, white women, and the treatment of black men in American history. The fear a white man had of being cuckolded by a black man was such a potent force in American history and surely led to many homicides, a.k.a. lynchings. I don’t expect one book to cover everything, but that felt like a big oversight, especially since it would have served to boost Buss’ point!
This isn’t primarily a book about serial killers or mass murderers, because after all, the book is about the murderer next door, but Buss does touch on such cases and believes you can apply evolutionary psychology to such cases as well. Serial killers and mass murderers seek status, another adaptive strategy. In fact, in the years since Buss’ book with more known about public mass shooters, I think you can apply both mating competition and status-seeking to motivations for them. With almost every public mass shooter, we learn there was a recorded instance of domestic violence before the public mass shooting.
Because this is a book about something illegal, and because readers don’t often like to just read about someone’s observations of a problem without a solution, Buss does have a solution to the issue of murder tendencies being latent within us: Since the overwhelming majority of the cases he sites of people having homicidal fantasies say they didn’t carry them out due to fear of punishment, Buss argues we ought to make it more costly to kill — longer sentencing for killing, although obviously, in the American context, some states still have the death penalty, so, I don’t know how you get much higher than that. My problem with that is the United States already over-incarcerates people and compared to much of the Western world, over-sentences people. If anything, a better solution would be solving murders as a deterrent. Buss does touch on how many killings actually go unsolved and killing has lower clearance rates than you might expect. My proposal is that instead of sentencing people we do catch to longer prison terms, what if we solved more of the killings? That could be a deterrent without continuing our carceral ways.
Overall, Buss’s book, even reading it 17 years after the fact, is revolutionary, radical, and I think, right. He is correct that other theories of violence are woefully inadequate, and his proposed theory of evolutionary psychology helps to explain why homicides of all kinds occur. If you go into this book with an open mind, especially on the point that Buss isn’t saying murder as an adaptive solution is how it ought to be, then you’ll be engaging a fascinating, insightful book.
One small, if perhaps pedantic point stemming from my journalism days: As you’ve seen, I’ve referred to killing another person or persons as homicide and will continue to do so. However, throughout the book, Buss refers to it as murder. My problem with that terminology is that murder is a legal term with a legal meaning, and even throughout the book, Buss points to cases that ended up being legally ruled self-defense as murder. That would still qualify as killing someone, but murder? Not quite.
The essence of Buss’ theory is that when you look at generations of humans and the adaptations that evolved over time for Darwinian “survival of the fittest” — that is, characteristics we developed to continue our existence — humans developed killing as an adaptive strategy to continue to survive and ensure our progeny would manifest and continue on, but like other animal species, those who are the potential targets of a homicide also developed adaptive strategies to survive, what Buss calls “antihomicide strategies.” Then the killers get more adept at killing to evade those strategies. We are in a never-ending bout of survival in this yin-yang way. Sure, we obviously made it to a point of having a civilization with a legal structure that prohibits homicide with few exceptions — if we all were just killers, we probably would’ve died out long ago, and of course, some think it’s still possible the end of our species will be us nuking each other out of existence — but as the subheading of the book indicates, Buss’ theory is that the evolutionarily adaptation to see killing as advantageous at times is still within all of us and can be triggered by various contexts, even if thankfully, relatively rarely. Buss has a great line about this, saying, “In an evolutionary since the real mystery is not why killing has been so prevalent over our evolutionarily history, but why killing has not been more prevalent.” The answer goes back to civilization, which has rendered many of the things we evolutionarily adapted to possess and survive, such as the fight or flight response, or in this case, murder, moot. By offering this theory, Buss decidedly rejects other, more common theories of why we commit violence, such as popular media influence on killing, parental practices, and pathological and biological reasonings (mental abnormalities and/or abnormal and/or damaged brain functioning). Across cultures and societies, some of which cannot plausibly be said to have any mass media influence, commit homicidal violence, most people who have whatever we would consider suboptimal parenting never harm someone else (again, homicide is quite relatively rare), and only an exceedingly small number of such killers can be reliably diagnosed as insane and deranged or having some physical condition leading to outlier violence.
Buss touches briefly on the biggest concern the detractors of evolutionary psychology as a theory of violence have: It is an explanation of what is not what ought to be. My philosophy friends might recognize that important distinction. By documenting, as Buss does through various case studies and research, reality as it unfurls before us and unfurled prior, does not mean we condone it or believe it is morally right. That is, even though Buss is saying a select few humans made it to the top of society by seeing homicide as a viable adaptive solution, he is not saying it ought to be a viable adaptive solution. An additional point I would make, is that I believe people’s aversion to evolutionary psychology — especially when Buss makes analogies to other species, and certainly, we are not the only species that kills our own kind — is that we don’t like to think of ourselves, humans, as animals akin to the lion, the chimpanzee, and so on. We are supposed to be a civilized, highly intelligent creature beyond nature, and so, any explanation of why we do things that deviate from civilization, like homicide, must have something to do with what we are doing to ourselves (mass media influence), or that happened to us biologically (malformed brains) rather than like all animals and life on Earth, and we know this to be true of ourselves, being part of the evolutionary process.
I also think Buss makes a radical point that also doesn’t align with what a lot of people believe in that emotions, and more specifically, our passions, are rational. People like to think those who commit a homicide must be irrational, but that goes back to thinking all killers are deranged when it’s the complete opposite, and goes back to Buss’ point of the “murderer next door.” While it may seem difficult for us who couldn’t conceive of killing another person, to Buss, when viewed through an evolutionarily psychology context — these adaptive strategies — they can explain how someone arrives at such a point.
To go deeper, much of these adaptive strategies are in response to mating competition and achieving successful mating to ensure one’s genes carry on. Whether from the anecdotal case studies Buss presents or reasoning through the adaptive strategies from evolutionary psychology, it seems like the vast majority of what motivates people to kill, to consider killing, or to consider themselves potential victims of a killer (Buss presents these cases, too), is related to finding the best mate (or conversely, “losing” them), and if not that, then killings are related to the usual hallmarks of power, envy, and greed. A side point to that bigger discussion Buss presents is that he talks about how men view certain physical characteristics, such as clear complexion and a slim waist, as ideal in a suitable mate because those markers reflect health, i.e., such a mate is capable of healthy reproduction, but didn’t women with bigger hips in the Victorian era signal health owing to them being rich enough to eat well? But perhaps the changing viewpoint on that is more of a cultural thing rather than evolutionary.
This mating competition, along with the secondary issues of pride, status, reputation, greed, envy and thirst for power, can all at once explain why men do most of the killing, are most of the victims of killing, and why so many women are killed by men. To the latter, this mating competition and the resulting danger that it could lead to men (and occasionally, women) viewing homicide as a viable solution, the most dangerous time to be a woman is when separating from a man, even months or years after the fact. Evolutionarily speaking, Buss argues such a separation triggers the brain because now you’re depriving this person of potential progeny, losing that mate to another mating rival, and with the loss of status. Most persons react to it with either only thoughts of killing, or nothing violent at all, but some will see homicide as a solution. I thought that was an interesting aspect of the book, too, with Buss showing the many cases of adults, male and female, not only fantasizing about killing someone, but having a detailed plan of how they would do it, and for the most part, being stopped by the fear of punishment. I can’t say I’ve ever fantasized about killing someone; if anything, because of my periods of depression, I’ve only ever fantasized about offing myself. Again, an aside, but I’m surprised Buss didn’t offer whether he has fantasized about killing anyone since he thinks such fantasizing is normal and common.
Despite this ominous line from Buss, “All men have an evolved psychology of mate killing that lies latent in their brains,” it’s obviously not “activated” in all men because homicide isn’t a common occurrence. But even saying that it’s latent within us is a controversial position for Buss to take, but he provides ample evidence for its soundness. One question that might stem from that ominous Buss line is, shouldn’t we be able to predict who will commit a homicide then? At the very least, we seem to know that if a woman dies, statistically, it’s most likely that her significant other did it (or just generally, the victim’s killer would have been known to the victim), but, as I’ve emphasized a number of times now, predicting a rare event, as homicide is, is still difficult — which is also why I’ve written extensively about how difficult it is to predict and prevent public mass shootings, an even rarer form of homicide.
Since it undergirds his main thesis, Buss spends a great deal of time diving into mating competition, mate poaching (often resulting from killing or motivating the killing) and cuckolding, but I feel like you can’t talk about mate poaching and cuckolding without talking about the KKK, white women, and the treatment of black men in American history. The fear a white man had of being cuckolded by a black man was such a potent force in American history and surely led to many homicides, a.k.a. lynchings. I don’t expect one book to cover everything, but that felt like a big oversight, especially since it would have served to boost Buss’ point!
This isn’t primarily a book about serial killers or mass murderers, because after all, the book is about the murderer next door, but Buss does touch on such cases and believes you can apply evolutionary psychology to such cases as well. Serial killers and mass murderers seek status, another adaptive strategy. In fact, in the years since Buss’ book with more known about public mass shooters, I think you can apply both mating competition and status-seeking to motivations for them. With almost every public mass shooter, we learn there was a recorded instance of domestic violence before the public mass shooting.
Because this is a book about something illegal, and because readers don’t often like to just read about someone’s observations of a problem without a solution, Buss does have a solution to the issue of murder tendencies being latent within us: Since the overwhelming majority of the cases he sites of people having homicidal fantasies say they didn’t carry them out due to fear of punishment, Buss argues we ought to make it more costly to kill — longer sentencing for killing, although obviously, in the American context, some states still have the death penalty, so, I don’t know how you get much higher than that. My problem with that is the United States already over-incarcerates people and compared to much of the Western world, over-sentences people. If anything, a better solution would be solving murders as a deterrent. Buss does touch on how many killings actually go unsolved and killing has lower clearance rates than you might expect. My proposal is that instead of sentencing people we do catch to longer prison terms, what if we solved more of the killings? That could be a deterrent without continuing our carceral ways.
Overall, Buss’s book, even reading it 17 years after the fact, is revolutionary, radical, and I think, right. He is correct that other theories of violence are woefully inadequate, and his proposed theory of evolutionary psychology helps to explain why homicides of all kinds occur. If you go into this book with an open mind, especially on the point that Buss isn’t saying murder as an adaptive solution is how it ought to be, then you’ll be engaging a fascinating, insightful book.
July 1, 2023
2⭐️ I was expecting a deep dive into the psychology of why people commit murder and instead found myself presented with why it is evolutionarily advantageous. I feel as though the psychology piece was not as prevalent and it read quite misogynistic.
May 18, 2024
Interesting!
August 31, 2018
TRIGGER WARNINGS FOR MY REVIEW-discusses rape and abuse.
I am so disappointed in this book! The premises cool, but I think it was poorly executed and maybe it’s just that I don’t like evolutionary psychology. The high points where the examples and anecdotes, however the methodology of using those anecdotes to prove some basic evolutionary human traits seemed sketchy in some instances, and completely bogus and others.
The majority of why people kill, according to the author, is essentially based in mating and sexual practices. He does not talk about just simple rage against humans as a whole, war, and even the famous torture studies about how anyone in a position of power could potentialy torture and kill. What about road rage? To me, Road rage killings have nothing to do with the threat of not being able to breed, or threats to my masculinity.
Evolutionary psychology with regards to women getting raped is bogus. He presumes that women have had a choice in their mate throughout time, which create hardwires in the brain for love and fitness. This, according to the author, is why rape is so jarring. But we all know marriage in its current form of love and mutual agency is relatively new- I would argue arranged marriages of the not so distant past had nothing to do with a woman’s love, and rape could very well be hardwired into a woman’s evolution, too.
Second, the section on mate poaching seems to imply that the “mate” has no agency. Clearly they do—or else it would fly in the face of his rape theory. For instance, if I was dating someone and he left me for another woman, I don’t get mad necessarily at the other woman but definitely the person I was dating. It can’t be the only person who thinks this way, however the book doesn’t talk about this personal agency but that cheaters have no agency of their own, but are at the mercy of ‘mate poachers,’. Dumb.
Also, all the case studies used seem to be same age- so just college surveys? If he is basing a lot of his anecdotal case studies on the perspective of college students, I think he is really missing out On the diversity of human experience, age, etc. It also, to me, discredit his work considering any college kid could have written this with the same anecdotes.
I am so disappointed in this book! The premises cool, but I think it was poorly executed and maybe it’s just that I don’t like evolutionary psychology. The high points where the examples and anecdotes, however the methodology of using those anecdotes to prove some basic evolutionary human traits seemed sketchy in some instances, and completely bogus and others.
The majority of why people kill, according to the author, is essentially based in mating and sexual practices. He does not talk about just simple rage against humans as a whole, war, and even the famous torture studies about how anyone in a position of power could potentialy torture and kill. What about road rage? To me, Road rage killings have nothing to do with the threat of not being able to breed, or threats to my masculinity.
Evolutionary psychology with regards to women getting raped is bogus. He presumes that women have had a choice in their mate throughout time, which create hardwires in the brain for love and fitness. This, according to the author, is why rape is so jarring. But we all know marriage in its current form of love and mutual agency is relatively new- I would argue arranged marriages of the not so distant past had nothing to do with a woman’s love, and rape could very well be hardwired into a woman’s evolution, too.
Second, the section on mate poaching seems to imply that the “mate” has no agency. Clearly they do—or else it would fly in the face of his rape theory. For instance, if I was dating someone and he left me for another woman, I don’t get mad necessarily at the other woman but definitely the person I was dating. It can’t be the only person who thinks this way, however the book doesn’t talk about this personal agency but that cheaters have no agency of their own, but are at the mercy of ‘mate poachers,’. Dumb.
Also, all the case studies used seem to be same age- so just college surveys? If he is basing a lot of his anecdotal case studies on the perspective of college students, I think he is really missing out On the diversity of human experience, age, etc. It also, to me, discredit his work considering any college kid could have written this with the same anecdotes.
Read
February 5, 2009Reviewers with scientific training have no kind words for The Murderer Next Door. The author's investiture in the controversial field of evolutionary psychology__which posits that human behavior is the product of evolution__leads him to assert that homicidal fantasies are more common than the reader might believe, and smacks of self promotion. While Buss's argument is internally consistent, his premise runs counter to established anthropological and biological studies. Readers unversed in those sciences might receive Buss's claims about homicide's roots more openly, and find them both credible and disturbing.
This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.
June 23, 2021
I read this for school. It's not bad. Buss uses a lot of the same data from his previous work "The Evolution of Desire" as well as other works. His conclusions are solid though; all of his reasons are based on empirical data that is grounded in reality. The best thing this book has going for it is the interviews with people describing their thoughts about killing or times when they were threatened with death. My interest was peaked here, although Buss' conclusions are also interesting, it is far more fascinating to hear real life cases of potential homicide. This technique contextualizes the material being taught. Overall, it was a slog to get through at times, but a solid look at murder.
March 6, 2017
I know Buss's science is controversial, but as an author, I found this a good reference book to help me 'access' the violent-criminal mind.
February 27, 2024
“Mating, like murder, has multiple motives.”
June 26, 2022
هل فكرت يوماً في قتل أحدهم ؟!
ديفد باس، عالم النفس التطوري. بحث في الدوافع التي تجعل البشر يلجأون إلى عملية القتل.
وحتى التفكير فيه. لا يقل خطورة عن فعله. ولكن ما الذي يدفعنا لفعله، مسبباته. وهل كان الحل الأخير بعد استنفاذ جميع حسابات المنفعه والتكلفه.
.
في كتابه هذا، يعرض لنا مشاهد من جرائم قتل. خاض فيها تحقيقاً خاصاً، نحو الدوافع التي جعلت أصحابها يقومون بها.
لا يبحث هنا مع القتلة المأجورين، الذين يقتلون لأجل المال أو غيره. ولا يخوض في عقول المجرمين المتسلسلين تحليلاً.
بل ما يعرضه هنا قصة أناس عاديين. مثلي ومثلك.
فليس المجانين أو اليائسين هم وحدهم من يفكرون بالقتل، أو حتى الذين نشؤوا ضمن ثقافات تمجد العنف.
.
( تحدث معظم جرائم القتل إثر دافع فجائي لفورة الشغف العاطفي، وفي المواقف التي تغلب فيها عواطف القاتل على قدرته للتعقل).
إن هؤلاء الأشخاص يقتلون لعدة أسباب منها: الشهوة والجشع والحسد والخوف والانتقام والمكانة والسمعة.
( إن الخط الفاصل بيننا وبينهم بالكاد موجود ).
لكنهم بعكسي وعكسك، فإن حساباتهم للتكلفة والمنفعة وصلت إلى حل قاتل لمشكلاتهم.
.
لقد تعلمنا في وقت مبكر أن القتل فعل خاطئ، وأن من يرتكب الجريمة يدفع الثمن. لكن لا شئ في هذه النظرية تفسر أي النماذج سنختار من بين النماذج الكثيرة التي عرضت في هذا الكتاب.
يقول المؤلف: لدى الناس مئات الأفكار القاتلة التي تشغلهم. ومع أنها تسبق الفعل، إلا أنها لا تؤدي دائما إلى القتل. وذلك لأننا عادة نضع بالحسبان التكاليف الباهظة.
لكن خذا لا يعني بأنها ليست تعبيرات (حقيقية) عن نية القتل.
.
لا يوجد حل سحري بسيط لمشكلة القتل. لطالما كان القتل وما زال حلا فعالا بشكل مذهل لمجموعة مذهلة من الصراعات الاجتماعية البشرية.
.
دمتم بخير 🌷.
ديفد باس، عالم النفس التطوري. بحث في الدوافع التي تجعل البشر يلجأون إلى عملية القتل.
وحتى التفكير فيه. لا يقل خطورة عن فعله. ولكن ما الذي يدفعنا لفعله، مسبباته. وهل كان الحل الأخير بعد استنفاذ جميع حسابات المنفعه والتكلفه.
.
في كتابه هذا، يعرض لنا مشاهد من جرائم قتل. خاض فيها تحقيقاً خاصاً، نحو الدوافع التي جعلت أصحابها يقومون بها.
لا يبحث هنا مع القتلة المأجورين، الذين يقتلون لأجل المال أو غيره. ولا يخوض في عقول المجرمين المتسلسلين تحليلاً.
بل ما يعرضه هنا قصة أناس عاديين. مثلي ومثلك.
فليس المجانين أو اليائسين هم وحدهم من يفكرون بالقتل، أو حتى الذين نشؤوا ضمن ثقافات تمجد العنف.
.
( تحدث معظم جرائم القتل إثر دافع فجائي لفورة الشغف العاطفي، وفي المواقف التي تغلب فيها عواطف القاتل على قدرته للتعقل).
إن هؤلاء الأشخاص يقتلون لعدة أسباب منها: الشهوة والجشع والحسد والخوف والانتقام والمكانة والسمعة.
( إن الخط الفاصل بيننا وبينهم بالكاد موجود ).
لكنهم بعكسي وعكسك، فإن حساباتهم للتكلفة والمنفعة وصلت إلى حل قاتل لمشكلاتهم.
.
لقد تعلمنا في وقت مبكر أن القتل فعل خاطئ، وأن من يرتكب الجريمة يدفع الثمن. لكن لا شئ في هذه النظرية تفسر أي النماذج سنختار من بين النماذج الكثيرة التي عرضت في هذا الكتاب.
يقول المؤلف: لدى الناس مئات الأفكار القاتلة التي تشغلهم. ومع أنها تسبق الفعل، إلا أنها لا تؤدي دائما إلى القتل. وذلك لأننا عادة نضع بالحسبان التكاليف الباهظة.
لكن خذا لا يعني بأنها ليست تعبيرات (حقيقية) عن نية القتل.
.
لا يوجد حل سحري بسيط لمشكلة القتل. لطالما كان القتل وما زال حلا فعالا بشكل مذهل لمجموعة مذهلة من الصراعات الاجتماعية البشرية.
.
دمتم بخير 🌷.
December 4, 2020
In summary, I don't think this book is very good. Ignoring the fact that it was published in 2005 and therefore is not necessarily 100% up-to-date, the author mainly focuses this book on males evolutionary motive for killing. In doing so he somehow manages to make it sound as if that was the woman's fault.
The evolutionary theory seems to be very simple and admissable to any kind of argumentation in any kund of direction. I dont think it is entirely wrong. I just wished he would have considered a more open conversation about the combination of his theory with some of the existing ones.
In the end he explicitly states why his evolutionary theory is superior to e.g. the socio-economic theory and which problems could still be discussed with his theory. Even though he doesnt lead a way to a conclusion for these problems, he states that people pointing said problems out are merely wrong.
After aroung 50% of the book, the author starts discussing motive for women, parents and children to kill and throws in a quick theory about mass and serial killers. Especially this last short section lacked of evidence and research so I was kinda disappointed.
But to mention a good thing as well: I really enjoyed the excerpts out of a study he conducted with his research team concerning the murder studies of over 5000 participants. He managed to really link those to his theory and find a legitimate reason to publish this book.
The evolutionary theory seems to be very simple and admissable to any kind of argumentation in any kund of direction. I dont think it is entirely wrong. I just wished he would have considered a more open conversation about the combination of his theory with some of the existing ones.
In the end he explicitly states why his evolutionary theory is superior to e.g. the socio-economic theory and which problems could still be discussed with his theory. Even though he doesnt lead a way to a conclusion for these problems, he states that people pointing said problems out are merely wrong.
After aroung 50% of the book, the author starts discussing motive for women, parents and children to kill and throws in a quick theory about mass and serial killers. Especially this last short section lacked of evidence and research so I was kinda disappointed.
But to mention a good thing as well: I really enjoyed the excerpts out of a study he conducted with his research team concerning the murder studies of over 5000 participants. He managed to really link those to his theory and find a legitimate reason to publish this book.
July 20, 2019
Possibly actually the worst take on murder. It would be absurd to believe that our mind and brains have nothing to do with our evolutionary history, but it sure is weird how often Buss thinks quotes from 19th century missionaries and anthropologists are useful to our understanding of the situation. It's also funny how a years long, well funded study brought him no farther than "The Victorians were right." Not that he would ever admit that, which brings me to pointing out how much of what he says about our intellectual past is flat out ahistorical. Sorry, David M. Buss, of UT, Austin, people have considered the urge to kill a basic part pf human nature since before you. Even phrenologists didn't have the balls to make that kind of claim. He's also got a bad habit of failing to define things like his proposed "homicide circuit" Like, you can't just say that and assume I'll buy it because you're a scientist. The cherry on top is his refusal to even acknowledge that eugenics is a thing and maybe this work might be used to support it.
September 7, 2015
A well-conceived theory on murder, and one that I personally find perfectly reasonable and nonshocking. The presentation style is fairly typically academic, which is to say that the arguments are overmade--points are stated again and again in different words, and some of them were fairly common sense even the first time around.
Still, I do believe people are more comfortable believing violent crimes are freak occurrences that no one could have seen coming, when in fact, there are usually warning signs we just find uncomfortable to recognize. People also repress the horrors they heard about years ago or through historical study, and this leads them to perceive new examples of violence as a frightening shift or escalation of a given culture. In reality, people have always done awful things to each other, and a willingness to acknowledge that can only help one defend better against it.
Still, I do believe people are more comfortable believing violent crimes are freak occurrences that no one could have seen coming, when in fact, there are usually warning signs we just find uncomfortable to recognize. People also repress the horrors they heard about years ago or through historical study, and this leads them to perceive new examples of violence as a frightening shift or escalation of a given culture. In reality, people have always done awful things to each other, and a willingness to acknowledge that can only help one defend better against it.
April 14, 2023
The author does a good job of explaining the main viewpoint of evolutionary psychology in relation to the murder instinct. Great case studies all through. However, the main shortcoming of this approach is trying to explain out every scenario of murder under the common blanket of reproductive fitness. You cannot falsify the concept in conceivable way, which is not a strength, but a weakness of the theory, as Karl Popper noted many years ago.
May 25, 2012
No one knows better than David Buss that Jack the Ripper is inside all of us just looking for an exit sign....
November 12, 2019
I left the book midway because of an irony I can't bear.
September 16, 2023
There are a number of clueless things in this book.
The first of these is that if a circuit in our head causes killings, deterministically, then how could it possibly be labeled murder? Murder is wrongful killing. Morality implies the possibility of an alternative. In the natural sciences, there isn't volition, so there's no possibility of moral systems existing in any meaningful sense. You need a world where methodological dualism makes sense to make moral claims, and in order to make all of that work, you're going to need something like a god to provide the relevant realities (i.e., a soul) and epistemic justifications. The entire premise is off, and it's off in a way that a 19 year old undergrad could've pointed out.
The book also denies higher levels of organization when it comes to adaptationist thought to make reality denying points. If a person's life is just a sole piecemeal decontextualized interpersonal interaction, then, of course, conventions don't make sense (say, a societally enforced patriarchy). This is the standard mainstream biological propaganda where groups tactically do or don't exist based on compatibility with neoliberal fairy tales. I thought a vague hand waving notion of "the tribe" existed in EP to dodge the existence of local variation in man? What happened to that? Isn't the "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" the "tribe"? Do tribes not have conventions? I guess the "tribe" being the "relevant environment" only exists to dodge Cold Winters theory (etc.) after all...
But, what do you expect? EP as a project came out of an anarcho communist organization, tied to the state, all in the service of neutralizing the threat of sociobiology to official narratives. The Sociobiology Study Group offered its critique, and the EP founders fulfilled the order. Here we are today. Pretty straightforward.
The first of these is that if a circuit in our head causes killings, deterministically, then how could it possibly be labeled murder? Murder is wrongful killing. Morality implies the possibility of an alternative. In the natural sciences, there isn't volition, so there's no possibility of moral systems existing in any meaningful sense. You need a world where methodological dualism makes sense to make moral claims, and in order to make all of that work, you're going to need something like a god to provide the relevant realities (i.e., a soul) and epistemic justifications. The entire premise is off, and it's off in a way that a 19 year old undergrad could've pointed out.
The book also denies higher levels of organization when it comes to adaptationist thought to make reality denying points. If a person's life is just a sole piecemeal decontextualized interpersonal interaction, then, of course, conventions don't make sense (say, a societally enforced patriarchy). This is the standard mainstream biological propaganda where groups tactically do or don't exist based on compatibility with neoliberal fairy tales. I thought a vague hand waving notion of "the tribe" existed in EP to dodge the existence of local variation in man? What happened to that? Isn't the "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" the "tribe"? Do tribes not have conventions? I guess the "tribe" being the "relevant environment" only exists to dodge Cold Winters theory (etc.) after all...
But, what do you expect? EP as a project came out of an anarcho communist organization, tied to the state, all in the service of neutralizing the threat of sociobiology to official narratives. The Sociobiology Study Group offered its critique, and the EP founders fulfilled the order. Here we are today. Pretty straightforward.
April 23, 2024
A very interesting theory about why people kill and I think it makes a lot of sense. Read it for class but I enjoyed it a lot
October 3, 2023
كتاب متميز لعالم التفس التطوري ديفيد باس..
كتاب يغير كثير من المفاهيم حول دوافع القتل.
كتاب يغير كثير من المفاهيم حول دوافع القتل.
February 8, 2018
The author asks why we murder -- why all of us are capable of murder -- and uses evolutionary psychology (EP) to explain much of the answer. For me the logic is compelling.
I used to think the answer was "because some of us are just plain bad," but now see that was no explanation at all.
It's also now clear to me why the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was so remarkable. It went against almost everything that made men (and yes, some women) happy and successful.
The book is an easy read, even if written by a professor. Some negative reviews here at Amazon say the book is simplistic. I say it's just right for the average reader, between lurid and scholarly, in helping us understand so much about murder.
Indeed, about so much else. With EP, I now see sexual attraction, even conflict between tribes and nations, in a different light.
It helps us understand how Susan Smith could push her car into a lake with her two small children still in it. We don't condone it, of course, but her actions now make some kind of (sick) sense.
Murders can also be beyond understanding, as the author notes. One thinks of Andrea Yates and her five children, where insanity and deep depression seem most responsible for that tragedy. And for the mass murders at Newtown and Virginia Tech.
It can be misguided to use evolutionary psychology to explain more than the theory can handle, but I believe this book clearly shows us how important a role the theory plays in interpersonal relations.
Even romantic love has a rational role in EP; "how do I love thee, let me count the ways..." and other love poetry and songs will never again be as moving to my ears.
The book might have been a little shorter, sometimes making a point and then remaking it. But at least it's being made. Hang in to the end; the book gets better as it goes along, at least for me.
This is among the more practical - indeed, life saving - books some of us will ever read. Especially our daughters and wives. Most murders, the author reminds us, are committed by those we know, not strangers.
I used to think the answer was "because some of us are just plain bad," but now see that was no explanation at all.
It's also now clear to me why the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was so remarkable. It went against almost everything that made men (and yes, some women) happy and successful.
The book is an easy read, even if written by a professor. Some negative reviews here at Amazon say the book is simplistic. I say it's just right for the average reader, between lurid and scholarly, in helping us understand so much about murder.
Indeed, about so much else. With EP, I now see sexual attraction, even conflict between tribes and nations, in a different light.
It helps us understand how Susan Smith could push her car into a lake with her two small children still in it. We don't condone it, of course, but her actions now make some kind of (sick) sense.
Murders can also be beyond understanding, as the author notes. One thinks of Andrea Yates and her five children, where insanity and deep depression seem most responsible for that tragedy. And for the mass murders at Newtown and Virginia Tech.
It can be misguided to use evolutionary psychology to explain more than the theory can handle, but I believe this book clearly shows us how important a role the theory plays in interpersonal relations.
Even romantic love has a rational role in EP; "how do I love thee, let me count the ways..." and other love poetry and songs will never again be as moving to my ears.
The book might have been a little shorter, sometimes making a point and then remaking it. But at least it's being made. Hang in to the end; the book gets better as it goes along, at least for me.
This is among the more practical - indeed, life saving - books some of us will ever read. Especially our daughters and wives. Most murders, the author reminds us, are committed by those we know, not strangers.
July 6, 2022
I gave this book an honest effort but ultimately couldn't finish it. This book begins very promising, discussing the indication that anyone can kill in the right circumstances. Then the rest of the book proceeds to give evidence as to why relationships and sex are the only actual reasons anyone sane and not pathological can kill. This book is more focused on the history and evolution of mating, mate selection, childrearing, etc. and ties in to how all of these topics can contribute to someone choosing to murder when they otherwise would live a normal life. I wouldn't be so disappointed in the book's topic if it had given evidence of that somewhere: a subtitle, the book summary. No, the book simply tells you that the author conducted studies and interviews that gave way to why normal people would murder. I'm not saying that it isn't significant that these are the few reasons someone would murder. I just wish it would've mentioned it was a book on sex and relationships moreso than murder. The fact of murder was often an afterthought tagged onto an entire chapter's worth of material.
July 11, 2023
REALLY interesting topic, but a bit more clinical than I was hoping for. If you’re a big fan of nonfiction and/or statistics don’t make you sleepy, you’ll probably like this even more than I did.
It’s a really interesting glimpse into our ancestral past and the evolutionary mechanisms from thousands or millions of years that we all carry inside us against the backdrop of a modern world.
Two quotes from the final chapter that I found particularly interesting and representative of the book/study:
“Most of us no longer consider murder to be a socially or morally acceptable solution to these challenges … And yet we must also contend with the psychological mechanisms that eons of evolution have installed in our brains. We have, as it were, one foot in our ancient past and one in our modern present.”
“Murderers are waiting, they are watching, they are all around us.”
It’s a really interesting glimpse into our ancestral past and the evolutionary mechanisms from thousands or millions of years that we all carry inside us against the backdrop of a modern world.
Two quotes from the final chapter that I found particularly interesting and representative of the book/study:
“Most of us no longer consider murder to be a socially or morally acceptable solution to these challenges … And yet we must also contend with the psychological mechanisms that eons of evolution have installed in our brains. We have, as it were, one foot in our ancient past and one in our modern present.”
“Murderers are waiting, they are watching, they are all around us.”
July 20, 2011
Evolutionary Psychologist David Buss advances the nature over nurture argument that humans are pre-programmed in our genes to kill in the right circumstances and most murders can be explained as being rooted in our DNA.
Pretty boring, filled with stats, and not really targeting the reader who is used to true crime books by Ann Rule, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, etc. Very dry and not particulary interesting to me.
Title is also misleading, which is why you shouldn't judge (or buy) a book for its cover
Pretty boring, filled with stats, and not really targeting the reader who is used to true crime books by Ann Rule, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, etc. Very dry and not particulary interesting to me.
Title is also misleading, which is why you shouldn't judge (or buy) a book for its cover
March 30, 2013
Fascinating psychological treatise on what makes us humans inclined to kill. It helps explain why domestic violence is so much more common than the random, stranger killings we most fear. And it very clearly distinguishes between understanding human nature and using that as an excuse to evade criminal responsibility and punishment. This is academic, not narrative, in its approach. But accessible and engaging, especially if you're curious about the darkest impulses.
September 23, 2020
More or less classic evolutionary psychology at this point. The audio book sounds like it was recorded in a tin can, which made me wonder if I was getting conned. No idea how these ideas have held up, and they all suffer from the usual "just so story" quality that so much of evopsych seems to. If I quoted an idea from this book at a party, I would preface it with "some evopsych guy said that..., which seems like a kinda plausible explanation".
September 4, 2021
Interesting read.
I think that evolutionary research will change a lot our perspective and increase our understanding of many problems that we face in our lives.
This book dives into the gruesome subject of murder and explain in a well written language the killing circuits in our brain and their triggering points as well as our anti-homicidal tactics. All of these are deeply ingrained throughout our evolutionary history through thousands of years of human existence on earth.
I think that evolutionary research will change a lot our perspective and increase our understanding of many problems that we face in our lives.
This book dives into the gruesome subject of murder and explain in a well written language the killing circuits in our brain and their triggering points as well as our anti-homicidal tactics. All of these are deeply ingrained throughout our evolutionary history through thousands of years of human existence on earth.
November 25, 2012
Wow. This was tedious to read. Mate this, sexual rivalry that blah blah blah... Makes me want to be single for the rest of my life.
Basically, I had to read and review this for my Biopsychology coursework. I don't think I ever would have picked up this book otherwise. Unsurprisingly, I ran out of word space much sooner than I expected. Review will be put up as soon as it's been marked.
Basically, I had to read and review this for my Biopsychology coursework. I don't think I ever would have picked up this book otherwise. Unsurprisingly, I ran out of word space much sooner than I expected. Review will be put up as soon as it's been marked.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews