Susan Pinker

The data the book is based on is really interesting, and the idea that scientific facts must come before what is considered "politically correct" in any given period is important.

However, the data is dispersed in 270 pages, while it could have been related much more clearly in 100 or less. The rest is repetitions, interviews of doubtful value, and more repetitions.
I was thankful when I finished the book: enough of the same stuff already!
As a consequence, the weakest aspect of the book is the actual proof that the data is *not* due to a cultural bias, but is rather biological. I am personally convinced if this, but I couldn't in honesty say that the book proves it in any convincing way. There's little discussion of the proposed relevant evidence - and it is scattered around.

Still, interesting read.… (mais)

En la época actual, en la que Internet y las nuevas tecnologías han acortado notablemente las distancias y nos permiten estar más fácilmente en comunicación con quien vive lejos o tener más «amigos» y hasta «seguidores», ¿cuánto influye el contacto directo con otras personas en nuestras existencias? A través de experiencias reales e investigaciones científicas, este apasionante libro muestra cómo lo que de verdad mejora nuestra vida son los lazos reales, el contacto cara a cara y el pertenecer a una red social, no online, sino física. Investigando una aldea remota de Cerdeña, habitada por hombres centenarios, hasta las escuelas, los hospitales, los lugares de trabajo o el propio hogar, la psicóloga canadiense Susan Pinker, autora del controvertido La paradoja sexual, demuestra que para vivir más y mejor o ser más feliz es necesario dedicar tiempo al contacto social real y que, como recuerda Teresa Giménez Barbat en el prólogo, «ser negligente en construir una red de afectos es al menos tan peligroso para la salud como fumar un paquete de cigarros al día, la hipertensión o la obesidad».… (mais)

I am not a causal identification maniac, and I find descriptive stuff interesting, but I am frustrated by presentation of statistical associations followed by suggestive or explicit causal language, even if occasionally accompanied by acknowledging other possibilities and selection issues. Susan Pinker is not the worst offender in this regard that I have come across, but a pretty serious offender she is. In particular with all the talk about "the female effect" and the effects of marriage , but often also casually, as with "the effect of eating dinner together". I accept much of her message that face-to-face social interactions are important and perhaps undervalued in today's society, the problem is that this is almost lost in hyperbole and one-sided interpretation. Not recommended.… (mais)