The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit Paperback – February 1, 2003

Melvin Konner's The Tangled Wing is a shining example of the way science is done. The depth of scholarship is truly inspiring - Konner remarked that there were originally two hundred pages of notes, "the meticulous preparation of which added at least a year to the project" (they were published online to keep the cost of the book down). Warning: after reading this book, the methodology of other authors might seem pathetically underwhelming by comparison. The next two books I read as part of my master's degree in engineering management seemed ludicrously speculative by comparison, with poor or nonexistent empirical support. A joke, in short, made all the more laughable due to the stark contrast with the depth of scholarship displayed in The Tangled Wing.Scientific authors often have to trade off between popular appeal of their books and usefulness to the academic community. Konner settled that compromise more on the academic side, but I wouldn't say this book is wholly inaccessible to those outside the academic community (my education is in engineering, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it). If you don't mind wading through a little jargon about neurotransmitters and brain regions, there are plenty of fascinating gems to be discovered. And laymen might be just as impressed by the methodology of a real scientist as they are by the discoveries garnered thereby.There is a chapter about weight regulation titled 'Gluttony' that I found particularly interesting. This is a deceptively complex topic that is subject to much pseudoscience and uninformed opinion, so it is refreshing to see the bright light of science shone upon it. I'll summarize some of the findings:"Between the age twenty-five and fifty-five, the average American puts on an additional twenty pounds; all this takes is an energy intake that exceeds energy output by one third of one percent. " The sensations of hunger and satiety (fullness) are regulated by a complicated system using various forms of feedback, and tiny variations can make all the difference. "40 to 70 percent of human variation in plumpness is genetic, as measured in various ways in many studies. In a classic adoption study led by Albert Stunkard, 540 adult Danish adoptees were compared with their biological and adoptive parents. The subjects ranged from thin to extremely obese, and this dimension was highly predictable from the fatness of either biological parent but not from either or both adoptive parents...the family environment had no apparent effect.""The meal-ending signal system is framed by the long-term fat-regulation system." In other words, when you have more body fat than your "set point," you feel full after eating less food than you otherwise would, triggering a loss of weight. "Unfortunately, it works both ways. Go on a diet, reduce your fat mass, and pretty soon your meal-ending sensors don't hear so well anymore." So lose weight and it takes more food to make you feel full, stimulating weight gain. This is combined with another insidious effect: the body regulates its fat content by varying its metabolic rate, so losing weight means the body reduces its energy consumption."Energy output is reduced by even a small (10 percent) weight loss, deliberate or not, so a 'formerly obese person requires approximately fifteen percent fewer calories to maintain a 'normal' body weight than a person of the same body composition who has never been obese.' This is due to an 18 percent decrease in energy use at rest and a 25 percent decrease in energy use while active." So an obese person who loses weight may 1) require more food to feel full than they used to and 2) their metabolism may decrease so their body naturally burns fewer calories than it used to. It's as if the body is striving to achieve a certain amount of body fat, called the "set point," which varies from person to person. These two factors explain why weight loss is rarely achieved in the long term.Why does the human body seem to be designed for obesity? We evolved under hunter-gatherer conditions, when periodic food deficits were the norm. Studies of modern hunter-gatherer societies show that mild to severe food deficits are common, during which times stored fat confers survival advantage. This was probably also true in our species' history. "Natural selection could not provide us with an effective mechanism for keeping our weight down in times of abundance for the simple reason that it was giving us quite the opposite, a system that piles on excess fat in times of abundance, stores to draw on during shortages. Since there was rarely continuous abundance during the whole of human evolution - and certainly not combined with physical indolence - natural selection cannot have prepared us for such conditions."

I felt compelled to write this review because of its aggregate five-star rating. This is one of those times I really feel betrayed by the ratings and reviews of a book on Amazon.First of all, this was a long, arduous book, at least for me. I calculated (roughly) how long it was taking for me to read the book, which was longer than most things I read because it had a lot of technical jargon and references to anatomy that I simply was unfamiliar with. I estimate that it took 40-45 hours for me to read. That's not bad in itself, but at a certain point I took this book as a challenge for me, rather than something I enjoyed reading.To sum it up, it seems to be almost a political statement to people (Stephen Jay Gould being the principle example, I suppose) who are against the idea that biology and behavior are partly determined by genetics. The problem is that I doubt people who feel that way about anthropology and behavior (that everything is a social construct and behavior is pretty much environmentally determined) will really be swayed by this book. People who are ideologues are generally like that because they're into it. Even if you give them facts and substantial counter-arguments, generally, they'll just subsume them into their own worldview, such as it is. So, if anyone of that stripe might be swayed by this long book, then that's great.The flipside of that is that this book, as stated even by the introduction or the first chapter, is supposed to be about evolutionary psychology, or sociobiology--not an argument against environmental determinism. Or maybe that was just what I wanted it to be about.A couple positives. The writer is a very deep-thinking man, obviously, if flawed in some of his views. (There's an anti-male streak running through the book, although I feel like he's also trying to tamp that down, even as he wrote it.) He loves poetry, and I appreciate that, even as someone who's not into poetry. He has a poetic way of writing, and generally writes very well.This book was too long for what it was, as far as I'm concerned. It was difficult to read and he just doesn't describe the detailed biological processes of certain things well enough. If you understood the brain, you'd probably find it pretty easy to connect with, but if you don't, I think you'll be somewhat lost, and I want to understand the brain, biology, and why we do the things that we do, as humans. I think this book referenced processes and parts of the anatomy much more than it did explain the actual workings, even on a simple level.Finally, if you want to read a book that does a better job of what I was describing, then check out  Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst , by Robert Sapolsky, even though it still has a lot of (what I would consider) unnecessary political content and a heavy liberal bias. It still attempts to really explain what the brain is doing and why we, as humans, act the way we do. Even Sapolsky's book though, sort of lost the thread after about 5 chapters, into its own tangent of politics and worldview.So, why 3 stars? It was a monumental effort, and he has a poetic way about him that ingratiates him to the reader, and also, it was not a bad book, it just wasn't really what I hoped it would be. It was almost more like a collection of recountings of animal experiments and observations of various obscure (by population standards) cultures than a book about how the brain works. Also, it became somewhat depressing, especially when he's describing his feelings about how everything, in his opinion, is basically going to hell. He could probably (although maybe his views have changed by now) write a great counter to  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined , by Steven Pinker. I would recommend either of those books over this one, although "Nature" is unnecessarily lengthy.

Answers to questions you never thought to ask.

Came across this author having read and listened to Robert Sapolsky, who recommended him strongly.Melvin Konner is a gifted writer who expresses his knowledge of the subject in a most accessible way. I really enjoyed reading this book, and did so over a few days only. This is unusual for me as I tend to have several books on the go simultaneously. This book will be of interest to those studying medicine, biology, psychology and other subjects that can have an over-academic edge to their viewpoint. I prefer a bit of the arts to be embedded in any form of science, otherwise it doesn't sit well in my digestive system.The author helps to do this, and as a result makes his subject absorbing and vital. What a great book!