5 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

1. Anonymous says

   Somehow the authors manage to supply numerous factual inaccuracies from a number of fields. Badly misrepresents ethology (mammals are loving, family-oriented — does not indicate that the paradigmatic mammal relationship is only mother-juvenile, ending abruptly at amturity, w/ no father in sight, & sociality in herds, etc.; psychology and attachment theory (distorts Winnicott’s complex relationship with Bowlby, by misused, out-of-context quote; Freud’s neutrality theory (which the authors describe as advocating “coldness”), and on and on. Finally, the authors conclude that Americans are too materialistic. Shocking. On the whole, a shallow, inaccurate, and surprisingly mean-spirited treatment of the topic.
   Rating: 1 / 5

   April 22, 2010, 7:08 am
2. Dorothyanne Brown says

   I was given this book for Christmas and wandered through it in the hope there might be something new of interest. Instead, the authors reviewed Freud’s largely discredited theories, moved on to behaviorists, and then settled on attachment behavior as the basis for all human development. The discussion of the evolution of the limbic brain and our attraction/avoidance to the non-limbic reptiles was interesting, although it left out birds on the evolutionary chain. Also, the most interesting parts of the limbic brain were left unexplored. The effect of hormones, neurotransmitters, the role of cortisol in stress reactions, and much more was completely abandoned. Even in 2000, early PET scans of brain activity were aavailable and more could have been made of these results.
   
   Don’t select this book if you have a medical background of any kind, or if you are a woman. In either case you will be frustrated or angered by the narrow approach taken here. Incidentally, did you know fathers bear no responsibility for anything?
   Rating: 1 / 5

   April 22, 2010, 7:49 am
3. Larry Kaplan says

   Which do you want first? The good news is that many times during the reading of the book I wanted to call the authors up and schedule an appointment to turn my life around, stop being so depressed and learn to love again. The bad news is the premise is based on some faulty assumptions. First, much time is spent knocking Freud and his sexual and parental theories (Oedipus, etc.) and then the authors turn around and say that all of our problems are based on our parents and stem from childhood. Secondly, as another reviewer pointed out, the authors completely ignore the influence of the media and peers for child development. Having raised three sons (now 12, 20, & 22), I can trace my role in their development and upbringing almost exclusively to genetic and some minor environmental effect. The rest of who they are comes from the media and their peers. The web, television, movies, and friends are the source for 90% of their information. When they are younger, their teachers are always right and when older their parents are always wrong. Thirdly, although informative, their descriptions of monkey experiments were appalling and hard to stomach. Of course, now I know why I used to sit and bang my head on the sidewalk, because the monkey ignored by its mother did the same. But did a monkey have to be tortured to death to figure this out? And how will knowing this help me be less depressed and learn to love better?
   Rating: 2 / 5

   April 22, 2010, 10:23 am
4. Charlie-Ann says

   I really liked this book, but I think it’s much more of a cognitive and developmental psychology survey than a well tied together theory of love.

   I find the author(s)’s use of overly complex words and metaphors excessive. I am a fan of simple and clean writing… you can easily convey a idea without using $50 words in every sentence.

   My biggest pet peeve is that there were ancillary information (not really necessary to the context of the book) that is either poorly explained or out right wrong.

   But overall if you can overlook these little minor annoyances, the book is really very interesting.
   Rating: 4 / 5

   April 22, 2010, 11:46 am
5. tomka says

   Even though this book has to offer great insight, I was extremely disappointed of how sexist it appeared to be. They should have thought about their female readers when they wrote this book. Disappointing.
   Rating: 3 / 5

   April 22, 2010, 11:58 am