Hacker News Reader

I would take a lot of the unevidenced narrative in 'Sapiens' with a huge pinch of salt.

Both the book and the author have been criticized, rightly in my opinion, the former for elevating the theories of a very specific and ideological branch of anthropology to facts, and the latter for being a grifter who does not know much about anthropology.

View on HN

Agreed, I found that writing also chose to use quite manipulative, or even emotional language to subtly get the lean towards the author's way. Which is completely fine if the book were presented as "Here's just my opinion on what may have happened", rather than presenting it as "Scientific history of mankind" - this aspect is what bothered me the most.

But we suppose the group who would fall for this kind of strategy is the exact audience the author was going for.

Every now and then, one hits odd statements in Sapiens that make one wonder about the rest. He writes as if he does not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; he suggests that in the 1860 presidential election a majority of Americans voted for abolition, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com