Genetics are, by definition, a [phenotypic] limiter. That said, it can be used positively and negatively from a psychological perspective. Maximizing one's own gene expression is a positive goal that everyone can pursue.

It's a sticky argument to take genetic information as a prescription for what we "should" do in every instance. For example: genetic influence inclines men to a certain type of context-dependent jealousy based on the paternity uncertainty in our ancestral heritage. However, modern paternity tests render the emotional basis irrelevant. So… genetics could be taken to mean that men "should" act on that jealousy, or we could engage our cognition to realize that jealous impulses are evolutionarily anachronistic.

See: On Second Thought: Outsmarting Your Mind's Hard-Wired Habits

Yeah, digital versions remain a problem. Lately, Google Books is improving in this regard. I've been using it to load up my Nook (which, unlike Kindle works with Adobe Digital Editions and ePub).

I've been thinking about this stuff a lot recently and have found many parallels between business and evolution.

It's always the most adaptable and responsive companies that do the best, not the "big stupid" ones as Sonia Simone from CopyBlogger Media calls them.

There are tons of great companies out there that make something cool, but they don't watch the market and respond like a successful animal would. The end up going extinct because they didn't adapt to their surroundings.

It's the smaller, more responsive businesses that will grow and become totally awesome. Like sharks, they're going to live for millions of years, and totally shred the competition;)

Can't wait to see where you're taking Evolify next Andrew!

-Armi

Just got the Spent book. I looked for the others, however, they are all unavailable in e-format. No way I am ordering and attempting to carry those books with me to India and the far east. : ( Oh the trials of traveling and working abroad.

Perhaps you could offer ways to grok the information in the books in less cumbersome manner? In the mean time, Spent is in my read list cue.

Cool. If you're still into the topic after getting a taste from Miller, I'd definitely recommend Gad Saad's work too. His book (linked above) is a little less pop-psychology than Miller's. That was Miller's intent, so it's no slight. Saad also has several good papers published on the topic.

Then again, Miller's book references (see Spent's endnotes and footnotes) all of Saad's stuff thoroughly (in addition to a special thanks), so you'd end up there one way or another.

LOL, I'm always stopping my stories and explanations in order to explain some other important or fundamental thing. Sometimes I feel I should just give people a reading list.

I’m kind of interested to see how I’m going to get the stuff out of my head in a way that makes sense myself. 🙂 Some of it relies on so many underlying layers that I feel a need to build a massive foundation of reference posts. I’m working on a guide that goes into more depth.

In a lot of ways, biology, neuroscience, and psychology can no longer be separated. The “softer” and postmodernist social sciences are the ones afraid they’re going to get squeezed out at this point. So many are clawing at reality to wish away any explanation that isn’t totally reliant on a strict socialization paradigm.

Funny, that quote about the progress of psychology. I guess at one point there was the fear that it would be squeezed out by biology and neuroscience. Turns out there is still a lot to explore.