Trust: that is the issue. This is a good book, with very interesting and complex information that illuminates much of what we are, but although important I think is better to take it as a reference, nevertheless there are many mistakes, I am not a geneticist or biologist but I have some issues with unsupported data in the book even from the introduction. It starts with a reference of a civilization that arrived to a place thousands of years ago, searching through Wikipedia (which itself is a biased and unreliable source) I cannot find correspondence with that data. Then we have a declaration against religious people and politically correct people, in a tone that to be honest is a bit unsettling for its intolerant expression. I am neither religious nor politically correct but surely a scientist has a better way to clarify his posture without lowering himself to mock other beliefs. Besides the author although says to be against political correctness he is too a politically correct individual. Similar to the description of Californians moving to Texas, described in a New York Times article, they are conservative only by virtue of being a bit less progressives than their fellow Californian citizens of the big cities. The author will look for objective data in several topics except when we get to the topic of race he starts: he distractedly accepts there are racial differences in the chapter of beauty or in page 73 in chapter of the power of parasites, but when talking about evolutionary terms he changes his tune to something akin to "there are no differences because I say so", he closes his tender eyes to reality, documentation, papers and statistics that make him uncomfortable and we get him with the wishful thinking that somebody like me, with thousands of years of Peruvian ancestry, is closer to a man with thousands of years of ancestry in Bretagne, than to my neighbor. Without reliable data to me that posture is as wrong as a physicist declaring that the double slit experiment in the quantum scale means you always cross two doors at the same time; the reality is that my neighbor and me have traits that allows us to survive in a place where the gentleman from Bretagne probably would require a tank of oxygen, and vice versa, in Brittany I would be vulnerable to heart attacks.According to my limited knowledge these are the mistakes I found, as you can see all outside the especiality of the author:1- He writes twice (in page 173 and 195) that civilization in the Andes started with the "ancient" Inca empire in 15th century, this is false, the oldest city, with the modern definition of city, is Caral dated to have been founded around 3000 B.C., many empires raised and the broke into kingdoms, then a new empire surged that would break and the cycle continued, the Inca empire just happened to be the last empire in existence from an old chain of civilizations until the arrive of Europeans. He speaks of harems for powerful men in the Inca empire, for what I have read women of power had harems too, which contradicts the points explained by the author. In page 198 he will mention the Inca empire as one where men would get all the power, this is inaccurate and due that when Spaniards registered the rich and powerful people they did it following their customs: that is without registering the women. The Inca empire was a matriarchal-patriarchal society and some of those traits survive even today. And happens in another historical examples too, in page 276 the author is a bit sloppy in declaring that men and women have always the same preferences, ignoring important chapters as the Hellenistic world where the body of the male body was considered more beautiful than the female body, and were men used to initiate boys themselves in their sexual life. In page 297 the author talks about choosing partners by beauty but monarchies around the world mostly choose political bonds and convenience for the State, and before that kingdoms would marry only relatives as they had to maintain the illusion of being from a divine nature or class, or at least that seems to indicate the evidence. In page 316 he mentions the Jamesian experiment about letting a baby to grow without language to prove the natural language would be Hebrew, which is strange as in a classic piece of data, mentioned by Herodotus, a king (from Babylon if I recall well) made the same experiment with children, they "coincidently" ended talking the language of the maid that gave them food, so that would be a far earlier example.2- In page 324 he says that an archeologist one million years in the future would call our time "the concrete age" because that would be the only thing that would remain of our civilization, which is totally mistaken; there are Roman concrete buildings that last to these days because they are a pure and still not totally replicated concrete, in our modern times our version of concrete is used with steel, and in that combination the rust deteriorates the concrete, modern concrete buildings have a lifespan of 50-100 years, far less than the million years declared by the author.3- In the chapter about Monogamy (page 238) in reference to infidelity by gender, he quotes as an example a literary work... of course good literature resembles life but it is whatever the author chooses to write, is not life.4- Much of the book is sourced from different studies, sadly we have to rely in the trustfulness of the source and is clear in some cases there are agendas and bias. For example in page 179 prostitution is defined according to terms of polygamy that really don't explain its nature. In page 200 he will define that measures taken by rich people were to make sure they would have many children, but poor people has many children too, at least one explanation is to compensate for high child mortality and birth issues. In page 201 he writes that serving maids in medieval Europe were a kind of harem, honestly it sounds rather like fitting reality into an ideological frame than speaking about reality itself. In page 218 the author says that women deny any attraction to nymphomania, or any visual attraction to men, is easy just to check comments about singers, famous actors, mugshots of handsome inmates and even videos of gym trainers on YouTube to notice that women can express their visual aroussement by very handsome men. In the fictional world of this book (page 218) women never seek pleasure and always look for progeny.In the end the four stars of my rating is not due my ideological differences with the author. I am mature enough to difference between a respectable "I think this" from a dictatorial "you should think what I think." The author is in the former and he doesn't fall consciously in the latter. In part is due the mistakes I detected, they are mostly in fields outside the expertise of the author, at most I can say the rest is not that trustworthy. But mainly the rating is due the time it was written, the book is already outdated, as the statistics about choice of professions by genders in page 260, most of the sources at most are from the 90's, even before the human genome had been mapped. The last chapters are more about the subjective ideas of the writer (he explains his theories with :"to me") than hard science. It feels a bit forced because clearly they are not ideas that were developed by the author and he tries to hastily fit them in his main hypothesis of the red queen.