Book · 2017
Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
by Robert M. Sapolsky
A neuroscientist traces one punch backward through hormones, childhood, evolution, and culture to explain why anyone throws it at all.
What does Reddit think of Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst?
Thirty mentions split mostly between r/AskPsychology and r/AcademicPsychology, with r/therapists trailing behind both. The clearest full-throated take is the ↑54 comment, a straightforward verdict that the book on human aggression was incredible. Everything else in the sample hedges some. One ↑27 comment attributes a specific theory about primates prioritizing safety over pleasure to the book, then adds 'I might be misattributing it', a crack of doubt the ↑54 comment doesn't have. The other ↑27 mention buries this title inside an eight-book reading list alongside Chatter and Dopamine Nation, one line rather than a headline pick. On r/AcademicPsychology, the lowest-upvoted appearance (↑12) calls it 'more tangential' with just 'some good sections', about as lukewarm as praise gets before it stops being praise. The us-versus-them aggression framing (↑14) is the one idea that keeps recurring by name across separate threads. Nobody here argues the book is bad. Half the citations just aren't sure they're remembering it right.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Ingroup versus outgroup aggression
- · Biological and evolutionary roots of behavior
- · A recurring entry in multi-book psychology reading lists
- · Citations from memory, not always confidently sourced
Common praise
- + The ↑54 r/AskPsychology comment calls it an incredible book, specifically for its handling of aggression and bad behavior.
- + The us-versus-them aggression framing (↑14) gets named directly as the answer to a specific psychology question, not vaguely gestured at.
Common criticism
- − One r/AcademicPsychology comment (↑12) calls it 'more tangential' with just 'some good sections,' stopping well short of a recommendation.
- − A commenter crediting a specific theory to the book (↑27) admits 'I might be misattributing it,' so even the fans aren't always sure what's in there.
- − It gets buried as one line inside an eight-title reading list (↑27) rather than singled out on its own.
Who it's for
Reach for this if you want the ingroup/outgroup aggression argument by name, that's the idea r/AskPsychology keeps citing directly (↑14). Don't expect it to anchor a syllabus: r/AcademicPsychology's most measured take (↑12) calls it tangential with a few good sections, not essential reading. Stack it into a longer to-read list next to Chatter and Dopamine Nation (↑27) and you're in good company, that's literally how it shows up here. Can't remember later which Sapolsky idea came from which book? You won't be the first commenter to admit that.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“I recently read "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky, which is a book about the biological, sociological, and psychological drivers of human behaviour, specifically human aggression and bad behaviour, but covers a lot of ground on areas outside of aggression. Anyway, it was an incredible book with a ton of u…
“For trauma, I have read through "The Body Keeps the Score" by van der Kolk, which I found to be very useful (although it does not address Foa's prolonged exposure techniques which I think research supports as more efficacious). For CBT as a whole, nothing (in my humble opinion) beats J. Beck's "CBT:…
“There's a theory, I believe it was from Robert Sapolsky in his book Behave, but I might be misattributing it. Essentially the theory is, for primates, survival is based on prioritizing safety over pleasure. In general, thrill seeking behaviors is bad for survival. However, generic diversity requir…
“How Emotions Are Made - Lisa Feldman Barrett Chatter - Ethan Kross Behave - Robert Sapolsky Dopamine Nation - Anna Lembke Deviate - Beau Lotto Livewired - David Eagleman Hold Me Tight - Sue Johnson 7 Principles for Making Marriage Work - Gottmans Come as You Are - Emily Nagoski
“Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind is an amazing primer. Informative, written with style, well-organized, and easy to read. It provides a great grounding for those who like to get into Moral Foundations Theory and use it as a theoretical framework for research. Only issue is that he dedicated…
“We're taught to do things that are written in simple therapy books. It doesn't matter how much you read or how much therapy you get. What you need is fundamental biology, anthropology and ecology. For example, how does a zebra react after getting hunted by a lion on a David Attenborough show? It …
“I think "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky covers this question really well. The short answer is that humans are very much inclined to divide the world into us-es and thems, and the feeling that one must compete with thems can lead to agression and then things can escalate. Whereas humans are on their best…
“The evolution of desire, David Buss Behave, Robert Sapolsky, more tangential but has some good sections.
“I have probably read close to 100 different psychology books and my favorite one is Behave by Robert Sapolsky 🙂
“I just recommended a few books on a neuroscience post, so if you like the biological aspects of Psychology, here it is: - Behave, from Robert Sapolsky (an absolute favorite) - Social: why our brains are wired to connect, from Matthew D. Lieberman - "Incognito" and "The Brain: the story of you", both…
“Hi! I’m an undergrad psych student and I was recommended by one of my professors to read Behave by Robert Sapolsky. I’ve only read to about halfway but I find that it’s a really great book that ties biological psychology in with all sorts of important research and theories! It’s kind of like an easi…
“It really depends what you mean by 'getting into' psychology. A good start would be a rough guide to the whole science, then work out what interests you. If you are interested in the sometimes hidden reasons people do things, something like Behave by Robert Sapolsky might be a better start. Thinking…
“Behave by Robert Sapolsky, he's a neuroscientist and biologist but the book has a biopsych focus. Pretty interesting
“I don't generally suggest pop sci books for the very reasons I have mentioned. Some are good, all of them are inevitably overly simplified, and many are bad. I guess if I had to make suggestions, Sapolsky's *Behave* is a good overview of behavioral neurobiology, Hunt's *The Story of Psychology* is a…
“"Behave" by Sapolsky is a fantastic primer
Convinced? Pick up Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
Readers also mention
Books that share discussion threads with Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst — counted from the comments, not curated.
Guides featuring Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
Ranked best-of lists and editorial guides where this book's tracked mentions place it.
Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst — frequently asked
Is Behave by Robert Sapolsky worth reading, according to r/AskPsychology?+
Yes, on the strongest evidence here. The top r/AskPsychology comment (↑54) calls it an incredible book specifically for its treatment of human aggression and bad behavior. A separate ↑14 comment leans on the same book to explain ingroup-versus-outgroup aggression directly. Nothing in this sample argues against it, though a couple of citations hedge on details.
What is the us-versus-them theory from Behave that keeps getting cited?+
It's the idea that humans divide the world into 'us' and 'them,' and that felt competition with 'thems' escalates into aggression, while people stay closer to their best behavior around in-group members. An r/AskPsychology comment (↑14) attributes this framing directly to the book when answering a question about human conflict.
Is Behave considered essential reading on r/AcademicPsychology?+
Not really, based on the lowest-upvoted appearance here. One r/AcademicPsychology comment (↑12) calls it 'more tangential' compared to other cited titles, crediting it with 'some good sections' rather than treating it as foundational. That's a much cooler read than the enthusiasm shown on r/AskPsychology.
Should I trust Reddit's citations of specific theories from Behave?+
Cautiously. One r/AskPsychology commenter (↑27) attributes a specific claim about primates and risk-taking to the book, then immediately adds 'I might be misattributing it.' That kind of hedge shows up more than once in this sample, which suggests some citations are working from memory rather than the page.