Though I’m very late to reviewing this one, I really enjoyed it! It kept me interested, and I would recommend it to anyone who dabbles in this genre.

Interesting in its own ways, and raising a lot of prompts to question oneself about how we define ‘evil’, if such definitions are actually applicable, what would make us think a person is evil, or whether we are all capable of evil (and if we are, then what prevents us from tipping that way). Most examples given I already knew (Hitler—obviously, or the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments), but it didn’t make the questions less valid, of course. Like many things, the ‘evil’ label can be applied in haste, as a shortcut, and there are times when I believe it is indeed valid, and others when evil has nothing to do with it. Times when we tend to use the label to mean something that is too different from our own experience for us to want to acknowledge it and not treat it as ‘other’.

And it is definitely a tricky subject. It is not so easy to calmly consider, say, the case of paedophilia, and try to see people experiencing these urges as people who need help rather than just as ‘evil people who should be castrated’ (note that I wrote ‘experiencing urges’, which doesn’t necessarily mean ‘acting on them’). Are those people ‘evil’? Are they more victims of something they can’t control? And what would be more productive: just labelling them, or trying to find solutions to help before something bad happens? Probably your mileage may vary here, but I get the point, and I agree with it, that pointing the finger is seldom a solution in itself—and that saying ‘it’s evil’ is basically useless anyway if all we do is say it instead of acting. Which raises other questions, obviously: what does ‘acting’ mean here? Does it mean punishing, killing (and committing a harmful act as well)? Does it mean helping?

Regarding this kind of reflections leading to more reflections, the book is clearly interesting, and tends to push boundaries and make one feel uncomfortable: none of us want to realise ‘hey, wait, but I also have such thoughts at times’, or think ‘if I don’t call a murderer evil, then people will judge me as bad and reject me’. There’s a lot of philosophical aspects to go with here, and opportunities for good discussions.

This said, I found the ‘science’ side more lacking. While many examples presented in it do rest on actual experiments and reports, and some clinical reasons are given for certain behaviours (such as studies trying to pinpoint if specific areas of the brain are involved in psychopathic behaviours, etc.), for me, it didn’t go far enough in the scientific department (such as neurology), which is why I liked the book in general, but didn’t love it. The author also adds her own opinions, and does say they are opinions (= not trying to pass them as facts), and to be fair, I do agree with them (I never once considered that mental disorders were ‘evil’…); still, that is not what I expected here.

To conclude, this one is a good read for delving into more philosophical approaches, confronting ourselves when it comes to what we consider evil, and trying to understand what the latter entails. It is much less an actual scientific book, though.

Defining evil is a difficult challenge, but Shaw makes the mark. Lovers of true crime novels will be intrigued by this. There wasn't as much science as I thought there would be, and that was okay with me. I would have appreciated some more case studies, but overall, a good read.

I recieved a free copy of this book through NetGalley. 4.5/5
I read the description of this book and I thought it’d be interesting to read about humanity’s flaws, and I was not wrong.
“Evil” is a book that will make you hate humanity, hate yourself, hate everything and everyone around you, and then it’ll make you change your mind. There were a few topics that most people consider taboo, but I was very glad she had the guts to talk about them, what’s most interesting about this book is that you get to see a little bit of what’s inside a criminal’s mind, or in any case, your own mind. We normal people also do evil things and we have plenty of excuses for it, but dr. Shaw actually tells us that this is perfectly normal.
I was very engaged in each topic that she chose, the experiments and other facts she talks about makes this a very enjoyable read, she made me laugh, then get angry, and then I ended up being sympathetic about every person that’s around me.
I feel that if someone reads this book 10 years from now, that person would be scared and horrified of what society was today, and I’m guessing that was Dr. Shaw’s purpose, to open our eyes.
I liked “Evil” quite much and I’d definitely recommend it to a few of my friends.
Thank you for my free copy!

Evil is a really interesting book on the psychology of humans and what society thinks is evil. I definitely recommend this as a fascinating read.

Torn about whether to give this 3 or 4 stars. It raises some very interesting and important issues, but it did feel a bit shallow and preachy at times. On the whole, a worthwhile read, but not a favorite.

I fascinating look into what we as a society determine is "evil". A good exercise in the philosophy of evil and what we actually see as good and evil.

What is evil? What makes certain choices and actions evil? Does evil exist independently? Or does it need an opposite...good...to manifest? Is evil subjective....or universal?

Dr. Julia Shaw takes a close in-depth look at evil in her new book. But this isn't the sort of book that most might expect. It isn't a bloody dissection of evil behavior in detail, or a discussion of pros and cons about punishment or treatment for those who commit serious acts of violence or crime. Dr. Shaw instead looks at the science behind human behavior. She points out in her introduction that her book is NOT about philosophy, morality, religious views or about punishment/consequences for aberrant behavior....it's about WHY human beings do the things they do, what in the makeup of human beings allows violent or evil choices, and what behaviors seem to be present in a person to make them capable of evil. Dr. Shaw breaks down the wide concept of "Evil'' into smaller pieces, using science to explain human behavior.

I read my way through this tome about the nature of evil slowly and thoughtfully. I wanted to give my brain time to formulate its opinions on Dr. Shaw's theories. For me, the idea that any human being can be capable of evil in certain situations is chilling and disturbing. I'm not saying that it isn't true....I'm saying that it is a rough revelation. We all want to see ourselves as the "good'' separated from those we see as "evil'' -- murderers, rapists, criminals, pedophiles, etc. But are we really separate? Interesting theories. Very interesting facts and explanations. Definitely thought provoking, but also disturbing. I had a hard time getting through the entire book. Not because I didn't like it or believe it...but because there is a lot of hard truth and a lot to digest/think over.

This book has definitely started some interesting discussions in our household....my husband and I are still debating what we think about the nature of evil and what situations might lead us to make an "evil'' choice. We had a long discussion this morning about how we perceive those who commit evil acts...do we see them as a person who committed an evil act...or do we judge them as an intrinsically evil person. Are there levels of evil? Are there really "evil'' people...and can "evil'' people have portions of themselves that are good? I think this book is going to be spurring debate in my household for some time to come. Healthy debate is a good thing!

Evil: The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side hits on some rough subjects -- sadism, murder, deviance, group violence, terrorism, effects of technology/the internet and others.

I have respect for Dr. Shaw's education and her theories. I did my best to understand her points, although my educational background is not in psychology. But I think at times she goes a step or so too far....maybe tries to make things a bit too clinical? I haven't thought over it enough to know if I think that way because she actually does go too far, or if her straight forward opinions about our tendencies to be judgmental make me uncomfortable. Food for thought...and discussion...

All in all, I liked this book because it really made me think. I don't necessarily agree with all of Dr. Shaw's points, but I'm at least willing to seriously think it over and try to wrap my mind around it.

**I voluntarily read an advanced readers copy of this book from Abrams Press via NetGalley. All opinions expressed are entirely my own.**

An examination of what people think as evil is usually something that they have not considered fully. Looks at some of the strangeness of people in an effort to "demystify the other." There seemed to be an odd tone shift in the middle of the book.

This title caught my attention right away, because I, like many other people, am caught up in the true crime zeitgeist. Also, I'm alive and a part of this mucky world right now, so this kind of exploration seems important.

I don't disagree with her thesis ultimately: that evil is not a useful construct through which to view human behavior. The book also has a couple of very interesting chapters on human sexuality that highlighted what the author seemed to be most interested in. Otherwise it was, unfortunately, a disappointment.

My first clue that she wasn't trying to be objective or professional in any way was a parenthetical comment she made about Jeffrey Dahmer's sentence of 15 consecutive life sentences, something like "(you know, just in case he survived the first one.)" Though she has an MS in law, she was either accidentally or purposely overlooking the fact that the multiple life sentences were not utilitarian punishments, but rather meant to establish a sense of "justice" for each crime he was convicted of. Throughout the book the author states multiple times that we are conditioned to be biased toward victims and to dehumanize murderers, so I guess that line of reasoning follows.

In between neurological studies and statistical data about how humans perceive evil, Shaw goes on several personal screeds on topics like the uselessness of airport security and the injustice of bi-erasure. Again, I didn't disagree with her opinions, but I wasn't really interested in being preached at. That's not how this book was positioned.

Though the whole book was bracketed by Nietzche quotes, the only source that she called out as racist was Hannah Arendt of all people (I'm not saying she's incorrect, I'm just saying it was interesting that she was the only one who got this treatment). Shaw dredged up the Milgram experiment a couple of times, first using it to refute the idea that laughing at inappropriate times was inherently evil and then for its usual purpose: to talk about the banality of evil (lol). She also used the Stanford Prison Experiment for its typical purpose of illustrating groupthink gone wild while almost completely glossing over the major flaws that have caused the experiment to be discredited.

Anyway this has a couple of interesting chapters in the middle about unsavory topics. If you feel like learning some interesting statistics and attitudes about pedophilia and zoophilia, about a quarter of this book is for you.

This is a fascinating study into the nature of "evil" with thorough evidence and research. I found it highly engaging to read through, and the author's ideas on the topic were illuminating. Shaw evokes so much empathy in the reader, while also being clearly descriptive. At some points this became very "technical", which leads me away from recommending this to my students, but I will recommend it to adults and colleagues.

Evil was an Interesting read but not quite what I expected. It felt more philosophical than hard science.

Evil has multiple moving parts and this book does well in examining them. I think this book can easily be understood by people who don't usually read philosophy books.

Evil: The Science Behind Humanity’s Dark Side by Julia Shaw is a study of evil and an attempt to define evil. Shaw is a German-Canadian psychologist and popular science writer who specializes in false memories. She started a BSc in psychology at the Simon Fraser University. She went on to complete a Masters in Psychology and Law at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. In 2009, she returned to Canada and was awarded a Ph.D. at the University of British Columbia entitled “Constructing Rich False Memories of Committing Crime.”

Shaw opens with Hitler, someone that nearly everyone considers as evil; the question is why. There was no trauma in his childhood. He did not torture small animals. Even to the last, he was kind to his dog. Yet, he is responsible for the deaths of millions. Others seem to fit this mold like Charles Manson, or Josef Stalin. They have little in redeeming qualities.

What is evil? Is there a definition that can be applied — a tipping point for actions. Shaw does punctuate the chapters of the book with Nietzsche quotes that tend to imply that the answer is no. The Trolley Experiment is an excellent example of the sliding scale of right and wrong, and that experiment can be played on many different levels and settings. These experiments have no right answer many times. If letting a child die to save a person wrong, what about if ten people were saved, or one hundred? Where is the line drawn? Is someone who kills a person by accident or negligence deserving of the title of “murderer” the same as a serial killer? We all have a dark secret of some kind or something we are not proud of in our past. Should that label be made public and remain with us for our entire lives?

Shaw does take some twists that are unexpected such as with Jeffery Dahmer and those who commit murder. Recidivism rates for murder are extremely low, and most murders are between people who are close. Someone who kills is doubtful to kill again. Her search for why sometimes clouds the actions. However, some crimes are of necessity. Would anyone considers Jean Valjean to be evil?

Evil has changed over time. Homosexuality was considered a crime or a mental illness. Some people thought it was contagious. Some aspects of sexuality today were considered crimes in the recent past. Others remain on the taboo list. Shaw also likes using lists that make the reader feel increasingly uncomfortable to the point that each reader comes upon an action they consider evil. We all do not stop at the same point. We oppose slavery in the modern world but where is the line drawn. Paying someone a non-living wage is permissible, but slavery is evil. Killing puppies or kittens is considered evil, but the industrial slaughter of cows, pigs, and chickens is allowable.

Nietzsche said, “There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.” Although many of us can agree that evil exists at one edge of the spectrum, how far does it extend to the center? Shaw gives examples and situations to show how large the grey area is between good and evil. Time moves the marker. Differences in our own thinking and experiences create different tipping points for each of us. We all agree are that there is evil, but what is evil varies between people.

Shaw's main question for her readers is this: should we as a society be using the word evil? Is it okay to label someone evil, in turn forever damning them for their bad decisions? Shaw doesn't think we should - that there are many facets of someone 'turning evil' and that we need to do better to understand these people's behaviors (like pedophilia or psychopathy) instead of deeming them less than. I tend to not agree with Shaw's hypothesis (I do think murderers should be labeled murderers for the rest of their lives!), but I was impressed with her wide array of knowledge, as well as her fascinating collection of research studies. Although at times I lost the main thread, Shaw included so much interesting information, that it didn't matter too much in the need. A great psychology read!

“When we talk about evil, we tend to turn our attention to Hitler.”

This catchy first sentence begins Dr. Julia Shaw’s excellent, up-to-date analysis. She points out that, on the internet, it seems as if “…every comment thread will eventually lead to a Hitler comparison.”

But, as ‘Hitler’ has become a synonym for ‘evil,’ the sheer volume of people and actions compared to the WWII dictator results in the weakening of the epithet as a description. Even though there are points on which most would agree, there’s no standard measure of ‘evil.’ The judgment of humans and institutions is filtered through the perspective of what is normal for each particular culture.

Can ‘evil’ be measured precisely, scientifically, medically, or legally? Dr. Shaw has endeavored to break down some pivotal events, crimes, and psychological studies in order to examine more closely what ‘evil’ means to us, in all its contexts, past and present.

The book discusses this weighty subject in a way that would be useful in an educational or professional setting. However, without dumbing down her language, she’s made the book easily understood and fascinating for ordinary readers.

Though it isn’t a religious book, religion is discussed, as well as other controversial but pertinent topics.

I thoroughly enjoyed it — as a parent, a concerned citizen, a writer, a crime fiction fan, and an imperfect human being. I still feel guilty, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not evil.

less innovative, less actual hard science, and less legitimate philosophy than I had hope but still certainly an engaging and useful work. it's the kind of literature that would sit well next to something Malcolm Gadwell would scribble

EVIL: The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side – Julia Shaw
Abrams Press
ISBN: 978-1-4197-2949-2
ISBN: 978-1-68335-208-2 - ebook
February 2019
Nonfiction, Science

Author Julia Shaw investigates the term evil and how different individuals and cultures view people, acts, and beliefs they label evil. I found this a thought altering book leading to a different understanding of labels and human behavior. As humans our actions and thoughts are controlled not only by our beliefs and our emotions but also by basic human instincts found even in prehistoric humans. I think most people understand this. Shaw begins with a well-founded premise that we are all capable of evil. She challenges the reader to critically think about the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ ideologies we all seem to hold and instead to find the strands of similarities common among us. The ‘us’ versus ‘them’ philosophy shows an example of ‘othering,’ an action that leads to labeling cultures or people with different beliefs, or other sexual, behavioral, intelligence, or social variances, as evil. This subjectivity of thinking often leads a group or an individual to perpetrate evil on those they perceive as evil.

She asks questions such as are all murderers, sexual deviants, or pedophile inherently evil? This creates the line between good and evil, white and black; but how many shades of grey lay between the two absolutes? Furthermore, do factors in brain chemistry or past history make someone’s worst behaviors understandable? Also discussed is indecision and the willingness of many to watch evil or know of potential harm to others and to do or say nothing. Another problem is the use of evil actions as a platform to spread dogmas.

With today’s widely broadcast global behaviors leading to so much public and private contention, this is an excellent book to help give everyone a greater understanding and new perspective on labeling someone or something evil.

An interesting, readable, and sometimes chilling look at the neuroscience behind evil behavior. Are people inherently good or bad? And why is society fascinated by truly evil acts such as serial killings?

OK, kudos to Julia Shaw for a VERY thought-provoking book - albeit one that I often disagreed with... Shaw has put together an interesting argument and analysis in support of it. I can agree with her basic premise that knee-jerk "that/he/she is EVIL!" pronouncements based on a small number of "facts" and/or singular details is destructive not only to the person/thing being pronounced but also to society as a whole because it oversimplifies and "other-izes" and ignores all of the shades of nuance and grey that underpin the world. BUT, that said, I cannot agree with her that this basically means everything/everyone is on a spectrum of ok-ness and we just need to understand the point of view of the thing/person and then everything is magically acceptable...

(Yes, I know I've over-simplified things a bit there, but bear with me.)

This is a great book for discomfort - and discomfort is a great thing when it comes to ideas. I am a lawyer by training and a philosophy student by education. I really enjoy considering where ideas come from and what underpins them, and enjoy having my perspective challenged. It's uncomfortable at times, but it's valuable precisely because of the tendency to oversimplify/other-ize mentioned above. The world is a complex place and the people within it even more so - motivations shift, as do perspectives, and it's important to understand where opinions (and the "facts" we rely on to form them) come from. Shaw draws attention to all of this, and does a masterful job doing so. She has a generally engaging and easy-going writing style, even when addressing dicey topics that make most of us squirm. I like the way she focused on various types of so-called evil - from people with predilections to intangibles, her broad range 0f sub-categories was thorough and thought-provoking particularly in the comparisons/contrasts that it raised in my mind while reading.

BUT. (And you knew there'd be a but...) I just can't say that I agree with the concept that there really is no such thing as evil. Her point that human slavery is just a continuum point away from Wal-Mart just doesn't cut it for me. There's a moral relativism here that I am struggling with mightily - while I certainly don't agree that the presence of middlemen make bad acts magically good or less bad, I also can't agree that a person's conscious decision to intentionally do something with complete and utter disregard for the consequences to any-/everyone but themselves, knowing what those consequences will be, is somehow on par with a decision to sell cheaply made products from China. BUT (yes, another one) I DON'T HAVE TO agree or understand to have found the book a fascinating argument about the state of the world, the position of privilege many of us reside in within it, or the difficulty in comprehending the motivations behind actions we cannot imagine committing...

That's the beauty of the book - while it infuriated me in many places, it did so because it made me question my own preconceptions and biases, and for that I say kudos to Ms. Shaw. There's a LOT of food for thought here and even if I'm not 100% sure of the nutritional value of all of it, it was still satisfying...