A popular science writer has two choices: be vague when explaining the specific experiments behind their explanations, thus leaving themselves open to criticism about not sufficiently proving their supposition, or be exhaustive, which is boring. It is impossible to be both truly rigorous and readable by mainstream publishing standards.
Reading Top Dog, I had an urge to make myself feel smart/assert dominance by criticizing their science. Those of you who follow me on twitter got a taste of that. But I stopped because I realized the criticism was a net drain on the universe. While every study and experiment they cited could be criticized, that is the nature of research: you can only prove so much in any given run. You have to draw conclusions from the body of applicable research as a whole. And in that context, I think it’s a pretty good book. It explained biochemistry in a way I found understandable but rigorous,* and I think their overall conclusions are merited and well supported. Some of them will be proven incorrect tomorrow, but that is the nature of science.
If you are looking for science writing for the sake of science writing, I would recommend the authors’ previous work, Nurture Shock. But if you are looking for something specifically on the science of competition and, more broadly, stress, seriously consider Top Dog.
* This is a compliment. I nearly ran on stage last week when a play’s key plot point depended on a faulty understanding of sickle cell anemia.
Aceso Under Glass 