> Out of curiosity, would you say your understanding changed or deepened upon re-reading it?

It's hard to do justice to that in a few words. I think I had a different reason for reading it the second time, as opposed to the first time.

The first time around, I think I was more reading it because I like to think of myself as an educated, scientific-minded person, and it was one of "those books" that any self-respecting "educated, scientific-minded person" was sort of "supposed to" have read. That and I was mentally already in a place somewhere in the nether regions between "agnostic" and "atheist" and I knew of Dawkins as a strong advocate for atheist thinking, and I guess I was looking for something that might convince me one way or the other. Or maybe that's just post-hoc rationalization on my part, but that's what I felt like I found. I felt much better about just calling myself an atheist after reading the book.

Anyway... one thing I was struck by though, was his discussion of things like kin altruism and reciprocal altruism and some of the game theoretical stuff, including mentions of Robert Axelrod and his research. So the second time I read the book, I was really looking to focus more on those sections, and take notes and do some further research. And all of that was really driven by my interest in evolutionary computing / genetic algorithms / etc. and a thought that I might find something there that I could apply to those areas. I wound up buying Axelrod's book The Evolution of Cooperation, but I sadly have not quite gotten around to reading it yet.

> And read the author's sequel books to it.

I've also read The Blind Watchmaker twice, although that was sort of by accident. I forgot I'd already read it, and I was moderately deep into the second read before I realized I'd read it before. It was worth it though.

I still have Climbing Mount Improbable, The God Delusion, The Ancestor's Tale, and a couple of other Dawkins books queued up to read as well.