Reviews
Incognito: The Secret Lives of The Brain Paperback Jan 01, 2013 Jan 01, 2013 by David Eagleman
mrizzuto's review against another edition
4.0
really excellent writing—eagleman explains complicated concepts in a digestible and compelling way. this book’s changed a lot of my beliefs about how people operate, work, whatever you want to call it. really worthwhile read, especially for someone with virtually no knowledge of neuroscience, cognition, psychology, etc. (such as myself)
thebradking's review against another edition
3.0
The first thing we learn from studying our own circuitry is a simple lesson: most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control.
[a:David Eagleman|2883386|David Eagleman|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1238026723p2/2883386.jpg]'s book [b:Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain|9827912|Incognito The Secret Lives of the Brain|David Eagleman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348669116s/9827912.jpg|14423132] is both a mind-bending walk through the science around the the ideas of "self" and "free will" and a maddening narrative that veers off course into the realm of social justice in its second half.
The most interesting parts of the book come from the explanation of the science that seeks to answer two questions: Who am I? and How do I operate?
The book's main argument grows from studies of the brain, in particular research on the the automated process that govern much of our lives. Eagleman compares conscious decision-making to that of the CEO of a large corporation. The executive can set the direction of the workers in a large sense, but day-to-day operations happen without his or her knowledge. By the time the CEO finds out about something that happened on a factory floor, this is nothing he or she can do about it.
With that metaphor in place, Eagleman peels back the science of the brain, revealing how our actions are largely manifestations of biological processes happening without our conscious knowledge and not "free will." (The last chapter of the book explores how "nurture" impacts genetics, but even still in a statistically predictable way.)
The current scientific thinking about "Who I am" and "How do I operate" suggests that what I think of as me is tied to biological reactions within my body. (In spiritual parlance: Your soul is an outgrowth of your brain activity.")
As far as we can tell, all activity in the brain is driven by other activity in the brain, in a vastly complex, interconnected network. For better or worse, this seems to leave no room for anything other than neural activity—that is, no room for a ghost in the machine. To consider this from the other direction, if free will is to have any effect on the actions of the body, it needs to influence the ongoing brain activity. And to do that, it needs to be physically connected to at least some of the neurons. But we don’t find any spot in the brain that is not itself driven by other parts of the network. Instead, every part of the brain is densely interconnected with -- and driven by -- other brain parts. And that suggests that no part is independent and therefore "free."
What we consider free will may be nothing more than an ability to direct our biological resources in a specific direction, much like a CEO set the direction of company. For instance: Our biological system knows it's hungry before we take action (and thus spur us to action even though we believe we have made the decision to act), but those systems need a conscious CEO to make us settle in a geographic location that has an abundant amount of game and water. Once we are settled, the autonomous functions once again take over.
The science is deeply philosophical by nature, and Eagleman walks the reader through a variety of science, building the argument that who we are in driven more by biology than we'd like to consider.
The book veers off course in Chapter 6, which ventures into the realm of social policy and the criminal justice system. On its surface, this topic does logically arise from the idea of "free will." If we know that certain people who commit crimes can't stop what they are doing, this brings up deeply important questions about the criminal justice system.
However, Eagleman's arguments present no real framework for practical discussions on the matter. He continually reminds the reader that the science is inexact, but that in the future we might be able to treat some criminals in a more effective manner using cognitive science techniques.
It's an odd edition to a scientific book, and it was ill-argued.
Still, the first five chapters were enough to keep me interested on a Sunday. I finished the book in one sitting. It's a great Sunday morning reading.
ajith_wordshaker's review against another edition
3.0
The Human brain is evolving ! Our brain finds out new attributes of inventions that are unknown to old humans. But still the mechanism of controlling the mind is not in the hands of humans.
Some born gay, some straight, some are bullies, some born introvert, some will be racist etc. . We actually don't know the reason why we are like that. Why does our brain work in that way? There are many factors, the society we are living in, and family, but above all that is the thing called genes. Author says some people are born criminals because it is written in their genes. So they will only be like that, the biological aspect is the one which tells the brain how to act. Something which is not under our control, but we can alter it. Minor accidents in the brain can cause serious problems like forgetting the past, unnatural behaviour etc. Likewise in the future someone will invent a mechanism in which we can change the bad gene to a good one !
So far no major discoveries have happened to modify the gene or biological order which controls the brain. In some philosophy books they claim that they can correct mental health through meditation and related practices. But nobody knows how we were born in this way.
We own this marvelous brain but literally we can't control it !!!
Some born gay, some straight, some are bullies, some born introvert, some will be racist etc. . We actually don't know the reason why we are like that. Why does our brain work in that way? There are many factors, the society we are living in, and family, but above all that is the thing called genes. Author says some people are born criminals because it is written in their genes. So they will only be like that, the biological aspect is the one which tells the brain how to act. Something which is not under our control, but we can alter it. Minor accidents in the brain can cause serious problems like forgetting the past, unnatural behaviour etc. Likewise in the future someone will invent a mechanism in which we can change the bad gene to a good one !
So far no major discoveries have happened to modify the gene or biological order which controls the brain. In some philosophy books they claim that they can correct mental health through meditation and related practices. But nobody knows how we were born in this way.
We own this marvelous brain but literally we can't control it !!!
tinyautomaton's review against another edition
2.0
very mixed feelings; full review later, if I remember.
here's my full review, later:
I enjoyed a lot of this book, especially chapters on perception and the way our mind shapes the world around us to fit our needs and cognitive limitations. It's fascinating.
But then he concludes with a chapter on encarceration, punishment, and what he calls "blameworthiness." At first I was intrigued by this notion, and I do think the questions he poses are necessary to ask ourselves as a society. Questions of how we judge someone's intent and responsibility for their actions, as it pertains to cognition. Important. But, then, he goes so far as to suggest a solution, and this is the part that, when giving him the benefit of the doubt, I find woefully misguided in his optimism and faith in the justice system, but when not giving him the benefit of the doubt, I find downright alarming and bordering on eugenical. He suggests that punishments be given to match a person's ability to adapt. At first I thought he meant that he was advocating for a system that helps to heal rather than hurts, and I thought, okay, yes. But then it became clear that he meant that, depending on someone's cognitive predisposition, they should either be given a punishment to help them learn (what?!?), or "warehoused" (what. the. fuck.). To me this seems nothing short of neuroimaging being used to condemn some members of society to a terrible fate, while giving others a chance. Furthermore, nowhere in this discussion of punishment does he discuss the corrupt and unjust nature of the US justice system, and the systematic oppression some face because of it. As a psychologist, I think he is well within his right to have an interesting and well informed discussion on what it means to be culpable, as it pertains to cognition, but he is clearly out of his depths when talking about the justice system and has ended up promoting a dangerous future.
It's hard for me to rate this book. For most of it, I would give it a 4 or 3.5, but with that one chapter, I don't know. A 2? A 1? Someone I regard very highly recommended this book to me, and I can only assume he had forgotten about this chapter, as I believe it would have troubled him too.
here's my full review, later:
I enjoyed a lot of this book, especially chapters on perception and the way our mind shapes the world around us to fit our needs and cognitive limitations. It's fascinating.
But then he concludes with a chapter on encarceration, punishment, and what he calls "blameworthiness." At first I was intrigued by this notion, and I do think the questions he poses are necessary to ask ourselves as a society. Questions of how we judge someone's intent and responsibility for their actions, as it pertains to cognition. Important. But, then, he goes so far as to suggest a solution, and this is the part that, when giving him the benefit of the doubt, I find woefully misguided in his optimism and faith in the justice system, but when not giving him the benefit of the doubt, I find downright alarming and bordering on eugenical. He suggests that punishments be given to match a person's ability to adapt. At first I thought he meant that he was advocating for a system that helps to heal rather than hurts, and I thought, okay, yes. But then it became clear that he meant that, depending on someone's cognitive predisposition, they should either be given a punishment to help them learn (what?!?), or "warehoused" (what. the. fuck.). To me this seems nothing short of neuroimaging being used to condemn some members of society to a terrible fate, while giving others a chance. Furthermore, nowhere in this discussion of punishment does he discuss the corrupt and unjust nature of the US justice system, and the systematic oppression some face because of it. As a psychologist, I think he is well within his right to have an interesting and well informed discussion on what it means to be culpable, as it pertains to cognition, but he is clearly out of his depths when talking about the justice system and has ended up promoting a dangerous future.
It's hard for me to rate this book. For most of it, I would give it a 4 or 3.5, but with that one chapter, I don't know. A 2? A 1? Someone I regard very highly recommended this book to me, and I can only assume he had forgotten about this chapter, as I believe it would have troubled him too.
saralynnburnett's review against another edition
4.0
I adore these neurology books - they never fail to fascinate me and make me want to spend the rest of my life wearing a helmet. The brain is such a unique thing! David Eagleman spoke to the faculty at my school over the summer, mostly about things that were not covered in this book (synesthesia and dyslexia).
Incognito takes a look at how our brain constructs vision, how thoughts are generated by parts of the brain that we have no conscious access to and how useful routines are burned into neural circuitry how and once they're there we no longer have access to them (this explains why when people ask me how to swim, I really can't figure out how to tell them, I can just do it). He also looks at how minds contain multitudes, and this was one of the most fascinating parts of the book- how simple changes in your brain, or drastic ones, completely alter who you are... and this led to the best part of the book: neural rights, and how not all brains are created equally. Eagleman presents a convincing case on how criminal sentences should be based on neural plasticity because when it comes to actions, motives, and other such things, free will doesn't really exist.
Incognito takes a look at how our brain constructs vision, how thoughts are generated by parts of the brain that we have no conscious access to and how useful routines are burned into neural circuitry how and once they're there we no longer have access to them (this explains why when people ask me how to swim, I really can't figure out how to tell them, I can just do it). He also looks at how minds contain multitudes, and this was one of the most fascinating parts of the book- how simple changes in your brain, or drastic ones, completely alter who you are... and this led to the best part of the book: neural rights, and how not all brains are created equally. Eagleman presents a convincing case on how criminal sentences should be based on neural plasticity because when it comes to actions, motives, and other such things, free will doesn't really exist.
samcastro's review against another edition
2.0
A lighthearted book for the shallow end of the pool. A lot of it is regurgitated material that doesn't explore concepts very deeply.
I suppose it's a good introduction to readers who may have a passing interest in pop-neuroscience but don't skew scientific.
Better reading on the subject, also written very understandably, are books by VS Ramachandran. He goes into much greater detail while remaining accessible. Although he has a rock-star neuroscientist quality that may be off-putting to some, better reads can be had with his work.
I suppose it's a good introduction to readers who may have a passing interest in pop-neuroscience but don't skew scientific.
Better reading on the subject, also written very understandably, are books by VS Ramachandran. He goes into much greater detail while remaining accessible. Although he has a rock-star neuroscientist quality that may be off-putting to some, better reads can be had with his work.
tabithar's review against another edition
2.0
This book pretends to be science but is mostly magic (slight of hand). While there are some interesting bits to this book, it is easily 2/3 preachy, condescending, political agenda. There is a vague attempt at the end of saying, oh I didn't mean to come off quite so preachy and I'm actually not as overly confident about this as I come across...but I'd be impressed if many readers made it to those last few sentences. Additionally, I observed there were a couple of representations of well known scientific information which was erroneously stated, which left me wondering about the parts with which I was unfamiliar.
Summary: Read something else. I can't get the time back but you can.
Summary: Read something else. I can't get the time back but you can.