Scan barcode
A review by tinyautomaton
Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain by David Eagleman
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.