Rating: 
Summary: It will jumpstart your own theorizing
Review: The brain is arguably the most fascinating thing in existence. For me, it rates right up next to the Uncertainty Principle (in Quantum Physics). The book is all about the mind. It's asks the infamous question, "How can consciousness emerge from the brain" and attempts to answer it. I say 'attempts' because naturally science does not yet know the answer. But Pinker gives a plausible theory. It is not crucial that his theory is correct, for me to want to read the book. It is crucial that the theory makes sense, that it is internally consistent, and that it is intuitive. Whether or not the theory turns out to be correct, it will get you to think about the brain and the mind in a very deep way, and allow you to formulate your theories. I actually used this as a partial introducion to the mind.
I always like to comment on the writing of a book. I would rate this one as above average, but not spectacular. I also did not finish the book. Once I grasped an understanding of the brain, and a lot of the ancillary effects, I began to tire of reading. It became a bit of a struggle. I still rated the book 5 stars, you should notice, and that's because what I read was 5 star material. Maybe one day I'll finish the book.
Rating:
Summary: How the mind works....sort of
Review: This book is quite impressive- very well researched, thorough, provocative, and very well written. Pinker has done an admirable job approaching such a massively complex problem. However, I think he's a little thick on the psychology, and thin on the neuroscience. For example, I'm not sure he mentions the word "neurotransmitter". Nonetheless, anyone remotely interested in how the mind works ought to read this book. Avery Z. Conner, author of "Fevers of the Mind".
Rating: 
Summary: Come on!
Review: The reason big brains are presumably a good evolutionary bet is that they really do provide genuine flexibility in dealing with a changing world (changing in large part due to our big brains I should add). Yes, we have a "human nature" as any reasonable person knows (even if they say differently in their academic circles, they live their lives, I'll bet, as if they realize this), but Pinker's excessively glib talk, poorly considered examples, and leanings toward everything we do as being "innate"is just ludircous and naive. What the heck does he mean when he suggests X,Y,or Z is innate he never says. After all, we ain't born doing any of it so when/where/how/ by what definition is it innate? If we were as hard-wired as Pinker likes to make it sound (and I think he is just fighting for fun) we'd probably be an extinct species by now. Also, please learn some biology, Dr. Pinker. It really will help you formulate an intelligent view of how we work.
Rating:
Summary: Read it at twice
Review: Like other readers, I anticipated a book about the hard problem of consciousness. Like other readers, I found that the book was nothing of the sort. As an aside, had I read the dust jacket, I would not have been surprised at all. This book uses the computational approach to explain a diversity of human behaviors from aggression to sibling rivalry. You will not find Pinker trying to explain what it's like to see red by outlining some neural pathway from the retina to the cortex. In fact, the subjective aspects of consciousness are scarcely mentioned. Instead, How the Mind works is just that. It's not about individuals. It's about the mental modules present in us all that allow us to interact with our environment and with others. These modules are the products of evolution and are thus fair game for the tactic of reverse-engineering. Although there has been an uproar in the biology community about adaptationism, Pinker points out how effective CAREFUL reverse-engineering has allowed us to understand the visual system. (I am a medical student and future neurologist. I have read many books on vision and Pinker's review is as good as it gets!) The book is loaded with examples and step by step explanations of complex topics that, when combined with Pinker's reader friendly prose, makes for a simply superb read. If you fear another popular science book weighed down by personal opinions, there is no need to avoid How the Mind Works. Pinker examines both sides of the issue. Of course he is biased but he is quick to point out the limitations of current theories. Just a great book for anyone wanting to know a little more about how we see, feel and interact with others.
Rating: 
Summary: An Intuition Helper
Review: The obections levied against Pinker in other reviews here (that he's "arrogant," etc.) seem to me based on a misunderstanding of Pinker's intended scope. The question Pinker addresses is: How does a mechanism do the mind? Pinker presupposes mechanism, and he assumes that the mechanism is the physical brain rather than an immaterial substance (i.e., a "soul"). He does not purport to argue for these presuppositions and assumptions. And just why should he? Popular metaphysical allegiances notwithstanding, scientific explanation is conventionally naturalistic; no one complains that the effects of angels are given short shrift in stellar dynamics, for instance. That in mind, to say that supernatural aspects must be taken into account in the case of mental dynamics is (without further argument, anyway), special pleading. As for the book: Pinker does an excellent job of informing one's intuitions about how mental competencies can be captured by mechanical means. Pinker feels, reasonably I think, that showing how such heterogeneous competencies can be mechanically instantiated demystifies the mental, and in turn suggests how the brain actually works. My only quibble (and probably the main quibble of metaphysical dualists) is that Pinker waits until late in the book to state clearly that his book is not concerned with the classic "hard" problem of contemporary philosophy of mind, that of sentience. He should have stated that right up front.
Rating: 
Summary: "Body Heal Thyself, Oh, Please !"
Review: I too, have read a great number of books about the mind, body, and, spirit, but "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker, is a real STINKER ! The book clearly takes home the grand prize in the "HOG-WASH" department ! Textbook of the mind, oh please, people wake up and smell the coffee beans in Brazil ! Sterograms, (magic eye pictures), general visualation, music, art, emotions, religion, sex, humor, and philosophy, (I don't think so, Mr. Pinker!) One would better off slapping oneself upside the side of one's head and being done with it! Back to the real world folks, what a crock of...!
Rating:
Summary: Smart, Funny, ponderous
Review: This book shows the author did alot of research and it is a smart analysis on how the mind and universe work. How everything works, in fact. It is written with much humor and thought. Sometimes it gets a bit heavy, and I don't agree with everything, but I love the way he explores it just the same. Thus, I give it 5 stars. Another book, that explores the soul of man, and human nature is called, "The Little Guide To Happiness". It is my favorite and I tell folk about it every chance I get. It's humble little thing, but eqaul in humor and insight to this book.
Rating:
Summary: I'm no intellectual, but ...
Review: I tried to read this book, but I was stopped cold when Mr. Pinker declared that there was no such thing as a soul. Outside of any religious sense, I still fail to see how he comes to this conclusion, and how he can justify it. By the use of convoluted logic, I suppose. He is arrogant enough to declare himself an authority; but I remember the real authority Leo Buscaglia saying "I met many PhD's. When I left the man who had worked with me (in getting his license), I told him 'Call me if you ever need help.'"
Just my humble opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Unable to Finish
Review: Very dry style. This book was unable to keep my interest. Perhaps my own fault. Will try again another day.
Rating:
Summary: The Worst Book Ever Written on the Human Mind
Review: .....and here's why. Let's say you are a space alien on the moon busily engaged in observing human beings and their various aircraft. You write a book on aerodynamics wherein you provide a mathematical model of computation that describes the outward behavior of what you see. But in the introduction of the book you claim that you can model the flight of planes, rockets, and balloons without any need to consider air. Of course aerodynamics without air is as stupefyingly dumb as claiming to understand the mind without understanding the neuronal basis of the brain. But this is what Pinker actually does in his book, and even trumpets the fact!! Thus to quote Pinker: "This book is about the brain, but I will not say much about neurons, hormones, and neurotransmitters. That is because the mind is not the brain but what the brain does... That special thing is information processing, or computation." (p7) In other words, by saying that "the mind is what the brain does", Pinker neglects to define the brain! By reverse engineering the mind, and attributing behavioral functions to wholly inferred computational modules somehow selected by evolution, Pinker neglects the massive corpus of findings in neuro-psychology that have detailed in painstaking detail the motivational systems in human and mammalian brains. The sub-cortical systems that are critical for the generation of human emotions and human motivation are not 'computational' by any stretch of the imagination, and must be incorporated in any model of how the brain actually works. Without this, understanding the mind is impossible. Nonetheless, Pinker wears this ignorance like a badge, a badge that discredits his own argument even before its substantive products are considered. Pinker of course adheres to commonly held viewpoints in evolutionary psychology that postulate behavioral mechanics through an appeal to historical selectionist pressures spanning eons. but it does not logically follow that neurobiological perspectives must be so utterly ignored. Indeed, affective neuroscience, a branch of neuro-psychology that embraces these perspectives, also is wholly informed by evolutionary principles, and assigns much more of our behavioral repertoire to a complex interaction between general purpose neocortical structures and basic emotional systems arising from mid brain systems. In other words, behavioral tendencies are not ingrained in our brain like the bee line a honey bee makes to a flower, but come from complex interactions between brain systems that cannot be 'reverse engineered' as Pinker would have it. Rather, you have to 'go into' brains and have a look. In common with nearly all practitioners of evolutionary psychology, Pinker accepts the metaphor of the mind as a modular computational device. But the more credible view arising from neuro-psychology is that this is false. Evolutionary psychologists have rightly dismissed creation 'science' because the latter blatantly ignores the overwhelming facts of evolution. The great emerging irony is that neuro-psychologists are rightly dismissing much of evolutionary 'science' (although not evolution itself) because it ignores the facts of the brain. And this is why Pinker's book is the worst book ever written on the human mind. Not because of a lack of intelligence, style, creativity, or wit, but because of a hubris that psychology cannot afford. And indeed, if there's anything that antagonizes the gods, as well as this writer, it's a prideful arrogance that thumbs its nose on the facts, and this book, by building its case in large measure on conjecture, builds its case on sand. As a final note, the position of modern neuro-psychology, which counters much of the intellectual baggage of evolutionary psychology, has been most cogently stated in the book 'Affective Neuroscience' by the distinguised neuropsychologist Jaak Panksepp. His book, far more than Pinker's should rightfully be titled 'How the Mind Works'. A second book that makes a similar case, but which is less technical, is Gerald Edelman's 'Bright Air, Brilliant Fire'. Both are highly recommended.
|
