The Myth of Irrationality: The Science of the Mind from Plato to Star Trek

Rating:
Summary: Enlightenment/Post Enlightenment
Review: Ignore the (bizarre) Kirkus review that claims that there is 'nothing new' here. In fact McCrone's claims are bold and revolutionary. The key point he makes is in the title: there is no such thing as irrationality. The corollary of this is that there is no such thing as rationality either. In fact this has been shown by work by Damasio (see his 'Descartes' Error' for details). People with brain damage to the parts of the brain which regulate emotions exhibit behaviour which seems (to us) profoundly IRrational. Therefore it is false to claim that there is such as thing as 'rationality' (meaning being unemotional or logical). Instead what we term rationality (and really, common sense would be a better word) is an emergent property of our emotional AND the logical parts of the brain.
Therefore the battle between attackers and defenders of the 'Enlightenment' is shown to be profoundly misguided: both sides were right and both sides were wrong. What both sides shared was a view of human beings as being fundamentally individuals, and that cognition is an 'internal' process.
It's a shame that the Kirkus reviewer stated that this is merely a rehash of Enlightenment psychology. Actually as McCrone makes clear, his viewpoint is fundamentally SOCIOLOGICAL. He therefore echoes philosophers and psychologists who have emphasised the social aspect of thought: Vygotsky and the later Wittgenstein.
The implications of this are rather radical.
Firstly, the view of Artificial Intelligence and 'Cognitivism' is incorrect. There is no such thing as emotionless reason, or cognition without a social context.
Secondly 'cognitivism' (and similar views: i.e. those of Fodor and Chomsky) cannot be correct. Cognitivism argues that cognition was an 'internal' process. But McCrone shows (in the case of feral children) this is false. Cognition is intrinsically external and social. The 'internal monologue' (as Vygotsky proved) developed AFTERWARDS.
Finally this is a very interesting and well written book. McCrone's other books are also excellent as is his webiste 'Neuronaut'. (www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/)

Rating:
Summary: Right or wrong completely absorbing.
Review: In spite of an ongoing interest in various aspects of psychotherapy and spiritual practice I am a novice with regard to the biology of consciousness and as such I found this book difficult to set down once I started reading.

I suspect that there is much to criticize in it. Many questions come up that need to be considered at length. Still, if you don't know much about the brain itelf and how it functions this book is an fascinating place to start learning about it.

Rating:
Summary: This is a challenge to think.
Review: The nature of human consciousness would have to be about the most interesting subject around, and that is what this book concerns itself with. It is objective, honest, unemotional and is written by an intelligent educated person expressly for intelligent educated people, without being ponderous. It is the most comprehensive, accessible and sensible account of the matter to date, and I recommended it without reserve.

But it has not been without critics, mostly coming from positions of vested interest and clever-than-thou qualifications. Well, I'm pretty well qualified to express opinions on neurobiology, psychiatry, psychology and anthropology which means I'm more qualified than most to comment.

So I will.

Essentially, there are three positions here, put with great persuasion.

#1. The Enlightenment model of human consciousness, particularly in view of recent findings, is the best one available, is probably pretty close to the mark, and has been left languishing disgracefully long. Consciousness is the mainly internal use of language - any language - to construct, mobilize and initiate: memories, hopes, fears, explanations, narratives, plans, and so forth. Humans without language never develop human consciousness, they are animals. And if you doubt that read the well-documented wolf children accounts.

#2. We are and do what we think, and our thinking is self-determined. We think a certain way because we choose to; we could easily think differently if we were aware that other choices existed. This is a profound point and it also introduces a very pragmatic element to the otherwise sterile and interminable free will debate.

#3. Our thought patterns have been influenced, very much for the worse, by about 300 years of romantic claptrap; and to this extent we are victims of our own social history. That influence must be faced up to, recognized for what it is, and assigned to the trashcan when appropriate. This is where McCrone really makes enemies. He cold-bloodedly rubbishes virtually all of contemporary psychology and absolutely all of the psychoanalytic movement. This is a man worthy of respect and support.

These are wretchedly muddled times screaming out for for rational thought and action. Don't wait for other people to set an example. If you want to purge your brain of all sorts of nonsense and start feeling and acting like a rational human being then put this book next to Dr D D Burns' "Feeling Good" and refer to both frequently. They share that tragically scarce commodity - common sense.