|
| Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind | 
| Author: Gary Marcus
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Co
Category: Book
List Price: $24.00
Buy New: $11.49
You Save: $12.51 (52%)
New (42) from $11.49
Avg. Customer Rating:  66 reviews
Sales Rank: 10026
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 224
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.7
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.8 x 0.9
ISBN: 0618879641
Dewey Decimal Number: 153
EAN: 9780618879649
ASIN: 0618879641
Publication Date: April 16, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: NEW: NEVER READ...!!!!.(may have faint shelf wear from bookstore)..ALL ORDERS SHIP SAME OR NEXT BUSINESS DAY, FREE POSTAL DELIVERY CONFIRMATION FOR U.S. ORDERS, TOP CUSTOMER SERVICE !!!!
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Marcus' Argument is Basically Wrong June 1, 2008
11 out of 13 found this review helpful
When I was learning the basics of journalism, I found out that (a) every article must have a "hook," that gets the reader interested in the article; and (b) the best hook is to maintain that something that is obviously false, or is widely disbelieved, is in fact true. Marcus has apparently learned these lessons. He has many interesting things to tell us about the human mind, but his argument that the human mind is a "clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem" (the definition of a kluge) is just not the case.
Of course, it has been fashionable since Stephen J. Gould's brilliant critique of creationism to maintain that evolution produces acceptable but not optimal solutions. Gould's examples, though, are extremely plausible and based on the existence of better solutions to problems in one organism as opposed to another (e.g., the octopus eye does not have a blind spot). Marcus argues that the human brain is a kluge, but his argument that the computer is a better brain is just too silly to contemplate, even if we limit mental activity to memory.
One of the truly infuriating things about this book is Marcus' willingness to quote facts without regard to their validity or plausibility, and to render judgments without considering alternative hypotheses. For instance, on p. 19 he reports "A recent Newsweek article claims that people typically spend 55 minutes a day `looking for things they know they own but can't find.'" I don't believe this for a second. Show me the study from which this statistic derives. It may exist, but I heartily doubt it. I don't spend 55 minutes a year looking for things I have lost, and I am just a normal guy.
Marcus' argument that computer memory is better than human memory is not convincing, and the reason he gives for this is just wrong. He says that computer memory is based on a "postal address" system in which each piece of information occupies a fixed location in memory. This is just not true. Computer memory is mapped and remapped frequently, with address changes each time. Moreover, it is likely that human memory has exactly the same property. Indeed, it is a major challenge to find information in computer memory, just as it is in human memory. Google became a household word because it provides mechanisms for accessing computer memory.
Marcus would have done better to ask what human memory is supposed to do, and then discussed how efficient the actual solution is. For instance, it is costly to store information, so the brain ignores many signals altogether, and moves only a fraction of short term memory into long-term memory. It would be extremely inefficient if this worked perfectly, because in fact optimality requires a balance between the costs of storage, the costs of discrimination, and the costs of lacking specific pieces of information. The fact that we lose our car keys once in a while is not an indication of a kluge.
This is not to say that human memory is optimal. For instance, we tend to be overconfident concerning our memory of past events. This may serve some psychodynamic purpose, but it may just be a mental defect the correction of which does not have much fitness value, and hence has not occurred.
In dealing with "belief," Marcus takes it as obvious that the ideal type of belief is scientific, based on logic and the laws of evidence. Human believe all sorts of stuff that violate the canons of science, and why they do is an interesting evolutionary question. However, it is not a kluge---it is inconceivable that this aspect of the human mind is not an adaptation. Even scientists believe in things that they have not proved, and it is likely that the capacity to believe is a major creative force in science.
Marcus' treatment of human choice is a recap of the work of Kahneman, Tversky, et al. If you have not seen this material, Marcus is a good place to start. He does a fine job of summarizing this important body of work. However, I do not believe this evidence supports his position that human choice is basically irrational. For an extended critique of the irrationality of human decision-making, see my paper, Herbert Gintis, "A Framework for the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences", Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30,1 (2007):1-61.
Marcus' contribution is one of many recent popular contributions to cognitive psychology that basically take the form "Humans are irrational, but if we know the common pitfalls of the mind, we can vastly improve our capacity to make good decisions." As such Marcus' book is really a self-help manual, and indeed, in the final chapter "True Wisdom," he gives us such wise blandishments as "Try to Be Rational" and "Always Weigh the Benefits Against the Costs." Thanks, Gary. I'll think I'll try these on for size.
 all rather predictable May 27, 2008
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
This book basically just doesn't contain anything in the least bit surprising. It isn't surprising, for example, that our memories are flawed and that they don't function with postal code locations. Neither is it interesting to point out that language can be vague or ambiguous.
What would be interesting would be to indicate why there are these constraints on mental abilities, such that evolution could not construct better versions of them. Here, the author settles for rather general and uninformative claims about how higher cognitive functions had to be built on top of more reactionary older systems of behavioral control. Specific hypotheses and more detail in this area would have made this book far more worthwhile.
 Logical Thinking Indeed! May 23, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
The author of this book makes the case very well for his idea about the brain and how it works. The author's idea is the highly structured and logical mind that some may think the brain to be is not really how the brain works.
If the brain were a computer, the data within it would resemble 'spaghetti' code. The brain finds similarities between unlikely things through unlikely and not very logical thinking. The unreliable memory portion of the brain does not actually remember factual data but creates its own tapestry of memory that many times reflects more of our prejudices than actual facts.
The author relates how the primitive part of our brain and the other more 'modern' parts of the brain have all been thrown together to create an organ that is full of emotions and thoughts that were self preserving eons ago, but that now in the modern world create conflict.
The book tells of the patchwork quilt that is our brain, and the most unlikely methods it uses to learn, reach conclusions, and guide us through life. The book tells it like it is, warts and all, with our brains. What struck me most was all that has been accomplished by humans and their brains, and how little we still know how they work.
A great book that more than anything relates the wonder and mystery of our brain and how that brain functions as much more than a control room for our bodies, but as a mind too. Recommended!
A confession May 15, 2008
0 out of 8 found this review helpful
This was the last item available on the Vine program, so I accepted it, but it only confused me.
What's the agenda? May 15, 2008
7 out of 13 found this review helpful
Whenever I run across something which asserts that we do/think/believe the way we do because of this chemical or that sort of brain wiring, I always find myself looking for an agenda. Or, to quote Robert Anton Wilson: "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." While Marcus' knowledge of the workings of the human brain is impressive, and his work is informative, I'd have been happier with "Kluge" if there'd been fewer assertions that we only indulge in various belief systems because of our odd wiring.
Not that necessarily disbelieve what Marcus has written here, mind you, but I can't help but feel that we simply don't know enough about the human brain even now, to know why we do what we do. That Marcus feels he has enough proof to make some of his cases seems to me to be more a function of Wilson's assertion than any hard scientific evidence.
Still, it's a fascinating book, so don't let my problems with it get in the way of reading it. You may find that it fits your world view a bit more cozily than it did mine.
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
