Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts

By Sasha Abramsky, The American Prospect. Posted August 20, 2008.


Evolution didn't quite hit perfection when it comes to human thought processes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The human mind, we like to think, is an embodiment of perfection. For those with a religious inclination, our ability to think through issues logically, to construct narratives about our surroundings, and to recall events that happened decades earlier is proof positive of a divine hand at work. For the nonreligious, the mind is a secular miracle, an indication that, left to its own devices, evolution produces something akin to a Panglossian vision of the best outcomes in the best of all possible worlds.

Two new books beg to differ. The first, New York University psychologist Gary Marcus' Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind (Houghton Mifflin, April 2008) sets out to show the many ways in which the human mind is an evolutionary hodge-podge, a series of good-enough solutions to the problem of understanding and responding to our environment. The second is The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't -- and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger (Dutton, June 2008), by the Canadian journalist Daniel Gardner.

I recommend you read them as a package. While both deal with complex psychological theories -- how memories can be triggered and manipulated and how our understanding of events is influenced by what other people think, by our existing preconceptions, and even by seemingly random factors such as the mentioning of a particular number before we're asked to provide the answer to a question -- Marcus clearly understands the psychological theories better. As a trained scientist, he's also somewhat more fluent in his explanations of why our brains are so easily influenced by irrational considerations.

A kluge, Marcus tells us, is an improvised engineering response to a problem. It is the product of a tinkerer playing around with odds and ends and creating a functional machine. That, he writes, is what the brain and its package of emotional, intellectual, and logical tools is. It is a series of good but imperfect methods for processing and acting on information, developed over hundreds of millions of years.

Evolution, in other words, produces things that work. That, Marcus argues, is the case with the brain, with how we store memories and how we respond to information. Were our memory systems better designed, they'd store and retrieve memories in the same way computers do. Instead, we rely on context to access snapshots from the past. Moving beyond memory, the logical aspect of higher thought is simply the icing on the cake, Marcus explains -- something that has evolved in an evolutionary microsecond and set up residence in the brain's frontal lobes. The older parts of the brain, call them our reptilian legacy, had much longer to mature. As a result, in many situations, especially when quick responses are demanded, they simply overwhelm our rational side, stampeding us into actions that don't really stand up to serious analysis.

Thus, we see an act of violence in the media (whether it be a single person being kidnapped and murdered, as with the 1993 celebrated Polly Klaas case in California, or mass slaughter, as with September 11), and we respond with a potpourri of inchoate fear, panic, and rage. We feel that the certainties governing our lives have been shattered. Rarely do we successfully step back and analyze the likelihood or unlikelihood of such an event impacting us.

For both Marcus and Gardner, the result is the emergence of an increasingly irrational political system, a sort of Truman Show in which reality is continually altered by an omnipresent media superstructure.

Marcus is particularly good at detailing the ways in which evolution didn't quite hit perfection when it comes to human thought processes. Whether it be in politics, in love, or in the imbibing of alcohol or narcotics, humans tend to look for short-term gratification even when, intellectually, they know their long-term interests might lie elsewhere. We're also easily influenced by what we see around us; we are willing to pay more for snacks, for example, immediately after being shown a picture of a happy face. We're more likely to cooperate with others shortly after hearing a news report about a do-gooder helping his neighbor.

Gardner, on the other hand, produces a powerful -- if overlong -- account of the social and political implications of our brains being kluges. If it's true that we're basically overdressed cavemen decked out with high-tech toys like laptops, airplanes, machine guns, and bombs, what does this mean?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: mind, memory, brain, rational thought, thought processes, intellect

Sasha Abramsky is the author of Conned: How Millions Went to Prison, Lost the Vote, and Helped Send George W. Bush to the White House (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I KNEW There Was A...
Posted by: ranchero42 on Aug 20, 2008 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Logical explanation for Global Warming Deniers and Revelationaries. Down 4 Jesus, meet Dain Bramage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's not what is meant... Posted by: photon's feather
Maybe and yes.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 20, 2008 3:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think our biggest problem is short-term rage or panic. That's basically fight/flight. It's our longer-term response that makes no sense.

9/11 happened in 2001. We started the Iraq war in 2003, after we had plenty of time to step back. And we're still wasting zillions on it in 2008 at the expense of much bigger, broader problems like health care and the environment, as the article suggests.

So I'm not sure I follow the first theory, that it's about short-term gratification, at least in terms of our stated goals. It's pretty clear that we are committed to things like wars on drugs and people for the long-haul, regardless of whether they produce instant results, any results at all, or are counterproductive.

Based on the article, I find Gardner's theories more accurate and down-to-earth. It basically comes down to being more emotional than rational, so we're more inclined to believe a sexy rumor than a boring truth.

My thought on a lot of this stuff--probably closer to Gardner's--is that, collectively, we have blood-lust and other psychological "needs", which are often repressed in modern society. A terrorist attack, kidnapping, sex crime, or other triggering event gives us an outlet and a target. Thus, things like war and harsh, obsessive approaches to crime are more about satisfying our psychological needs than providing rational, effective solutions to our biggest problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maybe and yes. Posted by: mtnprivy
» "We" and "Our" - who they? Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: "We" and "Our" - who they? Posted by: photon's feather
» STOP saying "We" would be a good start Posted by: common intelligence
» RE: Maybe and yes. Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Maybe and yes. Posted by: MelStL
"The Human Animal"
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Aug 20, 2008 3:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though we silly humans like to think of ourselves as "superior thinkers" because we have a neocortex, we don't seem to use it very effectively. Instead we are emotionally driven primates with an improved ability to plan and language so that we can share our often emotionally misguided plans with even less effective thinkers in order to bring about some pointless end that is usually not in the best interest of either party... As a result, we have such giants as those we currently see occupying the highest positions in government. Ahh... That’s what I call Progress!
:o)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "The Human Animal" Posted by: Dboy
God's great design flaw?
Posted by: weathered on Aug 20, 2008 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the brain perceives nearly all pain throughout the body, it as an organ perceives none or very little.
We can put our finger into our frontal lobes and hardly feel a thing. Arrogantly I thought that was God's great design flaw for not evolving pain receptors for the brain itself? Well if the brain were so preoccupied w/itself, it would ignore that I just put my hand on a hot stove. Thats why its wrapped inside bone covered w/dura and hair and fortified w/a very clever 'blood brain barrier' that only allows certain things in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our Evolution, who art in heaven . . . ?
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 20, 2008 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love this stuff. It's more evidence for my pet theory that people can try to erase "God" from their psyche, their language, and their belief system, but it keeps reconstituting itself, sort of like the normal.dot file in Microsoft Word. Secular types like to use genes and "human nature" and evolution but if you scratch below the surface of what they're saying, they're just reconstituting God -- who/which is more or less a catch-all for everything we don't understand and/or don't want to take responsibility for. (The first thing human beings seem to do when the idea of free will occurs to us is to wiggle out from under the implications, e.g., that we actually do have choices and maybe we have some responsibility for what we choose.)

The dead giveaway is the way the author talks about getting it right, getting it wrong, getting it perfect (not) -- design, in other words. What a hoot.

I do believe that you'll learn more about why human beings do what we do if you pay close attention, not only to your fellows but to your own self. Watch what you do, and listen to how you explain it, to yourself and maybe to other people. Most of us, most of the time take the line of least resistance: we do what the people around us are doing, and what they expect us to be doing. (On occasion we'll do the exact opposite -- "rebelling," we like to call it -- but in that case we're still letting the group call the shots.)

Human beings collectively have made so many changes in our circumstances in the last few hundred years, and especially in the last 150 or so, that evolution -- a slow-working process -- hasn't had near enough time to catch up. It ain't gonna, either. We're on our own, folks. If we're our own worst enemy, we also our own best hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Listen Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Listen Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Listen Posted by: pdxjoe
Darwinism can't explain consciousness
Posted by: nemonemini on Aug 20, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article makes the domgmatic assumption that Darwinian natural selection is behind the evolution of the brain, and then turns around and tries to find some grounds for this assumption in the way that it looks at the data. The article shows just how worried Darwinists are, since in no way can they explain the evolution of human consciousness. Refuting creationists is too easy here. The so-called imperfections don't change the reality, that the brain is too complex to have evolved by random processes. That's not an argument for design, but it's not an argument for NS either.
Kluge's fallacy and the brain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Hegelian Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: You Hegelian Posted by: nemonemini
» RE: You Hegelian Posted by: pdxjoe
» Review vs. Books Posted by: Kate_24
» RE: Darwinism can't explain consciousness Posted by: BlackbirdHighway
Evolutionary Fatal Flaw
Posted by: casimmons23 on Aug 20, 2008 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arthur Koestler discusses the "klugeness" of the human brain in his 1978 book Janus: A Summing Up. He proposed that the relatively quick evolution of the neocortex resulted in its poor integration with the hypothalamus, and that this may well be a fatal flaw in our species' evolution, in that it makes possible irrational behavior like mob rule, genocide, and nuclear holocaust.

This fatal flaw is just an evolutionary oops, similar to the poor spider's evolution, which wrapped its brain around its esophagus. So the smarter a spider gets, the less it can eat, and now it is at an evolutionary dead-end, able to eat only by liquifying its food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Humans are not spiders Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Humans are not spiders Posted by: peacefullaim
Egocentric Man Dares Not
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 20, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
admit his true origins, or his exalted self-image would crumble forever. So, instead of head-hunting, brain-eating cannibals, the first humans were innocently adventurous apes, or Adam and Eve, or anything but the horrible fact of our collective insanity now edging ever closer to global ecocide or holocaust, while dreaming of Space travel for endless exploitation of the Cosmos.

Self-critical honesty would save us, but that's beyond the endurance of our male supremist masters of the World and their various male Gods. So, we ride with the tide of their violent delusions, hoping each new wave will satisfy our appetites for riches, adventure and the delusion of eternal life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't buy it
Posted by: mtnprivy on Aug 20, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We respond to murder/kidnapping on TV with fear because we (many of us) have NO OTHER LIFE with which to balance that story. TV is our whole life, and we assume it is already balanced.
Also, . . . if our minds were perfect, they would NOT store memory like a computer. Computers were designed by the human mind, and do not supercede the brain.
The brain is surely imperfect, but it is the best we've got! If we paid attention to the input, then the output would be way better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You buy it every day. Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: I don't buy it Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Brains and Minds Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: I don't buy it Posted by: morticia
» RE: I don't buy it Posted by: Dboy
» RE: I don't buy it Posted by: peacefullaim
For the Religious...
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 20, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evolution, is a biological process. It effects the physiology of ones body, to some extent ones psychology. Spiritual teachings teach us to evolve spiritually, which is another word for conscious evolution. By working with our psychology we can correct these points in our mind that have fallen short of working as whole. The mind is fragmented against itself and in the same breath for itself, thus self-destructive behavior is bound to follow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For the Religious... Posted by: Dboy
Nothing New For Psychoanalysis
Posted by: pdxjoe on Aug 20, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jacques Lacan, in his first seminar in the early '50s, and in writings from the late '30s, argued against the Darwinistic idea that humans are superiorly adapted animals. That is not to deny evolution, but that our success is a function of superior adaptation. Dysfunction is the constant threat of the human mind, and it requires specific conditions of sociality, themselves shot through with dysfunction, to form or else the human animal and species dies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

evolution is not always in your best interest
Posted by: astralman on Aug 20, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrary to popular ideas about evolution, that it is hierarchical, survival of the fittest, etc. Only predictions can be made as to how humans and other life on earth will evolve. our own evolution as homo sapien sapien is not necessarily because of our superiority but rather because of climate change during the pleistocene epoch. It is our "reptilian" brain which loves to tell our selves this self aggrandizing story that we are so great and "evolved". The truth is each animal on earth is evolved to do what is required for it's own survival to the best of its ability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out the forest
Posted by: scheherezade on Aug 20, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we often get it wrong: we let our guts override our heads. And so, in the aftermath of the catastrophic attacks of 9-11, millions of people temporarily stopped flying. The problem with this response is that car travel is far more dangerous than air travel.

Another forestless academic tree microanalysis.

People prefer driving over flying because they maintain an element of control over the danger environment.

Of the extra car accidents, a healthy percentage were likely due to driver error, a controllable factor.

People will always choose to control environmental factors to their advantage, when given the choice.

Many people fly because the need for convenience overrules the desire for environmental control -- perhaps the more germane topic of psychological interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And on that 9/11 day, Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Check out the forest Posted by: BigElectricCat
And what about the ban on Cannabis and the conversion of grass-fed to corn-fed?
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 20, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess what you eat nowadays compared to what you would have been eating 50 years ago has nothing to do with the DUMBASSing of America, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NATURE IS NOT HAPHAZARD
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 20, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of our brains are in good working order. They way we think is another matter. We are constantly subjected to outside influences. An unprecedented number of ways to form opinions for us. In the last 50 yrs. it's become a real challenge to form an original thought. We're in a constant state of reaction to events while we wait for the next thing to happen. That has nothing to do with faulty evolution. We all need some peace and quiet. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» outside influences Posted by: Cathyc
Whites more susceptible to this pathology
Posted by: nfamous on Aug 20, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't really see nonwhites reacting with inordinate fear the way whites do. Whites fear everything and anything that is different from them. That is unique to whites. Whites erect institutions of white supremacy to give themselves advantages over others out of fear and insecurity. It is a global phenomenon. Why are whites so terrified of darker skin or other nonwhite physical features? Is it because only one in ten people on the planet is white and they fear genetic annihilation over time? There is nothing they can do about that, given the fact that white skin is a recessive gene. Whites are far behind other races from an emotional and social evolutionary perspective but their technological dominance has allowed them to rule the world and also destroy it simultaneously. I'm obviously only talking about whites in positions of power but even everyday whites exhibit some of these characteristics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do they mean... WE?
Posted by: zeofredo on Aug 20, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will try to check out the Marcus book, but I'm not sure what to make of this article and its take on OUR condition and misguided mind development. Within a society you will find all types, even when you have a highly dogmatic political force at the heart of it.

If you take certain demanding professions, especially ones that actually generate useful things like energy or engineering and medicine, you will find very capable minds that have faced critical situations successfully. Most of the points raised in this article are about an inchoate sense of malfunction in socio-political terms, however. I agree that WE are definitely at a loss in this case, but not as a result of deformed mental evolution. I argue that our inept rationalizing is a result of a disconnect from meaningful work and unproductive patterns of communication which are the result of a weakening education system and an overbearing entertainment industry.

I work with a very accomplished chef in a catering business and on this small order I can tell you we always have to find creative, and usually highly effective, solutions to problems that come up in an instant. Of course, our parameters of error must be kept narrow and by necessity we are prepared for most eventualities somehow... If more people had this kind of material and realistic experience of problem-solving, we wouldn't be falling victim to stupid predatory lending schemes and putting up with such a large degree of corporate rule in our lives.

Watch the silly film by Mike Judge about where THAT scenario seems to be headed: "Idiocracy"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The perfect brain
Posted by: tedrowe on Aug 20, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question of whether the evolution of the human brain is perfect or imperfect is an abstraction. In gross, terms, the mind has been incredibly effective in promoting and adapting the human species.

In the absence of higher cognitive abilities, the brain's emotional and somatic responses have served us well enough to put us far along on the way to where we are now. They still do, in some cases, especially in particular and localized circumstances. But the effects of our dominance of the planet are now creating new forms of population pressure on us that are global, pressures which have rendered our "emotional brain" maladaptive.

It is not that we must discard or ignore our irrational emotional and physical responses. Without them we literally can do no more than calculate. Most human decisions are made based upon limited information, and with a great deal of uncertainty as to their outcome. A computer is useless in making the simplest decisions, such as "chocolate" or "vanilla." As Antonio Damasio says, "We are not thinking beings who feel; we are feeling beings who think." Our only hope, and it is a slim one at best, is that we will collectively come to understand our particular emotions, learned from our unique life experiences, and how they affect our ability to make positive choices. Without such an understanding, and the empathy it can produce, the human species will be one long evolutionary train wreck, and we won't need an asteroid to derail us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The perfect brain Posted by: lightwing1
We have the same brain from 200,000 years ago- society has evolved, but it hasn't
Posted by: fanny666 on Aug 20, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cool article. I'm a neurobiologist, and brain-science article usually make me cranky because they are so inaccurate, but this one does a good job (I have not read these books). Here's my 2 cents on the "gut" vs. "logic" idea.

Depending on who you believe, Homo Sapiens first appeared about 200,000 years ago. The difference between us and a chimpanzee is that chimps have about 15% prefrontal cortex, we have about 35% prefrontal cortex. You can think of prefrontal cortex as the reigns on what the author calls our "reptilian brain"... so-called because the limbic system in the center of our brains is remarkably similar to a crocodile, or rat, or any other more evolutionarily ancient animal. As organisms' brains got more complex, the complexity was just adding more cortex (the outer, mushy grey stuff of our cerebral cortex), it didn't change the center part too much.

The job of prefrontal cortex (PFC) is largely inhibitory- that's why I called it "reigns". The problem is that it's not as fast. You can get a burst of limbic fight/flight immediately, and then a few milliseconds later the PFC gets on board to calm things down. Sometimes, it works, and sometimes it's too late, or not strong enough. That's why its so easy to frighten people. It's much, much easier to say "Iran is coming to conquer us" and get a fear response than it is to say "Iran has no air force capable of reaching our shores," have people think about it and then feel calm.

So we've got these ancient brains designed for fighting off predators and going hunting, but society has evolved dramatically. Now, the same brains that were built for "should I bash this other caveman over the head with a rock?" are in command of weapons that could wipe out the human race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's why we have cultural "systems" Posted by: ReallyBearish
brain/consciousness evolution
Posted by: toddcory on Aug 20, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article disappointing. I had thought he would take this to the next level where we need to leap to next... away from the fear based egocentric mind to a greater shift underway of seeing self in other - from me to we - from head to heart.

Selfish, egocentric thinking is destroying our planet as we over consume and live lives that are not sustainable. As we make the leap to seeing we are all in this together and what is good for "other" is what is good for "me", our world will be radically transformed.

This is the agenda on our plates.

Todd

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

democraticcritique.us
Posted by: democraticcritique.us on Aug 20, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the basic point is this: The fear dominated brain tends strongly to aggressive/defensive selfishness. And through the years of cognitive development (to age 25), the predominance of fear in the brain (over-active amygdala) precludes the formation of empathic sensibilities that would serve to mediate selfishness. Politics is a struggle between those who care for themselves and the few (fear), and those who care for all (empathy).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The infamous duct tape solution ...
Posted by: stellabloo on Aug 20, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... has been around for a while. e.g. one of the links above mentions the Apollo 13 mission: self-rescue with a bit of duct tape and ingenuity.

In deference to the late Stephen Jay Gould, I want to re-introduce his concept of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). As an eminent paleontologist and sincere agnostic, he was adament that there was no conflict of interest between science and religion.

The fact that evolution is a mechanical process, bound by the laws of physics and chance, neither proves nor disproves the existence of a Higher Power. If you buy a wristwatch, would you expect the manufacturer to rush in and adjust it for you every few days?

As stated in other posts, the notion that our brain is the product of evolution is hardly new. Here's an article featuring cutting-edge research:
Our grip on reality is slim

And now for my Big Fart Theory: Once the concentration of assholes reaches critical mass, the planet will implode. Please do your bit to ensure a future for us all ;.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one is willing to admit
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 20, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the origin of the human brain was a genetic trauma, the horror show of head-hunting cannibalism. So all the above remarks are nonsense to cover the inbred guilt of the human species. But until we face the truth, we will continue to divide into opposing camps and slaughter each other to deny it, until finally we self-extinct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No one is willing to admit Posted by: peacefullaim
God is one screwed up dude!
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 20, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sasha ended her stealth promotion of intelligent design (ID) with, "If it's true we're basically overdressed cavemen decked out with high-tech toys like laptops, airplanes, machine guns, and bombs, what does this mean?"

It means if you favor ID over evolution, God is one screwed up dude!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Posted by: Cathyc on Aug 20, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sasha Abrahamsky, the author of this article comments:

"...the almost flippant way in which he (Daniel Gardner) dismisses the possibility of terrorist groups using weapons of mass destruction.."

Which terrorists is Gardener writing about? The ones who (allegedly) attacked America on September 11th 2001, or the ones who subsequently decimated the lives of millions of Iraqis (who had nothing to doing with so-called '9/11')?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NY Review of Books has more to offer
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 20, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am suspicious of this book review. If the reviewer is doing justice to the books, there's a whole lot more junk out there than I want to know about.

The review here does not reach any definitive conclusions. Nor does it scatter manure just to keep the air interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Aug 20, 2008 3:47 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . how easily the community "counters" empirical research with counter claims via ignorant anecdotes.

Proves the authors' point, I'd say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I love . . . Posted by: peacefullaim
Whollaring in the symantics of stupidity
Posted by: common intelligence on Aug 20, 2008 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a few conscious beings on this cyber ether. Our whollaring is mirely an attempt to contact an E.T.
Yes we all are that and yet just as the perverbial cliche might wander into our sphere of contact, it too is seeking out an ET of it's own couriosity to just see if there is intellegent life out there ( or here).

Each star is it's own universe until it collides with an other, which it asks not of the other. Content without judgement the star blazes until whenever.

Shine on you bright stars. Just be that universe without question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Mis-Shapen Brain: A Developmental Perspective
Posted by: pdxjoe on Aug 20, 2008 5:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if these authors touch on the ways in which our brain still develops in fundamental ways from the time we are born until we are a year or two old. It takes our nervous system that long to fully integrate (specifically I'm thinking of myelin formation and subsequently internalizing a sense or image of ourselves via our interactions with others), and how this happens seems to play a big role in how we function not just cognitively, but socially too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most Ironic Sentence Ever
Posted by: on Aug 20, 2008 9:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those with a religious inclination, our ability to think through issues logically, to construct narratives about our surroundings, and to recall events that happened decades earlier is proof positive of a divine hand at work.

I mean really--does it make any sense to speak of "thinking logically" while referring to religiousity, and "proof" of god?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Review vs. Books
Posted by: Kate_24 on Aug 21, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I didn't say that the reviewer has not chosen to review these two books for a specific reason. It does, however, not change the fact that it is still primarily a review.

Second, I think you're still mixing up review and books. The author does not review Darwinian theory, but two books. The examples the author of the review quotes are not his assumptions, but those of the authors of the two books.

Third, it's not primarily Alternet or any author who turns this into a left-vs-right or good-vs-evil debate. It's us, the readers.

Fourth, evolution in and of itself cannot be anything but what it is - a process. It cannot be intelligent or unintelligent, good or bad. Again, it's us who evaluates it - whether we can understand the underlying process and think that it's a good way to explain how life evolved; or whether we disagree and prefer a different, albeit scientifically unproven, explanation. But evolution itself is neither good nor bad, it's not intelligent and purposefully made human beings, nor is it a dumb thing that got to where we are by trial and error.

Fifth, if you are confused about evolution and the current debates, I suggest you go to your local library or bookstore and check out a book on evolution and/or the current debate. There are many around. The librarian or clerk at the bookstore can certainly find you one that suits you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Review vs. Books Posted by: Kate_24
flawed premise to begin with
Posted by: unity1 on Aug 25, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
its ideas like this that keep humanity locked into the head - and into the mass behavioral problems that exist

the 'new' knowledge that this reviewer has no clue about is that its the heart that entrains the brain which is why most will be forever stuck in old thought patterns and head trips

why can't we access more of our brain power ? because in order to do that as independent and alternative scientists are discovering - we would have to start feeling feelings of love, of compassion rather than the predictable thoughts of anger and hate and fear

a simple analogy might make things clearer

if we were all 8 cylinder cars (the 8 akin to our higher centers of our brain ) we would only be running on 2 !

some would say that there are more but they don't know where they are - some would say they are under the hood but they don't know how to open it - yet others would argue that those thoughts are all stupid and we only have 2 in the first place

what turns them on

well heres another analogy

if we were all computers our operating system would be LOVE

yes people love, that emotion few give much value to and that emotion that has become so degraded and distorted that few really know what it means

compare if you will, the feelings of joy and love to those of anger and fear - I know which I would prefer to live in - yet we live in a world saturated in hate, in fear of loss of whatever

that is why dear reveiwer you will never ever turn on the higher centres of your brain and will be forever doomed to stay in this limiting reality of 2 cylinders

by the way - war, death disease and lies greed are all in context - it is 'natural in a sense that 2 cylinder beings would create such a world of dysfunction and think itself a high civilization

your ture nature is one of love, of joy of compassion and yet its been allowed to degrade into one of fear of hate and of anger first by religion and then through politics

wake up people

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What are you havering about? Posted by: photon's feather
Thanks for the book titles
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 25, 2008 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We unfailingly obey instincts that many of us refuse to admit that
we share with all other apes, or even refuse to admit that we have.
Our instincts were created by evolution over the past 400 Million
years or more. Our instincts worked fine before we invented
stone tools and stone weapons. Pre-stone-age instincts do not
make sense in a technological society, yet our instincts are hard
wired programs that we cannot disobey without enormous and
severe training, if at all. Ideally, we need to do genetic
engineering to replace most of our ancient instincts with conscious
computations suited to the age we are in.

We can make a start by requiring all high schools in the US and
the world to require 4 years of physics, 4 years of chemistry, 4
years of biology and 8 years of math for all students. That is the
least you need to be a good common citizen of a technological
society. All colleges should require all majors, even English,
drama and painting, design and sculpture students, to take the
Engineering and Science Core Curriculum + 1 computer course +
1 laboratory course in probability and statistics. The E&S Core
Curriculum is 1.5 years of calculus, 2 years of physics and 1 year
of chemistry. Laboratory is mandatory. In addition, I would
explicitly say to all non-E&S students: "Nature isn't just the final
authority on truth, Nature is the Only authority. There are zero
human authorities. Scientists do not vote on what is the truth.
There is only one vote and Nature owns it. We find out what
Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments. Scientific [public and replicable] experiments are
the only source of truth. [To be public, it has to be visible to
other people in the room. What goes on inside one person's head
isn't public unless it can be seen on an X-ray or with another
instrument.]"

Sasha Abramsky exhibits paranoia with regard to terrorists with
nuclear weapons. That tells me a lot about Sasha Abramsky.
Reference Book: "The Paranoia Switch" by Martha Stout. The
whole USA needs to be sent to a mental health professional to
switch off the paranoia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Gross Misuse of Brain Science
Posted by: susan rosenthal1 on Aug 26, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These books misuse brain science to justify the insanity of capitalism. The brain connects us with one another, and this connection is what creates the mind.

Capitalism imposes divide-and-rule policies to prevent us from connecting with one another. And, in doing so, it messes with our minds and blocks our ability to solve problems.

That's why we're in the mess we're in. Not because of faulty evolution, or faulty brains, but because we haven't yet organized ourselves to create a sane social system that can solve our problems and meet our needs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]