The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer

May 04, 2012 David rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: psychology, science

This is an excellent, comprehensive examination of the things we believe, and why. It is a very well-written, well-organized book with a unifying theme: we form our beliefs, and then we rationalize them with explanations. We initially formulate our beliefs through two processes: patternicity and agenticity. Patternicity allows us to form all sorts of weird beliefs, including the whole gamut of superstitions. For example, if something bad happens when a black cat crosses your path, and at a later...more

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 16, 2012 Robert Fischer rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: neuroscience-cognitive-psych, politics, theology-philosophy-religion

Here's the tl;dr review: If you're looking for the ways that we tend to trick ourselves and how to deal with that reality, see Predictably Irrational or The Power of Habit. Shermer's book is definitely not the book for that.

Now the full review:

I was really excited about this book. I was hoping that it would update and extend Consciousness Explained with contemporary neuroscience about belief. That was, after all, exactly how the book billed itself through the marketing coverage and through the f...more

11 likes · like · see review

view all 18 comments

Robert Fischer Alicia wrote: "I think we try to be "nice" and "civilized" and fail to realize that politeness as we know it today didn't exist when we were living in...more
May 12, 2013 01:42pm

Alicia Robert wrote: "Alicia wrote: "I think we try to be "nice" and "civilized" and fail to realize that politeness as we know it today didn't exist when we...more Robert wrote: "Alicia wrote: "I think we try to be "nice" and "civilized" and fail to realize that politeness as we know it today didn't exist when we were living in caves and surviving day-to-day."

That itself ..."

But aren't there psychological experiments used to inform evolutionary psychology theories? Based on what you're saying, history, psychology, archaeology, anthropology, etc., aren't sciences. It seems like there are a lot of things that are science but can't be approached or studied using classical scientific models because of ethical and practical reasons. For example, from what I understand, scientists believe that people are born gay because of a gene, chemicals during gestation, or whatever. At best, scientists can follow a person from conception through adult life and find patterns to help confirm this hypothesis. But it would be unethical to take a bunch of pregnant women, inject various hormones, etc., into their bodies, then see what happens.

Regarding Augustine, my presumption, or the presumption I referred to?

I think the terms normal and abnormal are often loved or hated for the wrong reasons. When I see "normal," I think of the "norm." For humans, the norm is dark hair, ergo, dark hair is normal, making my blonde hair not normal, therefore, blonde hair is abnormal. But I don't make the leap to say that abnormal means weird. I'm not weird for being blonde; I simply fall outside the norm in terms of the larger human population.

Likewise, in this same sense, heterosexuality is "normal" in that it is the norm for most humans. This doesn't make homosexuality weird; nothing natural to 10-20% of humans could logically (I think) be considered weird. Since EP is so new (what...30 years, tops, since it became a thing?), it seems logical that it would focus on the basics (e.g., the "norm") to start. To complain that EP is bullsh*t and biased simply because it hasn't looked into LGBT stuff yet is like saying that DNA/genetics research is biased because the bulk of funding isn't going into finding a "gay" gene.

But thanks for the link to the article. I like reading new (and sometimes opposing) viewpoints. :)(less)
May 12, 2013 02:05pm

Feb 25, 2013 Shaun rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: read-in-2013

I decided to buy this book after watching a short Ted Talk featuring Michael Shermer in which he discussed the origins of belief. A natural born skeptic with two science based degrees who often finds herself wanting to believe (a huge X-files fan), I am fascinated by how people come to hold certain beliefs that on the surface appear flawed or irrational. So that said, this book appealed to me on many levels.

On a personal level, I have a special interest in religious belief. Raised a Christian, I...more

4 likes · like · see review

Apr 02, 2013 Diana rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites

I really enjoyed this book as it offers evidenced based reasons for why we humans are programmed to believe in external agents (when the evidence proves such things are internal in the brain) and why we find patterns where there are none. I find knowing such things comforting and I think I got a little dopamine reward when Shermer confirmed that we experience these things because we share the same brain biology (something I've argued often with regard to religion and other common belief systems)...more

3 likes · like · see review

Sep 22, 2011 Christine rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Skeptics, atheists, and the like.

Shelves: science, religion, paranormal, atheism, politics, history, astronomy

At first I was afraid this was just another atheist rant (like the disappointing God Delusion by Dawkins). Fortunately, it shaped up to be much more interesting than that. yes, it preaches to the choir, and unless you are an absolute skeptic about everything, you will find yourself offended at some point when reading this. I am pretty skeptical myself, but there were a couple of passages that got to me in an unpleasant way anyway. What really won me over? Sheerer spends a few pages bashing Depak...more

12 likes · like · see review

Feb 16, 2012 Stephanie rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Everyone, especially conspiracy theorists

I really liked this book and I agreed with most everything in it, and that made me rather uncomfortable just because of what the book is about. Michael Shermer covered a wide range of topics that interest me, from politics to psychology to religion, and i believed every word of what he argued. But... I don't think it's that he convinced me, i think it's that i already held those beliefs going into it, and as the book proclaims repeatedly, i as a human being pay special attention to arguments tha...more I really liked this book and I agreed with most everything in it, and that made me rather uncomfortable just because of what the book is about. Michael Shermer covered a wide range of topics that interest me, from politics to psychology to religion, and i believed every word of what he argued. But... I don't think it's that he convinced me, i think it's that i already held those beliefs going into it, and as the book proclaims repeatedly, i as a human being pay special attention to arguments that support what i already believe.

When i was about halfway through the book, i read a review here on Goodreads that warned me not to fall victim while reading it to the very trap that the book warns against; believing so-called "facts" just because i want to believe them. So, i tried and failed to see fault with Shermer's logic, and it made me feel like i'm obviously no different form people who hold the opposite views.

I wish this book had been shorter and more focused, even though i loved everything in it. Shermer couldn't resist the temptation to single out specific popularly held beliefs—such as the 9/11 conspiracy theory, the idea that extra terrestrials have visited Earth, and the existence of God—and argue their invalidity. And before he does this he admits that it's possible that he sees things the way he does because he, too, is only human and believes what he wants to believe, but he goes ahead and knocks other people's beliefs anyway. Science reveals the truth in any situation, he says, but then he also shows that scientists' findings are sometimes colored by their beliefs, too. So what's a girl to believe? Well, whatever she wants to, it seems. It would've been interesting to learn even more about the believing brain, specifically, rather than what the believing brain tends to believe.

Maybe if the tone of the book had just been a little more humble, i would've been able to read it with more confidence. Shermer introduced the book by saying that what was to follow was going to be more "huh, isn't that interesting?" and less "these are the facts and this is how it is," but i think the latter is a better representation of the book's attitude. Shermer doesn't just talk about how people form and reinforce their belief in God, for example, but he also essentially declares that God does not in fact exist, and gives his reasons. And as an atheist i'm normally more than fine with that, just not in this particular context. Shermer also apparently likes to take the ideas of actual scientists and coin catchy new terms for them, and it makes him come across as a little overconfident about his stature in the scientific community.

I would've liked to have seen Shermer deal with more concrete stuff, like the political topics. I felt like he only touched on politics, and it was mostly to tell me why i should be a libertarian. And i didn't mind that, but i thought that section of the book could've been more in-depth. And while i'm criticizing, i must say that i found the anecdotes at the beginning of the book to be quite unnecessary.

Having said all of that, i do think people should read this book. It will shake your belief in whatever you believe in, even if it's nothing. And if it doesn't, well, it should still make you wonder what that says about you and your beautiful brain.

I'm sticking a big quote here that i want to save:

p. 185
This was the argument i made in a Templeton Foundation-sponsored print debate with theist and Harvard professor of medicine Jerome Groopman, who in his comments argued that God is "without form, immeasurable," that he exists "in a dimension that cannot be quantitated or depicted by science," that "we are unable to grasp fully God's nature and dimensions," and that "God esists outside of time and cannot be bound by space." How then, I asked, do you know this God exists? As corporeal beings who form beliefs about the wold based on percepts (from our senses) and concepts (from our minds), how can we possibly know a being who by definition lies outside of both our percepts and our concepts? At some point doesn't God need to step into our space-time to make himself known in some manner—say through prayer, providence, or miracles? And if so, why can't science measure such divine action? If there is some other way of knowing, say that of the mystics or the faithful through deep meditation or prayer, why couldn't neuroscience say something meaningful about that process of knowing? If we came to understand—as studies with meditating monks and praying priests have shown—that a part of the parietal lobe of the brain associated with the orientation of the body in space is quiescent during such meditative states (breaking down the normal distinction one feels between self and nonself and thus making one feel "at one" with the environment), wouldn't this imply that rather than being in touch with a being outside of space and time, it is actually just a change in neurochemistry? (less)

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 19, 2011 Rpmcestmoi rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

He knows his science and his brain as mind thesis has always been a view I have held, which, as we all know, makes him brilliant. But Shermer also describes for me the true believer in the Eric Hoffer sense. He insists on science when we talk of god but embraces the teat of libertarian capitalism because it warms him, I guess. He offers no evidence for his view in this sphere, so I guess he has a belief and the dopamine hit he gets from that cold capitalist teat works for him.
Not a bad book, ra...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 24, 2013 Mark Edon rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A great book on the way people believe things. Should form part of your owners manual for your brain to help you improve performance and spot malfunctions before they cause too much damage.

In a nutshell people* believe something first and then rationalise the reasons why they have the belief later. Tons of evidence given supporting this. Get over it. Well actually, rise above it and change your thinking and belief patterns. It can change your life.

* that is you and me.

I do have a quibble. Noth...more

like · see review

Nov 19, 2012 Socraticgadfly rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This review should prove that I don't always "high-side" my reviewing stars. In fact, let me be blunt — now that I've read one Shermer book, I have no more desire to read further writings of his than I do of Sam Harris, and for somewhat similar reasons. In Shermer's case, here's why.

Here's derivative and blind spots intersecting -- Shermer briefly, but briefly talks about Kahneman's and Tversky's study in behavioral economics (without also citing Dan Ariely, among others). One will learn much mo...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 10, 2012 R. Z. rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Michael Shermer makes it clear that he is a skeptic. He is also a true believer that unless something can be proven through the scientific method, or something like it, then it cannot be literally true or real. If you agree with that premise, you will love this book as Shermer takes the reader deep into the brain's anatomy and physiology to show how beliefs form and become entrenched. He claims to be a monist, one who believes that there is one brain that includes the mind whereas most people ar...more

like · see review

Aug 14, 2012 Bob Nichols rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shermer says we believe first and justify afterward. We operate this way he believes because we are designed by evolution to see patterns that convey meaning and to see forces that convey agency.

The author's theme has been around for awhile, but he anchors it in evolutionary theory. His argument goes in the right direction but seems to bounce back on itself because Shermer is satisfied with bodily chemicals and the believing neuron and leaving it at that. We look for patterns and agency to make...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 12, 2012 Rob Kirkham rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: audiobooks, brain, non-fiction, philosophy, read-2012, religious, want-to-own, want-to-reread, science

The Believing Brain is a fantastic walk through the nature of belief. Shermer's thesis is simple enough: belief comes first and the justification of that belief follows afterword. The cognitive heuristics we humans use to reinforce our sundry notions prove fascinating, but may be problematic if we justify false belief. I used to tell my seventh graders, "It's important to have opinions, but it's more important to know why you have those opinions." That is a mantra I will continue promulgating an...more The Believing Brain is a fantastic walk through the nature of belief. Shermer's thesis is simple enough: belief comes first and the justification of that belief follows afterword. The cognitive heuristics we humans use to reinforce our sundry notions prove fascinating, but may be problematic if we justify false belief. I used to tell my seventh graders, "It's important to have opinions, but it's more important to know why you have those opinions." That is a mantra I will continue promulgating and I will stand behind it. I echo Shermer's zeal for introducing a healthy amount of skepticism into our discourse. In the year of Chic-fil-A protests, we have campaigning politicians lambasting one another with unsubstantiated claims, multiple gun massacres, and ever-increasing intolerance for the "other," be it a different political party, religious group, or lifestyle. It is time for all of us to step back, dial down the rhetoric, and honestly self-evaluate our positions. Do we have fallacious cognitive biases that should be resolved? My guess: yes. We all do.

This book cites numerous fascinating scientific, psychological, and sociological studies with topics ranging from political biases to UFO sightings. For instance: a study of how people who consider themselves Republicans or Democrats can look at contradictory statements from both parties, but only recognize it in the other party--not to mention the fact that brain scans show this as an emotional decision not a rational one, and then show a subsequent neural-chemical hit we get in our brain's pleasure center that further solidifies our erroneous notions. Shermer also provides a nearly encyclopedic content of biases that we use when forming our beliefs. His anecdotes liven the content and illuminate the ideas, while his research speaks to the credibility of his theories.

That being said, the author gets tangental from time to time, most notably in his chapter on economics. He's a libertarian and proud of it to the point where he can help but reveal his own biases to an annoying, not to mention condescending, degree. His chapters chronicling the history of astronomy are tedious as well. He got his PhD in science history and flexes his abilities a little too far in my opinion. But this is perhaps a revealing and important flaw in the book. No one--not even a guy who studies belief for a living--can escape their own personal biases. That's why I say it's so important to know why we have the beliefs we have. It's as important as the beliefs themselves, and even more telling about who we really are. We cannot escape our biases, but we can work to frame our understanding of them in a rational manner. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Jul 13, 2012 Marnie rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I started reading Michael Shermer's work about 15 years ago, when he released Why People Believe Weird Things and I've been enjoying his work ever since. I regularly recommend both Weird Things and The Science of Good and Evil to people. I subscribe to the magazine he publishes, Skeptic Magazine, and try to stay on top of skeptic blogs and books, in general.

For the most part, this book represents plenty of what I like about Shermer's writing. He offers both technical and layman's explanations o...more I started reading Michael Shermer's work about 15 years ago, when he released Why People Believe Weird Things and I've been enjoying his work ever since. I regularly recommend both Weird Things and The Science of Good and Evil to people. I subscribe to the magazine he publishes, Skeptic Magazine, and try to stay on top of skeptic blogs and books, in general.

For the most part, this book represents plenty of what I like about Shermer's writing. He offers both technical and layman's explanations of his subject matter and his writing is engaging and thoughtful.

I do, though, have to take aim at his approach to politics, in this book. I will start by saying that I come down pretty firmly on the side of liberalism and Shermer identifies most closely with libertarianism. I'm going to do my best not to let my personal bias cloud my commentary, but I have to acknowledge that I feel strongly about my views and they are in conflict with Shermer's own views. So take my critique with a grain of salt.

Firstly, this is a book about belief and in the context of belief, it may make sense to talk about politics, so it's understandable that Shermer devotes part of his intro and a chapter to it, but from the start of the book, Shermer comes across as defensive. He describes his own views, why he feels somewhat misunderstood and how he feels there is more nuance than a broad label like "libertarian" can really give. After reading the opening, I honestly felt like, while I disagreed with many of Shermer's views, I could understand that he simply puts different values before the values that are important to me.

However, once he began discussing political views as part of a greater social construct and personality, it veered way out of skepticism and into self serving promotion of his own belief. Where we can look at why a person may believe he had a near death experience or alien abduction and break down the chemical and biological mechanisms that mislead the brain into believing these experiences happened, Shermer offers personal opinion as proof that his personal political beliefs are the most right of all, without offering anything more than statements on his own preference and values. I feel he does his book a real disservice here. Some of his arguments are downright unskeptical too. His claim that universities have a "liberal bias" because more people at universities identify as liberal, stands out as a good example. It is possible that universities do have a liberal bias that sway their students. It's also possible that an education tends to drive people to liberalism. Both of those assumptions should be considered instead of choosing the one that conforms with one's own personal belief. This is the same sort of thinking that creationists use. "Oh, there's just a bias as universities for evolution, but our view has equal validity." He also makes some argument to the effect that democracy in the US was an untested theory when it was established, and it worked out well, and libertarianism should get an opportunity to be tried so we can test it before dismissing it. This is nonsense on two levels. Firstly, aspects of democracy date back to sixth century BC so this was not an untested theory. Secondly, one needs a better argument than "well, let's try this out and see if it works" before overhauling an entire government system.

I would like to believe that even if Shermer shared my political beliefs, I'd still identify some of these problems with his arguments, though I suspect I wouldn't have thought much of it either way, so as I said, I acknowledge my personal bias in this review. For the most part, this is a solid book, I just feel his approach to politics veered off into personal editorializing and away from the more rigorous scientific approach he's normally known for.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jun 19, 2012 Kater Cheek rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Even though this book is about beliefs, it has a huge whopping load of science, especially neurology and psychology. It doesn't address specific beliefs so much as describe how people form conjectures about the world. It talks about pattern recognition, and confirmation biases, and the common fallacies that lead people to believe things, whether it's believing that clouds generally bring rain or believing that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration.

I got the audiobook, which Shermer re...more Even though this book is about beliefs, it has a huge whopping load of science, especially neurology and psychology. It doesn't address specific beliefs so much as describe how people form conjectures about the world. It talks about pattern recognition, and confirmation biases, and the common fallacies that lead people to believe things, whether it's believing that clouds generally bring rain or believing that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration.

I got the audiobook, which Shermer reads himself. He doesn't have a trained voice, and there are odd pauses that occasionally distract from the reading, but not enough for me to advise people to avoid this version. I would avoid it for difficult driving, however, because when Shermer was discussing why humans have a dualist view of themselves rather than a moniacal view of themselves (not sure if those are the right words) some one who thought he was above turn signals tried to come into my lane and I had to stop listening, and I never got a chance to go back and repeat that section. It's not a terrible commute book though, because most of the subject matter isn't heavy. For the most part, this book was a refreshing mix of facts I had heard and didn't mind a refresher on, and facts which were either new, or presented in a new enough way that they felt new.

Shermer's an atheist, but he is a former Christian who has a lot of sympathy for believers. He has more sympathy than you would expect, given the subject matter. He includes himself in the subset of flawed humans who believe despite evidence to the contrary, though he doesn't admit to any of these beliefs himself.

I might have given it four stars, except that the last 40 minutes or so was very astronomy-heavy. Only one sentence seemed to tie the history of astronomical discoveries into the main theme of the book, and I found it a tenuous tie at best. Maybe for other people, this isn't a drawback, but astronomy bores me, which is why I generally seek out books on subjects like neurology and psychology and even occasionally philosophy. Why discuss the distance of nebulas and ponder the existence of multiverses and talk about galaxy rotational speeds and spectronomy? What does this have to do with the believing brain? It felt like sushi at a pizzeria: sure, everyone else in the world seems to like sushi, but I came here for the cheese and garlic. For me the astronomy section meant a very boring half hour in an otherwise entertaining book.(less)

like · see review

Dec 31, 2011 Judith rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you have friends who believe in ghosts, magic, ESP, aliens, witchcraft, voodoo, or any mystical spirit, you should urge them to read this book. In it, they will find the biological, historical and evolutionary basis for the belief, and then the cure for the belief, which basically boils down to using the human brain to confront the myth. Considering the vast store of scientific information at our disposal in this current century, it is astounding that so many people still believe in the super...more

like · see review

Oct 14, 2011 Bill rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science

In this book, Shermer argues that humans form beliefs from genetic predispositions and social experiences. We then selectively filter data and experience to support those pre-existing beliefs. We see "patterns" of meaning in our experience, and we tend to project "agenticity" when causal factors are not known. I respect Shermer for admitting up front that he is subject to the same process, in which emotion trumps reason in matters of belief. So, I read with great interest how he attempts in this...more In this book, Shermer argues that humans form beliefs from genetic predispositions and social experiences. We then selectively filter data and experience to support those pre-existing beliefs. We see "patterns" of meaning in our experience, and we tend to project "agenticity" when causal factors are not known. I respect Shermer for admitting up front that he is subject to the same process, in which emotion trumps reason in matters of belief. So, I read with great interest how he attempts in this book to bring rationality to the study of our irrational brains.

I like books that have a wide bandwidth, and he supports his thesis with evidence from experimental psychology, neurobiology, history, physics, and evolutionary biology. His chapter on confirmations of belief explains and lists more logical fallacies that I have ever seen before. His chapter on "the believing neuron" adduces evidence that dopamine acting as a reinforcer in particular areas of the brain results in pleasure or motivation for confirming prexisting beliefs. His chapters on geographies of belief and cosmologies of belief are interesting forays into the history of exploration and on the history of research on nebulae to show that scientists fall prey to the same fallacies as others, but that science as a method does overcome biases of individual scientists.

His chapters on belief in God, belief in the afterlife, belief in paranormal phenomena, and belief in conspiracies applies logic and scientific research to those often fuzzy issues. My favorite chapter was on the politics of belief, in which he supports his thesis in social psychological and political science research that we form our political views early and hold them dearly, filtering data and events to support our political beliefs.

The book was fun to read, insightful, and influential personally. I have a new understanding of the role of dopamine in supporting belief. I have a new understanding of persons who have different political views from mine. I have more clarity on the testable vs the nontestable statements in theology, e.g. is prayer answered? I have more respect than ever for Galileo's contribution to overturning the centuries old Aristotle-Roman Catholic cosmology. Most importantly, I have more self-awareness of how my own brain formed beliefs and selectively supported those beliefs by filtering perceptions and employing biases and fallacies in the areas of theology, politics, and daily life.
(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 11, 2011 John rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science, philosophy-atheism-religion

Michael Shermer is a prolific writer, best known for The Science of Good & Evil, Why People Believe Weird Things, and, publisher of Skeptic Magazine. I have been a huge fan of Shermer for some years and traveled cross-country twice this year to attend his conferences on the west coast.

The early chapters of The Believing Brain have some redundancy from Shermer's earlier work but the last 60 percent is a wealth of new information that I found enlightening, and partially disturbing. Unlike the...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 13, 2011 Gendou rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, atheism, philosophy

A heart-felt and personal journey from superstitious pigeons to speculative cosmology.
Each chapter has a poetic and emotionally accessible summary, which is a nice touch.
I must say how well written and organized the book is; a rare thing these days!

While this book is weak on atheism (compared to, say, Dawkins), it gives a very genial reflection on the fragile nature of belief through examples of thinking gone awry.
For example, a link between anxiety and magical thinking is discussed.
Also discuss...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 11, 2011 Erwin rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: has-audio-version

The Believing Brain

We assume that belief follows reason, but it's actually the other way around - reason follows our beliefs. Two biases dominate our perception of the world:
1) self confirmation bias - we only see the evidence that confirms our existing belief
2) the "agent" bias - our minds are designed to look for the agent that caused a given result

Our belief in religion ("god" is the ultimate "agent") in conspiracies (911 truth, JFK, Roswell) and arguably economics is based on our belief in a...more The Believing Brain

We assume that belief follows reason, but it's actually the other way around - reason follows our beliefs. Two biases dominate our perception of the world:
1) self confirmation bias - we only see the evidence that confirms our existing belief
2) the "agent" bias - our minds are designed to look for the agent that caused a given result

Our belief in religion ("god" is the ultimate "agent") in conspiracies (911 truth, JFK, Roswell) and arguably economics is based on our belief in agents. Even Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is a wonderful example of an "agent".

Next is the self confirmation bias. Once we believe something, we seek evidence that confirms those beliefs.

Keys to success.
1. Learn to help others believe
2. Learn to create myth
3. Never "believe" anything

That said, as author of many books and someone seeking media attention, Shemer isn't that different from Rush Limbaugh - he's got his line and his followers, and his business rests on maintaining leadership over his little faction. Much of this book is about preaching to the choir, and if your not already in that choir, some of the passages will be repetitive and annoying.

This critique I've reposted (partially) because I think it makes some relevant points:
The actual neuroscience in the book could be summarized in about five pages.

The rest of the book is more information about the author's personal beliefs, pet peeves, etc. Interestingly, when discussing theories he is critical of, the author holds studies to a very high standard, but when discussing his own theory, he references studies and concepts that often do not reach the same level of rigor. In fact, some of his discussions about certain regions of the brain being responsible for highly complex thought patterns is the exact type of modern phrenology that makes most modern neuroscientists cringe.

I actually agree with the author's general premise about beliefs. I am equally skeptical of the existence of god, likelihood of discovering extraterrestrial life, and the various pop conspiracy theories that are out there. I just think the book could have been written in 50 pages. Or better yet, it could have been shortened to a magazine article and not lost any of its basic premise.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jul 09, 2011 Kim Wombles rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Taken from http://kwomblescountering.blogspot.co...

It took me awhile to find this photo (see the link above) in my stream of thousands of photos because it's more than a month old. I've been reading Michael Shermer's latest book The Believing Brain for over a month now to review it for here and Science 2.0. I spent more than a month with Baron-Cohen's The Science of Evil. I try to be thorough and careful in my reading of books I review; I don't want to gloss over it and throw out a review that i...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 24, 2011 Jorge rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: atheism-religion, evolution, neuroscience

The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies by Michael Shermer

"The Believing Brain" is a fantastic and ambitious book that explains the nature of beliefs. Mr. Shermer provides his theory of belief and with great expertise and skill provides compelling arguments and practical examples in explaining how the process of belief works. He applies his theory to a wide range of types of beliefs and does so with mastery. This excellent 400 page-book is composed of the followin...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 02, 2012 Rob rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2012

I have to admit at the beginning that I have a significantly pro-skeptic bias. I love skeptics, so it is hard for me not to like the book. An interesting book that belongs on my shelf between my books on psychology and science (The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions) and my books on agnosticism, skepticism, neo-atheism and the evolution of relig...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 11, 2011 Tanja Seppä rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science, psychology-psychiatry

I have been following Michael Shermer's column in "Scientific American" for years. It's the first thing in the magazine that I read. This book definitely did not dissapoint. Shermer starts off with anecdotes and then goes into the very specific. Oft repeated throughout the book is that belief comes first, rationalization of the beliefs afterward. First we decide to believe, then the evidence collected tends to support what we believe. This is regardless if the subject is religion, paranormal, UF...more

like · see review

Oct 03, 2011 Lon rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I first heard Shermer on a video podcast from TED. The ideas intrigued me. In the lecture, and in this book, he investigates our tendency to embrace new ideas only if they confirm what we already believe while rejecting ideas that contradict or threaten our current belief. Citing research in neuroscience that suggests that our brains are wired to seek patterns and relationships, Shermer postulates that as a species, we were more likely to succeed in the game of life by perceiving patterns even i...more I first heard Shermer on a video podcast from TED. The ideas intrigued me. In the lecture, and in this book, he investigates our tendency to embrace new ideas only if they confirm what we already believe while rejecting ideas that contradict or threaten our current belief. Citing research in neuroscience that suggests that our brains are wired to seek patterns and relationships, Shermer postulates that as a species, we were more likely to succeed in the game of life by perceiving patterns even if we were sometimes wrong (a false positive) than to be skeptical, refusing to "jump to conclusions" about a possible pattern.

He sets up a hypothetical situation which nicely illustrate the point:

"Imagine that you are a hominid walking along the savanna of and African valley three million years ago. You hear a rustle in the grass. Is it just the wind or is it a dangerous predator? Your answer could mean life or death.
"If you assume that the rustle is the grass is a dangerous predator but it turns out that it is just the wind, you have made what is called a Type 1 error in cognition, also knows as a false positive, or believing something is real when it is not. That is, you have found a nonexistent pattern. You connected (A) a rustle in the grass to (B) a dangerous predator, but in this case A was not connected to B. No harm. You move away from the rustling sound, become more alert and cautious, and find another path to your destination.
"If you assume that the rustle in the grass is just the wind [don't create a pattern] but it turns out that it is a dangerous predator, you have made what is called a Type II error in cognition, also known as a false negative, or believing something is not real when it is. That is, you have missed a real pattern. You failed to connect (A) a rustle in the grass to (B) a dangerous predator, and in this case A was connected to B. You're lunch. Congratulations, you have won a Darwin Award. You are no longer a member of the hominid gene pool.
"Our brains are belief engines, evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. . . . We are the descendants of those who were most successful at finding patterns. I call this process patternicity, the process of seeking and finding patterns, connecting the dots, linking A to B." (59)

On the issue of how rational people justify irrationally-held beliefs, Shermer states:

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons. Most people, most of the time, arrive at their beliefs for a host of reasons involving personality and temperament, family dynamics and cultural background, parents and siblings, peer groups and teachers, education and books, mentors and heroes, and various life experiences, very few of which have anything to do with intelligence. The Enlightenment ideal of Homo rationalis has us sitting down before a table of facts, weighing them in the balance pro and con, and then employing logic and reason to determine which set of facts best supports this or that theory. This is not at all how we form beliefs. What happens is that the facts of the world are filtered by our brains through the colored lenses of worldviews, paradigms, theories, hypotheses, conjectures, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through living. We then sort through the facts and select those that confirm what we already believe and ignore or rationalize away those that contradict our beliefs." (36)

"How is it that people come to believe something that seemingly defies reason? The answer is in the thesis of the book: beliefs come first; reasons for belief follow." (133)

The most interesting passage of the book prompts us to think about the societal and cultural implications of this phenomenon:

[After citing research, he concludes] "belief comes quickly and naturally, skepticism is slow and unnatural, and most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. The scientific principle that a claim is untrue unless proven otherwise runs counter to our natural tendency to accept as true that which we can comprehend quickly. Thus it is that we should reward skepticism and disbelief, and champion those willing to change their mind in the teeth of new evidence. Instead, most social institutions--most notably those in religion, politics, and economics--reward belief n the doctrines of the faith or party or ideology, punish those who challenge the authority of the leaders, and discourage uncertainty and especially skepticism." (135)

Offering a critique of the book itself, I'd say the concepts could've been concisely taught and explained--complete with examples--in a medium-length magazine article. The book didn't contain a book's worth of rich information. The TED video probably did the job better than the book. Still, fascinating research and a compelling thesis.
(less)

like · see review

May 17, 2011 Ellen rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, read-2011, reviewed

This book bills itself as "why people believe weird things," but it's really more of "why you shouldn't believe weird things." It should be noted that I don't actually believe in any of the things discussed in the book (God, heaven, hell, and other religious things; UFOs and alien abductions; conspiracy theories, esp. 9/11 conspiracy theories), so the arguments against were tedious at best, and I gained no insight into why other people do believe them.

Shermer's tone comes across as defensive (an...more

8 likes · like · see review

Mar 15, 2012 Rusty rated it 4 of 5 stars

Non fiction books are hard to rate sometimes, as the subject matter can be as big a factor as the execution. Still, I've read several of Michael Shermer's books in the past and I generally think he picks some pretty damn interesting topics to talk about, even if he holds to some pretty unpopular worldviews. Through the book, he shares how he went from non religious, to deeply religious, to agnostic/atheist over the course of his life, all while explaining the factors that contributed to his opin...more

like · see review

Sep 19, 2011 Marya rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: adult-nonfiction

Shermer is here to tell you that we’ve gotten it all backwards. We don’t believe after we see the evidence; we believe first and then see the evidence in that light. The first third of the book is devoted to explaining the brain studies that show that belief is embedded in all humans and always takes the lead in any thinking. The next two thirds of the books tackle everything from God to the afterlife to conspiracy theories to show why we would already be predisposed to believe in these things w...more

like · see review

Jul 01, 2011 Heather Denkmire rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

There were a few books in this book and I only enjoyed one of them. Unfortunately for me, most of the content was repeat information from things I've read/heard before. The first sections dealing with the biology of the brain were interesting.

So much of the book (a book in itself) was spent refuting things that don't exist (UFOs, ghosts, god, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.) it was tiresome. I know they don't, I don't need it explained why. This continued on for a long, long time. I almost gave up on th...more

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 30, 2011 Julie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: religions, psychology, philosophy, brainstuff, myths-folklore

Michael Shermer is Mr. Skeptic, and somehow I hadn’t read anything by him until this. For the most part I enjoyed his arguments and his agnostic/open-minded approach to belief. (There is some straw man stuff he did around religion that kinda irked me.) More important than a quibble I might have is how thankful I am that he is willing to take the time and dismantle 9/11 truthers, or holocaust deniers; to do it logically and point by point.

This book is kind of a survey, I found the political sect...more

like · see review

Oct 06, 2011 Jani-Petri rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shermer is not as good a writer as some other famous skeptics or atheists such as Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins. The book has some interesting discussions, but they are quickly followed by more boring sections that one feels were added quickly in order to add to the page count. Editing should also have removed some sillier claims (my edition stated that Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost something like 4 billion which is 10% of US GDP....patently ridiculous). I also found it annoying that Sh...more

like · see review

title link	preview: The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths
avg rating	preview: The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies How We Construct Beliefs and Goodreads rating: 3.89 (2126 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12644059-the-believing-brain?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1316225953l/12644059.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12644059-the-believing-brain?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer[/url]

The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (5)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Michael Shermer

Books by Michael Shermer

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Believing Bra...

Quotes from The Believing Brain: F...