What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind
We're all hypocrites. Why? Hypocrisy is the natural state of the human mind.
Robert Kurzban shows us that the key to understanding our behavioral inconsistencies lies in understanding the mind's design. The human mind consists of many specialized units designed by the process of evolution by natural selection. While these modules sometimes work together seamlessly, they don't always, resulting in impossibly contradictory beliefs, vacillations between patience and impulsiveness, violations of our supposed moral principles, and overinflated views of ourselves.
This modular, evolutionary psychological view of the mind undermines deeply held intuitions about ourselves, as well as a range of scientific theories that require a "self" with consistent beliefs and preferences. Modularity suggests that there is no "I." Instead, each of us is a contentious "we"--a collection of discrete but interacting systems whose constant conflicts shape our interactions with one another and our experience of the world.
In clear language, full of wit and rich in examples, Kurzban explains the roots and implications of our inconsistent minds, and why it is perfectly natural to believe that everyone else is a hypocrite.
289 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 21, 2010
127 people are currently reading
3854 people want to read
About the author
Robert Kurzban
7 books49 followersRob Kurzban completed a Master of Public Administration degree at the Fels School of Government and, after 25 successful years as an academic, now works as Director of Development for a non-profit that delivers health, education, and basic human services to low income populations. He also started a business called RE:Writers which delivers quality writing services in the financial, academic, and non-profit spaces.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews
August 18, 2018
Uncle Walt said it all when he quipped:
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes".
If you've ever wondered how someone can say one thing and do another (i.e. be a total hypocrite). The answer may be that there's more than one them. A lot more than one.
Don't feel bad for them though. Because the same could be said about you, me and everyone else.
According to modularity theory, who we are and what we do depends on which competing mental module wins the struggle for dominance in a given situation.
These modules evolved for different reasons and are often working at crossed purposes. They can have very different agendas and elicit very different types of behaviors.
So you no longer have to be even one bit surprised the next time an anti gay politician or tella-evangelist gets busted with a male prostitute. Or the mayor of Toronto gets busted smoking crack. These are simply amplified, very public examples of the same kind of erratic, hypocritical behavior that everyone does pretty much all the time.
There's a catch though. We're great at busting others at being hypocritical and literally terrible at seeing our own hypocritical behavior. That's why accountability is such a very good thing. In fact it's our only hope.
I loved this book. In fact I really think just about everybody ought to read it. It's funny and smart and if you're unfamiliar with (good) evolutionary psychology, specifically modularity theory, than it may radically change the way you view human behavior (including your own).
If "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Dobzhansky (1973), and, assuming that mind is an emergent property of brain function (and it is), than nothing in PSYCHOLOGY makes sense except in the light of evolution either (and it doesn't).
This book is flawed. It labors some points while underworking others. But it's (a) LOL funny, (b) thought provoking as hell, and (c) extremely clarifying and useful, particularly if you are confused about psychology (and you are, and so is everyone else, even the "experts", trust me).
Its a first draft, of a corner of a map, that can lead us out of the tanged jukyard of incongruous mini theories that is psychology today (meaning the current state of the field-not the magazine).
Read it, ditch the tired unified self model, and keep thinking function and module over time under selection pressure in the environment of evolutionary of adaptation, and see if things about psychology (that were formerly terribly confusing) don't start making a bit more sense.
Great book!
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes".
If you've ever wondered how someone can say one thing and do another (i.e. be a total hypocrite). The answer may be that there's more than one them. A lot more than one.
Don't feel bad for them though. Because the same could be said about you, me and everyone else.
According to modularity theory, who we are and what we do depends on which competing mental module wins the struggle for dominance in a given situation.
These modules evolved for different reasons and are often working at crossed purposes. They can have very different agendas and elicit very different types of behaviors.
So you no longer have to be even one bit surprised the next time an anti gay politician or tella-evangelist gets busted with a male prostitute. Or the mayor of Toronto gets busted smoking crack. These are simply amplified, very public examples of the same kind of erratic, hypocritical behavior that everyone does pretty much all the time.
There's a catch though. We're great at busting others at being hypocritical and literally terrible at seeing our own hypocritical behavior. That's why accountability is such a very good thing. In fact it's our only hope.
I loved this book. In fact I really think just about everybody ought to read it. It's funny and smart and if you're unfamiliar with (good) evolutionary psychology, specifically modularity theory, than it may radically change the way you view human behavior (including your own).
If "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Dobzhansky (1973), and, assuming that mind is an emergent property of brain function (and it is), than nothing in PSYCHOLOGY makes sense except in the light of evolution either (and it doesn't).
This book is flawed. It labors some points while underworking others. But it's (a) LOL funny, (b) thought provoking as hell, and (c) extremely clarifying and useful, particularly if you are confused about psychology (and you are, and so is everyone else, even the "experts", trust me).
Its a first draft, of a corner of a map, that can lead us out of the tanged jukyard of incongruous mini theories that is psychology today (meaning the current state of the field-not the magazine).
Read it, ditch the tired unified self model, and keep thinking function and module over time under selection pressure in the environment of evolutionary of adaptation, and see if things about psychology (that were formerly terribly confusing) don't start making a bit more sense.
Great book!
August 4, 2011
Overall, it's a pretty good read. And I am convinced by the modular model of the brain. That being said, I did find some of this research methodologies problematic.
First of all, his approach to brain is completely instrumental. If the brain's function cannot bring reproductive advantage, then it must not be there. As a researcher, I think the author should know better than this. Many times, we find functions of certain organs (which can be the brain) accidents of evolution, in the sense that they are spin-offs of strategies designed for other purposes but happen to also have unintended functions. Susan Gelman's book 'The Essential Child' is one example of how essentialism is the side effect of several important brain strategies to help us survive.
Second, his interpretation of morality is way too simplistic to do any justice to the phenomenon itself. Even though I agree with him on that philosophers do not really know much better than the rest of us on morality, I strongly disagree with his naive assertion that morality is just a strategy to constrain others to reduce competition.
Nevertheless, the modular model of the brain is a fantastic idea and something we should seriously study further. It is also a good idea to give up the stupid study on self-esteem and delve into what actually can help us be a better person instead of feeling like a good person.
First of all, his approach to brain is completely instrumental. If the brain's function cannot bring reproductive advantage, then it must not be there. As a researcher, I think the author should know better than this. Many times, we find functions of certain organs (which can be the brain) accidents of evolution, in the sense that they are spin-offs of strategies designed for other purposes but happen to also have unintended functions. Susan Gelman's book 'The Essential Child' is one example of how essentialism is the side effect of several important brain strategies to help us survive.
Second, his interpretation of morality is way too simplistic to do any justice to the phenomenon itself. Even though I agree with him on that philosophers do not really know much better than the rest of us on morality, I strongly disagree with his naive assertion that morality is just a strategy to constrain others to reduce competition.
Nevertheless, the modular model of the brain is a fantastic idea and something we should seriously study further. It is also a good idea to give up the stupid study on self-esteem and delve into what actually can help us be a better person instead of feeling like a good person.
July 29, 2013
Kurzban's writing is crisp, clever and humorous, and he argues persuasively for some ideas that really shouldn't be all that surprising, if you've kept up with psychology and neuroscience lately. Basically, the self is an illusion, there are lots of different subroutines running all at once, and different circumstances will affect which parts of the brain are making the decisions. The part of the brain that speaks, the conscious mind, is often unaware of what the rest of the brain is doing, which allows people to hold inconsistent beliefs and behave hypocritically. Problematic concepts like self-control and self-deception are explained easily when the brain is understood this way. Human behavior and mental activity can seem paradoxical until they're explained with this modular framework. This should be fun and familiar material for anyone familiar with Gazzaniga's "Who's In Charge", Eagleman's "Incognito", or Pinker's "How The Mind Works". Sociology students, on the other hand, might be quick to trot out the same tired old accusations of determinism or reductionism, but they would be missing Kurzban's point entirely. The book sets out to explain exactly what its title suggests, and Kurzban does that masterfully. He points out how even smart people who know better cannot easily avoid drifting back into using language that implies some kind of soul, some kind of self, some homunculus inside our heads who is calling all the shots, and he uses clear, instructive examples to illustrate why this view is completely wrong. Hopefully Kurzban's refreshing, witty writing style will help persuade those who remain trapped in their Cartesian theater, searching for the ghost in the machine.
Read
April 24, 2021Her insanın hayatında kendisiyle çeliştiği anlar vardır. Örneğin sevgi duyduğunuz insana karşı aynı zamanda nefret de hissedebilirsiniz. Aynı şekilde yapmamanız gereken bir şey var iken kendinizi onu yaparken bulabilirsiniz. Peki dünya üzerinde hangimiz bazen yaptığımız şeylerin sonucunu kabul etmek istemezken cahili oynamadı?
Robert Kurzban’ın Neden (Sizden Başka) Herkes İkiyüzlüdür? kitabında insan doğasının bu ikili algılamasının yanında neden başkalarını suçlamaya meyilli olduğumuz tartışılıyor. Aynı zamanda bu yatkınlığımızın bizi diğer türlerden ayıran yegâne özelliğimiz olarak gerekli olduğundan da bahsediliyor. Dolayısıyla da Kurzban insan doğasına değerli bir bakışı bizlere sunmayı başarıyor.
İncelemenin tamamı: https://kayiprihtim.com/inceleme/nede...
Sude Çatal
Robert Kurzban’ın Neden (Sizden Başka) Herkes İkiyüzlüdür? kitabında insan doğasının bu ikili algılamasının yanında neden başkalarını suçlamaya meyilli olduğumuz tartışılıyor. Aynı zamanda bu yatkınlığımızın bizi diğer türlerden ayıran yegâne özelliğimiz olarak gerekli olduğundan da bahsediliyor. Dolayısıyla da Kurzban insan doğasına değerli bir bakışı bizlere sunmayı başarıyor.
İncelemenin tamamı: https://kayiprihtim.com/inceleme/nede...
Sude Çatal
June 17, 2018
I read this book as part of Robert Wright's Buddhism And Modern Psychology online course. I was excited to read it because I find fascinating the concept of consciousness as a sort of "press secretary" that evolved to explain our actions to others. This would tie consciousness to language in a nice, satisfying way.
Unfortunately, in this book, Kurzban doesn't really elaborate on the "press secretary" concept. He spends a lot of time giving muddy exposition on psychological misconceptions about self-deception, and he does a lot of moral argumentation that doesn't seem related to his main point and doesn't really lead anywhere.
I still have an intuition that the modular model of the mind is right and that the experience of selfhood is just an illusion. But Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite doesn't solidify or add nuance to these ideas in any appreciable way.
Unfortunately, in this book, Kurzban doesn't really elaborate on the "press secretary" concept. He spends a lot of time giving muddy exposition on psychological misconceptions about self-deception, and he does a lot of moral argumentation that doesn't seem related to his main point and doesn't really lead anywhere.
I still have an intuition that the modular model of the mind is right and that the experience of selfhood is just an illusion. But Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite doesn't solidify or add nuance to these ideas in any appreciable way.
April 5, 2015
“Evolution doesn’t care if you’re happy…”
This book just made it onto my list of all-time favorites. The author, an evolutionary psychologist, advances a powerful argument that the human mind is modular — a collection of systems designed (actually, shaped by evolution) for various adaptive reasons. These modules work alongside one another — occasionally in harmony, very often not — to help protect the vessel long enough for it to pass genetic material to the next generation.
He painstakingly builds the argument with examples, anecdotes and research, leading the reader inexorably to embrace the modular concept. Some may be off-put by the deconstruction of self that shakes out of the theory, since “self,” he argues, is just another module — one of many, no better or worse — trying to keep things together and often receiving and acting upon incomplete or just flat out wrong information arriving from the various other modules.
So if the mind is modular and self is illusory, (quoting author Dan Dennet, “selves are not things at all, but instead are explanatory fictions.”), how does that answer the question posed by the title? It turns out the modules are all grimly, resolutely focused on maximizing adaptive strategies for genetic success. That means surfacing strategically valuable hypocrisy, misguided, unwarranted and necessary personal exceptionalism, “other-controlling” morality schemes and more.
He’s a terrific writer, funny, snarky (don’t miss the footnotes), self-deprecating and clearly an expert in the field, which makes this a great and illuminating read.
If you’re not put off by concepts such as the brain being “just another piece of meat in your head” or that “self-esteem isn’t a cause of almost anything,” check out this book. I was hooked almost immediately. Well, at least the module that makes me think there is someone driving this particular collection of “explanatory fiction” I call my self was hooked.
This book just made it onto my list of all-time favorites. The author, an evolutionary psychologist, advances a powerful argument that the human mind is modular — a collection of systems designed (actually, shaped by evolution) for various adaptive reasons. These modules work alongside one another — occasionally in harmony, very often not — to help protect the vessel long enough for it to pass genetic material to the next generation.
He painstakingly builds the argument with examples, anecdotes and research, leading the reader inexorably to embrace the modular concept. Some may be off-put by the deconstruction of self that shakes out of the theory, since “self,” he argues, is just another module — one of many, no better or worse — trying to keep things together and often receiving and acting upon incomplete or just flat out wrong information arriving from the various other modules.
So if the mind is modular and self is illusory, (quoting author Dan Dennet, “selves are not things at all, but instead are explanatory fictions.”), how does that answer the question posed by the title? It turns out the modules are all grimly, resolutely focused on maximizing adaptive strategies for genetic success. That means surfacing strategically valuable hypocrisy, misguided, unwarranted and necessary personal exceptionalism, “other-controlling” morality schemes and more.
He’s a terrific writer, funny, snarky (don’t miss the footnotes), self-deprecating and clearly an expert in the field, which makes this a great and illuminating read.
If you’re not put off by concepts such as the brain being “just another piece of meat in your head” or that “self-esteem isn’t a cause of almost anything,” check out this book. I was hooked almost immediately. Well, at least the module that makes me think there is someone driving this particular collection of “explanatory fiction” I call my self was hooked.
July 7, 2015
The mind is not a singleton but a rather a collection of processes which have a very specific function. This is the main argument put forth in the book and the art of putting displayed by Kurzban is both highly interesting and logically solid.
The perspective to human morality that Kurzban offers in the last chapters of the book is rather new and surprising. Many of the things we instinctively think as moral are nothing more than evolutionary adaptations which, at the modern world and upon closer inspection, prove to be nothing but irrational beliefs (like how we think about abortion, polygamy and pushing people in train tracks to save others and the way we feel about these and being rather unable to provide a rational reasons to our judgements).
Much of the book, however, builds the argument with lower level examples completely obliterating the notion of an unified mind. Being "lower level examples" doesn't mean that they're not though-provoking and hilarious.
You can find an excellent summary of the book by Kaj Sotala here: http://lesswrong.com/tag/whyeveryoneh...
The first chapter is available for free here: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s...
The perspective to human morality that Kurzban offers in the last chapters of the book is rather new and surprising. Many of the things we instinctively think as moral are nothing more than evolutionary adaptations which, at the modern world and upon closer inspection, prove to be nothing but irrational beliefs (like how we think about abortion, polygamy and pushing people in train tracks to save others and the way we feel about these and being rather unable to provide a rational reasons to our judgements).
Much of the book, however, builds the argument with lower level examples completely obliterating the notion of an unified mind. Being "lower level examples" doesn't mean that they're not though-provoking and hilarious.
You can find an excellent summary of the book by Kaj Sotala here: http://lesswrong.com/tag/whyeveryoneh...
The first chapter is available for free here: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s...
July 22, 2017
Good but with a caveat. Though I appreciated and learned a great deal from the modular model of the mind Kurzban presents with humor, the author seems to me to be a classic case of a "specialist generalizing" (Frankl) and equating the mind to be "nothing but" an information processing device, not making any leeway for other interpretations/metaphors. The metaphor of the conscious self as a press secretary and propaganda machine is definitely illuminating and convincing, but I kept wondering if that's the ONLY prominent function of our conscious selves—Kurzban might have, in my humble opinion, placed a little too much emphasis on the propaganda aspect. I also didn't completely buy his analysis of the lack of self-deception's benefits other than the social ones. Other than the moments of frustration I had with what I took to be scientific myopia (or just plain scientism), his exposition of the modular mind is highly informative and valuable in understanding our brain.
June 12, 2014
Good overall thesis about the modular mind and hypocrisy but sloppy execution. With all of its informality and condescension the book came across more as a 220 page apology for the author's actions (I mean, seriously he apologized for them twice to his wife and once to his parents) than a scholarly work.
I would have expected better from Princeton Press, but Kurzban seemed to include enough lauding over Steven Pinkner to get away with meandering text, far too much use of Frogger as an example, and not enough hypothesis proving.
I would have expected better from Princeton Press, but Kurzban seemed to include enough lauding over Steven Pinkner to get away with meandering text, far too much use of Frogger as an example, and not enough hypothesis proving.
October 11, 2017
Interesting book about the modular mind concept, very clear and sometimes quite funny look at our "mind" and just who is in actually in control. Before reading the book the idea just seems absurd, but by the books end I must say that I'm pretty firmly convinced. The author shows through numerous studies that not only is a mind made up of modules pauible but really quite probable.
November 15, 2011
The book starts off strong. The modular model of the mind is certainly appealing, and I wish Kurzban spent a little more time with the Braitenberg vehicles and the modules that drive their behavior, since that analogy helped me understand his model better. Shortcomings in the model's explanatory power quickly show up, however: his arguments for a "press secretary" module, while interesting, leave something to be desired. I got the sense that he was either leaving something out for the lay audience or simply hadn't thought through the chains of inference from an impartial perspective.
The middle chapters drag a bit. Am I interested in the squabbles of scientists? No, not really. It read almost like a gossip mag, and while I understand that this section was intended to be illustrative of the concepts, the tactic was more a distraction than anything else. And then the example of polygyny in bird populations felt contrived and, again, weakly reasoned and explained.
The redeeming features that made this book worthwhile were (1) the title, which netted me several knowing nods of approval from fellow cafe-goers who asked about what I was reading, (2) the examples of game-theoretic scenarios in which lack of information or even wrong information is an advantage, and (3) the really quite elegant, if poorly expressed, model of limited willpower as an adaptation resulting from the opportunity cost of of using a limited resource, namely higher-order cognition, without an adequate offsetting reward rather than simple energy expenditure in the form of glucose as theorized by Gailliot & Baumeister and others.
The middle chapters drag a bit. Am I interested in the squabbles of scientists? No, not really. It read almost like a gossip mag, and while I understand that this section was intended to be illustrative of the concepts, the tactic was more a distraction than anything else. And then the example of polygyny in bird populations felt contrived and, again, weakly reasoned and explained.
The redeeming features that made this book worthwhile were (1) the title, which netted me several knowing nods of approval from fellow cafe-goers who asked about what I was reading, (2) the examples of game-theoretic scenarios in which lack of information or even wrong information is an advantage, and (3) the really quite elegant, if poorly expressed, model of limited willpower as an adaptation resulting from the opportunity cost of of using a limited resource, namely higher-order cognition, without an adequate offsetting reward rather than simple energy expenditure in the form of glucose as theorized by Gailliot & Baumeister and others.
February 10, 2013
A quick and witty introduction to evolutionary psychology. The author suggests that instead of thinking of the mind as a single entity whose purpose is to produce a sense of self existing within a unified view of the world, that our brains may be more similar to the various apps running on a smart phone, which run more or less independently of one another, and do not always produce consistent results. It is because of these often contradictory app products that we are all "hypocrites." If the author's premise is even partially correct, this will demolish the old Cartesian view in which "I think, therefore I am" - because there is no "I" to do the thinking.
A highly provocative and at times laugh-out-loud read.
A highly provocative and at times laugh-out-loud read.
January 4, 2018
Incredibly persuasive, I am sold. Maybe a little bit repetitive but definitely not boring - Kurzban has a good sense of humor and does a great job of presenting his view of the mind. I also loved how careful he was at interpreting evolutionary psychology, which can lead you to foolish statements otherwise.
If you are a libertarian, you will enjoy reading the epilogue. It explains why we tend to prevent other people from doing things which don't harm anybody (drugs, prostitution, etc.), even though we seem to advocate for liberty and freedom. Don't take this amiss, he doesn't argue whether an act is moral or not, it is about why people are not consistent with their principles which they like to talk about.
If you are a libertarian, you will enjoy reading the epilogue. It explains why we tend to prevent other people from doing things which don't harm anybody (drugs, prostitution, etc.), even though we seem to advocate for liberty and freedom. Don't take this amiss, he doesn't argue whether an act is moral or not, it is about why people are not consistent with their principles which they like to talk about.
October 27, 2016
This book gets five stars due to the elegance in which the theory is presented. Nice touch of humor too! I was directed to this book over a year ago via Robert Wright's course titled Modern Psychology and Buddhism. I should have read it back then. The modular theory of mind ties up many loose ends in psychology and meshes nicely with the Buddhist concept of annatta.
In the words of Steven Pinker, "Robert Kurzban is one of the best evolutionary psychologists of his generation: he is distinctive not only for his own successful research and sophisticated understanding of psychology, but also because of his wit--Kurzban is genuinely clever, sly, succinct, and sometimes hilarious."
In the words of Steven Pinker, "Robert Kurzban is one of the best evolutionary psychologists of his generation: he is distinctive not only for his own successful research and sophisticated understanding of psychology, but also because of his wit--Kurzban is genuinely clever, sly, succinct, and sometimes hilarious."
May 13, 2012
This is a difficult book to read. The book is far too long - needlessly so. It's a little repetitive in places (okay, I get your modular mind - no need to drill it home so many times), and seems to want to be two books: one on brain modularity, one one being a hypocrite. The story telling was at times flippant, and occasionally felt arrogant - so much so that I noticed. While the author is thorough in pointing to references to support statements, I didn't feel the main theses of the book were well established. It's as if the book is a synthesis of what he believes, not what we know.
June 14, 2018
A rhetorically aggressive introduction to the modular theory of the mind with a few eye-opening insights.
June 10, 2022
This is one of my new favorite books. I remember hearing about it years ago when I first got interested in human irrationality, but I totally forgot about it. When I was asking my followers for recommendations for books about cognitive dissonance, someone brought up this book. Once I picked it up, I couldn’t put it down. Kurzban has a unique perspective and theories about how our minds work, and how it leads us to irrational and hypocritical behavior. Not only did this book introduce me to a new way of looking at how our brains function and why we evolved that way, but he made so many solid arguments that I haven’t heard in any of the dozens of books I’ve read on this topic.
This book is amazing, and it’s not too complex for laypeople like myself. Kurzban also brings up some philosophical topics in the book like our sense of “self” as well as some moral philosophy. I’m definitely going to read this book again at some point, but for now, I’m going to go grab his other book and hope he’s in the process of writing another.
This book is amazing, and it’s not too complex for laypeople like myself. Kurzban also brings up some philosophical topics in the book like our sense of “self” as well as some moral philosophy. I’m definitely going to read this book again at some point, but for now, I’m going to go grab his other book and hope he’s in the process of writing another.
May 6, 2017
Pro:
I think we can all agree that the points made in this book are very intelligent, great and scientifically valid points. The science is spot on and the points are new and at times very clear. He goes to great lengths explaining how the brain works. And for people new to psychology this can very well be their introduction to the field as it is accessible and down to earth.
I understand that the brain is not just split in 2 parts - one rational and one automatic. Of cause that simplification never made any sense. Why would the brain only consist of 2 modules? What kind of evolutionary selection pressure would select 2 individual and very different modules?
Con:
I really wish the cons in this book were not that numerous. Because the science is good and I learned quite a bit from it. But I don't agree with Steven Pinker's and co. review on the back of the book. I don't see the humor or the greatness in it. I understand that those were jokes but I did not laugh a single time reading it. And he used maybe 100+ analogies in this book. And most of them are just bad and boring. I would much rather have read a book where he explains how the brain works than a book where Kurzban helps me understand how the brain works by comparing its modules to programming languages. We have more and more programming languages each evolution/time because we have more and more different problems to solve. I get this, and this is also why the brain consist of many modules and why the human brain especially has a lot of different modules - a few hundred thousands? But it's not the best analogy as programming languages are made to create different software - software is what the brain is. Programming languages are just what evolution works with, neurons. And some of the other analogies are not great either.
This book does describe a few studies. But mostly it is a simplification of the field. People very knowledgeable in psychology (evolutionary) will probably find this book a bit too simplistic. People new to the field might just find the analogies useful and not tedious. I somehow think that the preferable reader for this book is an academic American who does not study psychology. Many other kind of readers will wonder why he didn't spend a few months extra editing it down.
I think we can all agree that the points made in this book are very intelligent, great and scientifically valid points. The science is spot on and the points are new and at times very clear. He goes to great lengths explaining how the brain works. And for people new to psychology this can very well be their introduction to the field as it is accessible and down to earth.
I understand that the brain is not just split in 2 parts - one rational and one automatic. Of cause that simplification never made any sense. Why would the brain only consist of 2 modules? What kind of evolutionary selection pressure would select 2 individual and very different modules?
Con:
I really wish the cons in this book were not that numerous. Because the science is good and I learned quite a bit from it. But I don't agree with Steven Pinker's and co. review on the back of the book. I don't see the humor or the greatness in it. I understand that those were jokes but I did not laugh a single time reading it. And he used maybe 100+ analogies in this book. And most of them are just bad and boring. I would much rather have read a book where he explains how the brain works than a book where Kurzban helps me understand how the brain works by comparing its modules to programming languages. We have more and more programming languages each evolution/time because we have more and more different problems to solve. I get this, and this is also why the brain consist of many modules and why the human brain especially has a lot of different modules - a few hundred thousands? But it's not the best analogy as programming languages are made to create different software - software is what the brain is. Programming languages are just what evolution works with, neurons. And some of the other analogies are not great either.
This book does describe a few studies. But mostly it is a simplification of the field. People very knowledgeable in psychology (evolutionary) will probably find this book a bit too simplistic. People new to the field might just find the analogies useful and not tedious. I somehow think that the preferable reader for this book is an academic American who does not study psychology. Many other kind of readers will wonder why he didn't spend a few months extra editing it down.
October 8, 2021
Minds are Modular
Many people explain minds by positing that they're composed of parts:
* the id, ego, and super-ego
* the left side and the right side of the brain
* System 1 and System 2
* the triune brain
* Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind
Minsky's proposal is the only one of these that resembles Kurzban's notion of modularity enough to earn Kurzban's respect. The modules Kurzban talks about are much more numerous, and more specialized, than most people are willing to imagine.
Here's Kurzban's favorite Minsky quote:
Let's take the US government as a metaphor. Instead of saying it's composed of the legislative, executive, and judicial modules, Kurzban would describe it as being made up of modules such as a White House press secretary, Anthony Fauci, a Speaker of the House, more generals than I can name, even more park rangers, etc.
In What Is It Like to Be a Bat?, Nagel says "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". In contrast, Kurzban denies that we know more than a tiny fraction of our mental activity. We don't ask "what is it like to be an edge detector?", because there was no evolutionary pressure to enable us to answer that question. It could be most human experience is as mysterious to our conscious minds as bat experiences. Most of our introspection involves examining a mental model that we construct for propaganda purposes.
Is Self-Deception Mysterious?
There's been a good deal of confusion about self-deception and self-control. Kurzban attributes the confusion to attempts at modeling the mind as a unitary agent. If there's a single homunculus in charge of all of the mind's decisions, then it's genuinely hard to explain phenomena that look like conflicts between agents.
With a sufficiently modular model of minds, the confusion mostly vanishes.
A good deal of what gets called self-deception is better described as being strategically wrong.
For example, when President Trump had COVID, the White House press secretary had a strong incentive not to be aware of any evidence that Trump's health was worse than expected, in order to reassure voters without being clearly dishonest. Whereas the White House doctor had some reason to err a bit on the side of overestimating Trump's risk of dying. So it shouldn't surprise us if they had rather different beliefs. I don't describe that situation as "the US government is deceiving itself", but I'd be confused as to whether to describe it that way if I could only imagine the government as a unitary agent.
Minds work much the same way. E.g. the cancer patient who buys space on a cruise that his doctor says he won't live to enjoy (presumably to persuade allies that he'll be around long enough to be worth allying with), while still following the doctor's advice about how to treat the cancer. A modular model of the mind isn't surprised that his mind holds inconsistent beliefs about how serious the cancer is. The patient's press-secretary-like modules are pursuing a strategy of getting friends to make long-term plans to support the patient. They want accurate enough knowledge of the patient's health to sound credible. Why would they want to be more accurate than that?
Self-Control
Kurzban sees less value in the concept of a self than do most Buddhists.
Self-control has problems that are similar to the problems with the concept of self-deception. It's best thought of as conflicts between modules.
We should expect context-sensitive influences on which modules exert the most influence on decisions. E.g. we should expect a calorie-acquiring module to have more influence when a marshmallow is in view than if a path to curing cancer is in view. That makes it hard for a mind to have a stable preference about how to value eating a marshmallow or curing cancer.
If I think I see a path to curing cancer that is certain to succeed, my cancer-research modules ought to get more attention than my calorie-acquiring modules. I'm pretty sure that's what would happen if I had good evidence that I'm about to cure cancer. But a more likely situation is that my press-secretary-like modules say I'll succeed, and some less eloquent modules say I'll fail. That will look like a self-control problem to those who want the press secretary to be in charge, and look more like politics to those who take Kurzban's view.
I could identify some of my brain's modules as part of my "self", and say that self-control refers to those modules overcoming the influence of the non-self parts of my brain. But the more I think like Kurzban, the more arbitrary it seems to treat some modules as more privileged than others.
The Rest
Along the way, Kurzban makes fun of the literature on self-esteem, and of models that say self-control is a function of resources.
The book consists mostly of easy to read polemics for ideas that ought to be obvious, but which our culture resists.
Warning: you should skip the chapter titled Morality and Contradictions. Kurzban co-authored a great paper called A Solution to the Mysteries of Morality. But in this book, his controversial examples of hypocrisy will distract attention of most readers from the rather unremarkable wisdom that the examples illustrate.
Many people explain minds by positing that they're composed of parts:
* the id, ego, and super-ego
* the left side and the right side of the brain
* System 1 and System 2
* the triune brain
* Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind
Minsky's proposal is the only one of these that resembles Kurzban's notion of modularity enough to earn Kurzban's respect. The modules Kurzban talks about are much more numerous, and more specialized, than most people are willing to imagine.
Here's Kurzban's favorite Minsky quote:
The mind is a community of "agents." Each has limited powers and can communicate only with certain others. The powers of mind emerge from their interactions for none of the Agents, by itself, has significant intelligence. [...] Everyone knows what it feels like to be engaged in a conversation with oneself. In this book, we will develop the idea that these discussions really happen, and that the participants really "exist." In our picture of the mind we will imagine many "sub-persons", or "internal agents", interacting with one another. Solving the simplest problem—seeing a picture—or remembering the experience of seeing it—might involve a dozen or more—perhaps very many more—of these agents playing different roles. Some of them bear useful knowledge, some of them bear strategies for dealing with other agents, some of them carry warnings or encouragements about how the work of others is proceeding. And some of them are concerned with discipline, prohibiting or "censoring" others from thinking forbidden thoughts.
Let's take the US government as a metaphor. Instead of saying it's composed of the legislative, executive, and judicial modules, Kurzban would describe it as being made up of modules such as a White House press secretary, Anthony Fauci, a Speaker of the House, more generals than I can name, even more park rangers, etc.
In What Is It Like to Be a Bat?, Nagel says "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". In contrast, Kurzban denies that we know more than a tiny fraction of our mental activity. We don't ask "what is it like to be an edge detector?", because there was no evolutionary pressure to enable us to answer that question. It could be most human experience is as mysterious to our conscious minds as bat experiences. Most of our introspection involves examining a mental model that we construct for propaganda purposes.
Is Self-Deception Mysterious?
There's been a good deal of confusion about self-deception and self-control. Kurzban attributes the confusion to attempts at modeling the mind as a unitary agent. If there's a single homunculus in charge of all of the mind's decisions, then it's genuinely hard to explain phenomena that look like conflicts between agents.
With a sufficiently modular model of minds, the confusion mostly vanishes.
A good deal of what gets called self-deception is better described as being strategically wrong.
For example, when President Trump had COVID, the White House press secretary had a strong incentive not to be aware of any evidence that Trump's health was worse than expected, in order to reassure voters without being clearly dishonest. Whereas the White House doctor had some reason to err a bit on the side of overestimating Trump's risk of dying. So it shouldn't surprise us if they had rather different beliefs. I don't describe that situation as "the US government is deceiving itself", but I'd be confused as to whether to describe it that way if I could only imagine the government as a unitary agent.
Minds work much the same way. E.g. the cancer patient who buys space on a cruise that his doctor says he won't live to enjoy (presumably to persuade allies that he'll be around long enough to be worth allying with), while still following the doctor's advice about how to treat the cancer. A modular model of the mind isn't surprised that his mind holds inconsistent beliefs about how serious the cancer is. The patient's press-secretary-like modules are pursuing a strategy of getting friends to make long-term plans to support the patient. They want accurate enough knowledge of the patient's health to sound credible. Why would they want to be more accurate than that?
Self-Control
Kurzban sees less value in the concept of a self than do most Buddhists.
almost any time you come across a theory with the word "self" in it, you should check your wallet.
Self-control has problems that are similar to the problems with the concept of self-deception. It's best thought of as conflicts between modules.
We should expect context-sensitive influences on which modules exert the most influence on decisions. E.g. we should expect a calorie-acquiring module to have more influence when a marshmallow is in view than if a path to curing cancer is in view. That makes it hard for a mind to have a stable preference about how to value eating a marshmallow or curing cancer.
If I think I see a path to curing cancer that is certain to succeed, my cancer-research modules ought to get more attention than my calorie-acquiring modules. I'm pretty sure that's what would happen if I had good evidence that I'm about to cure cancer. But a more likely situation is that my press-secretary-like modules say I'll succeed, and some less eloquent modules say I'll fail. That will look like a self-control problem to those who want the press secretary to be in charge, and look more like politics to those who take Kurzban's view.
I could identify some of my brain's modules as part of my "self", and say that self-control refers to those modules overcoming the influence of the non-self parts of my brain. But the more I think like Kurzban, the more arbitrary it seems to treat some modules as more privileged than others.
The Rest
Along the way, Kurzban makes fun of the literature on self-esteem, and of models that say self-control is a function of resources.
The book consists mostly of easy to read polemics for ideas that ought to be obvious, but which our culture resists.
Warning: you should skip the chapter titled Morality and Contradictions. Kurzban co-authored a great paper called A Solution to the Mysteries of Morality. But in this book, his controversial examples of hypocrisy will distract attention of most readers from the rather unremarkable wisdom that the examples illustrate.
July 21, 2016
Triggered by a Coursera course on Buddhism and Evolutionary Psychology, I was looking forward to reading this book, as I hoped it would give me a solid overview of the latter subject.
Several things put me off, though:
- The author goes out of his way stating that the modular view of the mind is so very plausible and cannot imagine anyone thinking otherwise. This narrow-minded view of the subject gets annoying after a few dozen pages.
- The author actively avoids answering some fundamental questions, such as what is meant with consciousness. Or what is meant with the mind in the first place. Or how all those modules are coordinated. This is not only annoying, it also erodes the foundation of the premise the author is trying to make.
- Too many tangential examples make the reader stray away from the core message. I may have a short attention span, but he should have tried to be less entertaining and more focused on doing a convincing job explaining his model of the mind.
- The mechanistic view of the mind as a computer programme with subroutines (but without a central unifying "Main" routine!) and the strict lonking of "mind" to "brain" really put me off as a willingly narrow-minded approach.
Overall I can live with a model of the mind as a collection of modules that do or do not exchange information and do or do not have a central "I" that governs them. I have not come across any actual proof why this would be the right way of describing mental and emotional phenomena, though. The author does not proof anything, but uses his modular mind as a model to explain phenomena that can also be explained in various other, less cumbersome ways.
Several things put me off, though:
- The author goes out of his way stating that the modular view of the mind is so very plausible and cannot imagine anyone thinking otherwise. This narrow-minded view of the subject gets annoying after a few dozen pages.
- The author actively avoids answering some fundamental questions, such as what is meant with consciousness. Or what is meant with the mind in the first place. Or how all those modules are coordinated. This is not only annoying, it also erodes the foundation of the premise the author is trying to make.
- Too many tangential examples make the reader stray away from the core message. I may have a short attention span, but he should have tried to be less entertaining and more focused on doing a convincing job explaining his model of the mind.
- The mechanistic view of the mind as a computer programme with subroutines (but without a central unifying "Main" routine!) and the strict lonking of "mind" to "brain" really put me off as a willingly narrow-minded approach.
Overall I can live with a model of the mind as a collection of modules that do or do not exchange information and do or do not have a central "I" that governs them. I have not come across any actual proof why this would be the right way of describing mental and emotional phenomena, though. The author does not proof anything, but uses his modular mind as a model to explain phenomena that can also be explained in various other, less cumbersome ways.
September 20, 2024
I realize there are various well-respected evolutionary biologists and other smart people who have serious criticisms of evolutionary psychology, but I have to say that I find it very convincing, and Kurzban's explanation of it is one of the best I've read.
Even if his description of our minds' modules turns out not to be precisely correct in all details, it seems clear that something like this must be the truth. It explains so much about why people act the way they do, and ties in so elegantly with other explanatory aspects of evolution, it just seems very unlikely that it's wrong.
It may be difficult or impossible to test EP hypotheses right now, but that may not always be the case. As our understanding of the brain and its functions increases, I expect EP to rest on firmer ground as its concepts are refined. For now, this book is an excellent place to learn more about current thinking on the subject.
Edit: starting in June 2023 and continuing to September 2024 (as of this writing), the latest location for new posts from Kurzban is The Living Fossils Substack.
Even if his description of our minds' modules turns out not to be precisely correct in all details, it seems clear that something like this must be the truth. It explains so much about why people act the way they do, and ties in so elegantly with other explanatory aspects of evolution, it just seems very unlikely that it's wrong.
It may be difficult or impossible to test EP hypotheses right now, but that may not always be the case. As our understanding of the brain and its functions increases, I expect EP to rest on firmer ground as its concepts are refined. For now, this book is an excellent place to learn more about current thinking on the subject.
Edit: starting in June 2023 and continuing to September 2024 (as of this writing), the latest location for new posts from Kurzban is The Living Fossils Substack.
August 12, 2017
Fascinating topic and ideas in the book, but the main question is if the book answers the main question Why everyone else is a hypocrite? And in my opinion it tries to. The style - jokes and sarcasm - is not the best for this kind of topics. The start of the book is rather slow and the entire structure seems a bit chaotic. The books have mandatory books for reading before you begin digging into this one - it is wise to start with Richard Dawkins and the Selfish Gene, afterwards, Philip Zimbardo, Dan Ariely and Stevan Pinker, otherwise you might get lost. The book gets really interesting at the end - starting with Chapter 9 and to the end, when the ideas get in place. In conclusion good topic, not the best style in analyzing it.
February 19, 2014
This is the best book that I have read in years. I became a firm believer in evolutionary psychology after reading this book. I agree with the author that the mind is made up many fairly independent modules. I was convinced that we are mistaken to think that the mind that does the talking is really us. Therefore, asking someone what they prefer is a mistake. Therefore, I agree with the author that there is no true self. Therefore, no self-interest in the economic sense. Therefore, the whole study of behavioural economics that uses psychological studies to demonstrate that people are not rational is not really very interesting even though there are many books on the subject.
August 30, 2019
I'm very familiar with evo psych, so the book seemed a little too long. Could have been shorter.
It was a nice read overall. A lot of examples/experiments were presented in support.
It was a nice read overall. A lot of examples/experiments were presented in support.
November 10, 2021
Some excellent insights herein, despite some ramblings and repetitive material. As a layperson, the concept of modularity of the mind was both new to me and makes intuitive sense. Conclusion ties together nicely the dangers of inconsistent moral principles and hypocrisy (keeping in mind the author resigned from Penn for sleeping around with his students). Despite a decidedly non-serious tone (this book could have been written by former Miami Herald columnist Dave Barry), it is an excellent complement to other books on morality and politics such as Jonathan Haidt's.
Kurzban explains the idea of the modular mind, which means that the mind is a series of modules with different functions, each of which evolved separately, to the end of increasing our evolutionary prowess. Evolution does not care if we are happy. Modules evolved in ways that encouraged the best evolutionary outcome, and they can contradict one another since there are many modules. The book calls into question the idea of the “Self” or the idea of “someone” in the mind in there pulling the strings of consciousness. The mind thinks many things it cannot voice, and attaches after-the-fact justification in the form of reasoning (the “press secretary”). I.e. the idea that incest is “just bad” and “immoral.” In the final chapter, Kurzban tries to reason why perhaps our morality evolved in such a way as to discourage certain group behaviors (though his reasoning is certainly not exhaustive for every topic, such as illegal drugs). We favor monogamy because it is in favor of both less-dominant males as well as females, because the less dominant males find mates, and the females keep their mates. In contrast, the alpha males would favor polyamory, as they could spread their seed wherever they want (example of promiscuous birds vs. “dad” birds and female birds). Kurzban’s theory is that morality norms evolved in such a way that minds think whatever is moral is, and it benefitted us evolutionarily. He underscores the importance of not being hypocrites when it comes to enforcing moral standards, because inconsistency just means that we are using authority to enforce whatever we think should be (I.e. favoring pro-life viewpoint because we think “life starts at conception" vs. Just our wanting to shame actions that lead to promiscuity – if you truly believe in liberty, you should apply that consistently, and if you truly believe abortion is murder, you should want to apply the same laws as murder laws to people who have abortions, and not allow exceptions for rape and incest). Hypocrisy makes for bad policy. Moral judgements are sticks, and if we are not consistent, we are just going around beating people. We must use the sticks in conjunction with principles, or the rule of law does not exist. Some modules evolved to want short term gains, and some evolved to want long term gains – the idea of “self control” is thus something of a farce, and what the “self” “really” believes or thinks – like Isaiah Berlin’s ideas on all of our perceived goods in life, the sum total of all the things does not necessarily add up to 100%. “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)” -Walt Whitman. All humanity is disposed towards hypocrisy, it is easier to catch in politicians because they are always in the spotlight. Some of our brain modules may be better served by not seeking out the truth or any information at all (i.e. alcohol in a brown paper bag allows police to invest their effort in more productive uses of time). Some modules guide what we say; others guide what we do, and inconsistencies can arise -- Different parts of the mind with different functions generate different moral judgments. In the context of evolution, a large part of what we know about others is what they say about themselves; thus the evolutionary “press secretary,” which tries to persuade people you are better than you are (for evolutionary purposes). People tend to overestimate and overembellish their own skills – most people say they are “above average” drivers, which is impossible. People naturally 1. think they are more favorable than realistic 2. think they have more control than they do and 3. are more optimistic about the future than facts allow (and the absence of these personality traits can be called “depressive realism”) -- there is great strategic benefits for evolution to being wrong in these ways. Everything has an evolutionary origin, I.e. sweet taste; to reiterate, evolution does not care if you are happy; effects outside the body are the good explanations of the way things are, not how things make us “feel.” Brains are useful tools for evolution, causing us to effectively reproduce. We have evolved to care a LOT about what other people are up to. People hate hypocrisy because it suggests those people think “the rules” do not apply to themselves – but we only need to be accountable to the degree other people call us out. Being aware of the inconsistencies, particularly as it pertains to liberty, challenges us to change the balance of power. “Moralistic modules often win the battle in their struggle with the principle of liberty in many areas of our personal lives and our political discourse”. “If people say that they are in favor of liberty, failing to hold them accountable for the view that others' liberties should be constrained on pain of punishment gives them a blank check to use authority in any way at all. The whole point of agreeing on the principles that should guide rules is to limit the rules. To allow unchecked exceptions and inconsistencies is to undermine the agreements that we have made on the rules that govern us.”
Kurzban explains the idea of the modular mind, which means that the mind is a series of modules with different functions, each of which evolved separately, to the end of increasing our evolutionary prowess. Evolution does not care if we are happy. Modules evolved in ways that encouraged the best evolutionary outcome, and they can contradict one another since there are many modules. The book calls into question the idea of the “Self” or the idea of “someone” in the mind in there pulling the strings of consciousness. The mind thinks many things it cannot voice, and attaches after-the-fact justification in the form of reasoning (the “press secretary”). I.e. the idea that incest is “just bad” and “immoral.” In the final chapter, Kurzban tries to reason why perhaps our morality evolved in such a way as to discourage certain group behaviors (though his reasoning is certainly not exhaustive for every topic, such as illegal drugs). We favor monogamy because it is in favor of both less-dominant males as well as females, because the less dominant males find mates, and the females keep their mates. In contrast, the alpha males would favor polyamory, as they could spread their seed wherever they want (example of promiscuous birds vs. “dad” birds and female birds). Kurzban’s theory is that morality norms evolved in such a way that minds think whatever is moral is, and it benefitted us evolutionarily. He underscores the importance of not being hypocrites when it comes to enforcing moral standards, because inconsistency just means that we are using authority to enforce whatever we think should be (I.e. favoring pro-life viewpoint because we think “life starts at conception" vs. Just our wanting to shame actions that lead to promiscuity – if you truly believe in liberty, you should apply that consistently, and if you truly believe abortion is murder, you should want to apply the same laws as murder laws to people who have abortions, and not allow exceptions for rape and incest). Hypocrisy makes for bad policy. Moral judgements are sticks, and if we are not consistent, we are just going around beating people. We must use the sticks in conjunction with principles, or the rule of law does not exist. Some modules evolved to want short term gains, and some evolved to want long term gains – the idea of “self control” is thus something of a farce, and what the “self” “really” believes or thinks – like Isaiah Berlin’s ideas on all of our perceived goods in life, the sum total of all the things does not necessarily add up to 100%. “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)” -Walt Whitman. All humanity is disposed towards hypocrisy, it is easier to catch in politicians because they are always in the spotlight. Some of our brain modules may be better served by not seeking out the truth or any information at all (i.e. alcohol in a brown paper bag allows police to invest their effort in more productive uses of time). Some modules guide what we say; others guide what we do, and inconsistencies can arise -- Different parts of the mind with different functions generate different moral judgments. In the context of evolution, a large part of what we know about others is what they say about themselves; thus the evolutionary “press secretary,” which tries to persuade people you are better than you are (for evolutionary purposes). People tend to overestimate and overembellish their own skills – most people say they are “above average” drivers, which is impossible. People naturally 1. think they are more favorable than realistic 2. think they have more control than they do and 3. are more optimistic about the future than facts allow (and the absence of these personality traits can be called “depressive realism”) -- there is great strategic benefits for evolution to being wrong in these ways. Everything has an evolutionary origin, I.e. sweet taste; to reiterate, evolution does not care if you are happy; effects outside the body are the good explanations of the way things are, not how things make us “feel.” Brains are useful tools for evolution, causing us to effectively reproduce. We have evolved to care a LOT about what other people are up to. People hate hypocrisy because it suggests those people think “the rules” do not apply to themselves – but we only need to be accountable to the degree other people call us out. Being aware of the inconsistencies, particularly as it pertains to liberty, challenges us to change the balance of power. “Moralistic modules often win the battle in their struggle with the principle of liberty in many areas of our personal lives and our political discourse”. “If people say that they are in favor of liberty, failing to hold them accountable for the view that others' liberties should be constrained on pain of punishment gives them a blank check to use authority in any way at all. The whole point of agreeing on the principles that should guide rules is to limit the rules. To allow unchecked exceptions and inconsistencies is to undermine the agreements that we have made on the rules that govern us.”
August 15, 2021
Goodreads won't let me untag the "read," so first up is honesty that I've not actually read this.
One of my Goodreads friends five-starred this, but no review, so I clicked the link.
Book is totally wrong on brain modularity. That's evolutionary psychology BS that's as much BS as the other failings of ev psych, and is also out of date in the world of neuroscience.
I don't know what else is wrong with the book, but from the editorial blurb review on it, with ev psych being mentioned more than once, I'll give you a three-stars-at-best non-read review right there.
Flame me if you don't like it.
One of my Goodreads friends five-starred this, but no review, so I clicked the link.
Book is totally wrong on brain modularity. That's evolutionary psychology BS that's as much BS as the other failings of ev psych, and is also out of date in the world of neuroscience.
I don't know what else is wrong with the book, but from the editorial blurb review on it, with ev psych being mentioned more than once, I'll give you a three-stars-at-best non-read review right there.
Flame me if you don't like it.
October 1, 2020
I think the thesis of this book is very original and important. There is little else like it. It reminds me a lot of Elephant in the Brain, but came out first and definitely had unique things to say.
I found the writing style a bit awkward, and have a hard time making out what to think of all the evidence. However, I would guess that the main theses will stand the test of time.
I really want to see more books like this.
I found the writing style a bit awkward, and have a hard time making out what to think of all the evidence. However, I would guess that the main theses will stand the test of time.
I really want to see more books like this.
April 24, 2014
Ah, the modular mind. Did you ever wonder where your MIND is? Is it a part of your brain? Does it exist "outside" you somewhere? How do we make decisions and how can it be that we hold contradictory views sometimes? Why can't we be consistent? And why, on earth, does it matter what the opinions of other people are?
Kurzban gives us one explanation: the modular mind. Our brain is not one big lump (we actually already know that because we've seen the MRIs that show the various parts of the brain that light up during various functions), but, according to Kurzban, a set of modules that work together in much the same way that the various functions do.
Not to say there are little blocks of something in the brain. It's still electrical impulses covering the brain and lighting up different area. But each of these bundled reactions controls a different way we look at things.
Overall, we have one "executive" function that allows inputs from some of the other module and not always others at the same time. He calls this our "press secretary" and it's what comes out of our mouth. It has an evolutionary function and Kurzban shows us how in this book.
It's a fascinating idea and seems quite right. I read the book because I'm taking a Coursera course on Buddhism and Modern Psychology. We've been studying the "not-self" and this book was mentioned as a source showing how modern psychology agrees with Buddhism that no separate "self" exists.
I won't get into the background; you can research it for yourself. But the book helps understand how we can develop a sense of "self" that is separate from the rest of us.
It also explains how we can hold certain views and yet not be consistent. If we believe in equality, how are gay people different and not allowed the rights the rest have? How can we believe that abortion is wrong and yet think that people should be able to control their own lives and do what they want? And why, on earth, can't we explain why we hold certain views?
It seemed to me that Kurzban belabored the point sometimes without making his ideas clearer. It's almost like he has this wonderful idea and can give you the basics, but hasn't quite figured out the details or can't quite express them. However, the book is well worth reading whether you agree with his ideas or not.
Kurzban gives us one explanation: the modular mind. Our brain is not one big lump (we actually already know that because we've seen the MRIs that show the various parts of the brain that light up during various functions), but, according to Kurzban, a set of modules that work together in much the same way that the various functions do.
Not to say there are little blocks of something in the brain. It's still electrical impulses covering the brain and lighting up different area. But each of these bundled reactions controls a different way we look at things.
Overall, we have one "executive" function that allows inputs from some of the other module and not always others at the same time. He calls this our "press secretary" and it's what comes out of our mouth. It has an evolutionary function and Kurzban shows us how in this book.
It's a fascinating idea and seems quite right. I read the book because I'm taking a Coursera course on Buddhism and Modern Psychology. We've been studying the "not-self" and this book was mentioned as a source showing how modern psychology agrees with Buddhism that no separate "self" exists.
I won't get into the background; you can research it for yourself. But the book helps understand how we can develop a sense of "self" that is separate from the rest of us.
It also explains how we can hold certain views and yet not be consistent. If we believe in equality, how are gay people different and not allowed the rights the rest have? How can we believe that abortion is wrong and yet think that people should be able to control their own lives and do what they want? And why, on earth, can't we explain why we hold certain views?
It seemed to me that Kurzban belabored the point sometimes without making his ideas clearer. It's almost like he has this wonderful idea and can give you the basics, but hasn't quite figured out the details or can't quite express them. However, the book is well worth reading whether you agree with his ideas or not.
May 14, 2018
First 2 chapters & prologue: 5 stars.
Last two chapters & epilogue: 1.5 stars.
Everything in between: 3.5.
Started off as a great book. Chapters 1 and 2 blew my mind in some very specific ways, giving me new ways to think about certain problems I've been rolling around in my thoughts and notes.
Then it became somewhat of a chore to read, though his voice remained entertaining and ironic in a way I enjoyed.
What really lost me though, was the morality cases that applied all this modularity and hypocrisy to topical moral examples. I suppose I'm disappointed because I was expecting something that blew my mind, and instead, it preached to the choir. Maybe if I'd had something against prostitution, recreational drug use, incest between consenting adults, or abortion, this would have been more revelatory. I wanted him to spring a "Gotcha!" on me that would have called me out on something I'd never thought of before. But I was basically left to make my own observations about my hypocrisies, which I could do just fine before reading this book.
In particular, especially after the bird discussion about how morally judging others helps improve our own reproductive chances, I couldn't understand why he didn't even once mention anything about queerness and how it relates to modularity, since THAT'S the least obvious thing to condemn in your competitors. I can make up my own neat little theories about how certain modules evolved and interacted to produce queer identities, as well as my own theories about why a population might be motivated to condemn those identities, and of course, what possible benefits those identities might bestow upon their communities, but... Kurzban's the one writing this book. He's the one who should account for these questions and address them. Especially considering he mentions many times how certain things CAN'T stay perpetuated in a species if they lead to less offspring. Somehow, however, he only remembered to include a couple throwaway mentions about how gay marriage, of all things, is a thing that exists.
Last two chapters & epilogue: 1.5 stars.
Everything in between: 3.5.
Started off as a great book. Chapters 1 and 2 blew my mind in some very specific ways, giving me new ways to think about certain problems I've been rolling around in my thoughts and notes.
Then it became somewhat of a chore to read, though his voice remained entertaining and ironic in a way I enjoyed.
What really lost me though, was the morality cases that applied all this modularity and hypocrisy to topical moral examples. I suppose I'm disappointed because I was expecting something that blew my mind, and instead, it preached to the choir. Maybe if I'd had something against prostitution, recreational drug use, incest between consenting adults, or abortion, this would have been more revelatory. I wanted him to spring a "Gotcha!" on me that would have called me out on something I'd never thought of before. But I was basically left to make my own observations about my hypocrisies, which I could do just fine before reading this book.
In particular, especially after the bird discussion about how morally judging others helps improve our own reproductive chances, I couldn't understand why he didn't even once mention anything about queerness and how it relates to modularity, since THAT'S the least obvious thing to condemn in your competitors. I can make up my own neat little theories about how certain modules evolved and interacted to produce queer identities, as well as my own theories about why a population might be motivated to condemn those identities, and of course, what possible benefits those identities might bestow upon their communities, but... Kurzban's the one writing this book. He's the one who should account for these questions and address them. Especially considering he mentions many times how certain things CAN'T stay perpetuated in a species if they lead to less offspring. Somehow, however, he only remembered to include a couple throwaway mentions about how gay marriage, of all things, is a thing that exists.
January 13, 2013
This book had some excellent points, and it was a good introduction to the theory of the modular mind. It was a bit repetitive and, at points, less insightful than I was expecting.
The thesis:
"This book is an attempt to explain why we act the way we act, and, perhaps partly in our defense, to show that if we are wrong a lot, well, being right isn't everything... It is about contradictions. It's about how you can, at one and the same time want to go for a training fun and also want to stay in bed on a cold November morning. It's about how you can, at one and the same time, during a severe economic downturn, both want to know how your retirement fund is doing and also not want to know how your retirement fund is doing."
The main argument is that there is not a single, unitary "self" and that, rather, the mind is made up of many modules, all with their own demands. There is therefore no "me" in control of my mind; there are a bunch of competing modules, and this explains human hypocrisy, along with several other aspects of human behavior. The point is well articulated throughout the course of the book. although sometimes the author gets sucked in making the same arguments over and over in only a slightly different form. Very interesting read nevertheless.
The thesis:
"This book is an attempt to explain why we act the way we act, and, perhaps partly in our defense, to show that if we are wrong a lot, well, being right isn't everything... It is about contradictions. It's about how you can, at one and the same time want to go for a training fun and also want to stay in bed on a cold November morning. It's about how you can, at one and the same time, during a severe economic downturn, both want to know how your retirement fund is doing and also not want to know how your retirement fund is doing."
The main argument is that there is not a single, unitary "self" and that, rather, the mind is made up of many modules, all with their own demands. There is therefore no "me" in control of my mind; there are a bunch of competing modules, and this explains human hypocrisy, along with several other aspects of human behavior. The point is well articulated throughout the course of the book. although sometimes the author gets sucked in making the same arguments over and over in only a slightly different form. Very interesting read nevertheless.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews