What do you think?
Rate this book
Neuro-mania. Il cervello non spiega chi siamo
Neuroeconomia, neuromarketing, neuroestetica, neuroteologia...: si affacciano oggi sulla scena nuove e sempre più fantasiose discipline frutto del cortocircuito tra saperi antichi e scoperte recenti sul funzionamento del cervello. Sui media proliferano articoli divulgativi, corredati da foto a colori del cervello, che ci mostrano il luogo preciso dove si sviluppa un certo pensiero o una certa emozione, facendoci credere che sia possibile vedere direttamente, senza mediazioni, il cervello al lavoro. Ma le cose stanno veramente così? Questo volume, scritto da due studiosi di psicologia e neuropsicologia, discute alcuni luoghi comuni associati alla relazione mente-corpo, cervello-psiche, natura-cultura, mettendoci in guardia dalle ricadute culturali che un uso distorto delle possibilità aperte dalle nuove e potenti tecnologie di neuroimmagine può comportare.
125 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
10 people are currently reading
120 people want to read
About the author
Paolo Legrenzi
49 books9 followersPaolo Legrenzi è professore straordinario di psicologia cognitiva presso l’Università Ca’ Foscari. Dopo aver studiato psicologia del pensiero a Londra sotto la guida di Peter Wason e Philip Johnson-Laird è diventato professore ordinario all’Università di Trieste nel 1974. In seguito ha insegnato e fatto ricerca presso l’Università Statale di Milano, l’Università di Ginevra, di Parigi XIII, di Provenza, di Princeton, dell’University College Londra (permanent honorary visiting professor), la Scuola S.Anna di Pisa, la Facoltà di Psicologia del San Raffaele, la Scuola Superiore di Pavia e presso l’Ateneo IUAV di Venezia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 11, 2013
The book is an attempt to contextualize the current craze for neuroscientific explanations. The authors, both psychologists, claim that neuroscience has revealed little that psychologists haven't already revealed. The book is arranged into two sections; in the first section the authors briefly review the origins of neuroscience and earlier thought on the mind/body relationship, provide a basic primer on how the neurons in the brain are activated, and review some of the limitations of brain imaging studies. In the second section, the authors present a research study on how non-experts and experts interpret neuroscientific explanations and provide a review of three 'neuro-disciplines.' All of these topics are presented in a total of 115 pages, including notes, bib, and index. On top of this, the book is small. This should give one a sense of the level of detail provided therein.
Two aspects of the book seem worthy of attention. The first is where the authors describe the limitations of brain imaging studies and the simplifications that occur when they are presented in the popular press, and the second is where they discuss the research on how non-experts interpret explanations with neuroscientific language. The authors are correct in pointing out how many popular presentations of brain imaging studies are oversimplified and misleading. The authors also review a study of lay interpretations of neuro-based explanations that suggest that non-experts are more likely to accept circular explanations if they incorporate neuroscientific information. However, the authors are relying on one study, and they do not give much information about the methodology of the study. But taken together, these two aspects suggest that current popular understanding of neuroscience and what it can and cannot tell us is inadequate.
There is certainly a need for some caution in the siren call of neuroscientific explanation. Part of this, the authors note, is a result of the enormous sums of money begin thrown at any research that can claim to be 'brain based.' However, the book is a gloss, and it at times feels as if the authors are simply trying to preserve their disciplinary territory, psychology, from encroachment by the charlatans selling all things neuro. The authors are probably correct about some of what is driving the emergence of so many newly labeled neuro-discplines, but they want too desperately to dismiss nearly all of it.
Where the authors seem to have the least grasp on their material is where they try to make the larger, weightier claims about the implications of neuroscientific views of behavior. In the conclusion they vaguely summarize the work of Italian philosopher Giorgia Agamben in an attempt to provide a larger socio-political, philosophical context for the emergence and use of neuroscience. They move from a poorly paraphrased Agamben to discussing the Catholic Church's position on end of life decisions, which they try to use as a case study to illustrate the larger issues implied in our views of personhood. The problem is that the authors have not done nearly enough work laying out the ethical and sociopolitical background for the conclusion to cohere.
While the authors raise important cautions, the book feels somewhat scattershot and superficial. The topic is important and deserves a much deeper, more thoughtful treatment than what is provided in this book. There are some informative aspects to the book, but it suffers from some of the same defects the authors note of popular presentations of neuroscience.
Two aspects of the book seem worthy of attention. The first is where the authors describe the limitations of brain imaging studies and the simplifications that occur when they are presented in the popular press, and the second is where they discuss the research on how non-experts interpret explanations with neuroscientific language. The authors are correct in pointing out how many popular presentations of brain imaging studies are oversimplified and misleading. The authors also review a study of lay interpretations of neuro-based explanations that suggest that non-experts are more likely to accept circular explanations if they incorporate neuroscientific information. However, the authors are relying on one study, and they do not give much information about the methodology of the study. But taken together, these two aspects suggest that current popular understanding of neuroscience and what it can and cannot tell us is inadequate.
There is certainly a need for some caution in the siren call of neuroscientific explanation. Part of this, the authors note, is a result of the enormous sums of money begin thrown at any research that can claim to be 'brain based.' However, the book is a gloss, and it at times feels as if the authors are simply trying to preserve their disciplinary territory, psychology, from encroachment by the charlatans selling all things neuro. The authors are probably correct about some of what is driving the emergence of so many newly labeled neuro-discplines, but they want too desperately to dismiss nearly all of it.
Where the authors seem to have the least grasp on their material is where they try to make the larger, weightier claims about the implications of neuroscientific views of behavior. In the conclusion they vaguely summarize the work of Italian philosopher Giorgia Agamben in an attempt to provide a larger socio-political, philosophical context for the emergence and use of neuroscience. They move from a poorly paraphrased Agamben to discussing the Catholic Church's position on end of life decisions, which they try to use as a case study to illustrate the larger issues implied in our views of personhood. The problem is that the authors have not done nearly enough work laying out the ethical and sociopolitical background for the conclusion to cohere.
While the authors raise important cautions, the book feels somewhat scattershot and superficial. The topic is important and deserves a much deeper, more thoughtful treatment than what is provided in this book. There are some informative aspects to the book, but it suffers from some of the same defects the authors note of popular presentations of neuroscience.
March 1, 2023
Per quanto molte cose mi fossero note, gli ultimi esperimenti di cui parla l'autore mi hanno affascinato parecchio, anche perché io sono probabilmente tra quelle persone che appena sentono la parola "neuro#" o la leggono, si precipitano sul pezzo.
March 13, 2024
TWO BOOKS IN ONE NIGHT BITCH! PRODUCTIVE LIKE I'M HARLAN ELLISON WRITING I HAVE NO MOUTH AND I MUST SCREAM!
"Those weak liberal snowflakes and their inferior physiological responses to controversial topics! Better to be a conservative rockstar with severe gastrointestinal struggles and heightened action potentials."
"Good thing I'm a professional in neurotheology and recognize my possession of the superior prerequisites to warship an ever-forgiving lord in this wasteland of an earth!"
This book is a fucking gem.
This book is also Legrenzi's confession that my writing "neuro arts" on a resume detailing my experience at a Johns Hopkins internship was ludicrous and that, therefore, I should change my identity and live out an impulsive career as a mad scientist similar to Okabe Rintaro of Steins;Gate.
And so you're like "Alright, Kane... What is this book attempting to do?" And I'm like nothing, and I'm not lying to you!
This book isn't really attempting anything; Rather, it's presenting you with the dangers of neuroscience and also our limitations at the moment to express neuroscientific hypotheses (or "superstitions") about how the brain interacts in society. It does this surprisingly decently despite its sometimes eccentric storytelling historical diary that feels like a continuous scene of Back to the Future.
It does this through presenting philosophical opinions on what actually constitutes the mind! We take a glance at both Descartes and La Mettrie.
I'm sure you and Descartes are intimately familiar, dear reader. Descartes asked where cognitive activity happened and concluded it was separate from our bodies (Dualist Theory of Mind), what we now refute as Descartes' error after the German philosopher and princess Elisabeth of Bohemia denies how something spiritual (like an animal spirit or consciousness) could physically interact with the body in the absence of motion.
But you're asking "Who's La Mettrie?" and so was I during my first read-through!
I regret to inform you he's a 1700 Philosopher whose ideas make up the consensus of public thought, his fascinating often near the forefront of modern, Western philosophy.
La Mettrie envisioned man to be not separate from the brain; He classified them as one and the same, and yet an ethical fault arose: If man and consciousness are one and the same, then how can it be different from anything of artificial substance? This conclusion left him comparing man to machine, finishing with them being one and the same which, considering a rule of god in society, if he does indeed exists, makes much practical sense (of course there would be a "grand clockmaker" behind your machine-like functionality).
But it definitely is cynical to consider! In my personal belief definitionally distinct from machine due to an ever-changing consciousness with the ability to reevaluate old beliefs, unlike an electronic algorithm which will never avert its given functionality.
But regardless, we say damn: We DON'T KNOW where consciousness comes from, we can't PROVE if your dearest companion will undergo a drastic change of heart and vote Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election, nor can we confirm if you'll have the heart to either understand or forgive them.
And so intertwined in everything is psychology! To be more exact, neuropsychology because oh baby this is the mind vs. the neuron.
At the confrontation of everything, Neuromania does this:
"At this point, a question comes spontaneously to mind. Are we sure that this is a purely academic question between scientists and philosophers, a match to be played out exclusively by these two groups? A recent research study published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience by a group of researchers at Yale University opens up new horizons and sows the seed of doubt."
And then we're blasted with these unfathomable (yet largely understandable) results.
STUDY RESULTS - Neuroscience makes people more likely to believe bad explanations. - Neuroscience is satisfactory! People like it.
Neuroscience students struggled to distinguish the difference likewise, meaning that (according to the results of this study), the only ones who can accurately tell poor definitions from good definitions are experts with Ph.D.'s or MD's in neuroscience and psychology.
And really, this is just a big pathos argument: If your information seems credible, it seems believable. The only thing this book does differently is say "see? You can apply these conversations to Neuroscience!"
So I suppose if you really want to read about neuroscience, pick up a book about lying or charismatic dictators, according to Paolo Legrenzi.
In conclusion, I liked it for its extremely satirical remarks and open discussion about the limits of brain sciences. If the organization wasn't so INSANE and at times lacking charm and direction, this would be one of my favorite recent reads in Neuroscience!
"Those weak liberal snowflakes and their inferior physiological responses to controversial topics! Better to be a conservative rockstar with severe gastrointestinal struggles and heightened action potentials."
"Good thing I'm a professional in neurotheology and recognize my possession of the superior prerequisites to warship an ever-forgiving lord in this wasteland of an earth!"
This book is a fucking gem.
This book is also Legrenzi's confession that my writing "neuro arts" on a resume detailing my experience at a Johns Hopkins internship was ludicrous and that, therefore, I should change my identity and live out an impulsive career as a mad scientist similar to Okabe Rintaro of Steins;Gate.
And so you're like "Alright, Kane... What is this book attempting to do?" And I'm like nothing, and I'm not lying to you!
This book isn't really attempting anything; Rather, it's presenting you with the dangers of neuroscience and also our limitations at the moment to express neuroscientific hypotheses (or "superstitions") about how the brain interacts in society. It does this surprisingly decently despite its sometimes eccentric storytelling historical diary that feels like a continuous scene of Back to the Future.
It does this through presenting philosophical opinions on what actually constitutes the mind! We take a glance at both Descartes and La Mettrie.
I'm sure you and Descartes are intimately familiar, dear reader. Descartes asked where cognitive activity happened and concluded it was separate from our bodies (Dualist Theory of Mind), what we now refute as Descartes' error after the German philosopher and princess Elisabeth of Bohemia denies how something spiritual (like an animal spirit or consciousness) could physically interact with the body in the absence of motion.
But you're asking "Who's La Mettrie?" and so was I during my first read-through!
I regret to inform you he's a 1700 Philosopher whose ideas make up the consensus of public thought, his fascinating often near the forefront of modern, Western philosophy.
La Mettrie envisioned man to be not separate from the brain; He classified them as one and the same, and yet an ethical fault arose: If man and consciousness are one and the same, then how can it be different from anything of artificial substance? This conclusion left him comparing man to machine, finishing with them being one and the same which, considering a rule of god in society, if he does indeed exists, makes much practical sense (of course there would be a "grand clockmaker" behind your machine-like functionality).
But it definitely is cynical to consider! In my personal belief definitionally distinct from machine due to an ever-changing consciousness with the ability to reevaluate old beliefs, unlike an electronic algorithm which will never avert its given functionality.
But regardless, we say damn: We DON'T KNOW where consciousness comes from, we can't PROVE if your dearest companion will undergo a drastic change of heart and vote Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election, nor can we confirm if you'll have the heart to either understand or forgive them.
And so intertwined in everything is psychology! To be more exact, neuropsychology because oh baby this is the mind vs. the neuron.
At the confrontation of everything, Neuromania does this:
"At this point, a question comes spontaneously to mind. Are we sure that this is a purely academic question between scientists and philosophers, a match to be played out exclusively by these two groups? A recent research study published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience by a group of researchers at Yale University opens up new horizons and sows the seed of doubt."
And then we're blasted with these unfathomable (yet largely understandable) results.
STUDY RESULTS - Neuroscience makes people more likely to believe bad explanations. - Neuroscience is satisfactory! People like it.
Neuroscience students struggled to distinguish the difference likewise, meaning that (according to the results of this study), the only ones who can accurately tell poor definitions from good definitions are experts with Ph.D.'s or MD's in neuroscience and psychology.
And really, this is just a big pathos argument: If your information seems credible, it seems believable. The only thing this book does differently is say "see? You can apply these conversations to Neuroscience!"
So I suppose if you really want to read about neuroscience, pick up a book about lying or charismatic dictators, according to Paolo Legrenzi.
In conclusion, I liked it for its extremely satirical remarks and open discussion about the limits of brain sciences. If the organization wasn't so INSANE and at times lacking charm and direction, this would be one of my favorite recent reads in Neuroscience!
April 21, 2020
"Le scoperte dei fisici ci svelavano come la materia fosse costituita di relativamente poche particelle elementari. Fu allora che le altre scienze, affascinate da un paradigma che riconduceva il complesso al semplice, cercarono di individuare il livello più elementare possibile. [...]"
Questo estratto della seconda parte del saggio fotografa il concetto cardine, sviluppato anche in un altro interessante libro di Legrenzi ("La buona logica"): gli esseri umani vogliono spiegazioni semplici e immediate, anche per i fenomeni più complessi della realtà.
La critica più interessante è quella fatta alla divulgazione scientifica sensazionalistica, che fa leva proprio sul fascino delle spiegazioni monocausali, le quali diventano ancora più efficaci se arricchite dal prefisso 'neuro' (come dimostrato dal più volte citato studio di Yale). L'invito è sostanzialmente ad un utilizzo del pensiero critico, perché "solo riflettendo più a fondo [...] l'uomo, che non è semplice corpo, nuda vita, non si smarrirà nei dedali che la tecnica gli ha aperto davanti."
Questo estratto della seconda parte del saggio fotografa il concetto cardine, sviluppato anche in un altro interessante libro di Legrenzi ("La buona logica"): gli esseri umani vogliono spiegazioni semplici e immediate, anche per i fenomeni più complessi della realtà.
La critica più interessante è quella fatta alla divulgazione scientifica sensazionalistica, che fa leva proprio sul fascino delle spiegazioni monocausali, le quali diventano ancora più efficaci se arricchite dal prefisso 'neuro' (come dimostrato dal più volte citato studio di Yale). L'invito è sostanzialmente ad un utilizzo del pensiero critico, perché "solo riflettendo più a fondo [...] l'uomo, che non è semplice corpo, nuda vita, non si smarrirà nei dedali che la tecnica gli ha aperto davanti."
July 28, 2025
In questo libro, gli autori criticano l'idea che le neuroscienze abbiano inventato qualcosa di nuovo rispetto al passato, sostenendo che si pongono in continuità con ricerche e scoperte precedenti. Inoltre, sostengono che il cervello non spiega completamente chi siamo e che le neuroscienze non hanno inventato nulla di nuovo rispetto al passato. Gli autori criticano anche l'idea che le neuroscienze possano spiegare completamente la mente e la coscienza umana, sostenendo che ci sono molte altre variabili che influenzano il comportamento umano e la nostra esperienza del mondo. Infine, gli autori sostengono che le neuroscienze non possono essere utilizzate per giustificare o giudicare il comportamento umano, poiché ci sono molte altre variabili che influenzano il nostro comportamento e la nostra esperienza del mondo.
Currently reading
December 14, 2013An essential read for anyone who has ever succumbed or has been allured by the reductionist tendencies of neuro-science (which I always tend to do, during my nihilist spurts, especially inspired by White Noise). It presents important political problems as well just like natural selection was to social darwinism, neuro-science is to all the reductionist tendencies to explain social phenomenon by neuro-science.
January 4, 2012
Very brief introduction to some of the problems with the presentation of neuroscience in the media. Not quite a critique of neuroscience and probably best read in parallel with something like Cordelia Fine's 'Delusions of Gender'.
November 6, 2012
Just horrible. One star denotes my extreme distaste. If there were negative stars, it would get those.
August 19, 2017
Bell'inquadramento storico. Bella introduzione ai metodi delle neuroscienze. Bella critica del riduzionismo estremo.
E finalmente si dice che metà degli articoli, ad esempio, di Mente e Cervello sono del tipo "succede X. Questo perché si è visto che nel cervello si attiva questa area, e quindi succede X". Grazie tante.
(Avrebbero potuto forse sottolineare meglio la differenza tra spiegare e descrivere.)
Ottima anche la conclusione finale sull'atteggiamento della Chiesa Cattolica.
E finalmente si dice che metà degli articoli, ad esempio, di Mente e Cervello sono del tipo "succede X. Questo perché si è visto che nel cervello si attiva questa area, e quindi succede X". Grazie tante.
(Avrebbero potuto forse sottolineare meglio la differenza tra spiegare e descrivere.)
Ottima anche la conclusione finale sull'atteggiamento della Chiesa Cattolica.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews