You and Me: The Neuroscience of Identity

by Susan A. Greenfield

What is it that makes you distinct from me? Identity is a term much used but hard to define. For that very reason, it has long been a topic of fascination for philosophers but has been regarded with aversion by neuroscientists - until now.

Susan Greenfield takes us on a journey in search of a biological interpretation of this most elusive of concepts, guiding us through the social and psychiatric perspectives and ultimately to the heart of the physical brain.

Greenfield argues that as the brain adapts exquisitely to environment, the cultural challenges of the 21st century, with its screen-based technologies, mean that we are facing unprecedented changes to identity itself.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Science, Neuroscience, Audiobook

144 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Greenfield is Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford. On 1 February 2006, she was installed as Chancellor of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. Until 8 January 2010, she was director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain

Reviews

[Titus Hjelm · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a baffling book. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the neuroscience is top notch, with the author's credentials. But a book--an 'essay' moreover--on 'identity'? Not quite.

First, this is not a book about you and me. It's a book about me, me, and me. The chapter 'social perspectives' talks about fingerprints, DNA and ears. In between, there are one and a half pages about G.H. Mead. The social perspective turns out to be 'metaphorical'. The ignorance of and indifference towards decades of social research is rather staggering. That is why the book is weak whenever it tries to venture into social issues, such as in the last chapter.

Second, the book is beautifully anachronistic in attributing a sense of an individual self as the premise for all people, regardless of context. Again, anthropologists and historians have long ago shown that this modern European attitude is not universal. Possibly, the author's aim to 'promote our own individuality' in her previous book (why would anyone want to do that?) has blinded her to the specificity of her own premise.

Finally, although written well in a textbook style for the uninitiated, I am utterly confused about Notting Hill Editions' editorial policy on this one. Previously publishers of literary essays, You and Me has perhaps two or three moments that amount to essay writing in the sense that I understand. Contrast this with, for example, Richard Sennet's book in the same series. Also discussing identity from a sociological perspective, it is full of life and 'meaning' ( a word which Greenfield consistently puts in scare quotes). You and Me, on the other hand, is cold and mechanical, just as the perspective it promotes.

I'm sure neuroscience can say something interesting about identity, but in order to do so, it should engage in a dialogue with previous perspectives, not treat them as antiquated prologues to the 'real' stuff.

[Jamie Moffatt · Rating 2 out of 5]

First few chapters are eloquent, technical and well-researched. Unfortunately it falls down in the final chapter, claiming that screen-culture and video games in particular will cause a global identity crisis akin in scale to climate change (in the author's own words).

Sketchy claims include:
- movies, video games and other visual media can't express metaphor or tell detailed stories (unlike novels)
- autistic people like Second Life and other games because they lack empathy for real-world interactions
- "respawns" in games will make people believe that their real life actions have no consequences
- the old classic of "video games cause violence"

It's a shame, because even in the 2010s there was a body of research exploring these areas with much more nuance. I really wish she had applied the same rigour and analytical thinking to these claims as she did in the neuroscience chapters.

[Naomi · Rating 3 out of 5]

her argument :
-the ‘mind’ is the personal profile of neuronal connectivity that allows you to construct meaning from abstract things using past info
-the mind and consciousness are required for identity; combined w action-reaction with the environment creates a narrative or life story which is relatively holistic and results in construction of personal identity
-increased sensory immediacy/stimulation is associated with schizophrenia, drug addiction, sex etc ; also dementia; in these instances the cognitive ‘meaning’ and therefore sense of holistic identity is lost to sensory immediacy (increased arousal — increased dopamine — flattened PFC activity — more response to sensory over integration w memory and measured and effortful cognitive consideration)
-she argues that the same is true of screens; constant sensory stimulation void of connection with personal past events may —> sensory immediacy and reduce sense of identity


thoughts :
-girlie’s writing gets a bit confused at times but that is perhaps due to nature of subjects such as consciousness, identity etc
-rel good job of exploring conceptual and practical difficulties of neuro scientific research, if not elucidating how to solve them
-lurches most strongly into argument in last chapter about technology: has merit but she doesn’t detail what such loss of identity would look like; is quite heavily influenced by her anti-video game stance; maybe more relevant to short form video content now though ?? and also throws in biotech and nanotechnology which is a bit random
-not sure how /in what ways it is now outdated

[Evelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A philosophical polemic about the what makes up a person's view of his or her identity. The author uses neuroscience as the basis for her discussion of the subject, but touches upon other points of origin too, and looks at the how one's view of one's personal identity in the future will be affected by the increasing use of computers.

An interesting albeit a bit disjointed discussion which rates 3.5 stars.

[Ogi Ogas · Rating 4 out of 5]

My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well out of date now, but this essay was fairly prescient in terms of predicting the trajectory of dopamine-hijack social media. It shows its age in its tut-tutting about drugs and video games, and there’s nothing in here that is not already very in the common parlance regarding psychology these days. Never answers its primary question regarding what identity/consciousness actually is. Not a bad little quick-read.

[Lukasz · Rating 2 out of 5]

This moment when you’re writing an entire book on ‘The Neuroscience of Identity’ and then admit on the very last page that ‘Neuroscience will never be able to throw light on the subjective first-hand experience of feeling what’s like to be me, or you.’ LOL Also, she writes about computers as if she’s never used one.

[R B · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read like an academics notes to herself, really lacked storytelling. At the same time, there also wasn’t deep neurobiology. Sometimes scientists write tough, dull books but you come away having learned some hard science. In this case, there really was very little storytelling OR science. So I’m not sure who this is written for.

[Sabina-Nicoleta Furtună (Sally) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting essay on the topic of identity supporting the "everyone is unique" side. Could serve as a good argument when dealing with those who think everybody is the same, but lacking in depth. Nice read if you want to dip your toes into neuroscience.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting look at the brain and identity. no simple answers but an interesting look at the neural workings of our brains and what makes us ourselves.

[Zoe Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

That was a slow burner but worth the read. I feel like everything I’m reading recently is telling me to get off my phone

[Freya Tengwall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Short and good book, nice flow to the book

[lizzie Pw · Rating 3 out of 5]

understandingly out of date but i enjoy the philosophical aspect of what is identity

[Khemo95 · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very disappointing. Not what I hoped for when I came across the title.

[Keri Hudson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting for a novice like myself! The final chapter is one of the most interesting - I wish it was longer.

[Josefine · Rating 2 out of 5]

outdated, lacks proper discussion of sociological and anthropological perspective