What do you think?
Rate this book
The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head [Extract]
Librarian This is an alternate cover edition for ASIN B006JZPPQE.
Most of us believe that we are an independent, coherent self--an individual inside our head who thinks, watches, wonders, dreams, and makes plans for the future. This sense of our self may seem incredibly real but a wealth of recent scientific evidence reveals that it is not what it seems--it is all an illusion.
In The Self Illusion, Bruce Hood reveals how the self emerges during childhood and how the architecture of the developing brain enables us to become social animals dependent on each other. Humans spend proportionally the greatest amount of time in childhood compared to any other animal. It's not only to learn from others, Hood notes, but also to learn to become like others. We learn to become our self. Even as adults we are continually developing and elaborating this story, learning to become different selves in different situations--the work self, the home self, the parent self. Moreover, Hood shows that this already fluid process--the construction of self--has dramatically changed in recent years. Social networking activities--such as blogging, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter--are fast becoming socialization on steroids. The speed and ease at which we can form alliances and relationships are outstripping the same selection processes that shaped our self prior to the internet era. Things will never be the same again in the online social world. Hood offers our first glimpse into this unchartered territory.
Who we are is, in short, a story of our self--a narrative that our brain creates. Like the science fiction movie, we are living in a matrix that is our mind. But Hood concludes that though the self is an illusion, it is an illusion we must continue to embrace to live happily in human society.
Most of us believe that we are an independent, coherent self--an individual inside our head who thinks, watches, wonders, dreams, and makes plans for the future. This sense of our self may seem incredibly real but a wealth of recent scientific evidence reveals that it is not what it seems--it is all an illusion.
In The Self Illusion, Bruce Hood reveals how the self emerges during childhood and how the architecture of the developing brain enables us to become social animals dependent on each other. Humans spend proportionally the greatest amount of time in childhood compared to any other animal. It's not only to learn from others, Hood notes, but also to learn to become like others. We learn to become our self. Even as adults we are continually developing and elaborating this story, learning to become different selves in different situations--the work self, the home self, the parent self. Moreover, Hood shows that this already fluid process--the construction of self--has dramatically changed in recent years. Social networking activities--such as blogging, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter--are fast becoming socialization on steroids. The speed and ease at which we can form alliances and relationships are outstripping the same selection processes that shaped our self prior to the internet era. Things will never be the same again in the online social world. Hood offers our first glimpse into this unchartered territory.
Who we are is, in short, a story of our self--a narrative that our brain creates. Like the science fiction movie, we are living in a matrix that is our mind. But Hood concludes that though the self is an illusion, it is an illusion we must continue to embrace to live happily in human society.
- GenresNonfictionPsychology
82 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 26, 2011
5 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
About the author
Bruce M. Hood
11 books130 followersI was born in Toronto, Canada, and my middle name is MacFarlane. This a legacy of my Scottish heritage on my father's side. My mother is Australian and has the very unusual first name of Loyale. I used to believe for many years that she had two sisters called Hope and Faith, but that was just my fertile imagination. Why Toronto I hear you ask. My father was a journalist and plied his art on various continents. By the time I had finally settled in Dundee, Scotland, at 8 years of age, I had already lived in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. If you are wondering, I support Scotland during the Rugby World Cup. I have an older brother who was also born in Toronto, but he doesn't have a mid-Atlantic accent like I do. He is sensible. He is a lawyer.
In Dundee, I went to school and then university where I studied psychology and socializing. I then went to Cambridge to conduct research on visual development in babies. Not because they are cute, but because their visual system is so interesting. I completed my Ph.D. in two years in 1991. That year I got married with a "Dr." in front of my name to my wife who is a real doctor and would not marry me until I was doctored. After a brief research period in London, we both set off to Boston, Massachusetts, to sample some U.S. academic life for a year. By the time we were ready to travel, we were now three, as my eldest daughter had been born. When my wife wasn't paying attention, I applied for and was given an associate professorship at Harvard. I interviewed without telling her. What was supposed to be just one year abroad in the United States turned into five. I do stuff like that all the time.
We decided that we wanted to raise our daughter in the U.K. because we did not want her to call us "Mom" and "Pop," or by our first names. So, 10 years ago, we moved back to the countryside just south of Bath. If you have ever been there, you'll know why. I work in the psychology department at the University of Bristol nearby. I conduct research, teach, and of course, write books. We have a second daughter now, and we all live in a medieval barn with mice. I also bought that without telling my wife. That's where I am up to now.
In Dundee, I went to school and then university where I studied psychology and socializing. I then went to Cambridge to conduct research on visual development in babies. Not because they are cute, but because their visual system is so interesting. I completed my Ph.D. in two years in 1991. That year I got married with a "Dr." in front of my name to my wife who is a real doctor and would not marry me until I was doctored. After a brief research period in London, we both set off to Boston, Massachusetts, to sample some U.S. academic life for a year. By the time we were ready to travel, we were now three, as my eldest daughter had been born. When my wife wasn't paying attention, I applied for and was given an associate professorship at Harvard. I interviewed without telling her. What was supposed to be just one year abroad in the United States turned into five. I do stuff like that all the time.
We decided that we wanted to raise our daughter in the U.K. because we did not want her to call us "Mom" and "Pop," or by our first names. So, 10 years ago, we moved back to the countryside just south of Bath. If you have ever been there, you'll know why. I work in the psychology department at the University of Bristol nearby. I conduct research, teach, and of course, write books. We have a second daughter now, and we all live in a medieval barn with mice. I also bought that without telling my wife. That's where I am up to now.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 30, 2016
Self Illusion?
This book was confusing, yet very educating. I've learnt a lot from this book.
I learnt that we have more than one blind spot in our eyes, they're actually the size of lemons.
What people say to you, even if it is only online affects you and makes you feel vulnerable.
We have many parts to ourselves, scientists believe we are not our only selves, we are made up of "l", "me", "my", "mine", "your", "our" and "us".
I actually ended up liking this more than I thought I would.
This book was confusing, yet very educating. I've learnt a lot from this book.
I learnt that we have more than one blind spot in our eyes, they're actually the size of lemons.
What people say to you, even if it is only online affects you and makes you feel vulnerable.
We have many parts to ourselves, scientists believe we are not our only selves, we are made up of "l", "me", "my", "mine", "your", "our" and "us".
I actually ended up liking this more than I thought I would.
August 10, 2023
Not sure why goodreads says this is an extract. It's a full book, but there doesn't seem to be that option on the system.
I've re-read this after a ten year gap, because I've recently become more interested in the concept of "self". As fascinating as this book is, I don't think it really addresses why the self is an illusion very fully. It mainly starts with that premise and works through illustrations that help to make the point.
This is a great and lively introduction that will serve as a perfect primer for anyone who's not read a lot of this subject. There are so many examples and references to fascinating experiments, cognitive biases, amusing anecdotes etc that it will never leave the reader short of dinner-party conversation.
There is a later section about the internet , social media and technology in general that hasn't managed to keep its relevance, but it's an interesting snap shot on the thinking of the time it was written. What I did find particularly interesting is the fact that so much of the ground in this book was re-covered by more modern takes like Being You: A New Science of Consciousness that I wouldn't blame the author of this book for considering a law suit.
I've re-read this after a ten year gap, because I've recently become more interested in the concept of "self". As fascinating as this book is, I don't think it really addresses why the self is an illusion very fully. It mainly starts with that premise and works through illustrations that help to make the point.
This is a great and lively introduction that will serve as a perfect primer for anyone who's not read a lot of this subject. There are so many examples and references to fascinating experiments, cognitive biases, amusing anecdotes etc that it will never leave the reader short of dinner-party conversation.
There is a later section about the internet , social media and technology in general that hasn't managed to keep its relevance, but it's an interesting snap shot on the thinking of the time it was written. What I did find particularly interesting is the fact that so much of the ground in this book was re-covered by more modern takes like Being You: A New Science of Consciousness that I wouldn't blame the author of this book for considering a law suit.
March 12, 2022
This is a quarter-sized set of extracts from a longer work. It contains some thought provoking ideas, but the most interesting bits were so abbreviated and summarised that they didn’t seem to reach properly argued conclusions.
The first quarter of the book is focused on the brain and the issues of the ‘self’. This is where the book is at its most informative. It distinguishes between the ‘pearl’ theory and the bundle theory of personal identity. The pearl theory says that people have a self inside them, like a pearl in a clam. The bundle theory is that the word ‘self’ is just a convenient (fictitious) label for the focus of the flow of activities which go on within a person.
The author views the self as a fictionalised bundle. But this view is not really argued for. Yes we get the Homunculus argument (29%) which states that if the self is driving the person, then there needs to be a self, driving the self. That leads to an infinite regress, so there cannot be a separate self inside a person.
But the claim of an infinite regress rests upon an assumption. A physical body needs a non-physical homunculus to ‘drive’ it. But what reason is there to assume that the homunculus also needs a driver, when it is a (non-physical) dissimilarity to the physical body? The Homunculus argument is presented as an asserted assumption, rather than an argument.
And this is a problem for the book. The author just seems to assume that a bundle theory is obviously the correct, and the more scientific theory, but there isn’t an argument to show why that is so.
In the background there are issues about assumptions, which are not raised or resolved. For example, people assume that the external world exists around them, and that we are not ‘brains in a vat.’ No serious scientist worries about the issue, they just assume the reality of the world. And this was how Scientists used to treat the ‘self.’ Societies and civilisations tended to view the self as a thing inside people. This is why beliefs in ghosts and souls are so widespread in history and geography.
So, if scientists do not challenge the widespread assumption of the reality of the world, what is their reason for challenging the widespread assumption in the reality of a self? Or is the challenge of the self, partly driven by ideological commitments to materialism?
These are important questions, but the book doesn’t address them. And so we get a truncated assertion, rather than argument, for the non-existence of the self. Then the
Book moves on to focus the majority of its attention on social experiences and social media, where it was (in my opinion) less interesting and less thought provoking.
Overall I was disappointed with the book.
The first quarter of the book is focused on the brain and the issues of the ‘self’. This is where the book is at its most informative. It distinguishes between the ‘pearl’ theory and the bundle theory of personal identity. The pearl theory says that people have a self inside them, like a pearl in a clam. The bundle theory is that the word ‘self’ is just a convenient (fictitious) label for the focus of the flow of activities which go on within a person.
The author views the self as a fictionalised bundle. But this view is not really argued for. Yes we get the Homunculus argument (29%) which states that if the self is driving the person, then there needs to be a self, driving the self. That leads to an infinite regress, so there cannot be a separate self inside a person.
But the claim of an infinite regress rests upon an assumption. A physical body needs a non-physical homunculus to ‘drive’ it. But what reason is there to assume that the homunculus also needs a driver, when it is a (non-physical) dissimilarity to the physical body? The Homunculus argument is presented as an asserted assumption, rather than an argument.
And this is a problem for the book. The author just seems to assume that a bundle theory is obviously the correct, and the more scientific theory, but there isn’t an argument to show why that is so.
In the background there are issues about assumptions, which are not raised or resolved. For example, people assume that the external world exists around them, and that we are not ‘brains in a vat.’ No serious scientist worries about the issue, they just assume the reality of the world. And this was how Scientists used to treat the ‘self.’ Societies and civilisations tended to view the self as a thing inside people. This is why beliefs in ghosts and souls are so widespread in history and geography.
So, if scientists do not challenge the widespread assumption of the reality of the world, what is their reason for challenging the widespread assumption in the reality of a self? Or is the challenge of the self, partly driven by ideological commitments to materialism?
These are important questions, but the book doesn’t address them. And so we get a truncated assertion, rather than argument, for the non-existence of the self. Then the
Book moves on to focus the majority of its attention on social experiences and social media, where it was (in my opinion) less interesting and less thought provoking.
Overall I was disappointed with the book.
March 25, 2023
This the second time I’ve listened to this book (but apparently neglected to review it here last time). What I remembered about it was that I liked what I heard about “free will” and that I was fascinated by the idea of the “self” being an illusion — two things I’ve thought a lot about. It’s easy to get lost when people start talking about these subjects, but Bruce Hood is clear and engaging. And everything he says is backed by research. There’s a lot to ponder and fascinating facts abound. But there are myriad variables that lead us to think and act as we do, so many and so tangled that it seems impossible to tease them apart. We have no access to most of what the brain is doing behind the scenes, but Hood persuades us that the self we think we know (me, myself) is a useful illusion, a fiction constructed by the brain to enable us to navigate the mystery of “being” here.
August 16, 2021
I love books that discuss the illusion of because it’s such an interesting topic, but often times, the books are confusing as hell. Bruce Hood is an amazing author and researcher, so I was looking forward to reading this book, and he did such a fantastic job. While Hood does discuss some of the ideas that are in other philosophical discussions when it comes to the self, he covers so many more topics. This book has a ton of thought experiments that keep your wheels turning as well as a lot of scientific research around how we perceive our “self” and the selves of others. If you’re a fan of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience, you really need to read this book. I promise you won’t be disappointed.
April 16, 2021
Brilliant. Eye-opening and constantly engaging, with a core concept which is examined through the lens of various arguments, all backed up with interesting studies and well researched data. The self illusion is a truly fascinating idea and Bruce Hood delivers a riveting discourse in this book.
November 8, 2021
An epic book about why we are the way we are concerning our motivation to act - only the homo sapiens has the ability - the "super power" - that this book is presenting to us.
It worth a read because after the book you will see the world differently!
It worth a read because after the book you will see the world differently!
June 15, 2021
I still don't know why there is no me in my head... Otherwise, a bunch of interesting anecdotes with slightly tedious ending about social media. I'd recommend it.
June 21, 2017
Fascinating premise well supported with research but I struggled to finish this book - plenty of "whats" and "hows" but somehow lacks the "so what". So what if our self is really an illusion? How differently do I need to live my life? I wished that the author at least spent more time exploring this.
December 12, 2024
Twice as long as necessary. So much detail.
I liked the premise of the book that our 'mind' is constantly moulded by our experiences and environment. Whether that means there's no "You" I'm not sure. There are still born leaders for example.
An OK book. My first philosophy/ psychology book.
I liked the premise of the book that our 'mind' is constantly moulded by our experiences and environment. Whether that means there's no "You" I'm not sure. There are still born leaders for example.
An OK book. My first philosophy/ psychology book.
February 16, 2016
Can't agree with everything, but it's worth a read.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews