What do you think?
Rate this book
Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind
Are we “noble in reason”? Perfect, in God’s image? Far from it, says New York University psychologist Gary Marcus. In this lucid and revealing book, Marcus argues that the mind is not an elegantly designed organ but rather a “kluge,” a clumsy, cobbled-together contraption. He unveils a fundamentally new way of looking at the human mind -- think duct tape, not supercomputer -- that sheds light on some of the most mysterious aspects of human nature.
Taking us on a tour of the fundamental areas of human experience -- memory, belief, decision-making, language, and happiness -- Marcus reveals the myriad ways our minds fall short. He examines why people often vote against their own interests, why money can’t buy happiness, why leaders often stick to bad decisions, and why a sentence like “people people left left” ties us in knots even though it’s only four words long.
Marcus also offers surprisingly effective ways to outwit our inner kluge, for the betterment of ourselves and society. Throughout, he shows how only evolution -- haphazard and undirected -- could have produced the minds we humans have, while making a brilliant case for the power and usefulness of imperfection.
Taking us on a tour of the fundamental areas of human experience -- memory, belief, decision-making, language, and happiness -- Marcus reveals the myriad ways our minds fall short. He examines why people often vote against their own interests, why money can’t buy happiness, why leaders often stick to bad decisions, and why a sentence like “people people left left” ties us in knots even though it’s only four words long.
Marcus also offers surprisingly effective ways to outwit our inner kluge, for the betterment of ourselves and society. Throughout, he shows how only evolution -- haphazard and undirected -- could have produced the minds we humans have, while making a brilliant case for the power and usefulness of imperfection.
211 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
265 people are currently reading
3246 people want to read
About the author
Gary F. Marcus
15 books217 followersGary Marcus is an award-wining Professor of Psychology at New York University and director of the NYU Center for Child Language. He has written three books about the origins and nature of the human mind, including Kluge (2008, Houghton Mifflin/Faber), and The Birth of the Mind (Basic Books, 2004, translated into 6 languages). He is also the editor of The Norton Psychology Reader, and the author of numerous science publications in leading journals, such as Science, Nature, Cognition, and Psychological Science. He is also the editor of the Norton Psychology Reader and has frequently written articles for the general public, in forums such as Wired, Discover, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 211 reviews
July 26, 2009
In some ways the start of this is just The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making put into chapters and continuous prose. Not that I mean that as a bad thing – quite the opposite. The ideas in both books are terribly important to anyone with a brain, particularly anyone who finds that brain getting away with terribly odd and distressing things at times.
When I Googled Kluge I found that there are quite a few people out there called Kluge – as my American friends might say “a bit of a bummer”. In this case the word means an engineering ‘fix’ that is quick and dirty and relies on what is ‘to hand’, it means making do, not coming up with the best possible solution.
The main point of this book is, like the main point in many of the essays by Stephen J Gould, that evolution doesn’t always do the best possible thing, but always does a great job with what is available. The Panda’s Thumb being both a great book to understand this idea and an excellent example of precisely this evolutionary concept at the same time. The Panda has no thumb, but it has a wrist bone it has more or less successfully evolved to use for the purpose. If you could start from scratch would you end up with a thumb like the Panda’s – no. Did the Panda have the option to start from scratch – no.
In passing this book is an excellent critique of Intelligent Design – but where Darwin criticised this notion on the basis of the badly designed bits of the human body (too many teeth for our mouths, a vestige tail bone, an appendix that does very little other than rupture occasionally and then kill us) this book does much the same with our curiously badly designed brains.
He quotes that lovely line about rationalisation being more important than sex (when was the last time you went a week without a rationalisation?) and in fact many other wonderful little quotes and asides that made this quite an amusing read.
The best bit of this is the last bit where he goes through the sorts of things that one ought to do not to be too fooled by our makeshift minds towards the end. These are the sorts of things you can never hear too often – avoiding confirmation bias where we select the facts that support our views and ignore those that challenge them, trying to think of alternatives, reframing things so as to see what we are thinking about in another light – all of these are things we do far too infrequently and would be better people if we did them more often. There is a nice piece of research on asking female coffee drinkers about some research into the bad effects of coffee on women here where many of these biases are shown all too clearly. This is a book where if you are paying close enough attention you might see yourself over and over again. As someone who took far too long to give up smoking the shock of recognition involved in self-justifying arguments for what I was planning to keep on doing anyway does dampen my ability to call out “ALL IS RATIONAL” with any gusto.
One of my favourite bits from this last section of the book was a report of an investigation where it was found that people tended to pay for their coffee more frequently in the office honesty-box if there was a poster near the coffee with a pair of eyes in it rather than a poster with a flower, say. He recommends pretending that you are going to have to justify your decision after making it as a good way to make better decisions. Perhaps this is as a good reason as any to believe in an ever-present God? Not because this sort of creature makes a lot of sense in itself, per se, but because it (or It rather) encourages us to think again about the decisions we are making.
There is also a very interesting discussion of mental illness (depression, bipolar disorder, etc) in which he talks about the theories concerning the evolutionary advantages of these disorders (and also the good uncle theory which ‘explains’ homosexuality) and thankfully comes to the conclusion that these ideas are simply trying too hard to explain stuff that might not need to be ‘positively’ explained by evolution at all. You know, perhaps anxiety and depression are bad side effects of a haphazardly put together brain – perhaps homosexuality is due more to people being more interested in the pleasure that might be derived from sex (you know, like 99.99 % of all other sex) than the vague advantages that might come from having an uncle who doesn't seem to have kids of his own.
I’m very fond of these books on the types of systemic mistakes we make due to our curiously evolved brains – and this one is nicely put together (perhaps, unlike our brains) and is quite a fun read.
When I Googled Kluge I found that there are quite a few people out there called Kluge – as my American friends might say “a bit of a bummer”. In this case the word means an engineering ‘fix’ that is quick and dirty and relies on what is ‘to hand’, it means making do, not coming up with the best possible solution.
The main point of this book is, like the main point in many of the essays by Stephen J Gould, that evolution doesn’t always do the best possible thing, but always does a great job with what is available. The Panda’s Thumb being both a great book to understand this idea and an excellent example of precisely this evolutionary concept at the same time. The Panda has no thumb, but it has a wrist bone it has more or less successfully evolved to use for the purpose. If you could start from scratch would you end up with a thumb like the Panda’s – no. Did the Panda have the option to start from scratch – no.
In passing this book is an excellent critique of Intelligent Design – but where Darwin criticised this notion on the basis of the badly designed bits of the human body (too many teeth for our mouths, a vestige tail bone, an appendix that does very little other than rupture occasionally and then kill us) this book does much the same with our curiously badly designed brains.
He quotes that lovely line about rationalisation being more important than sex (when was the last time you went a week without a rationalisation?) and in fact many other wonderful little quotes and asides that made this quite an amusing read.
The best bit of this is the last bit where he goes through the sorts of things that one ought to do not to be too fooled by our makeshift minds towards the end. These are the sorts of things you can never hear too often – avoiding confirmation bias where we select the facts that support our views and ignore those that challenge them, trying to think of alternatives, reframing things so as to see what we are thinking about in another light – all of these are things we do far too infrequently and would be better people if we did them more often. There is a nice piece of research on asking female coffee drinkers about some research into the bad effects of coffee on women here where many of these biases are shown all too clearly. This is a book where if you are paying close enough attention you might see yourself over and over again. As someone who took far too long to give up smoking the shock of recognition involved in self-justifying arguments for what I was planning to keep on doing anyway does dampen my ability to call out “ALL IS RATIONAL” with any gusto.
One of my favourite bits from this last section of the book was a report of an investigation where it was found that people tended to pay for their coffee more frequently in the office honesty-box if there was a poster near the coffee with a pair of eyes in it rather than a poster with a flower, say. He recommends pretending that you are going to have to justify your decision after making it as a good way to make better decisions. Perhaps this is as a good reason as any to believe in an ever-present God? Not because this sort of creature makes a lot of sense in itself, per se, but because it (or It rather) encourages us to think again about the decisions we are making.
There is also a very interesting discussion of mental illness (depression, bipolar disorder, etc) in which he talks about the theories concerning the evolutionary advantages of these disorders (and also the good uncle theory which ‘explains’ homosexuality) and thankfully comes to the conclusion that these ideas are simply trying too hard to explain stuff that might not need to be ‘positively’ explained by evolution at all. You know, perhaps anxiety and depression are bad side effects of a haphazardly put together brain – perhaps homosexuality is due more to people being more interested in the pleasure that might be derived from sex (you know, like 99.99 % of all other sex) than the vague advantages that might come from having an uncle who doesn't seem to have kids of his own.
I’m very fond of these books on the types of systemic mistakes we make due to our curiously evolved brains – and this one is nicely put together (perhaps, unlike our brains) and is quite a fun read.
June 1, 2009
Kluge is a slang term for "a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem." In this new book, psychologist Gary Marcus argues that the human mind itself is a kluge, and then goes on to discuss how this explains why you can't remember the name of that woman from your yoga class when you run into her at the movie theater.
The basis of Marcus' argument is that evolution was working with the tools at hand when it whipped up the more complex parts of our brain and that the result, while generally functional, is often far from optimal. In each chapter, Marcus details various maddening brain systems ranging from memory to belief to pleasure and offers intriguing reasons why they so often fail to work as we would like them to. In the chapter on choice, for example, he points out that we often make highly irrational decisions when it comes to money because our mind is basically trying to wing it with a system that was developed not to deal with money but rather with food. Anybody who has ever found themselves staring at the result of some financial indiscretion will well understand that evolution is clearly still working out the kinks on that one.
Marcus is not shy about highlighting the fact that klugey nature of our minds does not bode well for arguments in favor of intelligent design. As he discusses how we adapted our existing physiology to deal with the increasingly complex demands of language, it does make one wonder why—if there was an intelligent designer involved—the adaptations to the larynx that gave us more control over our vocalizations also dramatically increased our chances of choking to death. It does seem like there could have been a better way.
Though this book does revisit some territory I was already familiar with, his fundamental premise was compelling enough that it added a new dimension of understanding to the things that frustrate me about my own brain. In his final chapter, Marcus makes a good argument that we all need to understand the sloppy shortcuts evolution made with our minds so that we can better defend ourselves against the tendency of advertisers, politicians, cults and the like to exploit the flaws in the system, and he concludes with a useful, 13-point listing of concrete steps we can take to counteract the built-in weaknesses of our klugey brains.
The basis of Marcus' argument is that evolution was working with the tools at hand when it whipped up the more complex parts of our brain and that the result, while generally functional, is often far from optimal. In each chapter, Marcus details various maddening brain systems ranging from memory to belief to pleasure and offers intriguing reasons why they so often fail to work as we would like them to. In the chapter on choice, for example, he points out that we often make highly irrational decisions when it comes to money because our mind is basically trying to wing it with a system that was developed not to deal with money but rather with food. Anybody who has ever found themselves staring at the result of some financial indiscretion will well understand that evolution is clearly still working out the kinks on that one.
Marcus is not shy about highlighting the fact that klugey nature of our minds does not bode well for arguments in favor of intelligent design. As he discusses how we adapted our existing physiology to deal with the increasingly complex demands of language, it does make one wonder why—if there was an intelligent designer involved—the adaptations to the larynx that gave us more control over our vocalizations also dramatically increased our chances of choking to death. It does seem like there could have been a better way.
Though this book does revisit some territory I was already familiar with, his fundamental premise was compelling enough that it added a new dimension of understanding to the things that frustrate me about my own brain. In his final chapter, Marcus makes a good argument that we all need to understand the sloppy shortcuts evolution made with our minds so that we can better defend ourselves against the tendency of advertisers, politicians, cults and the like to exploit the flaws in the system, and he concludes with a useful, 13-point listing of concrete steps we can take to counteract the built-in weaknesses of our klugey brains.
July 28, 2020
Fairly short & a very interesting look at how our brain evolved which keeps us from approaching anything like true rationality on a regular basis. He discusses many brain bugs, but from a different perspective than Dean Buonomano did in Brain Bugs: How the Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives. Marcus gives the evolutionary perspective.
Well narrated & enthralling throughout. Highly recommended.
Table of Contents
1-Remnants of History - Under stress, our reasoning falters as the latest layer is deprioritized by the underlying parts with so much more evolutionary history. Marcus does a great job of showing this with a variety of examples.
2-Memory - The postal-code memory systems used by computers is as powerful as it is simple. Yeah, we don't have that. Instead we use what he calls "contextual memory". Items out of place often require a lot more thought than they should & we often make up stories to smooth out bumps.
3-Belief - Because evolution built belief mainly out of off-the-shelf components that evolved for other purposes, we often lose track of where our beliefs come from — if we ever knew — and even worse, we are often completely unaware of how much we are influenced by irrelevant information.
4-Choice - Building on the previous chapters, we don't make rational decisions & it drives models of economics & other predictors wild.
5-Language - Like so much else, it's pretty awful, but good enough. How the speech parts evolved out of existing structures was fascinating. It makes me wonder how we manage to talk at all.
6- Plearsure - Without it, we wouldn't exist. It's our reason to keep going, but it's also our downfall all too often.
7-Things Fall Apart - Engineers would probably build kluges more often if it were not for one small fact: that which is clumsy is rarely reliable. The idea that we were designed perfectly is laughable & no where is more clear than in our minds. They often fail spectacularly. If it happens often enough in the same way, we call it a disease. Good chapter, but I disagree with his take on psychopaths. He lists them as a failure, but I'll bet a lot of top executives would test out as one. They're just better adjusted & thus very successful.
8-True Wisdom - The value of imperfections extends far beyond simple balance, however. Scientifically, every kluge contains a clue to our past; wherever there is a cumbersome solution, there is insight into how nature layered our brain together; it is no exaggeration to say that the history of evolution is a history of overlaid technologies, and kluges help expose the seams.
Well narrated & enthralling throughout. Highly recommended.
Table of Contents
1-Remnants of History - Under stress, our reasoning falters as the latest layer is deprioritized by the underlying parts with so much more evolutionary history. Marcus does a great job of showing this with a variety of examples.
2-Memory - The postal-code memory systems used by computers is as powerful as it is simple. Yeah, we don't have that. Instead we use what he calls "contextual memory". Items out of place often require a lot more thought than they should & we often make up stories to smooth out bumps.
3-Belief - Because evolution built belief mainly out of off-the-shelf components that evolved for other purposes, we often lose track of where our beliefs come from — if we ever knew — and even worse, we are often completely unaware of how much we are influenced by irrelevant information.
4-Choice - Building on the previous chapters, we don't make rational decisions & it drives models of economics & other predictors wild.
5-Language - Like so much else, it's pretty awful, but good enough. How the speech parts evolved out of existing structures was fascinating. It makes me wonder how we manage to talk at all.
6- Plearsure - Without it, we wouldn't exist. It's our reason to keep going, but it's also our downfall all too often.
7-Things Fall Apart - Engineers would probably build kluges more often if it were not for one small fact: that which is clumsy is rarely reliable. The idea that we were designed perfectly is laughable & no where is more clear than in our minds. They often fail spectacularly. If it happens often enough in the same way, we call it a disease. Good chapter, but I disagree with his take on psychopaths. He lists them as a failure, but I'll bet a lot of top executives would test out as one. They're just better adjusted & thus very successful.
8-True Wisdom - The value of imperfections extends far beyond simple balance, however. Scientifically, every kluge contains a clue to our past; wherever there is a cumbersome solution, there is insight into how nature layered our brain together; it is no exaggeration to say that the history of evolution is a history of overlaid technologies, and kluges help expose the seams.
April 19, 2011
(I read the NOOkcolor ebook edition)
I thought I'd really love a book about evolution's mistakes, especially one who shows irrefutably Creationists are. Marcus starts out by noting that if God made man in His image, and if he made man perfect, it's more than passingly strange that we have lousy spines that are actually retreaded quadruped spines. Everyone who has had back and neck problems can relate to this,
However, that was the beginning. Where Marcus goes stupidly wrong is his claim that if God really designed man.He would've given homo sapiens memory like a computer's, what he calls "postal code memory," in which each memory is at a specific address in the brain. Instead God desifned man with contextual memory which has us retrieve memory by thinking of something related to what we want to remember. Also, God wouldn't have given man language which can be ambiguous and in which every word has more than one meaning. Marcus shows his incredible ignorance on why our memories and languages are maximally effective, especially in that they can be adapted to new contexts immediately.
I will be writing a probably vitriolic post on this topic tomorrow at
http://smarthotoldlady.blogspot.com
I have already written two posts on this blog about Marcus, which explains the many things wrong with this book, and also three posts on the evolution of language, so I won't repeat any od this here.
How can such an idiotic book get published. Well, if you have academic credentials and you write in passingly clear prose, publishers will take a chance on you, I guess.
I thought I'd really love a book about evolution's mistakes, especially one who shows irrefutably Creationists are. Marcus starts out by noting that if God made man in His image, and if he made man perfect, it's more than passingly strange that we have lousy spines that are actually retreaded quadruped spines. Everyone who has had back and neck problems can relate to this,
However, that was the beginning. Where Marcus goes stupidly wrong is his claim that if God really designed man.He would've given homo sapiens memory like a computer's, what he calls "postal code memory," in which each memory is at a specific address in the brain. Instead God desifned man with contextual memory which has us retrieve memory by thinking of something related to what we want to remember. Also, God wouldn't have given man language which can be ambiguous and in which every word has more than one meaning. Marcus shows his incredible ignorance on why our memories and languages are maximally effective, especially in that they can be adapted to new contexts immediately.
I will be writing a probably vitriolic post on this topic tomorrow at
http://smarthotoldlady.blogspot.com
I have already written two posts on this blog about Marcus, which explains the many things wrong with this book, and also three posts on the evolution of language, so I won't repeat any od this here.
How can such an idiotic book get published. Well, if you have academic credentials and you write in passingly clear prose, publishers will take a chance on you, I guess.
May 9, 2016
As this book suggests, the human mind is a mixture of inconsistencies. It can systematically plan and prepare, but it can also disregard those prepared plans in favor of immediate and short-term gratification. It can store and accurately retrieve memories, but it can also hardly absorb readily available information, and sometimes, memories which can be retrieved at one particular time can also be distorted due to subjectively retained external stimuli. In other words, despite its reliability in certain aspects of information processing and retrieval, it is actually a mixture of complex areas which oftentimes seem to work together in an intertwined manner—rational decisions can be influenced with the subjective preferences of emotions.
The human mind is not infinite in reason, but as the book suggests, it is more of a ‘kluge.’
A kluge is a clumsy or inelegant –yet surprisingly effective solution to a problem. The human mind is a fantastic kluge and it is a quirky yet magnificent product of the entirely blind process of evolution.
It was even compared to a brand of paper feeder which was described as
Accordingly temperamental, subject to frequent breakdowns, and devilishly difficult to repair—but oh so clever! It was possible to do better. It is a great metaphor for our everyday acceptance of the idiosyncrasies of the human mind, imaginably impressive, a lot better than any available alternative. But it’s still flawed, often in ways we scarcely recognize. For the most part, we simply accept our faults—as standard equipment. Recognizing a kluge, such as the human mind, requires thinking outside the box. The best science often comes from understanding not just how things are, but how else they could have been.
Nature is prone to making kluges because it doesn’t care whether its products are perfect or inelegant. If something works, it spreads. If it doesn’t work, it dies out. All else is metaphor.
In other words, the human mind as a kluge, is a product of evolution, if some of its functions don’t work effectively, the better functions stay in place and improve, while newer functions are developed to replace the ineffective ones.
Since the main ideas presented on this book are based on Evolutionary psychology, much of its concepts had to be looked into question, and since the mind is modeled like a clumsy instrument, developing on a random process, the question remains, is it really so?
October 27, 2024
I recently stumbled upon Kluge, a book published over 15 years ago and likely written around the turn of the century based on all the references within, but truly ahead of its time. I'm astonished that a book of this quality didn't become more famous, nor is it mentioned as a must-read for those seeking to understand human behavior through popular books. Reflecting on why this masterpiece escaped my attention for so long, I realize that its profound insights into evolutionary psychology—far beyond the typical behavioral science descriptions—are what set it apart from other works; most popular BS books of the recent decades spend enormous time revisiting the basic concepts through ever more studies and add little beyond the pioneering efforts of the mid-nineties. Kluge is different, making it a remarkable read and perhaps one of the best books I've ever encountered in these fields.
Kluge provides an unflinching examination of the human mind's imperfections but does not merely catalog them or coin fancy terminologies. The author, given his training, is more interested in the "why" behind our mental quirks. We begin with some great sections on how evolution lacks foresight and operates without a specific goal, leading to a mind that is more of a makeshift assembly than a finely tuned machine. This refreshing and enlightening perspective offers a framework that makes sense of our cognitive idiosyncrasies. While the evolutionary framework itself is not original, the author's inclusion of Kluge through this lens in everything helps the book throw a different light on every oddity, like confirmation bias or the framing effects, but also a variety of mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and memory disorders.
In many ways, the concepts in Kluge may echo those in other popular psychology books. But, the book masters other work in uniquely contextualizing them to create a greater impact. For example, In "Thinking, Fast and Slow," Daniel Kahneman masterfully simplifies the dual systems of thought—intuitive and deliberate—by using memorable phrases and relatable examples. This ability to distill complex ideas into easily digestible concepts makes the book an impactful introduction to a well-known psychological framework. Similarly, Kluge presents a fresh perspective that enriches our understanding, employing a unique framework that resonates and enhances understanding. The book emphasizes, "Understanding comes from using our cognitive tools to connect old ideas with new insights." While the concepts may not be revolutionary, the Kluge framework enhances our grasp of the subject matter. The author repeatedly takes this idea further by examining the evolutionary imperfections and applying them in a host of different contexts. He doesn't just identify biases and heuristics; he explores faraway fields like the way we use language or the factors behind many mental disorders.
Kluge illustrates our minds' patchwork nature. The author uses the unreliability of our memory to exemplify this, calling it the "mother of all kluges." Memory isn't a precise recording device but is influenced by context, frequency, and recency. In a way, this is obvious, but placing these flaws within an evolutionary context gives a more impactful explanation of many other flaws. For instance, it is easier to understand why, when we're "stressed, tired, or distracted," our capacity for deliberate reasoning diminishes first. Understanding this internal struggle sheds light on why we sometimes make irrational decisions despite knowing better. The evolutionary perspective highlights the remnants of our ancestral past that influence our behavior.
Kluge's concept shows how our mental processes weren't designed for modern life's complexities but kept building over what existed for every near-term evolutionary need. They're a collection of ad hoc solutions that served our ancestors in different contexts but repeatedly led to behaviors that seem irrational now. At the other end, we have evolutionarily built-in irrationalities like moral dumbfounding—situations where we have strong moral reactions but cannot explain why.
Kluge explores how language, one of our most distinctive human features, is a makeshift construct. With a limited set of sounds and grammatical quirks that defy strict logical structure, language is a testament to the haphazard way evolution has shaped our abilities. This examination offers a fascinating look at why language can be powerful and frustratingly imprecise.
Beyond the enlightening perspective, the book's lucid language, vivid examples, and memorable quotes create an impact that even the best books in the field may not compete with. And we are talking about a field blessed with the works of Kahnemann and books like Nudge or Predictably Irrational. The combination of insightful analysis and engaging storytelling makes it a must-read, particularly as we are about to stumble upon the most relevant Kluges of all time in generative AI.
Kluge provides an unflinching examination of the human mind's imperfections but does not merely catalog them or coin fancy terminologies. The author, given his training, is more interested in the "why" behind our mental quirks. We begin with some great sections on how evolution lacks foresight and operates without a specific goal, leading to a mind that is more of a makeshift assembly than a finely tuned machine. This refreshing and enlightening perspective offers a framework that makes sense of our cognitive idiosyncrasies. While the evolutionary framework itself is not original, the author's inclusion of Kluge through this lens in everything helps the book throw a different light on every oddity, like confirmation bias or the framing effects, but also a variety of mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and memory disorders.
In many ways, the concepts in Kluge may echo those in other popular psychology books. But, the book masters other work in uniquely contextualizing them to create a greater impact. For example, In "Thinking, Fast and Slow," Daniel Kahneman masterfully simplifies the dual systems of thought—intuitive and deliberate—by using memorable phrases and relatable examples. This ability to distill complex ideas into easily digestible concepts makes the book an impactful introduction to a well-known psychological framework. Similarly, Kluge presents a fresh perspective that enriches our understanding, employing a unique framework that resonates and enhances understanding. The book emphasizes, "Understanding comes from using our cognitive tools to connect old ideas with new insights." While the concepts may not be revolutionary, the Kluge framework enhances our grasp of the subject matter. The author repeatedly takes this idea further by examining the evolutionary imperfections and applying them in a host of different contexts. He doesn't just identify biases and heuristics; he explores faraway fields like the way we use language or the factors behind many mental disorders.
Kluge illustrates our minds' patchwork nature. The author uses the unreliability of our memory to exemplify this, calling it the "mother of all kluges." Memory isn't a precise recording device but is influenced by context, frequency, and recency. In a way, this is obvious, but placing these flaws within an evolutionary context gives a more impactful explanation of many other flaws. For instance, it is easier to understand why, when we're "stressed, tired, or distracted," our capacity for deliberate reasoning diminishes first. Understanding this internal struggle sheds light on why we sometimes make irrational decisions despite knowing better. The evolutionary perspective highlights the remnants of our ancestral past that influence our behavior.
Kluge's concept shows how our mental processes weren't designed for modern life's complexities but kept building over what existed for every near-term evolutionary need. They're a collection of ad hoc solutions that served our ancestors in different contexts but repeatedly led to behaviors that seem irrational now. At the other end, we have evolutionarily built-in irrationalities like moral dumbfounding—situations where we have strong moral reactions but cannot explain why.
Kluge explores how language, one of our most distinctive human features, is a makeshift construct. With a limited set of sounds and grammatical quirks that defy strict logical structure, language is a testament to the haphazard way evolution has shaped our abilities. This examination offers a fascinating look at why language can be powerful and frustratingly imprecise.
Beyond the enlightening perspective, the book's lucid language, vivid examples, and memorable quotes create an impact that even the best books in the field may not compete with. And we are talking about a field blessed with the works of Kahnemann and books like Nudge or Predictably Irrational. The combination of insightful analysis and engaging storytelling makes it a must-read, particularly as we are about to stumble upon the most relevant Kluges of all time in generative AI.
May 10, 2016
This wonderful book confronts a truth about evolution as it relates to biological science. The title rhymes with 'rouge' or 'scrooge', and is slang for 'a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem'. It is used by Marcus to refer to the haphazard construction of the human mind, as necessitated by evolution.
Darwinian evolution has given us powerful insights which explain how each one of us as individuals are indeed individuals: we are products of a system which, while generally resulting in similar-looking bodies, for example, yet allows each of us to retain our individuality and distinctiveness. We have thus come to learn that no human being's body is 'perfect': we can now understand more comprehensively that each person's physical body has within itself certain specific 'imperfections' specific to 'me', but different to others, which in general we appreciate as contributing to our rich and rewarding awareness of differences and diversity.
The ideal of 'perfection' is our greatest illusion. It is usually limited to the realm of the Arts, where it 'exists' only as an Ideal, but is pervasive in philosophy and reasoning as well. It is in this area that we have been misled for millennia by Plato's rationalisation of these Ideals as being the only true Reality, with everything else, everything in the real world, being merely 'shadows' of those Ideals, not reality itself. Such a misconception creates real problems for 'ordinary' human beings who as a result cannot, or are unable to perceive themselves as having anything to do with 'ideal beauty' or 'ideal perfection'. We must accept ourselves as being imperfect, and often miserable and sometimes even evil aspects ('sinners') of some imagined 'true' humanity. It is not a surprise, therefore, to find that most religions and their ilk belabour this point, precisely because these organisations then proceed to try and convince us that they are needed to teach us how to achieve release from these imperfections, sometimes in one go, but mostly only through passing through specific ritualised procedures, before achieving differing higher 'levels of being', the absolute resolution of which will occur only when you are dead (imagine!). (In this context, therefore, this work can also be considered as a demolishing of the belief that human beings are 'perfectly designed' mechanisms.)
As a psychologist, Marcus is intrigued by the fact that despite this awareness (at least by those who understand that the concept of ideal human bodily perfection is an illusion) it seems that we have yet to fully comprehend that this same type of 'imperfection' lies in what we call the human brain, and so in our minds. He sets out to set the record straight, examining such 'mind' qualities as Memory, Belief, Choice, Language and Pleasure. All of these are kluges: none of them are 'perfect'; they are 'a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem' which will 'make do' in dealing with the problem: they are not the most perfect solution for that problem. More importantly, none of them can be perfect, precisely because what we call our minds are also products of a very long process of evolution. Bits and pieces of 'earlier' remnants of our evolutionary history are retained in our brains, and 'later' developments are layered on top of these. 'Resolutions' by the mind will therefore be affected by the influences of these earlier 'solutions' (themselves kluges) and the different combinations and permutations available to that mind in the present environment. To be human, therefore, means to be quintessentially 'imperfect': a perfect human being must, by nature, be imperfect. It's who we are.
For some people this might sound terrifying, if only because this questions the very nature of our 'absolute certainties' on about just about anything we believe, remember, feel, etc. Those who firmly believe they are in perfect control of their mind and in what happens to them and their bodies (and who expect others to be the same) might find this 'message' disconcerting. They may feel that accepting this message is too 'costly' — that in losing 'certainty' we are losing too much. Ultimately, however, appreciation of this reality of our imperfection can only result in the acquisition of greater wisdom, not only about ourselves and the external world, but also in regard how we 'deal' (personally, socially, politically, etc.) with these matters. It will make us calmer, more tolerant and understanding, less judgemental, and more able to be amused rather than annoyed or even angry at ourselves and towards others.
If all the above issues sounds heavy-handed and difficult (and perhaps they are) Marcus writes in a clear, compassionate, and illuminating way, using readily accessible language which no one would have difficulty understanding. What the reader gains, on the other hand, is wonderfully liberating and leads, naturally, to an kind of wisdom.
Marcus indeed provides a final chapter entitled 'True Wisdom' which offers 13 suggestions anyone would do well to adopt in their everyday dealings with themselves and with others. A sample: "Always remember that correlation does not entail causation" (a scientific truism consistently disregarded by pseudo-scientific reports); "Always weigh benefits against costs" (another truism often misused — 'hidden' benefits and costs are often missed); and "Beware the vivid, the personal, and the anecdotal" (they tend to make the listener extrapolate generalities which are simply not true). These are not 'rules' but suggestions. Their intent is to help us become aware of the 'kluginess' of the human mind and to help us appreciate that we can choose more wisely in our dealings with our realities; and with any luck we will all be wiser and happier as a result.
August 13, 2008
Great idea for a book. Short read, big on ideas, and soft on data/supporting studies. I buy the narrative, especially after reading Jonathan Haidt's excellent "Happiness Hypothesis" and reading "Nudge" as well.
I appreciate the neuroscience and morality angle, but it's hard for me to disentangle this book from the 'Hypothesis.' I would suggest reading both to understand how your brain helps and hurts you, and steps to make it run a little smoother.
I appreciate the neuroscience and morality angle, but it's hard for me to disentangle this book from the 'Hypothesis.' I would suggest reading both to understand how your brain helps and hurts you, and steps to make it run a little smoother.
September 3, 2015
The Good: This turned out to be a wonderful little book which surveyed many of the ways in which the human brain doesn't function rationally or ideally. The examples are wonderful, and I found exception with very few of his arguments. Similar to Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, Kluge gave me a bit of insight into how to combat the flaws in my brain's design and to live more rationally. At the end, Marcus explains (successfully) how the science of evolutionary psychology roundly debunks intelligent design theory.
The Bad: Marcus snidely inserts his political and religious views throughout; these intrusions throw off the flow of the book and serve little purpose.
The Bad: Marcus snidely inserts his political and religious views throughout; these intrusions throw off the flow of the book and serve little purpose.
May 14, 2011
This book presented one of the best arguments I've heard against creationism/ intelligent design. It suggests that we evolved enough to surive, rather than to the very best, so many human systems (the spine, our reasoning capacities, even language) is just "good enough", and often not the optimal, but rather a kluge which does the job needed but nothing more. Why would an intelligent designer create such an imperfect system when they could make the best one possible I don't agree with everything this writer says, but it is food for thought.
April 28, 2008
Marcus takes a new slant: our brains are the products of evolution, and as such, are not perfect. In fact, they're a "kluge" of different evolutionary developments, each overlaying on top of each other. He ends the book with some advice on how we can handle our imperfect minds - sort of like a self-help book on how we can deal with our klugey minds.
One annoying thing - he gradually uses more footnotes toward the end of the book. For some reason, it began to annoy me. M
One annoying thing - he gradually uses more footnotes toward the end of the book. For some reason, it began to annoy me. M
September 14, 2013
Better read "thinking fast thinking slow".
January 21, 2021
الاعتقادات ...
يقول البروفيسور في علم النفس «Gary Marcus» في كتابه الجميل Kluge: The Haphazard Construction Of The Human Mind :
"أنت بحاجة إلى أن يعجبك الآخرون ويعجبون بك ، ومع ذلك تميل إلى أن تنتقد نفسك. بينما لديك بعض نقاط الضعف في الشخصية ، لكنك قادر بشكل عام على تعويضها. لديك سعة كبيرة غير مستخدمة . أنت منضبط ذاتيًا من الخارج ، تميل إلى أن تكون قلقاً وغير آمن من الداخل ".
هل تصدقني إذا أخبرتك أنني كتبت هذا الوصف لك فقط؟ إنه في الواقع مقطع من الأبراج اليومية ، و ما شعرت به يسمى «تأثير فورير» نسبة إلى عالم النفس «بيرترام فورير» . قام فورير عام 1949 بإجراء تحليل شخصي لمجموعة من الأشخاص، و عندما أعطاهم نتائج التحليل. غالبيتهم اتفقوا مع دقة التحليل بأنه يمثل طبيعتهم. الحقيقة، أنه قام بتوزيع نفس النتائج للجميع. هذا يمثل قابلية البشر لتصديق اختبارات تحليل الشخصية - حتى المزيفة منها مثل الأبراج !!
كانت وجهة نظر Forer هي أن لدينا ميلًا لقراءة الكثير من العموميات الرتيبة ، معتقدين أنهم عنا - حتى عندما لا يكونون كذلك. الأسوأ من ذلك ، نحن أكثر عرضة لأن نقع ضحية لهذا النوع من الفخ إذا كان الوصف لطيفاً و يحتوي على بعض السمات الإيجابية .
إن القدرة على حمل معتقدات صريحة يمكننا التحدث عنها وتقييمها والتفكير فيها ، مثل اللغة ، هو ابتكار تم تطويره مؤخرًا - عند جميع البشر . وما هو حديث نادرًا ما يتم تصحيحه بالكامل. بدلاً من قدرة موضوعية لاكتشاف الحقيقة ، فإن قدرتنا البشرية على الإيمان عشوائية ، ومُلوثة بالعواطف ، والحالات المزاجية ، والرغبات ، والأهداف ، والمصالح الذاتية البسيطة - وهي عرضة بشكل مثير للدهشة إلى أخطاء الذاكرة. علاوة على ذلك ، فقد تركنا التطور ساذجين بشكل واضح ، وهو ما يشبه الاختصار التطوري أكثر من الهندسة التطورية الجيدة.
إن الأنظمة التي تكمن وراء قدرتنا على الإيمان القوي ، هي أيضًا عرضة للخرافات والتلاعب والمغالطة. هذه ليست أشياء تافهة: المعتقدات ، والأدوات العصبية غير الكاملة التي نستخدمها لتقييمها ، يمكن أن تؤدي إلى صراعات عائلية ، وخلافات دينية ، وحتى الحرب.
من حيث المبدأ ، يجب أن يكون لدى الكائن الذي يتاجر في المعتقدات إدراكًا قويًا لأصول معتقداته ومدى دعم الأدلة لها بقوة. هل اعتقادي بأن كولجيت هو علامة تجارية جيدة لمعجون الأسنان ، مستمدا من (1) تحليلي لاختبار مزدوج أجرته لجنة المستهلك (2) استمتعت بإعلانات كولجيت التجارية ، أو (3) مقارناتي الخاصة لكولجيت ضد "العلامات التجارية الرائدة" الأخرى؟
يجب أن أكون قادرًا على إخبارك بذلك ، لكنني لا أستطيع.
نظرًا لأن التطور بنى الإيمان بشكل أساسي من المكونات الجاهزة التي تطورت لأغراض أخرى ، فغالبًا ما نفقد مسار مصدر معتقداتنا ...
خذ ، على سبيل المثال ، حقيقة أن الطلاب يصنفون الأساتذة ذوي المظهر الأفضل على أن تدريسهم أفضل. إذا كانت لدينا مشاعر إيجابية تجاه شخص معين من ناحية واحدة ، فإننا نميل إلى تعميم هذا الاعتبار الإيجابي تلقائيًا على سمات أخرى ، وهو توضيح لما يعرف في علم النفس باسم "تأثير الهالة". ويحصل العكس أيضًا: تنظر إلى خاصية سلبية واحدة ، وتتوقع أن تكون جميع سمات الفرد سلبية .
أظهرت الدراسة بعد الدراسة أن الأشخاص الجذابين يحصلون على فرص أفضل في مقابلات العمل ، والترقيات ، ومقابلات القبول ... كل ذلك يوضح كيف أن الجماليات تخلق ضوضاء في قناة الإيمان.
نعلم جيدًا جدًا ، أننا من المرجح أن نشتري علامة تجارية معينة من الكولا إذا رأينا شخصًا جذابًا يشربها ، وأكثر احتمالية لشراء حذاء رياضي إذا رأينا رياضيًا ناجحًا مثل مايكل جوردان يرتديها.
وفي دراسة حديثة صادمة ، قدم الأطفال من سن الثالثة إلى الخامسة ، تقييمات أعلى لأطعمة مثل الجزر والحليب وعصير التفاح إذا جاءوا في عبوات ماكدونالدز !!
ترجمة #Maher_Razouk
يقول البروفيسور في علم النفس «Gary Marcus» في كتابه الجميل Kluge: The Haphazard Construction Of The Human Mind :
"أنت بحاجة إلى أن يعجبك الآخرون ويعجبون بك ، ومع ذلك تميل إلى أن تنتقد نفسك. بينما لديك بعض نقاط الضعف في الشخصية ، لكنك قادر بشكل عام على تعويضها. لديك سعة كبيرة غير مستخدمة . أنت منضبط ذاتيًا من الخارج ، تميل إلى أن تكون قلقاً وغير آمن من الداخل ".
هل تصدقني إذا أخبرتك أنني كتبت هذا الوصف لك فقط؟ إنه في الواقع مقطع من الأبراج اليومية ، و ما شعرت به يسمى «تأثير فورير» نسبة إلى عالم النفس «بيرترام فورير» . قام فورير عام 1949 بإجراء تحليل شخصي لمجموعة من الأشخاص، و عندما أعطاهم نتائج التحليل. غالبيتهم اتفقوا مع دقة التحليل بأنه يمثل طبيعتهم. الحقيقة، أنه قام بتوزيع نفس النتائج للجميع. هذا يمثل قابلية البشر لتصديق اختبارات تحليل الشخصية - حتى المزيفة منها مثل الأبراج !!
كانت وجهة نظر Forer هي أن لدينا ميلًا لقراءة الكثير من العموميات الرتيبة ، معتقدين أنهم عنا - حتى عندما لا يكونون كذلك. الأسوأ من ذلك ، نحن أكثر عرضة لأن نقع ضحية لهذا النوع من الفخ إذا كان الوصف لطيفاً و يحتوي على بعض السمات الإيجابية .
إن القدرة على حمل معتقدات صريحة يمكننا التحدث عنها وتقييمها والتفكير فيها ، مثل اللغة ، هو ابتكار تم تطويره مؤخرًا - عند جميع البشر . وما هو حديث نادرًا ما يتم تصحيحه بالكامل. بدلاً من قدرة موضوعية لاكتشاف الحقيقة ، فإن قدرتنا البشرية على الإيمان عشوائية ، ومُلوثة بالعواطف ، والحالات المزاجية ، والرغبات ، والأهداف ، والمصالح الذاتية البسيطة - وهي عرضة بشكل مثير للدهشة إلى أخطاء الذاكرة. علاوة على ذلك ، فقد تركنا التطور ساذجين بشكل واضح ، وهو ما يشبه الاختصار التطوري أكثر من الهندسة التطورية الجيدة.
إن الأنظمة التي تكمن وراء قدرتنا على الإيمان القوي ، هي أيضًا عرضة للخرافات والتلاعب والمغالطة. هذه ليست أشياء تافهة: المعتقدات ، والأدوات العصبية غير الكاملة التي نستخدمها لتقييمها ، يمكن أن تؤدي إلى صراعات عائلية ، وخلافات دينية ، وحتى الحرب.
من حيث المبدأ ، يجب أن يكون لدى الكائن الذي يتاجر في المعتقدات إدراكًا قويًا لأصول معتقداته ومدى دعم الأدلة لها بقوة. هل اعتقادي بأن كولجيت هو علامة تجارية جيدة لمعجون الأسنان ، مستمدا من (1) تحليلي لاختبار مزدوج أجرته لجنة المستهلك (2) استمتعت بإعلانات كولجيت التجارية ، أو (3) مقارناتي الخاصة لكولجيت ضد "العلامات التجارية الرائدة" الأخرى؟
يجب أن أكون قادرًا على إخبارك بذلك ، لكنني لا أستطيع.
نظرًا لأن التطور بنى الإيمان بشكل أساسي من المكونات الجاهزة التي تطورت لأغراض أخرى ، فغالبًا ما نفقد مسار مصدر معتقداتنا ...
خذ ، على سبيل المثال ، حقيقة أن الطلاب يصنفون الأساتذة ذوي المظهر الأفضل على أن تدريسهم أفضل. إذا كانت لدينا مشاعر إيجابية تجاه شخص معين من ناحية واحدة ، فإننا نميل إلى تعميم هذا الاعتبار الإيجابي تلقائيًا على سمات أخرى ، وهو توضيح لما يعرف في علم النفس باسم "تأثير الهالة". ويحصل العكس أيضًا: تنظر إلى خاصية سلبية واحدة ، وتتوقع أن تكون جميع سمات الفرد سلبية .
أظهرت الدراسة بعد الدراسة أن الأشخاص الجذابين يحصلون على فرص أفضل في مقابلات العمل ، والترقيات ، ومقابلات القبول ... كل ذلك يوضح كيف أن الجماليات تخلق ضوضاء في قناة الإيمان.
نعلم جيدًا جدًا ، أننا من المرجح أن نشتري علامة تجارية معينة من الكولا إذا رأينا شخصًا جذابًا يشربها ، وأكثر احتمالية لشراء حذاء رياضي إذا رأينا رياضيًا ناجحًا مثل مايكل جوردان يرتديها.
وفي دراسة حديثة صادمة ، قدم الأطفال من سن الثالثة إلى الخامسة ، تقييمات أعلى لأطعمة مثل الجزر والحليب وعصير التفاح إذا جاءوا في عبوات ماكدونالدز !!
ترجمة #Maher_Razouk
March 2, 2019
Лёгкий научпоп, объясняющий "несовершенства", а точнее костыли и велосипеды, несмотря на которые человек всё же способен к мыслительной деятельности. Объясняется, почему же так получилось и почему система не улучшается. Причина проста: работает - не трогай.
Надеяться на исправление эволюционных костылей в течение жизни не приходится, но автор даёт некоторые советы по минимизации ущерба от них. Не поленюсь их переписать:
1. Всегда, если только возможно, рассматривайте альтернативные гипотезы.
2. Перефразируйте вопрос.
3. Всегда помните, что корреляция не подразумевает причинно-следственной связи.
4. Никогда не забывайте о размере вашей выборки.
5. Предвосхищайте собственную импульсивность.
6. Недостаточно просто ставить цели.
7. По возможности не принимайте важных решений, когда вы утомлены или ваша голова занята другими делами.
8. Всегда соотносите выгоды и издержки.
9. Представляйте себе, что ваши решения могут быть проверены.
10. Дистанцируйтесь от себя.
11. Остерегайтесь яркости, субъективности и анкетодичности.
12. Выделяйте главное.
13. Старайтесь быть рациональными.
Надеяться на исправление эволюционных костылей в течение жизни не приходится, но автор даёт некоторые советы по минимизации ущерба от них. Не поленюсь их переписать:
1. Всегда, если только возможно, рассматривайте альтернативные гипотезы.
2. Перефразируйте вопрос.
3. Всегда помните, что корреляция не подразумевает причинно-следственной связи.
4. Никогда не забывайте о размере вашей выборки.
5. Предвосхищайте собственную импульсивность.
6. Недостаточно просто ставить цели.
7. По возможности не принимайте важных решений, когда вы утомлены или ваша голова занята другими делами.
8. Всегда соотносите выгоды и издержки.
9. Представляйте себе, что ваши решения могут быть проверены.
10. Дистанцируйтесь от себя.
11. Остерегайтесь яркости, субъективности и анкетодичности.
12. Выделяйте главное.
13. Старайтесь быть рациональными.
May 23, 2012
It Might be evidence of its own Conclusion
This book is its own best argument for the haphazard, meandering quality of the human brain and the human thinking process.
The book itself has some strong points and raises some issues that appear to be somewhat profound, but in the end, from this reviewer's perspective it vastly overreaches the evidence presented and attempts to draw conclusions in an authoritative manner that are a huge stretch. Up front, the author jumps to the material of Richard Dawkins and other popular books in the realm of atheism in an apparent effort to piggy back upon or appropriate some of the controversy or success perhaps of these works, to make comments in the realm of this populist field. While I don't agree with the author's position in that regard, that is not the basis of my evaluation of his book.
Strong general appeals are made within the book to logic and the idea that if there were a teleological goal in the creation of man and the human mind, according to the author, it would be expected that such a purposeful design should have rendered a better result. In particular, the human mind is contrasted to the human invention of the computer, which the author holds up as a more efficient and effective method of memory recall. Think about that. The human mind in effect invented and refined the computer to a specialized purpose, which of course is going to handle the tasks it is created to do more efficiently than the human mind, otherwise there would be no purpose in creating it. It begs the question by analogy that if because simple physical tools such as the lever improve the function of the human arm, that that means the human arm is deficient in whole because it doesn't measure up to the specialized application in this regard.
With these types of elements interspersed throughout the book, this reader found it to have a quality of an entertaining professor giving a lecture who perhaps would be popular with students because of his style and idiosyncracies, but at the end of the lecture would leave the hall feeling entertained but somehow wondering what the substance was. It meanders, repeats some of the stretches of logic as if repeating them somehow makes them more true and seems geared to try to make a point outside of the field it purports to be examining.
All in all, I think an objective reader will glean a few nuggets and interesting facts, but the experience of this book will leave them a little flat. There is just too little presented to justify some of the reaches attempted.
3 Stars
Bart Breen
This book is its own best argument for the haphazard, meandering quality of the human brain and the human thinking process.
The book itself has some strong points and raises some issues that appear to be somewhat profound, but in the end, from this reviewer's perspective it vastly overreaches the evidence presented and attempts to draw conclusions in an authoritative manner that are a huge stretch. Up front, the author jumps to the material of Richard Dawkins and other popular books in the realm of atheism in an apparent effort to piggy back upon or appropriate some of the controversy or success perhaps of these works, to make comments in the realm of this populist field. While I don't agree with the author's position in that regard, that is not the basis of my evaluation of his book.
Strong general appeals are made within the book to logic and the idea that if there were a teleological goal in the creation of man and the human mind, according to the author, it would be expected that such a purposeful design should have rendered a better result. In particular, the human mind is contrasted to the human invention of the computer, which the author holds up as a more efficient and effective method of memory recall. Think about that. The human mind in effect invented and refined the computer to a specialized purpose, which of course is going to handle the tasks it is created to do more efficiently than the human mind, otherwise there would be no purpose in creating it. It begs the question by analogy that if because simple physical tools such as the lever improve the function of the human arm, that that means the human arm is deficient in whole because it doesn't measure up to the specialized application in this regard.
With these types of elements interspersed throughout the book, this reader found it to have a quality of an entertaining professor giving a lecture who perhaps would be popular with students because of his style and idiosyncracies, but at the end of the lecture would leave the hall feeling entertained but somehow wondering what the substance was. It meanders, repeats some of the stretches of logic as if repeating them somehow makes them more true and seems geared to try to make a point outside of the field it purports to be examining.
All in all, I think an objective reader will glean a few nuggets and interesting facts, but the experience of this book will leave them a little flat. There is just too little presented to justify some of the reaches attempted.
3 Stars
Bart Breen
October 14, 2009
This is for you, Kirsti!
First of all, I learned a new word in reading "Kluge", and I have used that word in conversation already. And had to explain it. But that's hardly the point of this book.
The point, largely, is that the human brain, once so lauded (see the Bible, Shakespeare, etc.), is really just a somewhat cobbled-together affair which "does the job" but leaves much to be desired (the definition of "kluge" being a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem). Marcus gives excellent examples of kluges in the brain in the "Memory" section (see: vision), but goes on to be a little less precise. Yes, the human brain does seem to have been made in rather a "hodge-podge" manner, but it has been necessarily so. We have built on the "old" brains of hominids and older ancestors and had to tackle new, shinier problems. This is the very crux of the problem, according to Marcus. He makes a pretty convincing argument. And he's a snappy writer.
I have to wonder, however, if he is right. Evolution sure has done some crazy things, but it sometimes seems to have a strange, all-knowing "mind" of its own. I mean, yes, the spine is clearly a kluge--it's faulty, it barely works, it's incredibly prone to injury, etc., but who knows, maybe in the long run, or in some way that is not presently clear, the spine really "works" for us, and as more than just a kluge to get our hands freed to do things. It's hard to say. Honestly, the jury is still out.
At any rate, I liked this book a lot. It gave me much to think about and has some handy tips for our faulty brains. 4.5 stars.
First of all, I learned a new word in reading "Kluge", and I have used that word in conversation already. And had to explain it. But that's hardly the point of this book.
The point, largely, is that the human brain, once so lauded (see the Bible, Shakespeare, etc.), is really just a somewhat cobbled-together affair which "does the job" but leaves much to be desired (the definition of "kluge" being a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem). Marcus gives excellent examples of kluges in the brain in the "Memory" section (see: vision), but goes on to be a little less precise. Yes, the human brain does seem to have been made in rather a "hodge-podge" manner, but it has been necessarily so. We have built on the "old" brains of hominids and older ancestors and had to tackle new, shinier problems. This is the very crux of the problem, according to Marcus. He makes a pretty convincing argument. And he's a snappy writer.
I have to wonder, however, if he is right. Evolution sure has done some crazy things, but it sometimes seems to have a strange, all-knowing "mind" of its own. I mean, yes, the spine is clearly a kluge--it's faulty, it barely works, it's incredibly prone to injury, etc., but who knows, maybe in the long run, or in some way that is not presently clear, the spine really "works" for us, and as more than just a kluge to get our hands freed to do things. It's hard to say. Honestly, the jury is still out.
At any rate, I liked this book a lot. It gave me much to think about and has some handy tips for our faulty brains. 4.5 stars.
June 6, 2017
Un kluge è una soluzione temporanea alla bell'e meglio, con i materiali che si hanno a disposizione, a un problema che va risolto in poco tempo.
Marcus in questo saggio considera l'essere umano un kluge — un accrocchio, insomma. Basti vedere l'apparato respiratorio e quello digerente, separati solamente da una piccola membrana; o la spina dorsale che non è adatta per camminare su due gambe e quindi crea problemi alla schiena. Continua poi con argomenti più specifici come la memoria, la fede, la felicità e, sempre basandosi su dati empirici, prova a dare un senso al comportamento umano leggendolo in chiave evolutiva.
Dopo aver elencato questi difetti e comportamenti deleteri, cerca di offrire varie soluzioni al lettore per aggirarli nella vita di tutti i giorni.
Marcus in questo saggio considera l'essere umano un kluge — un accrocchio, insomma. Basti vedere l'apparato respiratorio e quello digerente, separati solamente da una piccola membrana; o la spina dorsale che non è adatta per camminare su due gambe e quindi crea problemi alla schiena. Continua poi con argomenti più specifici come la memoria, la fede, la felicità e, sempre basandosi su dati empirici, prova a dare un senso al comportamento umano leggendolo in chiave evolutiva.
Dopo aver elencato questi difetti e comportamenti deleteri, cerca di offrire varie soluzioni al lettore per aggirarli nella vita di tutti i giorni.
July 27, 2012
Non ricordo di preciso né quando lo lessi né cosa ne pensai, ma ricordo che mi piantò nella testa una delle idee più potenti (e veritiere) che abbia mai incontrato: noi, il nostro corpo, siamo soluzioni ai problemi dell'ambiente, ma soluzioni "kluge", ovvero fatte «alla meglio». Niente a che vedere con un progetto o una direzione, l'evoluzione ha usato strutture pre-esistenti per adattarsi.
Insomma: se uno studia il corpo e come si è adattato scopre che ci sarebbero millemila modi migliori per svolgere le funzioni che fa, ma è così perché è un «accrocchio», un adattamento. Anche strutture complesse come occhi o polmoni. Checché ne dicano i creazionisti.
Insomma: se uno studia il corpo e come si è adattato scopre che ci sarebbero millemila modi migliori per svolgere le funzioni che fa, ma è così perché è un «accrocchio», un adattamento. Anche strutture complesse come occhi o polmoni. Checché ne dicano i creazionisti.
May 23, 2009
A long article stretched to a small book. This popsci book will be disappointing to anyone who tends to follow brain/mind science, but to someone who is new to the field will enjoy this book.
The premise is that the mind's faults are due to the brain's having been evolving in a stepwise fashion. Our original primate brain (reflexive) has had layered on top of it a "deliberative" section. These two parts are often fighting for control producing results that are not always satisfactory. Interesting theory that could have been examined in a longish magazine article.
The premise is that the mind's faults are due to the brain's having been evolving in a stepwise fashion. Our original primate brain (reflexive) has had layered on top of it a "deliberative" section. These two parts are often fighting for control producing results that are not always satisfactory. Interesting theory that could have been examined in a longish magazine article.
November 18, 2008
Tremendously enjoyable explication of the cobbled-together nature of the human mind. Cogently explains, among other things, how we can't trust our own assessments about, well, nearly everything. The chapter on language is especially fascinating, the chapters that cover rationalizations and happiness are more squirm-inducing than otherwise. Very accessible and full of enough lame jokes and fun asides to keep it from being too scientific. Highly recommended.
March 22, 2010
In Kludge, Gary Marcus highlights a number of design problems with the mind and explains the corresponding evolutionary reasons why these problems have arisen. It's a very easy read but also very deep in knowledge. I found items in my own life explained that have always bothered me deeply (why is goal setting so difficult - it always seems like future discounting takes away the desire to to good goal setting). He also recommends some ideas on how to get past these mind design failures.
July 27, 2009
Found the content very interesting, not only as it applies to me but also, as a teacher, as it applies to my students (and why some of them just can't memorize their math facts or other useful information :-) I'm reminded of the importance that learning be contextual and am further inspired to keep plugging away at best teaching practices!
April 5, 2010
Listened to the audio after reading the book a year or so ago.
It's the kind of thing I adore, a cogent explication of why everything I know about my own mind is tragically wrong. Marcus is funny, the premise is one I embrace, and there are even helpful tips to keep a person from falling victim to many of the brain's little tricks. Highly recommended for the scientifically minded.
It's the kind of thing I adore, a cogent explication of why everything I know about my own mind is tragically wrong. Marcus is funny, the premise is one I embrace, and there are even helpful tips to keep a person from falling victim to many of the brain's little tricks. Highly recommended for the scientifically minded.
February 9, 2015
Short and surprisingly straight-forward book. It reads kind of like a very pleasant introduction to experimental psychology. Much of the terminology and studies were familiar to me but put together in a fairly concise manner. It was somewhat uneven from topic to topic but otherwise well worth reading 4 of 5.
September 19, 2016
Really a good book (clever too). Had this been my introduction to the ideas it probably would be a five star book. Instead this filled in a few gaps and deepened some other areas of my understanding.
Most Valuable to me was the idea of counter factual thinking and applying that to the brain.
Overall a good book.
Most Valuable to me was the idea of counter factual thinking and applying that to the brain.
Overall a good book.
September 23, 2019
Kludge spends most of its pages trying to persuade me that my brain is both the most complex thing in the known universe and yet, inescapably faulty and prone to error. It succeeds. I think. My faulty brain may be jumping to conclusions here. Gary Marcus makes a compelling case for his argument, that our brain evolved as an inelegant cobbled together system of patches over an existing infrastructure, that still works.
On a side note, this serves as a powerful argument against both creationism and overly eager evolutionary biology which is hyper fixated to speculate evolutionary benefits for every feature. And some things in our brains are bugs, not features.
Some interesting takeaways:
* Overinterpretation - On average human makes over-intepret actions by women as being sexual, whereas women under-interpret.
* Contextually driven memory - Memory is contextual . Hear "doctor," easier to remember "nurse." Rats trained with a lamp, do better at the maze with lamp. Or when you're angry at someone your anger is the context which causes you to only remember previous errors on their part. Feel sad you're doing chores? Your sadness will cause you to only remember moments where you were doing chores and forget seeing your spouse doing them.
* Priming - Memory is affected by priming, or the way we ask questions. For example, asking eyewitnesses to estimate the speed of a car that "smashed" vs "bumped" yields different estimates.
* Halo effect - we generalize comprehensive positive/negative traits based one feature, usually attractiveness. Attractive people get rated better overall - at everything. In surveys, cute kids receive less blame for throwing a rock at their friend.
* Focusing illusion - asking questions in a specific order changes response. Simply asking students to rate their happiness gives average answers. But asking about their success in dating first, will cause some of them to realize they don't have a date, and will negatively affects the subsequent response on happiness. By "focusing" them on some topic, you can shift their thinking about other, seemingly unrelated topics.
* Anchoring and adjustment - seeing a random number on a roulette guides totally unrelated guesses involving numbers. You may put up an unrelated wall graphic with the number 20 on it, and then ask someone to come up with the proper minimum wage, and it will be closer to 20, than if you had not put up the poster. Your brain somehow anchors that number you see and uses it to think. This is why you should always start high in job interview salary negotiation, you "anchor" the discussion.
* Observer effect - people act more moral when being observed, and this is unconscious. Office studies with a coffee tip jar, show that people tip more when observed. But here's the caveat, they do it even when its just a photo poster with a set of eyes drawn on it vs a photo of a flower.
On a side note, this serves as a powerful argument against both creationism and overly eager evolutionary biology which is hyper fixated to speculate evolutionary benefits for every feature. And some things in our brains are bugs, not features.
Some interesting takeaways:
* Overinterpretation - On average human makes over-intepret actions by women as being sexual, whereas women under-interpret.
* Contextually driven memory - Memory is contextual . Hear "doctor," easier to remember "nurse." Rats trained with a lamp, do better at the maze with lamp. Or when you're angry at someone your anger is the context which causes you to only remember previous errors on their part. Feel sad you're doing chores? Your sadness will cause you to only remember moments where you were doing chores and forget seeing your spouse doing them.
* Priming - Memory is affected by priming, or the way we ask questions. For example, asking eyewitnesses to estimate the speed of a car that "smashed" vs "bumped" yields different estimates.
* Halo effect - we generalize comprehensive positive/negative traits based one feature, usually attractiveness. Attractive people get rated better overall - at everything. In surveys, cute kids receive less blame for throwing a rock at their friend.
* Focusing illusion - asking questions in a specific order changes response. Simply asking students to rate their happiness gives average answers. But asking about their success in dating first, will cause some of them to realize they don't have a date, and will negatively affects the subsequent response on happiness. By "focusing" them on some topic, you can shift their thinking about other, seemingly unrelated topics.
* Anchoring and adjustment - seeing a random number on a roulette guides totally unrelated guesses involving numbers. You may put up an unrelated wall graphic with the number 20 on it, and then ask someone to come up with the proper minimum wage, and it will be closer to 20, than if you had not put up the poster. Your brain somehow anchors that number you see and uses it to think. This is why you should always start high in job interview salary negotiation, you "anchor" the discussion.
* Observer effect - people act more moral when being observed, and this is unconscious. Office studies with a coffee tip jar, show that people tip more when observed. But here's the caveat, they do it even when its just a photo poster with a set of eyes drawn on it vs a photo of a flower.
April 12, 2012
Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind by Gary Marcus (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. 211 pp.) Originally Posted at http://www.wherepenmeetspaper.com
Gary Marcus is a professor of psychology and the director of the Center for Language and Music at New York University, where he studies language and cognitive development. He is also the author of the book Guitar Zero: The New Musician and the Science of Learning.
The Not-So-Elegant Mind
I read Marcus’ most recent book, Guitar Zero not long ago, and decided I liked what he had to say about cognitive development, especially in regard to how one learns music. In Kluge, Marcus gives an overview of the human mind, arguing it isn’t as sophisticated as we often claim.
“Where Shakespeare imagined infinite reason, I see something else, what engineers call a ‘kluge.’ A kluge is a clumsy or inelegant—yet surprisingly effective—solution to a problem” (2).
Marcus offers the story of Apollo 13 mission control engineer, Ed Smylie, as an example of a well-known kluge. By “MacGuyvering” the scenario, the engineers developed a far from graceful solution in which the astronauts fixed the faulty C02 on board with some items, chief among which were duct tape and a sock.
Marcus continues his thesis by outlining where kluginess and elegance coexist in many places. I’ll sketch out the memory, belief, and choice kluges, my favorite—and most personally enlightening—moments in the novel.
Memory Kluge
I admit; I’m forgetful. I misplace my keys; I leave my phone in innumerable places, and if it’s raining, a miracle has occurred when I wear a raincoat. My memory is a constant source of disappointment. With contextual memory, neurons don’t always align properly.
“Context exerts its powerful effect—sometimes helping us, sometimes not—in part by ‘priming’ the pump of our memory; when I hear the word doctor, it becomes easier to recognize the word nurse” (24).
Marcus also notes what actually happens rarely matches with when it occurs as a common memory kluge. Generally, the more recent the event, the more vivid the memory. Once events are no more than a few weeks or months removed, the past blurs together. Perhaps more interesting, Marcus states that we rarely forget the things we want to forget and rarely remember the things we want to remember.
“What we remember and what we forget are a function of context, frequency, and recency, not a means of attaining inner peace. It’s possible to imagine a robot that could automatically expunge all unpleasant memories, but we humans are just not built that way” (38).
A Kluge of Beliefs
The elegance and kluginess of the human mind continues through the way we believe things. Marcus argues,
“No matter what we humans think about, we tend to pay more attention to stuff that fits in with our beliefs than stuff that might challenge them. Psychologists call this ‘confirmation bias.’ When we have embraced a theory, large or small, we tend to be better at noticing evidence that supports it than evidence that might run counter to it” (53).
Using a pastiche of horoscopes, Marcus illustrates his point.
“You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside” (40).
In reading this statement, you might think, “Gee, the description sounds a lot like me!” But, in reality, Marcus compiled several horoscopes put together by a famed psychologist. The point being, we believe bland generalities to be directly aimed at us even when they aren’t specifically written for us.
Marcus also points to the logical syllogism, a highly evolved way of deductive reasoning. Even when we have little at stake, and when it doesn’t directly affect our ego, our knowledge contaminates our ego. Marcus provides two examples:
“All men are mortal All glorks are frum
Socrates was a man. Skeezer is a glork.
Therefore, Socrates was mortal. Therefore, Skeezer is frum “ (60-61).
Both syllogisms follow the same structure, but if you insert new words into the major and minor premises, the argument makes little sense. We train our brains to do the syllogism on the right well, but it doesn’t make sense without our preconceived definitions of words we already know.
Marcus offers one more syllogism to further his point,
“All living things need water.
Roses need water.
Therefore, roses are living things” (61).
We are more apt to believe the argument because it works. Yes, roses need water! But, nonliving things need water too (Marcus offers the example of a car battery). The argument that all X’s need Y, Z’s need Y, therefore Z’s are X’s is logically unsound. According to Marcus, in favor of easier, prior beliefs, we often suspend a careful analysis of what really is.
Choice Kluge
Lastly, the choice kluge is best illustrated in a a video that Marcus references in the chapter. A psychologist offers a child one marshmallow, offering a second marshmallow if the child maintains self-control until the psychologist returns. The psychologist then leaves the room, and comes back around 15-20 minutes later. During this time, most children eat the marshmallow. (Many youtube videos are available showing this very phenomenon)
“Giving up after 15 minutes is a choice that could only really make sense under two circumstances: (1) the kids were so hungry that having the marshmallow now could stave off true starvation or (2) their prospects for a long and healthy life were so remote that the 20-minute future versions of themselves, which would get the two marshmallows, simply weren’t worth planning for. Barring these rather remote possibilities, the children who gave in were behaving in an entirely irrational fashion” (70).
We all too often surrender our judgment to the subconscious, or blindly trust our instincts without actually thinking. For this reason, the choices we make are often wrong.
Humanity: One Giant Kluge
Marcus argues humans are really one giant Kluge. He states in the first page of the book that because we are so poorly-yet-elegantly made, we aren’t noble in mind as Shakespeare, the noble bard, would suggest. Kluge is a great read, offering some keen insight into the way the human mind works.
Originally Posted at http://www.wherepenmeetspaper.com
Gary Marcus is a professor of psychology and the director of the Center for Language and Music at New York University, where he studies language and cognitive development. He is also the author of the book Guitar Zero: The New Musician and the Science of Learning.
The Not-So-Elegant Mind
I read Marcus’ most recent book, Guitar Zero not long ago, and decided I liked what he had to say about cognitive development, especially in regard to how one learns music. In Kluge, Marcus gives an overview of the human mind, arguing it isn’t as sophisticated as we often claim.
“Where Shakespeare imagined infinite reason, I see something else, what engineers call a ‘kluge.’ A kluge is a clumsy or inelegant—yet surprisingly effective—solution to a problem” (2).
Marcus offers the story of Apollo 13 mission control engineer, Ed Smylie, as an example of a well-known kluge. By “MacGuyvering” the scenario, the engineers developed a far from graceful solution in which the astronauts fixed the faulty C02 on board with some items, chief among which were duct tape and a sock.
Marcus continues his thesis by outlining where kluginess and elegance coexist in many places. I’ll sketch out the memory, belief, and choice kluges, my favorite—and most personally enlightening—moments in the novel.
Memory Kluge
I admit; I’m forgetful. I misplace my keys; I leave my phone in innumerable places, and if it’s raining, a miracle has occurred when I wear a raincoat. My memory is a constant source of disappointment. With contextual memory, neurons don’t always align properly.
“Context exerts its powerful effect—sometimes helping us, sometimes not—in part by ‘priming’ the pump of our memory; when I hear the word doctor, it becomes easier to recognize the word nurse” (24).
Marcus also notes what actually happens rarely matches with when it occurs as a common memory kluge. Generally, the more recent the event, the more vivid the memory. Once events are no more than a few weeks or months removed, the past blurs together. Perhaps more interesting, Marcus states that we rarely forget the things we want to forget and rarely remember the things we want to remember.
“What we remember and what we forget are a function of context, frequency, and recency, not a means of attaining inner peace. It’s possible to imagine a robot that could automatically expunge all unpleasant memories, but we humans are just not built that way” (38).
A Kluge of Beliefs
The elegance and kluginess of the human mind continues through the way we believe things. Marcus argues,
“No matter what we humans think about, we tend to pay more attention to stuff that fits in with our beliefs than stuff that might challenge them. Psychologists call this ‘confirmation bias.’ When we have embraced a theory, large or small, we tend to be better at noticing evidence that supports it than evidence that might run counter to it” (53).
Using a pastiche of horoscopes, Marcus illustrates his point.
“You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside” (40).
In reading this statement, you might think, “Gee, the description sounds a lot like me!” But, in reality, Marcus compiled several horoscopes put together by a famed psychologist. The point being, we believe bland generalities to be directly aimed at us even when they aren’t specifically written for us.
Marcus also points to the logical syllogism, a highly evolved way of deductive reasoning. Even when we have little at stake, and when it doesn’t directly affect our ego, our knowledge contaminates our ego. Marcus provides two examples:
“All men are mortal All glorks are frum
Socrates was a man. Skeezer is a glork.
Therefore, Socrates was mortal. Therefore, Skeezer is frum “ (60-61).
Both syllogisms follow the same structure, but if you insert new words into the major and minor premises, the argument makes little sense. We train our brains to do the syllogism on the right well, but it doesn’t make sense without our preconceived definitions of words we already know.
Marcus offers one more syllogism to further his point,
“All living things need water.
Roses need water.
Therefore, roses are living things” (61).
We are more apt to believe the argument because it works. Yes, roses need water! But, nonliving things need water too (Marcus offers the example of a car battery). The argument that all X’s need Y, Z’s need Y, therefore Z’s are X’s is logically unsound. According to Marcus, in favor of easier, prior beliefs, we often suspend a careful analysis of what really is.
Choice Kluge
Lastly, the choice kluge is best illustrated in a a video that Marcus references in the chapter. A psychologist offers a child one marshmallow, offering a second marshmallow if the child maintains self-control until the psychologist returns. The psychologist then leaves the room, and comes back around 15-20 minutes later. During this time, most children eat the marshmallow. (Many youtube videos are available showing this very phenomenon)
“Giving up after 15 minutes is a choice that could only really make sense under two circumstances: (1) the kids were so hungry that having the marshmallow now could stave off true starvation or (2) their prospects for a long and healthy life were so remote that the 20-minute future versions of themselves, which would get the two marshmallows, simply weren’t worth planning for. Barring these rather remote possibilities, the children who gave in were behaving in an entirely irrational fashion” (70).
We all too often surrender our judgment to the subconscious, or blindly trust our instincts without actually thinking. For this reason, the choices we make are often wrong.
Humanity: One Giant Kluge
Marcus argues humans are really one giant Kluge. He states in the first page of the book that because we are so poorly-yet-elegantly made, we aren’t noble in mind as Shakespeare, the noble bard, would suggest. Kluge is a great read, offering some keen insight into the way the human mind works.
Originally Posted at http://www.wherepenmeetspaper.com
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 12, 2024
The book is well-written, but it suffers a great deal from its age (from 2008). For that reason, I cannot recommend it because it uses a lot of priming research (that subsequently was found to be quite fault with the replication crisis in psychology) as examples which undermines the credibility of the argument and makes it more difficult to accurately assess the author's thesis today. I don't blame Marcus for not knowing the future, but it makes the book an artifact of its time.
The general argument that our minds have flaws is well-taken and some of the data behind this is interesting, though I did feel like sometimes there was a bit of exaggeration in just how bad our minds are [the priming studies don't help since they make us look extremely mercuric, swayed by nonsense]. But it is certainly a good point that our memories and reasoning processes have pretty apparent faults.
I cannot really recommend this for a book on our minds, but I don't have a better book "in mind," either. It suffers from age because the evidence base it was built on turned out to have lots of non-replicable holes. Because of that, I would recommend looking for a more recent book that takes into account the replicability crisis.
The general argument that our minds have flaws is well-taken and some of the data behind this is interesting, though I did feel like sometimes there was a bit of exaggeration in just how bad our minds are [the priming studies don't help since they make us look extremely mercuric, swayed by nonsense]. But it is certainly a good point that our memories and reasoning processes have pretty apparent faults.
I cannot really recommend this for a book on our minds, but I don't have a better book "in mind," either. It suffers from age because the evidence base it was built on turned out to have lots of non-replicable holes. Because of that, I would recommend looking for a more recent book that takes into account the replicability crisis.
May 18, 2020
This book offers insight into the haphazard way our brains work and the surprising inputs that challenge our objectivity and logic.
The information reinforces much of what I've already learned about topics like confirmation bias, priming, framing,
interesting quotes (page numbers from hardcover edition with ISBN13 9780618879649):
"Nature is prone to make kluge because it doesn't care whether its products are perfect or elegant. If something works, it spreads. If it doesn't work, it dies out. Genes that lead to successful outcomes tend to propagate; genes that produces creatures that can't cut it tend to fade away; all else is metaphor. Adequacy, not beauty, is the name of the game." (p. 6)
"...an old saying puts it: chance proposes, nature disposes." (p. 9)
"" (p. )
"" (p. )
"" (p. )
"" (p. )
The more we are threatened, the more we tend to cling to the familiar.
Another study has shown that all people tend to become more negative toward minority groups in times of crisis
...the more we think about how happy we are, the less happy we become.
Evolution didn't evolve us to be happy, it evolved us to pursue happiness.
The information reinforces much of what I've already learned about topics like confirmation bias, priming, framing,
interesting quotes (page numbers from hardcover edition with ISBN13 9780618879649):
"Nature is prone to make kluge because it doesn't care whether its products are perfect or elegant. If something works, it spreads. If it doesn't work, it dies out. Genes that lead to successful outcomes tend to propagate; genes that produces creatures that can't cut it tend to fade away; all else is metaphor. Adequacy, not beauty, is the name of the game." (p. 6)
"...an old saying puts it: chance proposes, nature disposes." (p. 9)
"" (p. )
"" (p. )
"" (p. )
"" (p. )
The more we are threatened, the more we tend to cling to the familiar.
Another study has shown that all people tend to become more negative toward minority groups in times of crisis
...the more we think about how happy we are, the less happy we become.
Evolution didn't evolve us to be happy, it evolved us to pursue happiness.
January 25, 2024
Comforting theory of Brain Evolution on many levels.
I enjoyed Marcus’ arguments for a Brain evolved in fits and starts and incremental steps, correcting for errors, and building on previous solutions. This theory is so much more reasonable than that of the Supercomputer Brain created out of whole cloth by some Omniscient Creator.
He touches on the questionable Reliability of Memory, the Decision-Making Process, and the Search for Happiness and Pleasure. He points out the points of failure and success that demonstrate what we all understand as the Humanity and fallibility of the Brain. Recognizing these issues he even offers suggestions that might help us use this wonderful organ more effectively.
Four Stars. ****
I enjoyed Marcus’ arguments for a Brain evolved in fits and starts and incremental steps, correcting for errors, and building on previous solutions. This theory is so much more reasonable than that of the Supercomputer Brain created out of whole cloth by some Omniscient Creator.
He touches on the questionable Reliability of Memory, the Decision-Making Process, and the Search for Happiness and Pleasure. He points out the points of failure and success that demonstrate what we all understand as the Humanity and fallibility of the Brain. Recognizing these issues he even offers suggestions that might help us use this wonderful organ more effectively.
Four Stars. ****
Displaying 1 - 30 of 211 reviews