What do you think?
Rate this book
Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life
In this nationally bestselling, compulsively readable account of what makes brain science a vital component of people's quest to know themselves, acclaimed science writer Steven Johnson subjects his own brain to a battery of tests to find out what's really going on inside. He asks:
274 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
159 people are currently reading
8859 people want to read
About the author
Steven Johnson
124 books1,963 followersSteven Johnson is the bestselling author of twelve books, including Enemy of All Mankind, Farsighted, Wonderland, How We Got to Now, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Invention of Air, The Ghost Map, and Everything Bad Is Good for You.
He's the host of the podcast American Innovations, and the host and co-creator of the PBS and BBC series How We Got to Now. Johnson lives in Marin County, California, and Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and three sons.
He's the host of the podcast American Innovations, and the host and co-creator of the PBS and BBC series How We Got to Now. Johnson lives in Marin County, California, and Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and three sons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews
October 8, 2008
If I was to sign up for a religion it would really have to offer me much more than the chance to chant “Holy, Holy, Holy” at the right hand of God for the rest of eternity. One of the things that would nearly sway me would be if it gave me a change to do and be all of the things there just isn’t time in one life to be and do. And if I was converted to this particular religion one of the lives that would be on the top of the list would have to be some sort of brain scientist type person – you know, a neurologist or a cognitive scientist, some sort of brain dude.
This really was a remarkable book about a remarkable journey into the brain of the author. Not just some crappy journey you might expect from one of those horrid 1950s science documentaries … “Let me take you deep inside my brain…” No, nothing like that. This was a literal journey into his brain. Often it involved him being strapped into some god-awful, whirling machine and having to do things so that analysis could be done on him as he was ‘working’.
It is such a great idea for a book and one I would have loved to have come up with – this is precisely the journey I would have liked to have gone on. I could think of nothing better than playing with some of the stuff this guy gets to play with in this book.
There is lots of quite difficult material presented, but always in an interesting and engaging way. In fact, it was so well presented and so fascinating that the book just whizzed by. His discussion of our brain on drugs, for example, was quite fascinating.
But the most interesting parts of this book are the bits about the placebo effect and whether it ‘really exists’. I have always known that the placebo effect accounts for about 30% of the effectiveness of any medical treatment – but had no idea how I knew this. That this isn’t actually the case – that it really depends on the nature of the drug or treatment under consideration – is interesting enough. What is even more interesting is that the placebo effect can even be detectable when you know it is a placebo you are taking. Get your head around that one. You can know you are taking a sugar table and it can still make you feel better! He even goes so far as to say that clinical tests on Valium show that the drug is only effective if you are told you are going to be on it - not if you don't know. Lorena told me off today for suggesting this – but that was what the man said.
This was an interesting book on a truly fascinating subject.
This really was a remarkable book about a remarkable journey into the brain of the author. Not just some crappy journey you might expect from one of those horrid 1950s science documentaries … “Let me take you deep inside my brain…” No, nothing like that. This was a literal journey into his brain. Often it involved him being strapped into some god-awful, whirling machine and having to do things so that analysis could be done on him as he was ‘working’.
It is such a great idea for a book and one I would have loved to have come up with – this is precisely the journey I would have liked to have gone on. I could think of nothing better than playing with some of the stuff this guy gets to play with in this book.
There is lots of quite difficult material presented, but always in an interesting and engaging way. In fact, it was so well presented and so fascinating that the book just whizzed by. His discussion of our brain on drugs, for example, was quite fascinating.
But the most interesting parts of this book are the bits about the placebo effect and whether it ‘really exists’. I have always known that the placebo effect accounts for about 30% of the effectiveness of any medical treatment – but had no idea how I knew this. That this isn’t actually the case – that it really depends on the nature of the drug or treatment under consideration – is interesting enough. What is even more interesting is that the placebo effect can even be detectable when you know it is a placebo you are taking. Get your head around that one. You can know you are taking a sugar table and it can still make you feel better! He even goes so far as to say that clinical tests on Valium show that the drug is only effective if you are told you are going to be on it - not if you don't know. Lorena told me off today for suggesting this – but that was what the man said.
This was an interesting book on a truly fascinating subject.
September 28, 2015
عندما تسمع خبراً سيئا لك ...ماذا يحدث في دماغك ؟
فالواقع تنفجر في رأسك أستجابتان في مراكز اللغه والذاكرة تعمل على حل شفرة المعنى وتضعة في مقدمة مركز وعيك، وبنفس الوقت هناك جهاز مساعد في تحت القشرة يستجيب للخبر السي فيفرز هرمون الكورتزول ومواد كميائيه اخرى في عموم مخك وجسدك الكرتزول لايزال يسبح في مجرى دمك بعد مرور ٣٠ ثانية من تلاشي الخبر من ذاكرتك العامة لكن يبقي الشعور فيك حياً.
(( هذا هو مخك)) وهذا الكتاب يقدم لمحة مبسطه عن التفاعلات الكميائية داخل مخك .
في القرون الاخيرة قدم لنا العلم لمحات رائعة عن جغرافيا المخ لقد أصبح علم المخ وسيلة للاستباط وتفسيرا مابين الواقع الفسيولجي لمخك والحياة الذهنية التي تعيشها بالفعل.
التهديد بالخطر :
عندما تتعرض لعمل أرهابي او أنفجار بالمقربة منك او حتى عاصفة ،،،، كيف تتفاعل الكيمياء داخل جسمك مع هذا الحدث؟
لديك غدة فوق الكلية تفرز دفعات سريعة من الادرينالين لتجهز الجسم لحركة مفاجئة بتحويل الجليكوجين الى جلوكوز الملىء بالطاقة ،،، هذة أستجابة الجسم مزيج من الالآت الفسيلوحية تنطلق بسرعة ودقة بارعة تسمى( أضرب أو أهرب) وهو نظام مستقل عن أرادتك الواعية ،، هذة جميعاً كيمياء المخ الداخلية تنتجها ، تنطلق في ظرف ثواني إما أثارها تتلاشى بدقائق لكن الذكرى الباقية للخوف تستمر طول العمر.
لنفترض أن معك في هذا الحادث الارهابي او العاصفة زوجتك وأنها في مرحلة الرضاعة هل تكون أستحابتها مثل أستجابتك للخطر؟
الدراسات أثبتت أن أستجابة المراه في مابعد الولاده او مرحلة الرضاعة يختلف تماماً عن الرجال والنساء الاخرين
بسبب مادة كميائيه ساحرة أسمها أوكسيتوسين . كيف؟!
عندما تواجهه او تسمع خبر سي مثل رفضوا ترقيتك او خبر عن أنحراف مسار قطار فيه أصدقا او اقارب لك ينتابك شعور كئيب حزين قلق ولحظات عصيبة، لكن عندما تخبر المراه الواقعه تحت تاثير الاوكسيتونين نفس الخبر والموقف الذي تتعرض له فاأنها لاتخبر نفس الاستجابة التي تعيشهاوالاخبار السئية تتركها بسهوله ويسر .
الحب :
أيضاً الحب هو شعور كيميائي شعور له أثر عل أجهزة الذاكره فهو مزيج من الاوكسيتوسين والاندروفينات وهو مزيج محوري بالحب، لكن هذا فقط طيف الحب يستدعي الشعور بالدفء والرضا وليس قصة الحب كامله :)
تاثير المخدارات:
مع كل تغير في المزاج مع كل رعشة مع كل لمحة حرمان أنت تخبر إفرازات كميائية للتحكم في عواطفك ، كميائية هي في أساسها ذاتها الكميايئه التي قد تجدها بملعقة كوكاين.
بعد هذا كله السؤال هنا هل معرفتنا بكيمياء مخك مهمه هل تغير شي ما في حياتك ؟
لنفترض انك تعاطيت جرعة من المشروم ( مادة مخدرة ) عن علم باأعراضها ، بعد أكثر من ساعة تشعر بالتشويش الحسي ، الالوان واصوات تظهر معاً في نوبات مفاجئه، أنماط من الرقص ستملاء مجالك البصري.
تصور أنك تعاطيت نفس الجرعة غير مدرك للاعراض وتحول عالمك فجاة الئ هلاوس.
مالفرق؟ في الحالة الاولى مبهجة ومضيئة في للحالة الثانية يعتبر ضرب من الجنون.
ماذا حدث؟ المخدر لم يتغير لكن أدراكك للمخدر وأثارة تغير.
أنت الان عندما تقرأ هذه المراجعة هذه الكلمات تحت تاثير الكيميائيات التي تكاد لا تختلف بلغة الجزئيات عن المخدارات التي يمكن أن يقبض عليك لو أستعملتها بمكان عام وبمشهد من الجميع :)
بمعنى هذه هي فكرة المخدرات الداخلية التي يقول عنها كاتب هذا الكتاب ان مخك ليس سوى مخدرات ، لكن هناك فرق بينما هو داخلي منها وخارجي، بينما هو طبيعي او صناعي.
لكن الحقيقة ان المخدرات الاصطناعية تعمل لان مخك يخطي ويظنها طبيعية.
وقائع حدثت بالماضي:
وقع لك حادث مؤلم ستنفجر ذكرئ هذا الحادث في مخك كل الاستجابة اللاارادية لديك تقودك الى هذه الذكرى
وهذة حدثت شخصيا لي في العام الماضي في شهر سبتمبر في اليوم التالي من العيد الوطني السعودي كنت انا واختي في السيارة مع السائق خارجه من الجامعة طلبت مني اختي أن نتوقف لشراء غداء رفضت قلت لاحقاً ليس الان ، وقتها كنت اقرا رواية دستو مذكرات من البيت الميت فجاة صدمتنا سيارة اولى وبعدها سيارة اخرى واصبح سيارتنا شبه مقلوبة صوت الاصتطدام كان مرروع جداً حدث هذا في اقل من ثوااااني ، بعدها صحيت بالمستشفئ وبدات اتذكر
الى الان لا امر بنفس هذا الشارع واذا اضطريت اشعر بخوف لا اعرف مصدره
كذلك رواية دستو مذكرات من البيت الميت ارتبطت معي بالحادث
واسئله منها ماذا لو وقفت للمطعم هل ممكن ان يحدث هذا؟
هذه الحالة تسمى(أضطراب مابعد الصدمة ) PTSD
يعيشها من خاضوا تجارب حروب من تعرضوا للاضطهاد والاغتصاب وللتعذيب لحظات الاصتطدام تخزن هذه الذكريات طويله الامد في الحصين.
الحزن: كيف يحدث الحزن ، كيميائيا انخفاض في نشاط مقدمة الجبهة.
ان القراءه عن المخ ومشاهدة افلام وثائقية عن الكون بالنسبة لي تعتبر متعة لايضاهيها شي للاسف قليل المحتوى العربي عن هذين الموضعين اللي اعتبرهم العالم الفيزيائي ميتشو كاكو أعظم لغزين بالطبيعة.
جميل هذا الكتاب خاصة لغير المختصصين راح تتعرف على نفسك هنا
عندما تتعرض للتهديد والخطر تعرف ان مستوى الادرينالين عندك الان مرتفع في الدم
عندما تقع في الحب مع احدهم تعرف ان السبب مزيج من الاوكسيتوسين والانردوفينات
عندما ترجع لك لا ارديا تفاصيل حادث او موقف عصيب عانيتة تعرف انك تحت حال أضطراب مابعد الصدمة
عندما تشعر بالخوف تعرف ان لديك ارتفاع في مستوى تنبية الاميجدالية.
عندنا ترى بعض من الناس يعجز عن اتخاذ القرارات المنطقية السليمة تفكر في انهم ممكن بعانون عطب في مراكز العاطفة في الجهاز الحافي.
مشكله الكتاب بدائي الترجمة الحرفية وصعب عل غير الدارسيين بهذا المجال ، كذلك المصظلحات الطبيية العربية ابدا غير مفهومة تحتاح ترجع لاخر الكتاب للبحث عن المعنئ.
لكن السؤال اللي اجى ببالي بعد قراءه هذا الكتاب من نحن حقاً في صومعة كل هالتفاعلات الكميائية ؟
فالواقع تنفجر في رأسك أستجابتان في مراكز اللغه والذاكرة تعمل على حل شفرة المعنى وتضعة في مقدمة مركز وعيك، وبنفس الوقت هناك جهاز مساعد في تحت القشرة يستجيب للخبر السي فيفرز هرمون الكورتزول ومواد كميائيه اخرى في عموم مخك وجسدك الكرتزول لايزال يسبح في مجرى دمك بعد مرور ٣٠ ثانية من تلاشي الخبر من ذاكرتك العامة لكن يبقي الشعور فيك حياً.
(( هذا هو مخك)) وهذا الكتاب يقدم لمحة مبسطه عن التفاعلات الكميائية داخل مخك .
في القرون الاخيرة قدم لنا العلم لمحات رائعة عن جغرافيا المخ لقد أصبح علم المخ وسيلة للاستباط وتفسيرا مابين الواقع الفسيولجي لمخك والحياة الذهنية التي تعيشها بالفعل.
التهديد بالخطر :
عندما تتعرض لعمل أرهابي او أنفجار بالمقربة منك او حتى عاصفة ،،،، كيف تتفاعل الكيمياء داخل جسمك مع هذا الحدث؟
لديك غدة فوق الكلية تفرز دفعات سريعة من الادرينالين لتجهز الجسم لحركة مفاجئة بتحويل الجليكوجين الى جلوكوز الملىء بالطاقة ،،، هذة أستجابة الجسم مزيج من الالآت الفسيلوحية تنطلق بسرعة ودقة بارعة تسمى( أضرب أو أهرب) وهو نظام مستقل عن أرادتك الواعية ،، هذة جميعاً كيمياء المخ الداخلية تنتجها ، تنطلق في ظرف ثواني إما أثارها تتلاشى بدقائق لكن الذكرى الباقية للخوف تستمر طول العمر.
لنفترض أن معك في هذا الحادث الارهابي او العاصفة زوجتك وأنها في مرحلة الرضاعة هل تكون أستحابتها مثل أستجابتك للخطر؟
الدراسات أثبتت أن أستجابة المراه في مابعد الولاده او مرحلة الرضاعة يختلف تماماً عن الرجال والنساء الاخرين
بسبب مادة كميائيه ساحرة أسمها أوكسيتوسين . كيف؟!
عندما تواجهه او تسمع خبر سي مثل رفضوا ترقيتك او خبر عن أنحراف مسار قطار فيه أصدقا او اقارب لك ينتابك شعور كئيب حزين قلق ولحظات عصيبة، لكن عندما تخبر المراه الواقعه تحت تاثير الاوكسيتونين نفس الخبر والموقف الذي تتعرض له فاأنها لاتخبر نفس الاستجابة التي تعيشهاوالاخبار السئية تتركها بسهوله ويسر .
الحب :
أيضاً الحب هو شعور كيميائي شعور له أثر عل أجهزة الذاكره فهو مزيج من الاوكسيتوسين والاندروفينات وهو مزيج محوري بالحب، لكن هذا فقط طيف الحب يستدعي الشعور بالدفء والرضا وليس قصة الحب كامله :)
تاثير المخدارات:
مع كل تغير في المزاج مع كل رعشة مع كل لمحة حرمان أنت تخبر إفرازات كميائية للتحكم في عواطفك ، كميائية هي في أساسها ذاتها الكميايئه التي قد تجدها بملعقة كوكاين.
بعد هذا كله السؤال هنا هل معرفتنا بكيمياء مخك مهمه هل تغير شي ما في حياتك ؟
لنفترض انك تعاطيت جرعة من المشروم ( مادة مخدرة ) عن علم باأعراضها ، بعد أكثر من ساعة تشعر بالتشويش الحسي ، الالوان واصوات تظهر معاً في نوبات مفاجئه، أنماط من الرقص ستملاء مجالك البصري.
تصور أنك تعاطيت نفس الجرعة غير مدرك للاعراض وتحول عالمك فجاة الئ هلاوس.
مالفرق؟ في الحالة الاولى مبهجة ومضيئة في للحالة الثانية يعتبر ضرب من الجنون.
ماذا حدث؟ المخدر لم يتغير لكن أدراكك للمخدر وأثارة تغير.
أنت الان عندما تقرأ هذه المراجعة هذه الكلمات تحت تاثير الكيميائيات التي تكاد لا تختلف بلغة الجزئيات عن المخدارات التي يمكن أن يقبض عليك لو أستعملتها بمكان عام وبمشهد من الجميع :)
بمعنى هذه هي فكرة المخدرات الداخلية التي يقول عنها كاتب هذا الكتاب ان مخك ليس سوى مخدرات ، لكن هناك فرق بينما هو داخلي منها وخارجي، بينما هو طبيعي او صناعي.
لكن الحقيقة ان المخدرات الاصطناعية تعمل لان مخك يخطي ويظنها طبيعية.
وقائع حدثت بالماضي:
وقع لك حادث مؤلم ستنفجر ذكرئ هذا الحادث في مخك كل الاستجابة اللاارادية لديك تقودك الى هذه الذكرى
وهذة حدثت شخصيا لي في العام الماضي في شهر سبتمبر في اليوم التالي من العيد الوطني السعودي كنت انا واختي في السيارة مع السائق خارجه من الجامعة طلبت مني اختي أن نتوقف لشراء غداء رفضت قلت لاحقاً ليس الان ، وقتها كنت اقرا رواية دستو مذكرات من البيت الميت فجاة صدمتنا سيارة اولى وبعدها سيارة اخرى واصبح سيارتنا شبه مقلوبة صوت الاصتطدام كان مرروع جداً حدث هذا في اقل من ثوااااني ، بعدها صحيت بالمستشفئ وبدات اتذكر
الى الان لا امر بنفس هذا الشارع واذا اضطريت اشعر بخوف لا اعرف مصدره
كذلك رواية دستو مذكرات من البيت الميت ارتبطت معي بالحادث
واسئله منها ماذا لو وقفت للمطعم هل ممكن ان يحدث هذا؟
هذه الحالة تسمى(أضطراب مابعد الصدمة ) PTSD
يعيشها من خاضوا تجارب حروب من تعرضوا للاضطهاد والاغتصاب وللتعذيب لحظات الاصتطدام تخزن هذه الذكريات طويله الامد في الحصين.
الحزن: كيف يحدث الحزن ، كيميائيا انخفاض في نشاط مقدمة الجبهة.
ان القراءه عن المخ ومشاهدة افلام وثائقية عن الكون بالنسبة لي تعتبر متعة لايضاهيها شي للاسف قليل المحتوى العربي عن هذين الموضعين اللي اعتبرهم العالم الفيزيائي ميتشو كاكو أعظم لغزين بالطبيعة.
جميل هذا الكتاب خاصة لغير المختصصين راح تتعرف على نفسك هنا
عندما تتعرض للتهديد والخطر تعرف ان مستوى الادرينالين عندك الان مرتفع في الدم
عندما تقع في الحب مع احدهم تعرف ان السبب مزيج من الاوكسيتوسين والانردوفينات
عندما ترجع لك لا ارديا تفاصيل حادث او موقف عصيب عانيتة تعرف انك تحت حال أضطراب مابعد الصدمة
عندما تشعر بالخوف تعرف ان لديك ارتفاع في مستوى تنبية الاميجدالية.
عندنا ترى بعض من الناس يعجز عن اتخاذ القرارات المنطقية السليمة تفكر في انهم ممكن بعانون عطب في مراكز العاطفة في الجهاز الحافي.
مشكله الكتاب بدائي الترجمة الحرفية وصعب عل غير الدارسيين بهذا المجال ، كذلك المصظلحات الطبيية العربية ابدا غير مفهومة تحتاح ترجع لاخر الكتاب للبحث عن المعنئ.
لكن السؤال اللي اجى ببالي بعد قراءه هذا الكتاب من نحن حقاً في صومعة كل هالتفاعلات الكميائية ؟
July 14, 2016
Disturbingly simple depiction of the mind. Johnson is unquestionably in awe of the brain. His awe seems to have impaired his skepticism. The result is that he sensationalized what he learned and at times provided absolutely false information as if it were fact.
For example, He is under the assumption that the better people are at reading emotions, the more extroverted. Where is the evidence for such an absurd claim? This is why extraverts often misdiagnose introverts with autism, when in fact they are not even on the spectrum. Worse, despite being around some of the most respected neuroscientists the world has to offer, he was still holding tight to the myth that people only use 10% of their brains. It's absurd. These are only two examples of the many. He really didn't have a good enough grasp of neuroscience to write this book. Some journalists and science writers can swing it, but he is not nearly skeptical enough to pull it off.
The book's target audience seems to be those who also have no education in the neurosciences. Sadly, those people will believe what he is saying because he included work from very respected researchers who have conducted some pretty good studies. He related their work as well as many of his own assumptions. The very way in which he ties together the bits of information he gleaned from the researchers really demonstrates his lack of understanding. For him to have written a book to educate others seems grossly irresponsible. I would highly suggest finding an introductory book written by an actual scientist instead.
For example, He is under the assumption that the better people are at reading emotions, the more extroverted. Where is the evidence for such an absurd claim? This is why extraverts often misdiagnose introverts with autism, when in fact they are not even on the spectrum. Worse, despite being around some of the most respected neuroscientists the world has to offer, he was still holding tight to the myth that people only use 10% of their brains. It's absurd. These are only two examples of the many. He really didn't have a good enough grasp of neuroscience to write this book. Some journalists and science writers can swing it, but he is not nearly skeptical enough to pull it off.
The book's target audience seems to be those who also have no education in the neurosciences. Sadly, those people will believe what he is saying because he included work from very respected researchers who have conducted some pretty good studies. He related their work as well as many of his own assumptions. The very way in which he ties together the bits of information he gleaned from the researchers really demonstrates his lack of understanding. For him to have written a book to educate others seems grossly irresponsible. I would highly suggest finding an introductory book written by an actual scientist instead.
March 1, 2019
Johnson opens with a quote from Keats
" ... let winged Fancy wander
Through the thought still spread beyond her:
Open wide mind's cage-door ..."
While reading Johnson's pages about the behavioral theory of Robert Cloninger, his theory and research showing that personalities result partly from the relative balance of neurotransmitters, I came across this quote that seemed to fit :
“Or you could be a fearless reward-independent novelty seeker, always searching out new experiences without any real concern for whether they are dangerous or even pleasurable …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Robe...
(Would like to see test result for some people in the 'news' of Cloninger's test of "Temperament and Character"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...
Quoting from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
"Cloninger's psychobiological model identifies four dimensions of temperament (Novelty seeking, Harm avoidance, Reward dependence and Persistence) and three dimensions of character (Self-directedness, Cooperativeness and Self-transcendence). The FFM proposes the domains of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness as the basic dimensions underlying individual differences. ..."
" ... let winged Fancy wander
Through the thought still spread beyond her:
Open wide mind's cage-door ..."
While reading Johnson's pages about the behavioral theory of Robert Cloninger, his theory and research showing that personalities result partly from the relative balance of neurotransmitters, I came across this quote that seemed to fit :
“Or you could be a fearless reward-independent novelty seeker, always searching out new experiences without any real concern for whether they are dangerous or even pleasurable …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Robe...
(Would like to see test result for some people in the 'news' of Cloninger's test of "Temperament and Character"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...
Quoting from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
"Cloninger's psychobiological model identifies four dimensions of temperament (Novelty seeking, Harm avoidance, Reward dependence and Persistence) and three dimensions of character (Self-directedness, Cooperativeness and Self-transcendence). The FFM proposes the domains of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness as the basic dimensions underlying individual differences. ..."
June 4, 2008
I really liked this book. Each chapter focused on a different aspect of the mind. For example, one chapter discussed our ability to "mindread" other people, referring to how we can read subtle cues about a person's mood, whether they are lying, etc. from their facial expressions, tone, etc. and we have no idea we can even do this. He points out that we DO usually sense that we enjoy conversing with some people more than others even when the content of hte conversations is largely the same, and posits that this may often be because you "click" with someone in terms of being able to optimally mindread one another. Another chapter provided insights into ADD/ADHD and how what we call "attention" is really more than 1 skill (there is auditory attention, visual attention, then the ability to switch back and forth or decide which external stimuli to ignore, etc.) Talked about using a neurofeedback machine that reads brainwaves to train kids to be more attentive--the system uses a video game in which successful movement of your "guy" only happens when you are focused in a particular way. ADHD kids using the system report that now they understand what it's supposed to feel like when they are reading.
Many interesting things to ponder. I will enjoy rereading it as well, as you can easily take what you learn from this book and recognize that certain things going on in your own life are attributable to this or that neurotransmitter/attention skill/mindreading ability or lack thereof. Then realizing these things, you might be able to train yourself to overcome certain deficiences or to do things to compensate.
My only complaint was that the last chapter got all Freud-talkie and was nearly as impenetrable as Freud(trying to explain what things from Freud are still worthy of being part of our lexicon and which things just have to be completely tossed based on what we know from brain science). Just plain dull after all the interesting reading that came before.
Many interesting things to ponder. I will enjoy rereading it as well, as you can easily take what you learn from this book and recognize that certain things going on in your own life are attributable to this or that neurotransmitter/attention skill/mindreading ability or lack thereof. Then realizing these things, you might be able to train yourself to overcome certain deficiences or to do things to compensate.
My only complaint was that the last chapter got all Freud-talkie and was nearly as impenetrable as Freud(trying to explain what things from Freud are still worthy of being part of our lexicon and which things just have to be completely tossed based on what we know from brain science). Just plain dull after all the interesting reading that came before.
October 10, 2017
سجن العقل
ستيفين جونسون
ترجمة/ أحمد مستجير
.....................
تستهويني الكتب التي تتحدث عن العقل، وقدراته البحوث الدائرة حوله، تستوي في ذلك الكتب التي تتحدث من منظور فلسفي، او التي تتحدث من منظور علمي، لذلك حظي هذا الموضوع بعدد من قراءاتي هذا العام.
وللدكتور مستجير مكانة خاصة بين المترجمين العرب في الميدان العلمي، لذلك فإن اسم الدكتور مستجير علي غلاف أي كتاب يعتبر ضمان بجودة المادة العلمية المعروضة فيه.
في هذا الكتاب (أكثر قليلا من 200 صفحة) يعرض المؤلف بعض البحوث الجديدة في علم العقل، أو المخ والأعصاب، ويربط بين مجموعة من البحوث تحت عنوان سجن العقل، حيث الإطار العام للكتاب يدور حول مدي سيطرة كيمياء المخ علي السلوك الإنساني.
يتحدث المؤلف عن رؤية العقل، فيذكر بعض البحوث حول تصوير العقل أثناء نشاط المخ الذهني، كما تحدث عن دور الهرمونات _ الكيمياء _ في حفز سلوكيات معينة، وتسبيط سلوكيات غيرها، كما تحدث عن البحوث حول الموصلات الكيميائية العصبية ودورها في توجيه السلوك الإنساني، كما يعرض الكاتب لبعض حوادث الاقتران الشرطي ودور الارتباط الشرطي في تشكيل السلوك الإنساني.
هذا الكتاب يلخص فكرة أن الإنسان رهين وسجين في سلوكه لكيمياء عقله، وأن ما يقال عن الحرية السلوكية للإنسان غير صحيح.
ما يعيب الكتاب أن ترجمته سيئة جدا وهذا غير متوقع من مترجم مثل الدكتور مستجير، كما أن البحوث التي قدمها دليلا علي فكرته تعتبر كلها قديمة، ومعروفة منذ زمن طويل.
ستيفين جونسون
ترجمة/ أحمد مستجير
.....................
تستهويني الكتب التي تتحدث عن العقل، وقدراته البحوث الدائرة حوله، تستوي في ذلك الكتب التي تتحدث من منظور فلسفي، او التي تتحدث من منظور علمي، لذلك حظي هذا الموضوع بعدد من قراءاتي هذا العام.
وللدكتور مستجير مكانة خاصة بين المترجمين العرب في الميدان العلمي، لذلك فإن اسم الدكتور مستجير علي غلاف أي كتاب يعتبر ضمان بجودة المادة العلمية المعروضة فيه.
في هذا الكتاب (أكثر قليلا من 200 صفحة) يعرض المؤلف بعض البحوث الجديدة في علم العقل، أو المخ والأعصاب، ويربط بين مجموعة من البحوث تحت عنوان سجن العقل، حيث الإطار العام للكتاب يدور حول مدي سيطرة كيمياء المخ علي السلوك الإنساني.
يتحدث المؤلف عن رؤية العقل، فيذكر بعض البحوث حول تصوير العقل أثناء نشاط المخ الذهني، كما تحدث عن دور الهرمونات _ الكيمياء _ في حفز سلوكيات معينة، وتسبيط سلوكيات غيرها، كما تحدث عن البحوث حول الموصلات الكيميائية العصبية ودورها في توجيه السلوك الإنساني، كما يعرض الكاتب لبعض حوادث الاقتران الشرطي ودور الارتباط الشرطي في تشكيل السلوك الإنساني.
هذا الكتاب يلخص فكرة أن الإنسان رهين وسجين في سلوكه لكيمياء عقله، وأن ما يقال عن الحرية السلوكية للإنسان غير صحيح.
ما يعيب الكتاب أن ترجمته سيئة جدا وهذا غير متوقع من مترجم مثل الدكتور مستجير، كما أن البحوث التي قدمها دليلا علي فكرته تعتبر كلها قديمة، ومعروفة منذ زمن طويل.
February 16, 2008
This is a pretty fascinating book. It gets a little annoying whenever Johnson tries to pimp it out as a self-help book ("learning about your brain can help you!" blah blah), but luckily, it's NOT a self-help book -- it's an informative book about how your brain functions and how he went about exploring (via MRI and neurofeedback, etc.) about how his brain works. (I'm guessing he thought trying to pass it off as self-help would increase his audience?)
The chapter on attention was a tiny bit dull for me in some parts, but this might have been b/c I was already pretty familiar with most of the info. (This is pretty much the extent of the usefulness of my psych degree.) But the info about the connections between emotion and memory, and the evolutionary purpose behind laughter and play -- stuff like that was really interesting. It's also a fairly quick, easy, layperson-targeted read, so you get to learn great stuff without giving yourself a headache. I recommend this one to my science nerd friends, or really, anyone who's interested in an introduction to how the brain works.
The chapter on attention was a tiny bit dull for me in some parts, but this might have been b/c I was already pretty familiar with most of the info. (This is pretty much the extent of the usefulness of my psych degree.) But the info about the connections between emotion and memory, and the evolutionary purpose behind laughter and play -- stuff like that was really interesting. It's also a fairly quick, easy, layperson-targeted read, so you get to learn great stuff without giving yourself a headache. I recommend this one to my science nerd friends, or really, anyone who's interested in an introduction to how the brain works.
April 11, 2018
Description: Mind Wide Open speaks to brain buffs, self-obsessed neurotics, barstool psychologists, mystified parents, grumpy spouses, exasperated managers, and anyone who enjoys speculating and gossiping about the motivations and behaviors of other human beings. Steven Johnson shows us the transformative power of understanding brain science and offers new modes of introspection and tools for better parenting, better relationships, and better living.
January 15, 2009
Yep. I'm a neuroscience nerd.
March 10, 2019
رغم اهمية الموضوع، لكن يعلم الله إني بذلت جهد ذهني فوق العادي حتى احاول افهم لكن الترجمة السيئة كانت عائق ..
February 22, 2008
This is a really excellent look at how neuroscience relates to our everyday emotional lives. One of the most interesting bits to me was the discussion of the way that we remember trauma. Research now shows that a lot of conventional wisdom about trauma is flat-out wrong; in particularly, this book suggests that if "talking out" a traumatic event reproduces the fear response (increased heart rate, etc.), it may cause the fear produced by the memories to become more firmly etched, not less. This means that talk therapy might not actually be the most effective treatment for survivors, especially if the trauma is recent.
It can be kind of eerie to realize that so much of what we experience emotionally is related to chemicals flowing about in your brain, but I found it fascinating. I'm pretty used to the idea in some ways already, since I take medication to control my depression, but this book has really sparked my interest and I'm planning on seeking out some of the books that he mentions in his excellent footnotes.
It can be kind of eerie to realize that so much of what we experience emotionally is related to chemicals flowing about in your brain, but I found it fascinating. I'm pretty used to the idea in some ways already, since I take medication to control my depression, but this book has really sparked my interest and I'm planning on seeking out some of the books that he mentions in his excellent footnotes.
June 1, 2018
كتاب مبسط عن العقل و تأثير كيمياء المخ على افعالنا و تصرفاتنا، و كيف يعمل ويستجيب المخ تحت ظروف مختلفة من خطر و خوف و مواقف عاطفية.
الكتاب بسيط و جيد للمبتدئين في القراءة عن العقل، لكن الترجمة لم تكن بالمستوى الذي يليق بكتاب علمي.
الكتاب بسيط و جيد للمبتدئين في القراءة عن العقل، لكن الترجمة لم تكن بالمستوى الذي يليق بكتاب علمي.
June 25, 2017
الكتاب ممتاز , لكن الترجمه ليست مناسبة نهائيا وفيها شيى من التعقيد
في توصيل مايريدة الكاتب "الكتاب علمي ولاتناسبة ترجمه صارمه مثل هذه ..
في توصيل مايريدة الكاتب "الكتاب علمي ولاتناسبة ترجمه صارمه مثل هذه ..
August 1, 2018
This book is fine but it's on the level of a breezy magazine piece. The picture it presents of the brain is a vastly simplified one, and the set-pieces Johnson delivers in each chapter skate along the surface of the implications of modern neuroscience for philosophy, sociology, politics, etc. It turns out all the rich detail got dumped in the endnotes, but my opinion of the book was well set before I got to them. This would have been a much better book if that detail had been incorporated into the body of the work. As it stands, this doesn't delve much beyond the level of "wow, did you know you can do biofeedback and fMRIs to see how the brain has an actual architecture, and your mind is actually made up of a bunch of subsystems for various tasks like pattern-matching, visual acuity, different types of attentionality, etc. I won't bore you with the details, but cool, huh?!"
December 27, 2017
Good stuff, if a little dated now. Lots of interesting info about brain mechanics and the psychic 0inner-world. Not too much overt speculation or blah blah about evolutionary biology. Know thyself.
June 25, 2020
كتاب جميل بيناقش ظواهر من الNeuroscience باسلوب سهل وشيق، سبب كون الكتاب ده مميز عن أي كتاب تاني من نفس النوع هو إنه بيحاول يجمع بين البيولوجي في نظريات تطور داروين وبين السيكولوجي في افكار فرويد، عشان يطلع بنموذج مبسط لطريقة عمل الدماغ ودراستها. الكتاب ناقش اكتر من موضوع زي علم الأعصاب، قراءة الأفكار، الانتباه ونقصه، التوحد، غرايز الخوف وطريقة عمل الذاكرة.
ودي شوية معلومات لطيفة لفتت نظري:
- سبب انك لما تدوخ وتوقف فجأة بتحس إن الدنيا بتلف بيك هو إن جسمك بيحدد موقعك وحركتك عن طريق العين وسائل الأذن الوسطى، لما بتوقف فجأة العين بتقول انك وقفت إنما السائل بيستمر لعدة ثوان، وعشان عقلك مش عارف مين فيهم غلط، بيفترض إن الإثنين صح فطالما فيه دوران وعينك بتقول انك وقفت، عقلك بيقنعك إن الاوضة هي اللي بتلف بيك.
- اللي بيخلي اللي بيتعاطى مخدرات يحس إنه سامع اصوات، هو إن العقل عبارة عن وحدات لكل واحدة دور معين ووظيفة معينة، عشان ساعات لما واحدة تبوظ متأثرش على التانية، المخدرات بتنشط وحدات معينة مسؤولة عن السمع والإبصار، وده اللي بيسبب هلاوس.
- الستات عندهم قدرة اكبر على ملاحظة التفاصيل واستشعار المعاني الخفية للنظرات والكلمات عشان التجويف اللي بيربط بين النص الايمن والايسر في المخ أوسع عند الستات من الرجالة.
- الاطفال بيخافوا اكثر عشان الاميجدالا (جزء الدماغ المسؤول عن المخاوف) عندهم متبتبقاش لسه تطورت.
- هرمون الاندروفين مش بيُفرز إلا مع الضحكة الحقيقة مش المصطنعة، لو عايز تفرق بينهم شوف انكماش العين وميل الحاجب لأسفل. (بسمة دوتشين)
- فيه ناس كتير فاكرة إن الذكريات متسجلة في مجلدات في الذاكرة ولما بتفتكرها فكأنك بتفتح كتاب في المكتبة وتقراه بصوت عالي، لكن الحقيقة إتك بتعيد كتابة الذكريات كل مرة تفتكرها فيها إعادة التعزيز ( فرويد سماها النشاط الارتجاعي) وبتزود تأثيرها عليك اكتر.
- ذاكرتك بتخزن الذكريات الايجابية والسلبية وكمان المباغتة، يعني كلمة مش متوقعة، رأي غريب، حد شتمك من غير ما تعمله حاجة، والغرض من الذكريات دي هو الطمع في خلق نمط يخليك متتفاجئش المرة الجاية.
- فيه ظاهرة مشهورة اسمها فطنة السلم، ودي عبارة عن إنك مش بتفتكر الرد الصحيح اللي كنت هتقصف بيه جبهة الراجل اللي احرجك في المكتب، غير وانت نازل على السلم ورايح بيتك، لإن الإحراج ده كان شئ غير متوقع بالنسبالك، وعقلك بيفضل يعيد عليك ردود مناسبة للخناقات القديمة عشان المرة الجاية محدش يعرف يباغتك.
- ذكرياتك المخيفة والسلبية ليها صفتين: عدم الوضوح والتشتت، وفي نفس الوقت التركيز على التأثيرات المحيطة. يعني لو عربية خبطتك عدم الوضوح بيساعدك يبقي خوفك شامل لكل العربيات مش العربية الزرقاء اللي خبطتك بس، أما الحاجات المحيطة فتبقى زي الاصوات اللي حواليك، صوت الكلاكس أو حتى واحد بيصرخ او قطار ماشي الناحية الثانية، ودي غرضها تلقط أي شئ ممكن يكون إشارة للخطر في المستقبل.
- استرجاع الذكريات بيزود قوة العاطفة المصاحبة ليها، الwires اللي في دماغك بتبقى أقوى، عامل زي كاوتش العربية اللي كل ما تدوس بنزين كل ما يغرس ويحفر في الرمل اكتر، عشان كده لما تحصل حاجة تضايقك المرة الجاية حاول متفكرش فيها كتير ولو فكرت حاول تربطها بمشاعر جديدة متضايقش زي انك تفرض مبرر ليها او تحط نفسك مكان حد تاني، في حين لو حاجة حلوة حصلتلك استرجعها كل شوية عشان تقوى في ذاكرتك وتحسن مودك.
- ظاهرة تطابق المود Mood congruity هدفها استقرار نفسيتك، ودي بتساعدك لما تفكر في ذكريات سعيدة بإنها تفكرّك ببقية الذكريات السعيدة وتخلي مودك مستقر، لكن للاسف في نفس الوقت بتعمل نفس الحاجة مع الذكريات السيئة، جرب تصحى الصبح تفتكر موقف محرج حصلك واتفرج علي ذاكرتك بقية اليوم وهي بتجيبلك الف موقف شبهه مكنوش على بالك، والبس بقى يا معلم.
- مريضة عند دكتور كاباريد كانت حالتها زي حالة كريم عبد العزيز في فيلم فاصل ونعود وذاكرتها قصيرة المدى مش شغالة، لكن لما الدكتور حط دبوس في ايده وهو بيسلم عليها، لاقاها خافت من السلام المرة اللي بعدها من غير ما تفتكر الدبوس .. عشان الصدمة هي طريقة تعلم الخوف وده بيفسر إن المخ عبارة عن وحدات وإن الذاكرة لو مشتغلتش فاكتساب الخوف موجود في مناطق مجهولة من الوعي منفصلة عن الذاكرة العادية.
- الحزن بيسبب خمود في نشاط قشرة مقدمة الجبهة بينما الفرح يسبب العكس، والمنطقة دي مسؤولة عن الكرياتيفتي وإنتاج الأفكار، يعني ببساطة وانت حزين بتبقى أغبى!
ودي شوية معلومات لطيفة لفتت نظري:
- سبب انك لما تدوخ وتوقف فجأة بتحس إن الدنيا بتلف بيك هو إن جسمك بيحدد موقعك وحركتك عن طريق العين وسائل الأذن الوسطى، لما بتوقف فجأة العين بتقول انك وقفت إنما السائل بيستمر لعدة ثوان، وعشان عقلك مش عارف مين فيهم غلط، بيفترض إن الإثنين صح فطالما فيه دوران وعينك بتقول انك وقفت، عقلك بيقنعك إن الاوضة هي اللي بتلف بيك.
- اللي بيخلي اللي بيتعاطى مخدرات يحس إنه سامع اصوات، هو إن العقل عبارة عن وحدات لكل واحدة دور معين ووظيفة معينة، عشان ساعات لما واحدة تبوظ متأثرش على التانية، المخدرات بتنشط وحدات معينة مسؤولة عن السمع والإبصار، وده اللي بيسبب هلاوس.
- الستات عندهم قدرة اكبر على ملاحظة التفاصيل واستشعار المعاني الخفية للنظرات والكلمات عشان التجويف اللي بيربط بين النص الايمن والايسر في المخ أوسع عند الستات من الرجالة.
- الاطفال بيخافوا اكثر عشان الاميجدالا (جزء الدماغ المسؤول عن المخاوف) عندهم متبتبقاش لسه تطورت.
- هرمون الاندروفين مش بيُفرز إلا مع الضحكة الحقيقة مش المصطنعة، لو عايز تفرق بينهم شوف انكماش العين وميل الحاجب لأسفل. (بسمة دوتشين)
- فيه ناس كتير فاكرة إن الذكريات متسجلة في مجلدات في الذاكرة ولما بتفتكرها فكأنك بتفتح كتاب في المكتبة وتقراه بصوت عالي، لكن الحقيقة إتك بتعيد كتابة الذكريات كل مرة تفتكرها فيها إعادة التعزيز ( فرويد سماها النشاط الارتجاعي) وبتزود تأثيرها عليك اكتر.
- ذاكرتك بتخزن الذكريات الايجابية والسلبية وكمان المباغتة، يعني كلمة مش متوقعة، رأي غريب، حد شتمك من غير ما تعمله حاجة، والغرض من الذكريات دي هو الطمع في خلق نمط يخليك متتفاجئش المرة الجاية.
- فيه ظاهرة مشهورة اسمها فطنة السلم، ودي عبارة عن إنك مش بتفتكر الرد الصحيح اللي كنت هتقصف بيه جبهة الراجل اللي احرجك في المكتب، غير وانت نازل على السلم ورايح بيتك، لإن الإحراج ده كان شئ غير متوقع بالنسبالك، وعقلك بيفضل يعيد عليك ردود مناسبة للخناقات القديمة عشان المرة الجاية محدش يعرف يباغتك.
- ذكرياتك المخيفة والسلبية ليها صفتين: عدم الوضوح والتشتت، وفي نفس الوقت التركيز على التأثيرات المحيطة. يعني لو عربية خبطتك عدم الوضوح بيساعدك يبقي خوفك شامل لكل العربيات مش العربية الزرقاء اللي خبطتك بس، أما الحاجات المحيطة فتبقى زي الاصوات اللي حواليك، صوت الكلاكس أو حتى واحد بيصرخ او قطار ماشي الناحية الثانية، ودي غرضها تلقط أي شئ ممكن يكون إشارة للخطر في المستقبل.
- استرجاع الذكريات بيزود قوة العاطفة المصاحبة ليها، الwires اللي في دماغك بتبقى أقوى، عامل زي كاوتش العربية اللي كل ما تدوس بنزين كل ما يغرس ويحفر في الرمل اكتر، عشان كده لما تحصل حاجة تضايقك المرة الجاية حاول متفكرش فيها كتير ولو فكرت حاول تربطها بمشاعر جديدة متضايقش زي انك تفرض مبرر ليها او تحط نفسك مكان حد تاني، في حين لو حاجة حلوة حصلتلك استرجعها كل شوية عشان تقوى في ذاكرتك وتحسن مودك.
- ظاهرة تطابق المود Mood congruity هدفها استقرار نفسيتك، ودي بتساعدك لما تفكر في ذكريات سعيدة بإنها تفكرّك ببقية الذكريات السعيدة وتخلي مودك مستقر، لكن للاسف في نفس الوقت بتعمل نفس الحاجة مع الذكريات السيئة، جرب تصحى الصبح تفتكر موقف محرج حصلك واتفرج علي ذاكرتك بقية اليوم وهي بتجيبلك الف موقف شبهه مكنوش على بالك، والبس بقى يا معلم.
- مريضة عند دكتور كاباريد كانت حالتها زي حالة كريم عبد العزيز في فيلم فاصل ونعود وذاكرتها قصيرة المدى مش شغالة، لكن لما الدكتور حط دبوس في ايده وهو بيسلم عليها، لاقاها خافت من السلام المرة اللي بعدها من غير ما تفتكر الدبوس .. عشان الصدمة هي طريقة تعلم الخوف وده بيفسر إن المخ عبارة عن وحدات وإن الذاكرة لو مشتغلتش فاكتساب الخوف موجود في مناطق مجهولة من الوعي منفصلة عن الذاكرة العادية.
- الحزن بيسبب خمود في نشاط قشرة مقدمة الجبهة بينما الفرح يسبب العكس، والمنطقة دي مسؤولة عن الكرياتيفتي وإنتاج الأفكار، يعني ببساطة وانت حزين بتبقى أغبى!
May 24, 2013
Steven Johnson explores neuroscience in a very accessible way by describing his journey to understand his own brain. He submits himself to MRIs, biofeedback machines, neurofeedback machines, and other neurological testing to gain insight into how his own brain (and all of our brains too) function on a daily basis.
He closes with a section about Freud, and how neuroscience, while showing the need to update or alter some of Freud's theories about psychoanalysis, does not totally replace them. Johnson posits that understanding the neuroscience and acknowledging the role that biology and even geneology play doesn't mean that we are somehow locked into behaving a certain way or that the poetic, psychological, literary, and philosophical interpretations of how our minds work suddenly go out the window. Instead, each of these interpretations have their place.
Johnson also states that understanding a little more about the chemical and biological mechanisms in his brain actually makes him feel less limited and more in control. Knowledge is power, rah rah!
Particularly interesting insights to me:
Using 10% of our brains most of the time isn't a bad thing; instead it's efficient. Our brains are composed of dozens of different tools that serve different purposes. If we used all of them at once, the sheer volume of information and input would leave us unable to function. Our brain uses the 10% (or so) that is directly tied to whatever task we're working on.
His findings turn conventional wisdom about dealing with trauma on its head. We all know we're supposed to "talk it out" when something traumatic or painful happens, and "not brag" when something wonderful and exciting happens. However, reliving memories and their associated emotions makes them stronger. Therefore talking about the painful can reinforce it and ensure the emotional response remains long after, and keeping something great quiet may cause us to lose the great emotional feeling that came with it.
Our limbic brain is more or less responsible for emotional responses and our neocortex is more or less responsible for intellection and thinking. These systems work together, but at different speeds. The limbic brain learns slowly and remains in various emotional states longer, whereas the neocortex learns (and moves on) very quickly. This explains those moments where you feel stressed or anxious and don't know why. Then when you think for a moment, you remember something that you just heard that was stress-inducing and that your neocortex had moved on from before your limbic brain was finished reacting.
There's also a fascinating section of the book about our abillity to detect emotion - subconsciously and in a split second. We're not just talking happy and sad here, but 412 different "discrete emotional concepts." All this is handled by our limbic system; in fact, bringing your neocortex into play and trying to analyze the emotions on someone's face will make your reading less accurate that going with your split-second decision.
Themes: neuroscience, psychological, self-knowledge, technology, personality
He closes with a section about Freud, and how neuroscience, while showing the need to update or alter some of Freud's theories about psychoanalysis, does not totally replace them. Johnson posits that understanding the neuroscience and acknowledging the role that biology and even geneology play doesn't mean that we are somehow locked into behaving a certain way or that the poetic, psychological, literary, and philosophical interpretations of how our minds work suddenly go out the window. Instead, each of these interpretations have their place.
Johnson also states that understanding a little more about the chemical and biological mechanisms in his brain actually makes him feel less limited and more in control. Knowledge is power, rah rah!
Particularly interesting insights to me:
Using 10% of our brains most of the time isn't a bad thing; instead it's efficient. Our brains are composed of dozens of different tools that serve different purposes. If we used all of them at once, the sheer volume of information and input would leave us unable to function. Our brain uses the 10% (or so) that is directly tied to whatever task we're working on.
His findings turn conventional wisdom about dealing with trauma on its head. We all know we're supposed to "talk it out" when something traumatic or painful happens, and "not brag" when something wonderful and exciting happens. However, reliving memories and their associated emotions makes them stronger. Therefore talking about the painful can reinforce it and ensure the emotional response remains long after, and keeping something great quiet may cause us to lose the great emotional feeling that came with it.
Our limbic brain is more or less responsible for emotional responses and our neocortex is more or less responsible for intellection and thinking. These systems work together, but at different speeds. The limbic brain learns slowly and remains in various emotional states longer, whereas the neocortex learns (and moves on) very quickly. This explains those moments where you feel stressed or anxious and don't know why. Then when you think for a moment, you remember something that you just heard that was stress-inducing and that your neocortex had moved on from before your limbic brain was finished reacting.
There's also a fascinating section of the book about our abillity to detect emotion - subconsciously and in a split second. We're not just talking happy and sad here, but 412 different "discrete emotional concepts." All this is handled by our limbic system; in fact, bringing your neocortex into play and trying to analyze the emotions on someone's face will make your reading less accurate that going with your split-second decision.
Themes: neuroscience, psychological, self-knowledge, technology, personality
July 26, 2015
El libro revela aspectos del cerebro de manera contundente, sin embargo, la presentación es minuciosa y anecdótica. Algunas de las cosas que dice: Ningún mortal es capaz de guardar un secreto (Freud). La sutileza de las expresiones es asombrosa. 412 emociones únicas. Los recuerdos se reescriben cada vez que son activados. La mejor tecnología es indistinguible de la magia. Entre los mamíferos, sólo el 5% muestra esta especie de conducta monógama y biparental. La risa es uno de los estados más satisfactorios. La mayoría de las valoraciones de la estructura subyacente del humor gravitan en torno a la incongruencia controlada. Tocar o ser tocados es una parte importante de lo que significa ser mamíferos. La risa es ante todo una forma de vinculación afectiva social. La química del cerebro, hay dos estrategias disponibles: acelerarse con adrenalina y "luchar o huir", o bien reducir la tensión con oxitocina y "cuidar y relacionarse". El cerebro es capaz de producir drogas de forma natural. Nuestro cerebro no es más que drogas, ..., no sería nada sin las drogas. Empecemos por esta premisa básica: estamos drogados. El cerebro es una red asociativa. Estamos compuestos de impulsos instintivos. Nuestra vida está configurada por la actividad mental inconsciente. El inconsciente es "lo automatizado". La manera de escapar de estas asociaciones nocivas es estableciendo nuevas asociaciones. Una persona no surge ya premontada, sino que la vida la va ensamblando. La bioquímica lo rige todo. La esencia del psicoanálisis es la eliminación de las defensas y resistencias.
September 3, 2013
Dentro de las revisiones de las neurociencias, por personas, incluidos periodistas involucrados directamente con alguna área particular, sin la formación científica propiamente dicha, es a veces más disfrutable que leer los artículos médicos, porque como dice Chaitin, los teoremas son mentiras que te acercan a la verdad. Lo mismo digo. A partir de situaciones de vida: el bloqueo creativo, la fobia a las ventanas de vidrio en medio de tormentas intensas, te vas dando cuenta que hay científicos que estudian las reacciones cerebrales a estos eventos y que tratan de revelar lo que es nuestro cerebro, nuestra conciencia, nuestro pensamiento, nuestro yo, para permitirnos vivir en equilibrio, o en estado zen o con conciencia plena (la literatura está llena de metáforas, similitudes y cercanías para los mismos conceptos). Además hay gente que ha descubierto, intuitivamente, esto es, sin una explicación suficientemente clara, técnicas para vivir en mejor situación nuestra vida cotidiana, o nuestra tensiones vitales, vaya, en el equilibrio que te permite aceptar y a veces disfrutar de tu vida cotidiana(dormir, comer, cagar, mear, copular ¿ser feliz?). Por ahí va este libro.
October 26, 2009
What Johnson does well is break down complex scientific topics with clear prose and interesting real life examples. Sometimes I sense that he is oversimplifying things, but overall I like his style.
Here's the good news: we can read minds. Our brains can read subtle clues in facial expressions, body language and voice intonations. This happens in the subconscious, below our radar (or, outside of the "Executive Branch," as Johnson calls the conscious mind). Pretty cool.
We also are high on drugs all the time. Many of the same chemicals that make crack so much fun can be had in ordinary situations.
My only beef with the book: it glosses over or doesn't address some major debates in neuroscience. It sidesteppes the whole debate over the role of evolutionary psychology by saying that we are products of both nature and nurture. Mostly, though, I would have liked to see more about the debates over free will that are happening in neuroscience circles. To get that, I think I will read Wegner's boook, The Illusion of Conscious Will, which I skimmed once in the bookstore.
Here's the good news: we can read minds. Our brains can read subtle clues in facial expressions, body language and voice intonations. This happens in the subconscious, below our radar (or, outside of the "Executive Branch," as Johnson calls the conscious mind). Pretty cool.
We also are high on drugs all the time. Many of the same chemicals that make crack so much fun can be had in ordinary situations.
My only beef with the book: it glosses over or doesn't address some major debates in neuroscience. It sidesteppes the whole debate over the role of evolutionary psychology by saying that we are products of both nature and nurture. Mostly, though, I would have liked to see more about the debates over free will that are happening in neuroscience circles. To get that, I think I will read Wegner's boook, The Illusion of Conscious Will, which I skimmed once in the bookstore.
November 8, 2010
Good book. I think I would have given this a higher rating if I had read it when it was published in 2004, since I've read a half-dozen books since then that explore similar material. Indeed the more recent books from contemporaries like Malcolm Gladwell and Jonah Lehrer, Blink and How We Decide (respectively) are good examples, get the benefit of more recent studies and analysis. None of this is Johnson's fault of course, which is why I feel compelled to note it here, but it affected my engagement with the book nonetheless.
Still, Johnson has his own perspectives and niches of interest even looking at the same clinical psychology, and the book offered a refreshing dose of open-mindedness about the brain and how we might learn to tune it more precisely with emerging neuroscience.
Still, Johnson has his own perspectives and niches of interest even looking at the same clinical psychology, and the book offered a refreshing dose of open-mindedness about the brain and how we might learn to tune it more precisely with emerging neuroscience.
June 15, 2013
I agree with other readers that this book contained mostly information I already knew. This was not unexpected as it is roughly my field of expertise and the book was published in 2004- written about current understanding of the brain. The brain is our body's most complex organ, & perhaps the most complex thing known to man. Within 5 years of my completing school, fundamental ideas about the brain (ex. We don't grow new neurons) were not only being challenged but being disproven. All that being said, I approached the book with modest expectations and was very pleased. I read it in a single setting, way into the night. I was most impressed by the author's skill in drawing parallels btw neurophysiology & common life experiences, making complex topics easily accessible to anyone interested.
October 29, 2023
Booklist
Journalist Johnson, whose Emergence (2001) explored collective behavior, here branches into another arena of emergent phenomena, our brains. Volunteering himself as a test subject, Johnson gallivants to a series of experimenters in neuroscience and wires his head up to their machines.
Consciousness is explicitly not his topic; rather, Johnson hunts for neurochemical and physiological bases for feelings of conscious experience involving attention, emotion, and memory.
Along the way, Johnson explains how the hormone oxytocin contributes to feelings of attachment; how new biofeedback technologies can help people rewire their brains; the science behind our ability to read other people's expressions; and how understanding brain chemistry may well lead to an understanding of dreams and phobias.
Spreading a gospel to be curious about one's own mind, Johnson, aided by personal anecdotes about, for example, the length of his attention span, will snare even those unfamiliar with brain science.
---
Amazone
Little substance
Let me begin by saying I read this book from cover to cover. I'll also mention that I'm a grad student in neuroscience.
This book contained a few moderately interesting insights, but overall covered astonishingly little information. It's so full of the author's anecdotes about who he met and how he came to his conclusions that it leaves little room for his actual theses.
It's a lot of flash and little substance. It's definitely well-written though.
There are so many incredible things to learn about neuroscience that are accessible to non-scientists, yet he focused most of the book on electroencephalograms (EEG), which is ancient technology and alone yields little information about the brain.
He drew broad conclusions from specific data and consistently overinterpreted results. This is not surprising considering he has no degree.
I should have noticed this before I bought the book. He's like the Ken Burns of neuroscience. You can't study neuroscience part-time for a year or two and expect to write a deep book on it.
So in conclusion, if you know nothing about neuroscience, you'll probably get something out of this book.
Don't waste your time on it though, because if you want to have your mind blown, read The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat.
Sasquatch
---
Brain pudding not brain science
Lame, lame, lame... this is not brain science it's brain pudding... Felt like a succession of Wired article of deep personal thoughts on all the new brain toys. Has no structure and brings no insight, how can this be a bestseller?
J. Pesenti
---
Clear writing, interesting content grinds to a sluggish end
Maybe I shouldn't dock the book a star or two on account of the sheer drudgery and pointlessness of the final 35+ pages, but unfortunately, it was like having a tasty meal and then finding a cockroach in your dessert.
I don't know whether the publisher insisted on the author tacking on the Conclusion section or if it was more organically contrived by the author himself, but it doesn't work. We have essentially up until page 183 some interesting anecdotes and introspections from the author related to developments in brain science. These I enjoyed quite a bit. Johnson took the tact, fittingly, of an investigative reporter in subjecting himself to neurofeedback measures and MRI scans. I found it very interesting to hear about procedures in great detail that have been heretofore only terms in passing to me.
His writing style is fluid, and he manages to not get overly-techie in his descriptions. He dotes perhaps a little too much on his gift of writing, but while a tad annoying, that was certainly a forgivable sin.
It's when we get to that rather lengthy Conclusion section that Johnson hits the wall and seems suddenly out of his element and expertise.
At least my expectation was that he would synthesize his analysis from the previous chapters into some kind of cogent summary or at least speculate based on his findings about the path forward for neuroscience.
Instead, it becomes largely an odd hommage to Freudian ideas, purveying Freud as a greater visionary than he's been given credit in recent years. It was tedious and not particularly insightful.
For one, the author clearly recognizes the infirmity of what he's saying. He consistently adds qualifiers about how Freud's model strains here and there, about how we have to "fiddle" with aspects of Freud's theories to make it applicable to what we now know about brain science.
I kept asking myself "why are we doing this exercise?"
Like any good astrological writeup, Freud's ideas were often sufficiently vague and verbose as to be extrapolated to explain just about anything. Any theorist with untestable theories puts himself in the position as Freud did to continue cobbling on ideas to account for more and more of the exceptions to his theory that are discovered.
Simply because Freud wrote and expounded a lot in terms that were difficult to operationalize and empirically measure does not mean that he had any greater insight into what modern-day neuroscience tells us than any other theorist.
Johnson simply abandons his logic too often in this section and tries to make a Freudian connection to neuroscience that feels contorted and artificial.
With such an affinity to the father of psychoanalysis, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson is planning a future book to further elaborate on Freud, that is, unless the Conclusion chapter for this book got it out of his system. Read the book and you'll probably enjoy it...up to page 183.
J. Jones
August 28, 2018
Johnson explores the physiology of his own brain and, ergo, ours in this mainstream (i.e., not esoteric) book. His thesis is right: the more we know how our brains actually function, the more control we have over how and what we think and do. Example: Your body continues producing emotional symptoms to a fear or anxiety (like racing heartbeat, sweaty palms, knotted stomach) after your brain has moved onto other tepid topics. Therefore we sometimes *feel* toward subjects that are no longer irrelevant to our fear, irritation, joy, or other emotions.
September 19, 2008
Steven Johnson wanted to know what his brain was doing when he felt/did different things, why he felt/did different things, and to what extent all human brains are the same/different. He went to lots of specialists, got hooked up to various brain-reading machines and wrote this book about his experiences. It was really fun to read and really interesting. Warning: it does offer theories explaining how chemicals in our brain are responsible for all emotions, including love, so if you don't want to think of love as a chemical reaction in your brain, you may want to skip that chapter.
February 20, 2015
This is a solid intro in to Brain Science worthy of 3.5 stars.
I got a few things out of it:
* Freud attracted a large audience because you didn't need to be mentally ill to get something out of it
* Duchenne smiles
* Experiments prove that Human's remember pain in a separate location from memories
* Your brain is nothing but drugs, constantly going in and out
* One of the effects of Prozac is the removal of rejection sensitivity
* Prefrontal Cortex function is reduced when you are sad and increased when you are happy.
I got a few things out of it:
* Freud attracted a large audience because you didn't need to be mentally ill to get something out of it
* Duchenne smiles
* Experiments prove that Human's remember pain in a separate location from memories
* Your brain is nothing but drugs, constantly going in and out
* One of the effects of Prozac is the removal of rejection sensitivity
* Prefrontal Cortex function is reduced when you are sad and increased when you are happy.
September 8, 2016
Not one of my favorite Steven Johnson books. Although the premise for the book is an interesting one--that the basics of neuroscience can provide us with tools to discover new things about our attitudes and actions on an everyday basis--I felt the book was just too navel-gazing. When in doubt, Johnson talked about himself and his issues. A set of short case studies might have been more interesting.
August 4, 2024
I'm probably the right kind of reader for this book: not very aware of neuroscience except in the most general way, and appreciative of an author who can draw me into complex issues about the brain, nerves, hormones, etc., by way of evocative stories. So, warning: If you read a lot in the field and care deeply about getting the details right, you may not appreciate it as much.
I'm also similar to the author, as he describes himself at the end of chapter 6: "a well-orchestrated brain--with no word-famous soloists but a nice sound nonetheless...talented in an orderly kind of way...." So, with my kind of intelligence, I enjoyed the book and will probably reflect on it for a good while into the future.
Even I can tell that neuroscience has progressed quite a bit in the twenty years since this book was written, however. The idea that certain parts of the brain have certain functions that can't be taken over by any other part of the brain is now seen as less true (and to be fair, he recognizes that while still falling into the old way of thinking sometimes). The fMRI, which was a novel thing in 2004, is now more commonplace.
Still, here is just a sampling of what I learned (or learned to put into words) by reading this book:
1. Every conversation contains a silent back-and-forth. I see your facial expression and body language and interpret it as part of your reaction to what I'm saying, and then you see me react and react yourself, and what we put into words is one part of the duet while what we don't say is just as important to the performance. ("Mindreading," in other words, can be misleading but it is unavoidable because it is essential. It is part of how neurotypical human beings make meaning.)
2. Our muscles show our emotions sometimes, in ways that others can detect. The difference between a real smile and one that's fake is visible, even if in the split second that we see and react to it we cannot say why, or how we know the difference.
3. Trauma can produce trace memories of fears. Those memories can last a lifetime, and they can be restimulated because of aspects of the original event we didn't notice at the time. They are stored in the amygdala, they trigger the fight-or-flight response, and (because it's safer to get frightened by something that isn't life-threatening than not to react to something that IS) they are fuzzy "quick sketches"--anything that resembles them can make us afraid, at least for a moment.
4. The unconscious that Freud talked about exists, but it is not simply a matter of repressed sexual drives. It's all the modules that send chemical and electrical systems through our brain and into the rest of our systems. We could not possibly do all that consciously.
5. "Paying attention" is not just one thing. There's "sustain," remaining focused on a task or an object without getting distracted. There's "encoding," which is putting things into working memory (like me chanting out loud the security code one of my apps just sent me before I can log in because the sound of my own voice saying it helps me remember, and not have to open up the message again and again). There are the "focus/execute" skills of doing a sequence of steps automatically (like pulling out of a driveway into a street). And then there is "supervisory attention control," shutting out irrelevant stimuli to single-mindedly focus on what's important.
6. Human children and monkeys like being tickled. It's a form of socializing. So is laughter itself, at least when we are interacting in person!
7. Fight-or-flight is not the only set of responses to stress. There is also tend-and-befriend, seeking out and relying on social bonds (which studies found is a more typical response among women).
8. Adrenaline, oxytocin, endorphins, dopamine, estrogen, testosterone, serotonin, cortisol, norepinephrine..."The legendary phrase from the Reagan years--'This is your brain on drugs'-- is ultimately misleading. Your brain is nothing but drugs--or put another way, it would be nothing without drugs." [If I may, though, let me refer back before those years and say that the song lyric from Ask Alice is wrong. It's not that one pill makes you larger, another makes you small. It's the interaction of all these chemicals in your unique system that makes you anything at all.]
9. Becoming a bit more aware of how we usually react can let us do a balancing act and counter our own tendencies when they do not serve us in the moment. (The comparison that Steven Johnson uses is that if we see the carpet turning into snakes in front of us, we might panic--unless we know we're on an acid trip, and there's a reason for it. Those drugs just mentioned in #8 are in principle no different, and realizing how they affect us can help us function better.)
10. Similarly, and revising Freud, we don't counteract painful memories that get in our way simply by bringing them to light. We have to make new associations with those thoughts and "extinguish" the older ones.
11. Emotions make memories stick. Positive emotions, too. It's good to savor your highs and triumphs. "If you're the kind of person who doesn't like to dwell on your accomplishments, get over it. If it's good news, by all means dwell.'
I'm also similar to the author, as he describes himself at the end of chapter 6: "a well-orchestrated brain--with no word-famous soloists but a nice sound nonetheless...talented in an orderly kind of way...." So, with my kind of intelligence, I enjoyed the book and will probably reflect on it for a good while into the future.
Even I can tell that neuroscience has progressed quite a bit in the twenty years since this book was written, however. The idea that certain parts of the brain have certain functions that can't be taken over by any other part of the brain is now seen as less true (and to be fair, he recognizes that while still falling into the old way of thinking sometimes). The fMRI, which was a novel thing in 2004, is now more commonplace.
Still, here is just a sampling of what I learned (or learned to put into words) by reading this book:
1. Every conversation contains a silent back-and-forth. I see your facial expression and body language and interpret it as part of your reaction to what I'm saying, and then you see me react and react yourself, and what we put into words is one part of the duet while what we don't say is just as important to the performance. ("Mindreading," in other words, can be misleading but it is unavoidable because it is essential. It is part of how neurotypical human beings make meaning.)
2. Our muscles show our emotions sometimes, in ways that others can detect. The difference between a real smile and one that's fake is visible, even if in the split second that we see and react to it we cannot say why, or how we know the difference.
3. Trauma can produce trace memories of fears. Those memories can last a lifetime, and they can be restimulated because of aspects of the original event we didn't notice at the time. They are stored in the amygdala, they trigger the fight-or-flight response, and (because it's safer to get frightened by something that isn't life-threatening than not to react to something that IS) they are fuzzy "quick sketches"--anything that resembles them can make us afraid, at least for a moment.
4. The unconscious that Freud talked about exists, but it is not simply a matter of repressed sexual drives. It's all the modules that send chemical and electrical systems through our brain and into the rest of our systems. We could not possibly do all that consciously.
5. "Paying attention" is not just one thing. There's "sustain," remaining focused on a task or an object without getting distracted. There's "encoding," which is putting things into working memory (like me chanting out loud the security code one of my apps just sent me before I can log in because the sound of my own voice saying it helps me remember, and not have to open up the message again and again). There are the "focus/execute" skills of doing a sequence of steps automatically (like pulling out of a driveway into a street). And then there is "supervisory attention control," shutting out irrelevant stimuli to single-mindedly focus on what's important.
6. Human children and monkeys like being tickled. It's a form of socializing. So is laughter itself, at least when we are interacting in person!
7. Fight-or-flight is not the only set of responses to stress. There is also tend-and-befriend, seeking out and relying on social bonds (which studies found is a more typical response among women).
8. Adrenaline, oxytocin, endorphins, dopamine, estrogen, testosterone, serotonin, cortisol, norepinephrine..."The legendary phrase from the Reagan years--'This is your brain on drugs'-- is ultimately misleading. Your brain is nothing but drugs--or put another way, it would be nothing without drugs." [If I may, though, let me refer back before those years and say that the song lyric from Ask Alice is wrong. It's not that one pill makes you larger, another makes you small. It's the interaction of all these chemicals in your unique system that makes you anything at all.]
9. Becoming a bit more aware of how we usually react can let us do a balancing act and counter our own tendencies when they do not serve us in the moment. (The comparison that Steven Johnson uses is that if we see the carpet turning into snakes in front of us, we might panic--unless we know we're on an acid trip, and there's a reason for it. Those drugs just mentioned in #8 are in principle no different, and realizing how they affect us can help us function better.)
10. Similarly, and revising Freud, we don't counteract painful memories that get in our way simply by bringing them to light. We have to make new associations with those thoughts and "extinguish" the older ones.
11. Emotions make memories stick. Positive emotions, too. It's good to savor your highs and triumphs. "If you're the kind of person who doesn't like to dwell on your accomplishments, get over it. If it's good news, by all means dwell.'
August 27, 2017
Se regodea demasiado en sí mismo, pero tiene cosas muy rescatables. Mi parte favorita es aquella en la que se propone examinar el psicoanálisis freudiano desde la óptica de los avances neurológicos, y encuentra que el psicoanálisis no está superado sino todo lo contrario.
October 11, 2024
Good review of how the brain works. He does an exceptional job of explaining how fear and anxiety work. No judgement, just science.
A couple of months after I read this book, I found myself recommending it explicitly because they lacked understanding of how trauma affects everyone.
A couple of months after I read this book, I found myself recommending it explicitly because they lacked understanding of how trauma affects everyone.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews