What do you think?
Rate this book
The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates The Complexities of Human Thought
In The Birth of the Mind, award-winning cognitive scientist Gary Marcus irrevocably alters the nature vs. nurture debate by linking the findings of the Human Genome Project to the development of the brain. Scientists have long struggled to understand how a tiny number of genes could contain the instructions for building the human brain, arguably the most complex device in the known universe. Synthesizing up-to-the-minute research with his own original findings on child development, Marcus is the first to resolve this apparent contradiction. Vibrantly written and completely accessible to the lay reader, The Birth of the Mind will forever change the way we think about our origins and ourselves.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 28, 1963
44 people are currently reading
1486 people want to read
About the author
Gary F. Marcus
15 books208 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 - 26 of 26 reviews
January 8, 2014
How can a paltry 30,000 genes code for the production of a human being with its trillions of cells, each cell itself an exquisitely complex assembly of interacting organelles, microstructures and molecules? It would seem there wouldn't be enough information contained in such a small number of instructions. Marcus does a masterful job explaining how this so called "gene deficit" is simply a result of thinking of genes the wrong way. The genome is not a blueprint or otherwise static list of instructions; it is a "recipe" for how individual agents (the genes) should interact using simple local rules. The complexity of the body and mind emerge from these interactions through time in dynamic relation with the environment. I have read no better explanation of how genes *really* work. Marcus explodes simplistic notions of deterministic genetic blueprints while painting a satisfying portrait of the true relationship between nature and nurture - as inseparable aspects of the same developmental process. His discussion about how genes build brains (and hence thought) is almost secondary. His main point is that the processes (and genes) that go into building brains and maintaining their function through life are fundamentally no different than those that go into building every other aspect of us. Where this book truly shines, brilliantly, is in elucidating that general developmental process.
At 180ish pages this book is condensed goodness - erudite, educational and entertaining. Loved it. Marcus is one of my favorite new scientists.
At 180ish pages this book is condensed goodness - erudite, educational and entertaining. Loved it. Marcus is one of my favorite new scientists.
September 8, 2015
Gary Marcus gives us a thoroughly readable and enjoyable survey of what is known and surmised about how our genetics affects our brain, and what it does. The illustrations are pertinent, the mix of technical terms and memorable anecdotes is just about right, and a wide range of great thinkers (Pinker and Dawkins, Crick and Mendel) are called upon to help illustrate the problems and their purported solutions.
But, does it really give us anything we didn't already have, this book?
In some sense, the answer must be no. We already knew that genetics controls some aspects of our thinking, but not all, and that which it does control still interacts with our environment. We already knew that some of this is present even in the lowly fruit fly, without any evidence that fruit flies think as we do, because the same gene can code for multiple different affects in different species or different parts of the body (e.g. brain and not-brain), This is not, in other words, a "big idea" book.
The field of genetics and neurology are slowly colliding, like two galaxies that pass through each other. There are a lot of things left to be discovered here, including a lot of discoveries with the potential to cause major changes to fields like education, criminal justice, political science, and economics.
This is because most of our thinking happens by analogy, and most of our analogies in this area are wrong. Not just wrong in the way all analogies are approximations of the truth, either. We think of DNA as a blueprint, but it's more like a recipe; rarely is there a one-to-one correspondence between the letters of a recipe and the parts of a dinner entree. We think of the brain as a computer, but it's more like a muscle (use it or lose it). We think of memory as a videotape, but it's more like the script to a play (you see Hamlet's outfit, but it is described in the text in only the most general way, and that of the other characters not at all, notwithstanding which they will usually appear in your memory wearing something).
In most areas of science, popular understanding is not just behind that of researchers (an inevitable state of affairs, almost by definition of "researcher"), it is also falling further and further behind. Our criminal justice system still relies upon eyewitness testimony more than any other form of evidence, even though it has long since been demonstrated to be far less reliable than every jury supposes. Our economic systems suppose that the brain is either perfectly rational, or in need of protection from its own errors in judgement (by brains with superior judgement, one supposes), but none give much attention to how to make the environment one in which our brains would work best.
There are those, like proponents of Intelligent Design, who are more or less openly opposed to science. I do not fear their focused enmity so much as I fear the apathy of the masses, who are not so much opposed to science as oblivious to it. The greatest threat to science, and the society that uses it, is not religious zealotry, which is a threat Science has lived with, and prospered in spite of, since its earliest days. No, the greatest threat to science is a society which says, 'no thanks, I'm full'. If we freeze our understanding of how the world works at somewhere around the mid-twentieth century, the ever-growing distance between scientists and the population they live among cannot but result in an ever-growing resentment between the two.
It is into this situation that a book such as this one by Gary Marcus steps. It is not, as I said, a "big idea" book. It puts forward no grand new schemes for ordering our thoughts. We will not see quotations of Marcus' text in decades to come.
What Marcus does, and does well, is survey again for us what is known, and how we know it, for those who care about the impact of genetics on our concept of free will, but are not certain that they understand what is known about it. It approaches each problem from several angles: presenting of data, diagram, pithy anecdote, thought experiment. Whichever one works best for the reader to digest, he provides it. Marcus' book is what textbooks should be like, but almost never are. It is a book which makes us slightly less ignorant about our own true natures, a subject about which nearly every human living could use some instruction. Read it if you care.
But, does it really give us anything we didn't already have, this book?
In some sense, the answer must be no. We already knew that genetics controls some aspects of our thinking, but not all, and that which it does control still interacts with our environment. We already knew that some of this is present even in the lowly fruit fly, without any evidence that fruit flies think as we do, because the same gene can code for multiple different affects in different species or different parts of the body (e.g. brain and not-brain), This is not, in other words, a "big idea" book.
The field of genetics and neurology are slowly colliding, like two galaxies that pass through each other. There are a lot of things left to be discovered here, including a lot of discoveries with the potential to cause major changes to fields like education, criminal justice, political science, and economics.
This is because most of our thinking happens by analogy, and most of our analogies in this area are wrong. Not just wrong in the way all analogies are approximations of the truth, either. We think of DNA as a blueprint, but it's more like a recipe; rarely is there a one-to-one correspondence between the letters of a recipe and the parts of a dinner entree. We think of the brain as a computer, but it's more like a muscle (use it or lose it). We think of memory as a videotape, but it's more like the script to a play (you see Hamlet's outfit, but it is described in the text in only the most general way, and that of the other characters not at all, notwithstanding which they will usually appear in your memory wearing something).
In most areas of science, popular understanding is not just behind that of researchers (an inevitable state of affairs, almost by definition of "researcher"), it is also falling further and further behind. Our criminal justice system still relies upon eyewitness testimony more than any other form of evidence, even though it has long since been demonstrated to be far less reliable than every jury supposes. Our economic systems suppose that the brain is either perfectly rational, or in need of protection from its own errors in judgement (by brains with superior judgement, one supposes), but none give much attention to how to make the environment one in which our brains would work best.
There are those, like proponents of Intelligent Design, who are more or less openly opposed to science. I do not fear their focused enmity so much as I fear the apathy of the masses, who are not so much opposed to science as oblivious to it. The greatest threat to science, and the society that uses it, is not religious zealotry, which is a threat Science has lived with, and prospered in spite of, since its earliest days. No, the greatest threat to science is a society which says, 'no thanks, I'm full'. If we freeze our understanding of how the world works at somewhere around the mid-twentieth century, the ever-growing distance between scientists and the population they live among cannot but result in an ever-growing resentment between the two.
It is into this situation that a book such as this one by Gary Marcus steps. It is not, as I said, a "big idea" book. It puts forward no grand new schemes for ordering our thoughts. We will not see quotations of Marcus' text in decades to come.
What Marcus does, and does well, is survey again for us what is known, and how we know it, for those who care about the impact of genetics on our concept of free will, but are not certain that they understand what is known about it. It approaches each problem from several angles: presenting of data, diagram, pithy anecdote, thought experiment. Whichever one works best for the reader to digest, he provides it. Marcus' book is what textbooks should be like, but almost never are. It is a book which makes us slightly less ignorant about our own true natures, a subject about which nearly every human living could use some instruction. Read it if you care.
November 20, 2008
This book explores brain development, using examples from neuroscience, behavioral psychology, and genetics. There are some interesting case studies involving babies and their flawed perception of the world at early ages. Also, there were surprisingly barbaric neuroscience experiments investigating the development of the visual cortex in kittens. If you're interested in brain development, this is worth reading. It's a smooth and easy read, which highlights various research efforts on the subject -- through time and around the world.
October 6, 2015
Very interesting book that lightly touches on (redundancy alert) how a tiny number of genes creates the complexities of human thought. I give it 3.5 stars which is half a star more than liked it. The reason for it losing 1.5 stars IMO is because the author has not familiarized himself with the teachings of Harun Yahya, and therefore has fallen prey to believing that evolution could create by itself (through random mutations) organisms as complex as human beings. The chapter entitled "The Evolution of Mental Genes" is by far loaded with so many untrue beliefs (that have been scientifically dispelled brilliantly by Harun Yahya, and All praise is due to God) that it left a bad taste in my mouth (as the saying goes). I will attempt to show you the error of Gary Marcus's naive statements about evolution.
"All evolution arises in one way or another from some kind of change in the genetic code. The most familiar kind of genetic change is the simple mutation, an A changed to a C, a T to a G. As we have seen, such mutation can lead to disorders, but they can also lead to useful evolutionary innovation. On occasion, a mutation-which might result from radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, or errors in the process of DNA replication-turns out to be a good thing, something that helps its bearer have a better chance of thriving and reproducing. A particularly valuable mutation may gradually spread through the population; such is the source of much evolutionary change."
Gary Marcus fails to follow up with an example of a valuable mutation that gradually spread through the population. He expects us to take his word for it and even goes so far as to say that "On occasion, a mutation-which might result from radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, or errors in the process of DNA replication-turns out to be a good thing, something that helps its bearer have a better chance of thriving and reproducing."
Now any human being with the blessed gift of thought can discern the errors in this statement just by looking at the outcome of radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, and errors in the process of DNA replication today.
Radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, and errors do not lead to beneficial mutations but are time and time again leading to detrimental mutations such as cancer, diseases, malformations, and deaths.
Harun Yahya expounds on the mistaken idea that evolution proceeds through mutation in his chapter "The Deception of Evolution":
"Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world
is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living
beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous
complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes,
lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic
disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally
undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living
beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex
structure, and random effects can only harm it. The
American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as
follows:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly,
most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather
than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random
change in a highly ordered system will be for the
worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake
were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building,
there would be a random change in the framework of
the building which, in all probability, would not be an
improvement.
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful,
that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has
been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be
harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented
as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a
genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves
them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on
human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism
cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism."
Now, after reading that I must end this review with a disclaimer. My purpose is not to gloat over the fact that Gary Marcus does not know about the myth of evolution being successfully debunked by Harun Yahya. I was also at a point in my life that had accepted the idea of evolution (as it has been hammered into my mind since I am a product of the public school system and all of its accepted forms of thinking). I have also been brainwashed by materialist propaganda to believe in the idea of evolution Gary Marcus, I only present this review in the hopes that it might reach you or someone who can direct you towards the scientific understanding of the error of evolution.
Besides the inserted slip up of Gary Marcus's chapter "The Evolution of Mental Genes", the rest of the book is pretty well researched and had it's very nice moments of brilliance. I have reaped some of those brilliant quotes and they can be found along with this review.
For further information on the deception of evolution: All of Harun Yahya's books may be downloaded free at www.HarunYahya.com
"All evolution arises in one way or another from some kind of change in the genetic code. The most familiar kind of genetic change is the simple mutation, an A changed to a C, a T to a G. As we have seen, such mutation can lead to disorders, but they can also lead to useful evolutionary innovation. On occasion, a mutation-which might result from radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, or errors in the process of DNA replication-turns out to be a good thing, something that helps its bearer have a better chance of thriving and reproducing. A particularly valuable mutation may gradually spread through the population; such is the source of much evolutionary change."
Gary Marcus fails to follow up with an example of a valuable mutation that gradually spread through the population. He expects us to take his word for it and even goes so far as to say that "On occasion, a mutation-which might result from radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, or errors in the process of DNA replication-turns out to be a good thing, something that helps its bearer have a better chance of thriving and reproducing."
Now any human being with the blessed gift of thought can discern the errors in this statement just by looking at the outcome of radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, and errors in the process of DNA replication today.
Radiation, toxic chemicals, viruses, and errors do not lead to beneficial mutations but are time and time again leading to detrimental mutations such as cancer, diseases, malformations, and deaths.
Harun Yahya expounds on the mistaken idea that evolution proceeds through mutation in his chapter "The Deception of Evolution":
"Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world
is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living
beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous
complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes,
lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic
disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally
undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living
beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex
structure, and random effects can only harm it. The
American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as
follows:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly,
most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather
than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random
change in a highly ordered system will be for the
worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake
were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building,
there would be a random change in the framework of
the building which, in all probability, would not be an
improvement.
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful,
that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has
been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be
harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented
as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a
genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves
them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on
human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism
cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism."
Now, after reading that I must end this review with a disclaimer. My purpose is not to gloat over the fact that Gary Marcus does not know about the myth of evolution being successfully debunked by Harun Yahya. I was also at a point in my life that had accepted the idea of evolution (as it has been hammered into my mind since I am a product of the public school system and all of its accepted forms of thinking). I have also been brainwashed by materialist propaganda to believe in the idea of evolution Gary Marcus, I only present this review in the hopes that it might reach you or someone who can direct you towards the scientific understanding of the error of evolution.
Besides the inserted slip up of Gary Marcus's chapter "The Evolution of Mental Genes", the rest of the book is pretty well researched and had it's very nice moments of brilliance. I have reaped some of those brilliant quotes and they can be found along with this review.
For further information on the deception of evolution: All of Harun Yahya's books may be downloaded free at www.HarunYahya.com
August 11, 2012
Lots of fluff without much new information.
Some gross errors that diminish the book,
like talking about "the genes for gender",
pardon me, but while some languages may have "gender"
people and other animals have sex.
I'm not surprised that errors like this are made,
but rather there seems to be no fact checker or editor to clean up the messes the author makes.
The author talks a lot about "identical twins",
and how they're not really identical.
True, that's because they are not really identical,
they are mirror images.
Because most people have symmetrical bodies, MI twins look identical most of the time,
but if one has a mole on one side of the body,
the other has a similar mole on the OTHER side, mirror image.
Does this make a difference?
Probably.
In the world of drugs, there are many examples of "mirror image" drugs,
stereoisomers.
A right hand version called dextro and a left hand called levo.
Usually only one is medically active, but the other one has side effects.
So the drug company goes to some expense separating out the inactive one.
DEXTROamphetamine is one example,
I suspect most people know what this can be used for.
LEVOthyroxine is another, a thyroid replacement,
the dextro form was used for a while to lower cholesterol levels,
an entirely different use, but has been withdrawn from the market because of side effects.
I'd expect that in the chemical soup of the human body there are many chemicals that are stereoisomers.
One twin would have the dextro form, the mirror image twin, the levo,
with resulting different effects.
Other defects in the book:
the author has a cornball sense of humor.
e.g.
He talks about apes that have discovered a tool to aid in masturbation,
(NO WORD, YET, ON WHETHER THIS IS PROGRESSIVELY LEADING THEM TO GO BLIND.) sic
HAR, HAR, HAR
..........rinse, repeat, lather, next please.
Some gross errors that diminish the book,
like talking about "the genes for gender",
pardon me, but while some languages may have "gender"
people and other animals have sex.
I'm not surprised that errors like this are made,
but rather there seems to be no fact checker or editor to clean up the messes the author makes.
The author talks a lot about "identical twins",
and how they're not really identical.
True, that's because they are not really identical,
they are mirror images.
Because most people have symmetrical bodies, MI twins look identical most of the time,
but if one has a mole on one side of the body,
the other has a similar mole on the OTHER side, mirror image.
Does this make a difference?
Probably.
In the world of drugs, there are many examples of "mirror image" drugs,
stereoisomers.
A right hand version called dextro and a left hand called levo.
Usually only one is medically active, but the other one has side effects.
So the drug company goes to some expense separating out the inactive one.
DEXTROamphetamine is one example,
I suspect most people know what this can be used for.
LEVOthyroxine is another, a thyroid replacement,
the dextro form was used for a while to lower cholesterol levels,
an entirely different use, but has been withdrawn from the market because of side effects.
I'd expect that in the chemical soup of the human body there are many chemicals that are stereoisomers.
One twin would have the dextro form, the mirror image twin, the levo,
with resulting different effects.
Other defects in the book:
the author has a cornball sense of humor.
e.g.
He talks about apes that have discovered a tool to aid in masturbation,
(NO WORD, YET, ON WHETHER THIS IS PROGRESSIVELY LEADING THEM TO GO BLIND.) sic
HAR, HAR, HAR
..........rinse, repeat, lather, next please.
October 15, 2013
Lots of fluff and not a lot of new information? Huh, one of the things I liked about this book is that it DID NOT add in a bunch of fluff. At less than 200 pages for the main part of the book, it's quite concise.
He looks at lot of the claims that because we have so few genes or that because the brain is so plastic that there can't be anything innate. He shows how genes play a developmental role in the brain and how they are necessary for every day brain functioning.
He also shows how the capacity to learn is itself an adaptation. Basically his point is that genes and environment, or nature and nurture, are not in conflict, but work together in harmony. This theme is present in many books, such as The Science of Consequences: How They Affect Genes, Change the Brain, and Impact Our World , except instead of making this "you are not your genes!" spiel, Marcus CORRECTLY puts this developmental Nature AND nurture viewpoint into an evolutionary framework quite compatible with the aims of sociobiology and evolutionary cognitive psychology
I'd also recommend The Triumph of Sociobiology to supplement this book. Between these two books your view of mind & behavior will be changed for the better. Also, the Science of Consequences is still a really great book, I'd recommend it too!
He looks at lot of the claims that because we have so few genes or that because the brain is so plastic that there can't be anything innate. He shows how genes play a developmental role in the brain and how they are necessary for every day brain functioning.
He also shows how the capacity to learn is itself an adaptation. Basically his point is that genes and environment, or nature and nurture, are not in conflict, but work together in harmony. This theme is present in many books, such as The Science of Consequences: How They Affect Genes, Change the Brain, and Impact Our World , except instead of making this "you are not your genes!" spiel, Marcus CORRECTLY puts this developmental Nature AND nurture viewpoint into an evolutionary framework quite compatible with the aims of sociobiology and evolutionary cognitive psychology
I'd also recommend The Triumph of Sociobiology to supplement this book. Between these two books your view of mind & behavior will be changed for the better. Also, the Science of Consequences is still a really great book, I'd recommend it too!
April 28, 2022
This book was much more scientific than I was looking for so a lot of the information was over my head. He really focuses on the power of genetics and how much information is within that first single genome that then builds the baby and grows into an adult. He accounts for nature vs. nurture by the IFS that happen THEN this may be the result. We are not destined to be a certain way but it is a combination of genetic factors that mix with environment that either suppress or enhance individual traits.
November 7, 2017
Marcus ist Pinker-Schüler, das merkt man schon, aber er ist durchaus ein eigenständiger Denker und fähig zu differenzieren. (Zumindest verkauft er den Sprachinstinkt nicht als Tatsache.) Sehr schön, wie er verschiedene Experimente an Kleinkindern, die “beweisen” sollen, was das Kinder schon alles können - oder eben nicht - relativiert.
Die Grundannahme, dass Gene ebenso wie für körperliche Merkmale auch für den Geist verantwortlich sind, ist, wie er selbst weiß und betont, für den heutigen Leser nicht mehr so schockierend, aber er bringt hübsche Beispiele um das zu verplausibilisieren. Der Anspruch wirklich zu erklären wie die Gene das tun, ist ein wenig hype. Er verspricht zwei Paradoxe aufzulösen. 1. Wie können körperliche Strukturen angeboren und zugleich flexibel sein? 2. Wie kann ein Genom, das weit weniger als 100 000 Gene umfasst, das Wachstum von Milliareden von Neuronen steuern?
Gene, so betont er immer wieder, liefern keine Blaupause, sondern WENN-DANN Bedingungen. (So kann ein bestimmter Schmetterling abhängig von Jahreszeit/Wetter bunt oder nicht bunt sein, also “reagieren” die Gene auf Einflüsse, und darum würde ein Dinosaurierei von einem Frosch ausgebrütet auch kein richtiger Dinosaurier werden. Er bringt viele Metaphern aus der Computerwelt (Komprimierungsverfahren).
Zum Schluß plädiert er dafür dem Gedanken der Genmanipulation zur Hervorbringung von Kindern mit dem besten Genom augeschlossen gegenüber zu stehen.
Was wir uns merken wollen:
Axon: De lange, faserartige Output-Teil eines Neurons, der elektrische Impulse von Zellkörgper zum Zielort leitet. (Gegenstück: Dendrit)
Robo: Eine Familie von Genen, die bei der Lenkung der Migration von Axonen über die Medianebene hinweg mitwirkt.
Die Grundannahme, dass Gene ebenso wie für körperliche Merkmale auch für den Geist verantwortlich sind, ist, wie er selbst weiß und betont, für den heutigen Leser nicht mehr so schockierend, aber er bringt hübsche Beispiele um das zu verplausibilisieren. Der Anspruch wirklich zu erklären wie die Gene das tun, ist ein wenig hype. Er verspricht zwei Paradoxe aufzulösen. 1. Wie können körperliche Strukturen angeboren und zugleich flexibel sein? 2. Wie kann ein Genom, das weit weniger als 100 000 Gene umfasst, das Wachstum von Milliareden von Neuronen steuern?
Gene, so betont er immer wieder, liefern keine Blaupause, sondern WENN-DANN Bedingungen. (So kann ein bestimmter Schmetterling abhängig von Jahreszeit/Wetter bunt oder nicht bunt sein, also “reagieren” die Gene auf Einflüsse, und darum würde ein Dinosaurierei von einem Frosch ausgebrütet auch kein richtiger Dinosaurier werden. Er bringt viele Metaphern aus der Computerwelt (Komprimierungsverfahren).
Zum Schluß plädiert er dafür dem Gedanken der Genmanipulation zur Hervorbringung von Kindern mit dem besten Genom augeschlossen gegenüber zu stehen.
Was wir uns merken wollen:
Axon: De lange, faserartige Output-Teil eines Neurons, der elektrische Impulse von Zellkörgper zum Zielort leitet. (Gegenstück: Dendrit)
Robo: Eine Familie von Genen, die bei der Lenkung der Migration von Axonen über die Medianebene hinweg mitwirkt.
April 1, 2012
This is the first time I have read a nuanced, enlightened explanation of the nature/nurture debate. Usually the writer on this topic is in one camp or the other, or the explanation is very reductive. Marcus covers many shades of gray, and though there is no satisfyingly clean answer, he never insults the reader by pandering to oversimplified theories. It almost seems like there is a waltz between the environment and our DNA, with one partner leading and then the other, to suit the moment. I can see why heavyweights Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky were impressed. A word of caution to animal lovers: there are many casual references to lab experiments done on an array of creatures that you will find upsetting.
November 15, 2009
This is my introduction to genes. I think I made a good choice with this author.
September 3, 2020
In the quest to unravel the complex interaction between behavior, brain and genome Gary F. Marcus
narrates a compelling story through the field of genetics and brain experiments of the past century up to his then present-day research. The book was published in 2004 and numerous researches have been done up until now that might have added to or updated the pre-existing knowledge of this specific field, but I have to admit that this book is indeed a good place to start.
The essence of the book is the nature vs. nurture debate. In other words whether innate capacities (such as genes) and the environment relatively contribute to language acquisition and learning abilities. Along the way, he dispels common misconceptions people have about genes, he analyses findings of researches* and explores the stunning possibilities of the future of genetic engineering.
*Geneticists, molecular biologist, neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists experimenting or researching on human babies, monkeys, kittens, rodents, birds, frogs, fruit flies, worms, sea slugs, bacteria, peas and more.
The friendly & sophisticated writing style, readability and even a good dose of humor made this book quite enjoyable, as well as the fact that it gave you a lot to think about. Especially at the end when the author expressed various philosophical and ethical concerns, which made me ponder for a while.
narrates a compelling story through the field of genetics and brain experiments of the past century up to his then present-day research. The book was published in 2004 and numerous researches have been done up until now that might have added to or updated the pre-existing knowledge of this specific field, but I have to admit that this book is indeed a good place to start.
The essence of the book is the nature vs. nurture debate. In other words whether innate capacities (such as genes) and the environment relatively contribute to language acquisition and learning abilities. Along the way, he dispels common misconceptions people have about genes, he analyses findings of researches* and explores the stunning possibilities of the future of genetic engineering.
*Geneticists, molecular biologist, neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists experimenting or researching on human babies, monkeys, kittens, rodents, birds, frogs, fruit flies, worms, sea slugs, bacteria, peas and more.
The friendly & sophisticated writing style, readability and even a good dose of humor made this book quite enjoyable, as well as the fact that it gave you a lot to think about. Especially at the end when the author expressed various philosophical and ethical concerns, which made me ponder for a while.
July 12, 2022
In this book, Marcus speculates about how genes create our brains - or more generally, our bodies - but not so much our minds. We have some 30,000 genes, or call it 300,000 in case we haven't yet understood all the ways that what appears to be single genes can code for multiple proteins, using alternate transcriptions, post-transcriptional modification and what not. Still a "tiny" number compared to the brain's many billions of neurons with trillions of synapses, not to mention the rest of our bodies with their trillions of cells. Marcus's proposed resolution of this mystery is that the genome is not a "blueprint", but rather a set of "recipes", instructions for how to build complex things. The central feature that is claimed to allow the construction of something as complex as our brains using such a brief recipe is the presence of regulatory mechanisms that turn genes on or off in response to environmental factors, where "environment" may refer to information that is either received through our senses or internally generated, such as concentration gradients that guide axonal growth during development. The same genes are used over and over in different combinations and sequences to construct all our organs during development, and also to control all the processes in all our cells throughout our lives.
All the control mechanisms are of course also encoded in the genome, e.g. in the form of DNA regions that serve as binding sites for molecules that promote or inhibit transcription of nearby genes, molecules that may in turn be the product of transcription and/or translation of yet other genes, forming unimaginably complex cascades.
While nobody can doubt the importance and enormous flexibility afforded by such mechanisms, to my mind it remains a mystery how all these processes can be encoded in a "tiny" genome - instructions for building dendritic spine heads, fingernails, hair follicles, the circulatory system, ovaries, olfactory cells, and on and on. Has Marcus correctly identified the central mechanisms that make all this possible, and the rest is "just" complexity - or are major pieces of the puzzle still missing? I don't know. I don't feel that the book quite delivers on its title's promise to explain "how" it all happens.
Disappointingly, not much is said about how genes give birth to minds, except in the most general terms. The title suggests that we will be treated to some interesting advances - or at least speculation or exciting new ideas - about the mind-brain problem, but that doesn't really happen.
The book contains some interesting information about how genes work, and makes a good case for putting the nature/nurture debate to rest (but hadn't that already been done?), but does not actually provide much specific information about how brains are built (as opposed to other parts of organisms), and less (as in nothing) about how brains give rise to minds.
All the control mechanisms are of course also encoded in the genome, e.g. in the form of DNA regions that serve as binding sites for molecules that promote or inhibit transcription of nearby genes, molecules that may in turn be the product of transcription and/or translation of yet other genes, forming unimaginably complex cascades.
While nobody can doubt the importance and enormous flexibility afforded by such mechanisms, to my mind it remains a mystery how all these processes can be encoded in a "tiny" genome - instructions for building dendritic spine heads, fingernails, hair follicles, the circulatory system, ovaries, olfactory cells, and on and on. Has Marcus correctly identified the central mechanisms that make all this possible, and the rest is "just" complexity - or are major pieces of the puzzle still missing? I don't know. I don't feel that the book quite delivers on its title's promise to explain "how" it all happens.
Disappointingly, not much is said about how genes give birth to minds, except in the most general terms. The title suggests that we will be treated to some interesting advances - or at least speculation or exciting new ideas - about the mind-brain problem, but that doesn't really happen.
The book contains some interesting information about how genes work, and makes a good case for putting the nature/nurture debate to rest (but hadn't that already been done?), but does not actually provide much specific information about how brains are built (as opposed to other parts of organisms), and less (as in nothing) about how brains give rise to minds.
November 28, 2020
I especially loved his extensive use of metaphors. It made the concepts of genetics sticks more in my mind. Now I see genes to mind like a recipe to the cake. One cannot remove each crumb and find its corresponding 'word'. But what sparked me the most is the concept that 'what a creature can learn is a matter of what gene it has.' (169). A willow flycatcher can only sing one song, whereas a sparrow can break down songs into components like we adopt languages. This really elucidated the importance of genes.
I also love how he alludes the genetic code to an 'if-then' statement, If 'Xyz' is met, then a certain gene will be turned on. This really elucidated the interaction between nature and nurture to me. I learned that the chief contribution of gene is not moment-by-moment auctions, but 'offline processes' that allows the laying down and adjustment of neural circuits. Thus, although genes do not directly correspond to behavior, it influences the neural circuit that does.
I am a believer that language is what distinguishes us from other mammals, but I still don't really understand how finding a small set of 'language gene' can explain the complexity of our mental world. What is the interaction of the FOXP2 gene with the Theory of Mind?
I also love how he alludes the genetic code to an 'if-then' statement, If 'Xyz' is met, then a certain gene will be turned on. This really elucidated the interaction between nature and nurture to me. I learned that the chief contribution of gene is not moment-by-moment auctions, but 'offline processes' that allows the laying down and adjustment of neural circuits. Thus, although genes do not directly correspond to behavior, it influences the neural circuit that does.
I am a believer that language is what distinguishes us from other mammals, but I still don't really understand how finding a small set of 'language gene' can explain the complexity of our mental world. What is the interaction of the FOXP2 gene with the Theory of Mind?
February 17, 2022
Libro oramai datato ma con spunti interessanti nella prima metà e ancora inevasi dalla ricerca.
Non per tutti, sia per la complessità dell'argomento neuroscienze che per una trattazione piena di rimandi sperimentali.
Non per tutti, sia per la complessità dell'argomento neuroscienze che per una trattazione piena di rimandi sperimentali.
April 17, 2023
This book was heavily focused on the biological aspects of brain development, where as I am more interested in the psychological aspects of the human mind. So this book really wasn’t for me. But I would still recommend to someone interested in biology and the biology of the human mind.
Want to read
October 5, 2020recommendation: [The Dark Stoa: Who Am I w/ Patrick Ryan - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwUQN...), [CultState - Podcasts](https://cultstate.com/podcasts/)
March 21, 2015
Learning is a prenatal inaugurated ability that is so mysterious to our understanding. According to the contant of this book, it stated that even a four days new born could have its recognition ability in a module of an adult's congnitive ability.
A paltry of restricted number of genome is responsible for the developement of the nervous system and in the view of a shifted module of systematic calculation in maths, the genome is rather small in munber, so meagre to have the whole brain controlled in such a precise way of functioning in a normal way.
Characteristics revealled by genetic heredity, is, by no means, under the universal emancipating precision that is a conglomerating thread of various function controlling lineages by mathematical means, to have the appointed object manifested in a way of universal precision. That means, the brain so miraculously functioned in its own precision, is just a miraculous function of a certain group of precise numerics in a systematic ralm of universe.
A paltry of restricted number of genome is responsible for the developement of the nervous system and in the view of a shifted module of systematic calculation in maths, the genome is rather small in munber, so meagre to have the whole brain controlled in such a precise way of functioning in a normal way.
Characteristics revealled by genetic heredity, is, by no means, under the universal emancipating precision that is a conglomerating thread of various function controlling lineages by mathematical means, to have the appointed object manifested in a way of universal precision. That means, the brain so miraculously functioned in its own precision, is just a miraculous function of a certain group of precise numerics in a systematic ralm of universe.
October 19, 2013
This book was the first scientific book I read that I actually enjoyed. I read it for a 9th grade book report (you’re reading it now), and it wasn't just some professor rambling on for hours. It is a relatively short read at 189 pages (not including glossary and references), and is very informative.
The first couple of chapters explain how genes work and doesn't talk much about the mind. After Marcus finishes explaining genes, he starts explaining how the brain itself works (with a chapter-long essay on the Nature vs. Nurture argument), but it isn't until chapter 6 that we learn how genes affect the wiring of the brain. He also explains why we used to think the mind was separate from the body, and how we discovered it wasn't.
Throughout the book, he uses flowcharts, diagrams, and pictures (mostly of the Mona Lisa) to make his point. These diagrams aren't too hard to follow (though they may look a bit confusing). The only thing i did not enjoy was his sense of humor.
The first couple of chapters explain how genes work and doesn't talk much about the mind. After Marcus finishes explaining genes, he starts explaining how the brain itself works (with a chapter-long essay on the Nature vs. Nurture argument), but it isn't until chapter 6 that we learn how genes affect the wiring of the brain. He also explains why we used to think the mind was separate from the body, and how we discovered it wasn't.
Throughout the book, he uses flowcharts, diagrams, and pictures (mostly of the Mona Lisa) to make his point. These diagrams aren't too hard to follow (though they may look a bit confusing). The only thing i did not enjoy was his sense of humor.
February 29, 2016
This book is truly a book of wisdom. It opens door that no one would ever expect to be opened in your mind. It was a bit of a tough read but getting through expanded my knowledge on how the brain is made. When it explained how the brain works it made me suddenly realize why I feel in certain ways and when. It explains that 30,000 genetics it takes to create a human however only no more than 20 genes is what it takes to create the brain. It is truly fascinating. Books like these are what can help people succeed. Not only these books but also the authors. The authors have possibly triple the knowledge put into these books but one book at a time they're sharing chunks of their knowledge. I'd recommend this book to anyone in 8th grade or above because it may be a bit of a tough read but it's worth the result you'll receive
September 8, 2011
The title is an exaggeration. The book discusses some recent research of how brain and mind develops, but the truth is that we still do not know much about this complex process. If you want to find a coherent picture of mind development or a grand theory, you will be disappointed.
November 26, 2012
Although focused on the gene expression side, the latter part in particular has a rather well balanced nature/nurture discussion, copiously researched and accessible for the "non-neuroscientist" reader.
November 7, 2018
Un buon saggio sul cervello come organo prodotto dall'evoluzione e dal prodotto di un piccolo numero di geni.
Di difficoltà abbastanza alta, non è consigliato ai non specialisti, o comunque a chiunque non abbia già più di una infarinatura in neurologia, genetica, biologia molecolare, cibernetica.
Di difficoltà abbastanza alta, non è consigliato ai non specialisti, o comunque a chiunque non abbia già più di una infarinatura in neurologia, genetica, biologia molecolare, cibernetica.
March 15, 2013
Perfect introduction to genes for the non specialist. The flow of the book is smooth and it keeps you engaged. Will read more books by this author for sure as he has that rare gift of simplifying complex ideas.
August 3, 2008
surprisingly quick read for such a big topic, but a great primer for venturing into evolution and the mind.
Want to read
December 18, 2008Started it a while ago but had to drop it, I had too many things to do at my lab. However, I hope to pick it up again soon!
May 9, 2010
Scientific but the concepts are easily understood even if the detailed science is better if you have a biology background.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews