This book is way too long, and the last part (about philosophy) is fairly ill-informed. The most surprising thing is that cognitive psychology is limited to perception and the imagery debate; no discussion of memory, very limited discussion of reasoning, not to mention planning or motor planning. For today's standards, it's outdated by David Buss's text on evolutionary psychology.

I was surprised at just how comprehensive and compelling the two theories presented in the book are:
1) the mind is an information processor, i.e. computer
2) many characteristics of the mind can be explained in terms of the selective pressures on humans living as tribes of hunter/gatherers.

Some bits that stand out are viewing emotions as facilitators of cooperation, in that they offer difficult-to-spoof insights to someone's state of mind. They also implement a doomsday-device-like deterrent; an infuriated person acts in a way that seems clearly not in their rational self-interest. The (credible) possibility of such a rage acts as a deterrent to those who might consider exploiting the subject.

One thing I didn't like is the author's tendency to take potshots at different groups.

Book Review
Period 2
Melissa Hurtado
A Level Psych




They say the mind is a beautiful paradox because it uses itself to understand itself. This quote has chased me around my high school years like a leopard hounding after its prey. Ever since my youth, I have noticed my skepticism on the human capsule. I often wondered if rigorous science labs brought up such an idea as the human mind. Although, childhood beliefs kept my thoughts grounded to an absolute that a grater power was the innovator. How The Mind Works was food for my thoughts. Steven pinker did not answer all of my unending questions but did satisfy some of my mysteries. He starts off by stating about the importance of the cognitive niche. He also states how vision is one of the many factors that have allowed our minds to go to such far extents. I do agree with him in this. Vision has allowed us to make buildings as high as mountains, paintings that capture feelings, and better yet help us find a mate. In the book he explains illusions and different visionary test to see how our mind correlates to our brain and mind. The human mind has been a topic of discussion for over many centuries and I believe Steven Pinker simplified the structure of it in a way that's both enjoyable and informative. Although Pinker had such a great way of easing us into the wonders of the mind, he worked too much on certain topics such as individuality. He did not believe that culture, race, etc.... plays a part in our molding decisions throughout our lives. Those who wonder off into the next levels of the mind's philosophy should read this book. I highly recommend to any who is skeptical about how everything comes together. In the way that this book has helped many readers, it has also helped me add to my knowledge of the mind and the little details that come together to make it up.

A must read for whom is interested in philosophical questions related to the scientific and evolutionary functioning of the mind.

there is two contending interpretation exists among academia on Darwinian Evolution: Gradualism vs Punctuated Equilibrium. they strikingly disagree on the question of “how a phenotypic trait evolves”. in gradualism (Richard Dawkins and others), any phenotype must have an Adaptive value (here the definition of "adaptation" is very strict, it means reproductive advantage only) i.e. a trait that increases the chance for more living offspring evolves slowly through selection pressure. on the other hand, proponent of punctuated equilibrium (Steven J Gould and other) don’t accept the idea of “adaptation”, rather they theorized something called“Exaptation”, which says that a trait may arise through natural selection for one purpose but later organism may find another way to use it which doesn’t give any survival value (i.e. doesn’t provide reproductive advantage). such traits or phenotypes are called evolutionary byproduct. Mr. Gould’s called them “Spandrel”. Spandrels of San Marco are famous for their beautiful art, but originally these spandrels were structural components of the basilica which later turned into artistic masterpieces.

Unlike slow Adaptation, Exaptation happens in punctuated manner, i.e. out of sudden in the geological timescale. Epigenetics is considered to be one of the mechanisms for such punctuated evolution (please see, "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" by Robert M. Sapolsky).

if we consider human mind as a phenotype that comes from an organ called the brain, and if the brain is an evolved organ through natural selection, which interpretation should we take to explain human mind? is mind adaptive? a trait that helps multiplying offspring? Or is mind exaptative, i.e. an evolutionary byproduct?

in his influential book "Thinking, Fast and Slow", Daniel Kahneman demonstrated that human mind is by default irrational, rational thinking is a very expensive process hence turned off most of the time. instead, our brain uses shortcuts, know as heuristics or biases to solve any given situation. this line of research and academic findings tipped the view of human mind toward exaptationism. i.e. prominent view is that human mind is an evolutionary byproduct which explains why it is such irrational. in this view, it is considered that human mind was evolved to survive in predator-prey paradigm in which rational thinking would result in predation and death. our concept of art, music, language, etc is simply a byproduct of a formal survival machine called the brain.

now enters Steven Pinker. Mr. Pinker argued that mind is an adaptive phenotype. so the only way to understand it is through evolutionary history not by chaos theory or reductionist physical approach. which implies that the irrational throughs are not useless at all. rather our cognition biases and irrationalities are very important to increase the change of our reproductive success. and that is exactly how human mind should work.

I consider Steven Pinker and Gerard Diamond as the best two scientific writer of our time. other writers like Yuval Noah Harari, Richard Dawkins etc are popular but not even close to these two giants. in this book, Mr. Pinker destroyed exaptationism, though not without criticism. some of his descriptions just flown over my head, nonetheless, this book turns out to be the most informative book on evolution I've ever read.

VALUTAZIONE PERSONALE: 3,4

How Mind Works é senza dubbio uno dei saggi più lunghi e corposi che mi sia capitato di leggere: ho impiegato moltissimo tempo a terminarlo, un po' a causa dei mille impegni che, purtroppo, riducono sempre più il tempo da dedicare alla lettura, un po' per la sua lunghezza e, perché no, per la noia che alcune sezioni del libro mi hanno trasmesso, in particolar modo i primi capitoli, sebbene, col senno di poi, é risultato evidente che siano quelli più importanti e significativi nell'esporre al lettore la teoria di base dell'autore circa il funzionamento della mente umana.

Per i suddetti motivi, giunto al termine di questo libro, mi ritrovo senza dubbio in difficoltà nel ricordare tutti i passaggi: posso tuttavia cogliere il nocciolo della questione e sintetizzare dicendo che alla base di tutte le considerazioni che l'autore espone al lettore vi é la teoria computazionale della mente. A cosa si riferisce, nella sostanza? Non mi resta che citare direttamente un passo del libro:

"Lo speciale status del cervello deriva dalla sua speciale funzione, che ci permette di vedere, pensare, provare sensazioni, scegliere e agire. Questa funzione speciale è l’elaborazione di informazioni, o computazione. Informazione e computazione risiedono in pattern, o configurazioni, di dati e in rapporti di logica che sono indipendenti dal medium fisico che li trasporta. Quando telefono a mia madre in un’altra città, il messaggio rimane lo stesso che va dalle mie labbra alle sue orecchie, anche se cambia forma fisica: da aria in vibrazione a elettricità in un filo, a cariche nel silicio, a luce guizzante in un cavo a fibre ottiche, a onde elettromagnetiche, e ritorno seguendo il percorso inverso. Analogamente, il messaggio rimane lo stesso quando, dopo aver cambiato forma nella sua testa diventando una cascata di neuroni che si attivano e di sostanze chimiche che si diffondono attraverso sinapsi, lei lo ripete a mio padre seduto sul lato opposto del divano. Allo stesso modo, un dato programma può correre su computer fatti di tubi a vuoto, commutatori elettromagnetici, transistor, circuiti integrati, o piccioni viaggiatori ben addestrati, e ottiene gli stessi risultati per le stesse ragioni. Tale intuizione, espressa per la prima volta dal matematico Alan Turing, dagli informatici Allen Newell, Herbert Simon e Marvin Minsky e dai filosofi Hilary Putnam e Jerry Fodor, è ora detta teoria computazionale della mente".

Altro punto fondamentale é il seguente: l'ingegneria inversa.
Ancora, per dirla con le sue stesse parole:

"...la mente è un sistema di organi di computazione designato per selezione naturale a risolvere i problemi posti ai nostri antenati dalla loro condizione di cacciatori-raccoglitori, in particolare come capire e sfruttare oggetti, animali, piante e altre persone. Tale sintesi è scomponibile in più affermazioni. La mente è ciò che il cervello fa; in particolare, il cervello elabora informazioni, e pensare è una sorta di computazione. La mente è organizzata in moduli, o organi mentali, dotati ognuno di una specializzazione che ne fa un esperto in un singolo terreno d’interazione con il mondo. La logica base dei moduli è specificata dal nostro programma genetico. Il loro funzionamento si è modellato per selezione naturale in modo da risolvere i problemi della vita di cacciatori e raccoglitori condotta dai nostri antenati durante la maggior parte della nostra storia evoluzionistica. I vari problemi dei nostri antenati erano sottocompiti di un unico grande problema dei loro geni: massimizzare il numero di copie capaci di giungere alla generazione successiva. In quest’ottica, la psicologia è ingegneria inversa. Nell’ingegneria normale si costruisce una macchina per un certo scopo; nell’ingegneria inversa si cerca di capire per quale scopo una macchina è stata costruita. "

Posso dunque concludere dicendo che tutti i più grandi aspetti della psicologia umana progressivamente esposti nei vari capitoli vengono affrontati ed elaborati tenendo conto dei due capisaldi precedentemente citati, e non vi sono dubbi che moltissimi passaggi sono estremamente stimolanti per il lettore e che, almeno personalmente, mi hanno "convinto" nella loro semplicità quanto efficacia propositiva.

Tuttavia, alcune considerazioni mi hanno indotto a mantenere un atteggiamento tiepido, entusiasta ma al contempo sufficientemente distaccato e critico nei confronti di ciò che leggevo:

1) How Mind Works é un libro estremamente datato (la prima edizione risale ai primi anni Novanta), soprattutto per i temi trattati: campi come la neurobiologia e la neuropsicologia sono in rapida evoluzione. Sebbene nella prefazione a questa edizione l' autore afferma che l'impianto generale del saggio continua ad essere valido, non sono sufficientemente edotto su queste materie e sui suoi più recenti sviluppi per poter credere acriticamente ad una affermazione simile;
2) l'efficacia divulgativa di Pinker, su temi così opinabili e controversi, mi é parsa piuttosto limitata: non perché non sia capace nell'esporli ai non addetti ai lavori (sebbene alcuni passaggi non sono semplicissimi da capire per chi non ha almeno delle conoscenze basilari in questo campi, mentre altri li ho trovati mortalmente noiosi proprio per il modo in cui erano esposti), ma perché ho avuto l' impressione che l'autore non avesse potuto fare a meno di polemizzare, talvolta anche inopportunamente, con i suoi oppositori, nonché di apparire politically uncorrect ogni qualvolta se ne presentasse l' occasione.
Insomma, non mi ha fatto impazzire il suo stile divulgativo, per dirla in breve.

In conclusione, vale davvero la pena cimentarsi nella lettura di questo librone? Le idee proposte sono estremamente interessanti,e vale la pena approfondirle e tenerle in buona considerazione; il lavoro bibliografico é enorme e di certo non si può dire che sia qualitativamente scadente, tutt'altro.
É "l'anzianità" del libro, nonché lo stile espositivo dell' autore ( sempre secondo il mio umilissimo parere) che fanno pendere la bilancia dal lato opposto: insomma, andrei sicuramente alla ricerca di un testo piú aggiornato e più efficace nell' esposizione di questi argomenti.

I read this as a follow up to The Language Instinct and I should have known it would be hard to top since that was one of my all time favorite books. I absolutely loved the micro view of the brain in this book in the first half - looking at modules, seeing how they could have evolved. The second half zoomed out to discuss more how humans behave and less how neurons are flying around which I was less interested in. If you like a science slog I’d still recommend this one despite my three star rating.

Also, as I’ve been reading more and more of the pop cognitive science books I came to recognize some subtle digs at other scientists’ theories which was entertaining.

Note that this book was written in the nineties before reading the book or this review.

This book raised more questions than answers for me but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Pinker covers a wide range of topics from biological, anthropological to social constructs that have shaped our human mind and behavior. I found the chapter about the place of humor in evolution fascinating (maybe cause I have never read about it before). This book also clarified the notion of Richard Dawkin's 'selfish gene' in a broader context than just biological/evolutionary i.e. it is not animals that are selfish due to their selfish genes rather that their brains and behaviors are designed by the influence of the selfish genes. At times they will, in fact, make sacrifices which might seem altruistic from a societal perspective.

Overall this huge book was quite difficult to digest and should be paced to read and ponder upon. It won't answer your questions but will provide a good framework to explore the questions whose answers you seek.

The reason I knocked off a star was because I felt like it ended a bit abruptly when it was time to discuss human consciousness. It is a tall order to expect the author to provide answers but I wish he spent more time talking about it.

This is a very readable and influential synthesis of the cognitive science view of the mind with that of evolutionary psychology. The overall thrust is that the mind is a neural computer closely governed by feelings and desires that were shaped by natural selection for their adaptive value in the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of our ancestors. The book is lively, with lots of down to earth examples. He holds your hand when wading through many technical subjects, faces disputes in a non-dogmatic way, and addresses political spins on scientific matters in a forthright way.

The heft and scope of the volume is daunting. Yet it is written to be accessible to the general reader as well as scholars. As the emphasis is on synthesis and not a unifying novel theory of mind dependent on the cohesion of all its parts, I feel that the average reader could benefit from reading only the chapters of interest to them. There are sections on visual perception, neural network modeling, passionate emotions, social behaviors, and cultural innovations. As with Wilson’s “Sociobiology”, many readers will be interested in what he has to say about biological roots of human violence, sexual behavior, family values, and the arts. This includes accounts of adaptive values for lying, self delusion, war, mass murder, rape, pornography, parent-child and sibling conflict, altruism, love, marriage, and friendship. Particularly fascinating is his coverage of the cross-cultural phenomenon of people going “amok” and tie-in with the “doomsday machine” theory of passionate emotions, the adaptive value of which lies in their service as “guarantors of threats and promises”.

He makes a good argument that thinking conforms to a kind of language, or mentalese, with categorical, syntactical, and generative properties aligned with Chomsky’s conceptions. He places a big emphasis on the role of beliefs and desires in his perspective on the core properties of human intellect. He doesn’t hold out much hope in the explanatory potential of neuroscience, considering models at that level an inadequate reductionism: "Even if neuroscientists someday decode the entire wiring diagram of the brain, human behavior makes the most sense when it was explained in terms of beliefs and desires, not in terms of volts and grams. Physics provides no insight into the machinations of a crafty lawyer, and even fails to enlighten us about many simpler acts of living things." I agree that explanations at the level physics will not help understand the mind, but I feel hopeful that neuroscience can make much progress in merging biological and psychological models. As this book was written in 2007, it misses the neurological synthesis of the computational and emotional aspects of the mind achieved by Damasio in his 2009 book and the decade of great ferment in cognitive neuroscience due to studies using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

No matter how much it looks like he is on the pathway to biological determinism for so many “bad” human behaviors, he takes great pains to dissociate our inherited mental equipment from our systems of moral responsibility and vision of equal rights: "To understand is not to forgive". For example, understanding a human tendency to revile other cultures does not excuse the Holocaust. Biological determinism for even liberal values can be misguided, e.g. “The argument against persecuting gay people must be made not in terms of the gay gene or the gay brain but in terms of people’s right to engage in private consensual acts without discrimination or harassment.” In the case of the male tendency to mate with any women they can, even to the point of rape, rather than agreeing with one of his students that the key conclusion is that “Men are slime!”, he feels they still should be swayed by morality: “If … men are especially tempted to commit certain crimes against women, the implication is that deterrents should be surer and more severe, not that the crimes are somehow less odious.” Pinker further argues that environmental determinism is just as unfruitful. He feels feminists’ stance against discrimination and oppression of women can do without the position that their origin lies in brainwashing of children and youth by media, pornography, and child rearing and educational practices.

A refreshing aspect of Pinker’s book is that he makes very little claim to explaining free will and sentience. He also places a lot of advanced cultural accomplishments of humans, such as art, humor, and religion in a category of having no likely evolutionary adaptive value. He suspects that these capacities are “along for the ride” and that “human brains evolved by one set of laws, those of natural selection and genetics, and now interact with one another according to another set of laws, those of cognitive and social psychology, human ecology, and history”.

Pinker hits the bull's eye in this book debunking the ill arguments of the nurture front in the nature nurture debate, on his way relentlessly takes down feminism, noble savage theory, blank slate and on the side veganism a bit dealing crushing blows with solid arguments and facts. A must read for those interested in behavioral research and debunking the patchouli scented romantic arguments of the left.

This may be the best books summarising the interaction of neural networks/neuroscience, psychology, biology and sociology that forms modern cognitive science for the non expert. In part, that's because there aren't that many books trying to do that.

The key ideas are the computional theory of the mind/mind=brain as a computational system using inputs from reality and mental models and languages to generate mental representations/pictures that guide our answers and choices (but quite different in several ways from a digital computer), and natural selection/evolution generating a species/humans that specialise in survival due to superior cognitive abilities.

There's also an introduction to neural networks as how the brain implements the mind, a decent discussion about consciousness, emotions, bounded rationality and cognitive biases, but those discussions are relatively short and the topics better covered in other later books (e.g Kahneman's Thinking Fast Thinking Slow for cognitive biases, Dahaene's Consciousness and the brain etc...).
Much has been made about the power of artificial neural networks to learn and even outperform humans in some restricted domains, and the computational theory of mind and its focus on innate knowledge has been dismissed by some of the researchers involved. But behind the scenes many of those successes rely on good data that is similar to providing the networks to strongly informative Bayesian priors and state of the art AI is putting more emphasis on organising neural network learning via good models and the equivalent of innate knowledge or prior probabilities. The basic idea of a computational system processing inputs into various propositions/representations implemented by (deep) neural networks remains a decent synthesis, though the last 20 years (this book is from 1998) have seen big improvements in both neural networks and more structural models such Bayesian networks.

2015.11.18–2015.11.23

Contents

Pinker S (1997) (26:09) How the Mind Works

Preface

1. Standard Equipment
• The Robot Challenge
• Reverse-Engineering the Psyche
• Psychological Correctness

2. Thinking Machines
• The Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe
• Natural Computation
• The Defending Champion
• Connectoplasm
• Aladdin's Lamp

3. Revenge of the Nerds
• Get Smart
• Life's Designer
• The Blind Programmer
• Instinct and Intelligence
• The Cognitive Niche
• Why Us?
• What Now?

4. The Mind's Eye
• Deep Eye
• Lighting, Shading, Shaping
• Seeing in Two and a Half Dimensions
• Frames of Reference
• Animal Crackers
• Imagine That!

5. Good Ideas
• Ecological Intelligence
• Little Boxes
• Core Curriculum
• A Trivium
• Eureka!

6. Hotheads
• Universal Passion
• Feeling Machines
• The Suburban Savanna
• Food for Thought
• The Smell of Fear
• The Happiness Treadmill
• The Sirens' Song
• I and Thou
• The Doomsday Machine
• Fools for Love
• The Society of Feelings
• Kidding Ourselves

7. Family Values
• Kith and Kin
• Parents and Children
• Brothers and Sisters
• Men and Women
• Husbands and Wives
• Rivals
• Friends and Acquaintances
• Allies and Enemies
• Humanity

8. The Meaning of Life
• Arts and Entertainment
• What's So Funny?
• The Inquisitive in Pursuit of the Inconceivable

9. Afterword (2009)

Notes
References
Index