Rating: 
Summary: Far too long; lacks coherence & clarity
Review: I was really looking forward to this book. For one, I think Steve Pinker is an intelligent and has some useful comments to make. Also, I am rather intrigued by the science (?) of evolutionary psychology. Having said that, I must confess that "How the mind works" was a bit of a let-down. It is far too long and lacks coherence. Was it Abe Lincoln who said that it took him a just a few minutes to write a page but an hour to express the same within a paragraph? That would be my advice to Steve Pinker -- he would have been well served by culling his thoughts and ompressing them within half the space. That would have made for a far more lucid, clear and enjoyable book.
Rating: 
Summary: An extraordinary book, erudite and readable!
Review: If I could have given this book an 11, I would have. Pinker has done it again. In his comfortable, entertaining style, he rigorously examines the workings of the human mind. Our minds are like computers in some ways, yet utterly unlike them in others; generalists in some ways, specifists in others; sometimes literal, sometimes implicit; above all, exactly and exquisitely suited for the life of a pre-civilized human animal. Pinker quotes sources from Einstein to Miss Piggy; considers brain functions from survival to recreation; draws on several fields including philosophy, computer science, physiology and anthropology in addition to psychology; explains phenomena we have all wondered about our whole lives; and does it all with delightfully easy prose, free of jargon and pretense. This book is not for everyone. It requires us to wrap our heads around some grand ideas, which seems to be beyond the scope of some readers. But for those of us who can appreciate high-brow ideas, especially those written in such an enchanting style, the rewards are great: a renewed appreciation of the marvel that is our brain, indeed, any mammalian brain. To expect a book on how the mind works to be anything less than a major work is to settle for the USA Today version of the story. This is the New York Times version (or it would be if the New York Times added a comics section). How The Mind Works is a triumph.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful! Readable! Wonderful!
Review: Excuse the superlatives, but the opportunity to use them comes so rarely. Pinker touches on tons of relevant research to support the central ideas, that we have minds, and that they work in a scientifically comprehensible manner. His foundations are experimental psychology, a linguistic perspective, evolution, and "reverse engineering" of the human being. Why do people find this so threatening?
Rating: 
Summary: A mumbo jumbo of neurology, psychology, and philosophy
Review: The book is unnecessarily involved and sometimes incomprehensible. Dr. Pinker makes too many references to too many people with too many ideas. That would normally be fine but he miserably fails to connect all the ideas in a cohesive manner. Don't waste your time and money on this one!!! It's too bad because Dr. Pinker is obviously a very intelligent individual.
Rating: 
Summary: Read Deacon instead.
Review: If you think Pinker may have something to teach you in either "How the Mind Works" or "The Language Instinct", skip both and order the remarkable book by Terrence Deacon, "The Symbolic Species". Unlike Pinker, who still pays homage to Chomsky, Deacon respectfully turns Chomsky's notion on its head and in so doing, suggests (and teaches) a revolutionary idea of how the mind really works.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but to long
Review: Pinker's book is good but includes long stretches of mind numbing and unecessary overstatement. The book would have been perfect with about 200 fewer pages!
Rating:
Summary: A disappointment
Review: Pinker tries to do from a psychology perspective what DanDennett, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea and in Consciousness Explained,has already done from a philosophy perspective, and he is less successful. In large part, to me and my biases, this is because the scientific basis of psychology itself remains shaky and suspect. It may well be that Pinker is one of the young Turks who will one day change my opinion. But not yet.
Rating: 
Summary: Author's web site for book: http://www-bcs.mit.edu/~steve
Review: I have set up a web site with information about reviews, feature articles, media and bookstore appearances, my research, and the graduate program in cognitive neuroscience at MIT. http:// www-bcs.mit.edu/~steve
Rating:
Summary: brilliant
Review: with simple, familiar language MIT professor Pinker delves into how the mind evolved and how it works. Of special interest to me were the parallells he drew between computer code (logic) and brain tasks. Easy to read (considering the material) and right on as far as factual material goes, 5 stars for me. He could have cut the book down to ~500 pages or so (i struggled through most of the chapter on perception and finally just skipped on) but overall a great book.
Rating:
Summary: Do Humans Evolve or Develop?
Review: Since the author is from MIT, I thought this book would be a good book for those engineers who know their responsibilities to God. Instead, the book is promoting atheism, evolutionary theory, and artificial intelligence. I am a retired electrical engineer from Johns Hopkins and the space program but now believe that efforts to achieve artificial intelligence will waste the time of many engineers. Creating robots will not produce artificial intelligence. Robots can only free more humans so they can improve their minds by increasing their intelligence.
I got to page 24 and then scanned the rest of th book stopping only occasionally. On page 24, the author says "... the mind is not the brain but what the brain does." This means that "natural selection" makes the mind metaphysically through DNA molecules and the brain. How silly this idea is after I recovered from brain damage as a result of a blood blockage of the carotid artery. My doctor said I was lucky. How silly he was. But, he did not know how I used my mind to rebuild my brain with a single exercise that reunifies my five senses using my computer solitaire game. It took me only two years to recover the language function that was damaged.
In a book that I am writing now, I describe in detail how my mind made this recovery and repaired my brain. In this book, I also present a proof of God and present a new world theory that was initiated by Nicholas of Cusa and was made more complete by Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Georg Cantor and me. Obviously, this theory rejects atheism, evolutionary theory, and artificial intelligence.
Since people develop and do not evolve, the author might want to use the great skills he developed on robots to help other people develop. He might also consider to help those funding governmental agencies that have become enslaved to the unconstitutional rulings of the US Supreme Court that separated God and State as well as Religion and State. The founders speak of Laws of Nature and Nature's God in the Declaration of Independence. They spoke of two different sets of laws. The proof above is one of many laws of God. We only need to search for them. These two laws show that our founders rejected the ungodly Enlightenment movement because th Enlightenment was interested only in finding laws of Nature.
|
