This book takes a quick trip through the human mind and what sort of evolutionary construction could have led to a mind that is a mess of half-developed solutions and new structures built on top of old, connections that twist and turn, and odd, irrational thinking patterns. The author writes well, and does his research. The book is easy to read, though I must say there is nothing in here that I was not already aware of from many other sources. This is a good introductory book for people who are only just beginning to delve into the topic, but it is a bit superficial and unsatisfying for a well-seasoned reader on the subject. It is written at a level that should not be difficult for people who are not particularly schooled in scientific terminology; in fact, I dare say even physicists, with their poor understanding of biology, could actually understand this book. I plan to recommend it to some physicist friends of mine who believe, mistakenly, that they understand biology better than the biologists. ( )

Exercise for the reader: Define "rational thought."

That was the one problem that I had in reading this well-researched, thought-provoking book. How do we know that certain conclusions are "rational," others "irrational"? We know because, ultimately, our emotions tell us what is valuable and what is not. From there, we use "rational" thought to achieve those ends. But if we changed the emotions, would not what is "rational" change? Therefore any dichotomy between "reason" and "emotion" is largely false, and there are places where author Gary Marcus fails to realize that he has made an unmotivated argument.

Yet the general thesis is patently true: Evolution does not produce the best solution to a problem; it merely follows a series of branches that lead in the direction of some sort of "improvement" (properly, something more "fit" than what it replaces). So our whole bodies and minds are full of kludges (a spelling Marcus avoids because that isn't how he pronounces it, but it's how every engineer I know pronounces the word). If you avoid discussions of what is "rational" and simply ask, "Is this the best way to achieve what we want?" then there can be no question: our brains are kludgey.

I do have one other gripe, mostly with the material at the end. Marcus assumes that a lot of things that file under "abnormal psychology" (e.g. depression) are the result of kludges, and maladaptive. This really, truly does not follow. A trait can be adaptive or maladaptive depending on context -- or a gene can be adaptive if unreinforced and maladaptive if reinforced. (The classic example of this is sickle cell anemia: One copy of the relevant gene and you're semi-immune to malaria; two copies and you're probably dead.) Major depression, or extreme autism, or out-of-control anxiety, are maladaptive. But mild autism, or minor depression, are associated with great originality and creativity. So our mental "problems" may also be our strengths.

Of course, that largely proves the point: If our brains weren't kludged up, we could have the benefits of depression and autism without the social failures and the sadness.

Something for the next round of evolution to work on, no doubt. ( )

Tries to refer to too many disparate things, and ends up not really covering any topic in sufficient depth, or with sufficient rigor. The basic thesis is that the human mind, especially in the ways it doesn't work very well (cognitive biases, mental illness, even things like the haphazard pursuit of pleasure) show the imperfections of evolution: the ultimate kluge.

Trouble is, he pretty well says everything he needs to say in the first few chapters, and thereafter the book gets more and more scatty. Hard not to imagine him sitting there writing it, going "Ooh, ooh, I know, I can talk about X!" and five minutes later "Ooh, ooh I can say Y! And Z. And maybe I can winkle A in there too." Whether they advance the argument or not doesn't seem to matter. Neither does questions of how well he can discuss them -- how, for example, do you take a discussion of ambiguity in language seriously, when he doesn't even mention metaphor? (His lack of awareness of the fundamentals of the philosophy of language doesn't stop him trying to rope the subject in. Or taking a swing at Noam Chomsky along the way.)

Ultimately the problem is that he just hasn't really planned the book well enough. It's entertaining enough, deals (poorly, but accessibly) with some interesting and important concepts. It certainly shouldn't frighten anyone off popular science books. But others have done it much, much better -- try Daniel Kahnemann (for cognitive biases), Guy Deutscher (language), Steven Pinker (ditto), Robert Sapolsky (evolutionary physiology) and Vilayanur Ramachandran (general weirdness with the way the brain is wired). You'll learn more, and be much more entertained. Or if you like your science light and congenial, try Robert Winston and Oliver Sacks. Better writers, and more knowledgeable.

This book, however enthusiastically intentioned, is itself quite a significant kluge. It won't scare the horses, but you can easily find better. ( )

Tremendously enjoyable explication of the cobbled-together nature of the human mind. Cogently explains, among other things, how we can't trust our own assessments about, well, nearly everything. The chapter on language is especially fascinating, the chapters that cover rationalizations and happiness are more squirm-inducing than otherwise. Very accessible and full of enough lame jokes and fun asides to keep it from being too scientific. Highly recommended. ( )

Listened to the audio after reading the book a year or so ago.

It's the kind of thing I adore, a cogent explication of why everything I know about my own mind is tragically wrong. Marcus is funny, the premise is one I embrace, and there are even helpful tips to keep a person from falling victim to many of the brain's little tricks. Highly recommended for the scientifically minded. ( )