You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.22 AVERAGE
4.22 AVERAGE
Five stars here not necessarily because I believe that every claim McGilchrist makes is literally true, nor because it's an incredibly enjoyable read, but rather because despite its flaws this must be one of the most thought-provoking works I've come across.
Others have given their observations (at length) of the not-good-nesses, and those things are probably all worth taking into account, but I think paying close attention to what this book says - without feeling compelled to take all or any of it as gospel - is a rewarding experience. You might come out of it wondering whether some claims made about your brain, its history, and how it will affect your future might not be literally true, but be nevertheless useful as metaphors or analogies that can help you think about how you think.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that what you take from McGilchrist probably depends on how you expect to listen to him. If you want hard, evidence-based, empirical and definite SCIENCE, then you'll probably read it in that way and feel a bit underwhelmed. If you're OK with something that's interesting and stimulating but doesn't necessarily get at hard facts so exclusively or neatly, then you might find it sparking some interesting thoughts.
(That said, I also don't think it makes spiritual, alternative, or pseudoscientific claims. I'm not really sure it makes many claims at all, just observes a few tidbits that have to do with neuroscience and goes 'well, wouldn't it be interesting if...?')
Others have given their observations (at length) of the not-good-nesses, and those things are probably all worth taking into account, but I think paying close attention to what this book says - without feeling compelled to take all or any of it as gospel - is a rewarding experience. You might come out of it wondering whether some claims made about your brain, its history, and how it will affect your future might not be literally true, but be nevertheless useful as metaphors or analogies that can help you think about how you think.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that what you take from McGilchrist probably depends on how you expect to listen to him. If you want hard, evidence-based, empirical and definite SCIENCE, then you'll probably read it in that way and feel a bit underwhelmed. If you're OK with something that's interesting and stimulating but doesn't necessarily get at hard facts so exclusively or neatly, then you might find it sparking some interesting thoughts.
(That said, I also don't think it makes spiritual, alternative, or pseudoscientific claims. I'm not really sure it makes many claims at all, just observes a few tidbits that have to do with neuroscience and goes 'well, wouldn't it be interesting if...?')
The first half was great. Maybe even 5 stars great. Very informative on all things with the brain. The last half though did not deliver on the ambition - to plot the development of human progress with the use and influence of the two hemispheres and how they differed. Mcgilchrist went way too deep on the development of art with little connection on how this related to hemisphere differences. In fact I lost what point he was even making. As far as I took it, we don't have concious control of what hemispheres we are using, making such competition in hemispheres uses seem nonsensical.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Nothing short of a masterpiece. Uses neurology, psychology, philosophy, and culture to dis-integrate the mind for examination and re-integrate the findings into a new indivisible whole.
At times very dense and slavish in its scientific inquiry into the asymmetry of the brain, McGilchrist makes a good argument for why the totality of a thing is sometimes more valuable than its component parts—and just because we can distill and deconstruct we don't always gain value in the doing.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
slow-paced
The first half of the book is interesting, and the author really knows his stuff. The writing is a bit repetitive, and the long sentences get confusing. It could have been improved with a good edit. The second half of the book is an unconvincing and only half constructed argument.