Scan barcode
sprague's review against another edition
2.0
I put this book on my pile due to the praise from my favorite thinker Steven Pinker, but it didn't live up to my unrealistic expectations. The basic idea, drawn from author Kosslyn's deep neurological expertise, is that human brains, complex as they are, can be usefully summarized as carrying two main functions: planning and perceiving.
The book goes into plenty of detail, much backed by neurology, and with multiple anecdotal examples of how this plays out in real life. Unfortunately, the examples seem contrived and un-researched (Sarah Palin is an example of a “Stimulator”, Michael Bloomberg is a “Mover”).
My full review is http://blog.richardsprague.com/2013/12/i-stimulator-or-mover.html
The book goes into plenty of detail, much backed by neurology, and with multiple anecdotal examples of how this plays out in real life. Unfortunately, the examples seem contrived and un-researched (Sarah Palin is an example of a “Stimulator”, Michael Bloomberg is a “Mover”).
My full review is http://blog.richardsprague.com/2013/12/i-stimulator-or-mover.html
jlbrown23's review against another edition
2.0
Read more like a pamphlet for a company team-building exercise than actual science. After reading some truly brilliant books on behavioral science ("The Invisible Gorilla", "Fast Thinking, Slow Thinking") that present large amounts of actual data and provided great insight, this did not hold up well. There is really just nothing here yet - the author has some ideas, and they may be worth studying, but at this point it is all fairly speculative some of it seems somewhat wrong-headed and biased. Which is all OK - everyone has a starting point for ideas, and as time goes by and studies are done and data is collected many of the original ideas prove to be wrong and are replaced by better ideas. That is how science works, and it is perfectly fine to start with speculative and biased ideas. But it seems like a bad idea to publish a BOOK at this point, especially one intended for the general public. For folks who can spot the lack of actual evidence, they feel like they just spent $25 to read baseless speculation. For folks who CAN'T, they'll just assume it is all fact and incorporate it in to their thinking as such.
morgan_blackledge's review against another edition
3.0
For various reasons (some good, some lame, all exhaustively detailed momentarily), I'm reluctant to harsh on this book. But alas, my honest assessment is that it is Close But Not Quite (CBNQ).
Top 10 -REALLY BAD- reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
10: I like the cover art/marketing. I was drawn in by the simple, clever cover art and promising sounding publishers blurb.
9: It was expensive. I paid full price. This triggered a bit of cognitive dissonance (in this case, the need to rationalize the rather poor purchase decision made despite some seriously bad reader reviews).
Perhaps my need to reduce the shame and anxiety elicited by being drawn in by the cool marketing motivated me to want to upgrade my assessment.
8: I was excited about it when I bought it. Again with the cognitive dissonance (I just read Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, an actually really good book. And now I'm seeing everything through the framework those authors argued).
7: It's about the brain. I like books about the brain, neuroscience, psychology, particularly modularity.
6: A lot of really respectable (nay awesome) people endorsed the book. A list that includes a few of my most lorded intellectual heroes including:
I: Steven Pinker
II: Robert Sapolsky.
And some other very esteemed members of my personal psych pantheon of lordlyness such as:
III: Howard Gardner
IV: Jerome Kagan.
Plus:
V: Dan (whatever) Gilbert.
It's confusing to not like something these guys are raving about (see below)
I: Kosslyn is one of the world’s great cognitive neuroscientists of the late 20th and early 21st century.”
– Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct.
II: "Stephen Kosslyn has long been one of the world’s leading cognitive psychologists. In his new book, along with Wayne Miller, he proposes a novel synthesis for thinking about the different styles of cognition and the neurobiology that underlies it. This is an extremely stimulating book and a wonderfully readable one as well, even containing useful information for how each of us can make sense of our own ways of thinking.”
—Robert M. Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, and MacArthur Fellowship “genius grant” winner
III: “A bold new theory, with intriguing practical implications, formulated by one of America’s most original psychologists.”
-- Howard Gardner, co-author of The App Generation.
IV: "Kosslyn and Miller have written a lively, informative, and easily assimilated summary of several important principles of brain function for the general reader who does not have the time or background to follow the complexities of neuroscience research but would like a scaffolding on which to place the new facts that dominate each day's headlines."
-- Jerome Kagan, emeritus professor of psychology, Harvard University, and author of the critically acclaimed The Human Spark: The Science of Human Development.
V: "An exciting new way to think about our brains, and ourselves. Original, insightful, and a sweet read to boot."
-- Daniel Gilbert, author of the International bestseller Stumbling on Happiness.
Back to the - Top 10 bad reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
5: Self doubt (see above endorsements). Who am I after all. Just some dude who ruined his life a few times and became a therapist after loosing my cushy union gig when the banking system crashed in 2008........ect.
--No negative self talk please :)
4: The person who wrote the book seems old. No real evidence for this, just an intuition. I could google it. But I'm just going with it for now.
The writing seems kind of dated. Based on the endorsements, the author must have been very influential. And now he's probably trying to lob a best seller out there in order to cash in on his pioneering work. What kind of dick slags that sweet old guys hard work. Not me.........etc.
--No emotional thinking please :)
3: The person who wrote the book seems nice. See above.
2: The person who wrote the book seems like they worked hard on the book and research (actually a kind of decent reason not to slag a book).
1: The person who wrote the book seems like they may be terminally ill and need money, and called in favors from old friends and former students (see Pinker and Sapolsky and others above).
LATE NIGHT PHONE CALL: "Steve, I'm asking for a big favor, I'm not doing well, Steve, for Linda and the kids, could ya please give my book a sparkler of a review".
---Again with the complete fabrications and emotional thinking. For the record I have no idea weather any of this is even remotely factual. If it is. It's a remarkable coincidence.
My #1 good reason for giving this book a fair, but mediocre review, is that I didn't think it was very clear or useful.
I feel like the book missed (or rather dodged) the opportunity to ground the theory presented in an evolutionary framework. The other (really good) books on the market that discuss modularity of mind/brain theory do ground their ideas in the framework of evolutionary theory. And it's clarifying and useful when they do. It might turn out to be wrong. But so may this non evolutionarily grounded theory. What ever. It's helpful to at least provide some type of rationale for the existence and potential adaptive benefit of proposed modules. To be fair. The author does a little of this. But not enough, and it leaves the reader kind of lost.
Another gripe I have is (as loathsome as this can be) the author failed to render the ideas in a memorable and relatable way. The consequence is that the info was kind of in one ear and out the other. I partially blame my self for this. But in the age of information overwhelm, easy to learn and remember is the new difficult to learn and remember. Please make it memorable (if possible) by using creative metaphors, images, case studies etc. The author does case studies pretty well, but fails on the memorable images and metaphors tip. Something his contemporaries do extremely well.
See Jonathan Haidt's - Rider and the Elaphant metaphore, Robert Sapolsky's Ulcerless Zebras, dickish Baboons and outrageous hippy humor and Steven Pinker's dry but deadly wit.
All of the above mentioned qualities make these authors work entertaining, clear and useful. A tough bar to get over. But this is the current state of contemporary science popularization. I.e. The shit is getting really good.
Like I get why the esteemed author did not want to degrade his work by pandering to us common folk. But why didn't he (they) make the ol' Cog Psy chestnut: the what is by the butt, the where is by the hair. It's a corny as hell joke about top and bottom brain function and structure. But it helps you remember the shit. And not using the joke became the 10,000 lb gorilla in the room. The whole time I was screaming in my quiet voice "WHY DON'T THEY JUST USE THE DUMB JOKE FOR FUX SAKE" help a brother out.....man that fuckin bugged the shit out of me for some reason...anyway.
BTW: I took the online test. And (fart noise).
3 stars.............I still feel bad, I hope Linda and the kids will be o.k..
Top 10 -REALLY BAD- reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
10: I like the cover art/marketing. I was drawn in by the simple, clever cover art and promising sounding publishers blurb.
9: It was expensive. I paid full price. This triggered a bit of cognitive dissonance (in this case, the need to rationalize the rather poor purchase decision made despite some seriously bad reader reviews).
Perhaps my need to reduce the shame and anxiety elicited by being drawn in by the cool marketing motivated me to want to upgrade my assessment.
8: I was excited about it when I bought it. Again with the cognitive dissonance (I just read Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, an actually really good book. And now I'm seeing everything through the framework those authors argued).
7: It's about the brain. I like books about the brain, neuroscience, psychology, particularly modularity.
6: A lot of really respectable (nay awesome) people endorsed the book. A list that includes a few of my most lorded intellectual heroes including:
I: Steven Pinker
II: Robert Sapolsky.
And some other very esteemed members of my personal psych pantheon of lordlyness such as:
III: Howard Gardner
IV: Jerome Kagan.
Plus:
V: Dan (whatever) Gilbert.
It's confusing to not like something these guys are raving about (see below)
I: Kosslyn is one of the world’s great cognitive neuroscientists of the late 20th and early 21st century.”
– Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct.
II: "Stephen Kosslyn has long been one of the world’s leading cognitive psychologists. In his new book, along with Wayne Miller, he proposes a novel synthesis for thinking about the different styles of cognition and the neurobiology that underlies it. This is an extremely stimulating book and a wonderfully readable one as well, even containing useful information for how each of us can make sense of our own ways of thinking.”
—Robert M. Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, and MacArthur Fellowship “genius grant” winner
III: “A bold new theory, with intriguing practical implications, formulated by one of America’s most original psychologists.”
-- Howard Gardner, co-author of The App Generation.
IV: "Kosslyn and Miller have written a lively, informative, and easily assimilated summary of several important principles of brain function for the general reader who does not have the time or background to follow the complexities of neuroscience research but would like a scaffolding on which to place the new facts that dominate each day's headlines."
-- Jerome Kagan, emeritus professor of psychology, Harvard University, and author of the critically acclaimed The Human Spark: The Science of Human Development.
V: "An exciting new way to think about our brains, and ourselves. Original, insightful, and a sweet read to boot."
-- Daniel Gilbert, author of the International bestseller Stumbling on Happiness.
Back to the - Top 10 bad reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
5: Self doubt (see above endorsements). Who am I after all. Just some dude who ruined his life a few times and became a therapist after loosing my cushy union gig when the banking system crashed in 2008........ect.
--No negative self talk please :)
4: The person who wrote the book seems old. No real evidence for this, just an intuition. I could google it. But I'm just going with it for now.
The writing seems kind of dated. Based on the endorsements, the author must have been very influential. And now he's probably trying to lob a best seller out there in order to cash in on his pioneering work. What kind of dick slags that sweet old guys hard work. Not me.........etc.
--No emotional thinking please :)
3: The person who wrote the book seems nice. See above.
2: The person who wrote the book seems like they worked hard on the book and research (actually a kind of decent reason not to slag a book).
1: The person who wrote the book seems like they may be terminally ill and need money, and called in favors from old friends and former students (see Pinker and Sapolsky and others above).
LATE NIGHT PHONE CALL: "Steve, I'm asking for a big favor, I'm not doing well, Steve, for Linda and the kids, could ya please give my book a sparkler of a review".
---Again with the complete fabrications and emotional thinking. For the record I have no idea weather any of this is even remotely factual. If it is. It's a remarkable coincidence.
My #1 good reason for giving this book a fair, but mediocre review, is that I didn't think it was very clear or useful.
I feel like the book missed (or rather dodged) the opportunity to ground the theory presented in an evolutionary framework. The other (really good) books on the market that discuss modularity of mind/brain theory do ground their ideas in the framework of evolutionary theory. And it's clarifying and useful when they do. It might turn out to be wrong. But so may this non evolutionarily grounded theory. What ever. It's helpful to at least provide some type of rationale for the existence and potential adaptive benefit of proposed modules. To be fair. The author does a little of this. But not enough, and it leaves the reader kind of lost.
Another gripe I have is (as loathsome as this can be) the author failed to render the ideas in a memorable and relatable way. The consequence is that the info was kind of in one ear and out the other. I partially blame my self for this. But in the age of information overwhelm, easy to learn and remember is the new difficult to learn and remember. Please make it memorable (if possible) by using creative metaphors, images, case studies etc. The author does case studies pretty well, but fails on the memorable images and metaphors tip. Something his contemporaries do extremely well.
See Jonathan Haidt's - Rider and the Elaphant metaphore, Robert Sapolsky's Ulcerless Zebras, dickish Baboons and outrageous hippy humor and Steven Pinker's dry but deadly wit.
All of the above mentioned qualities make these authors work entertaining, clear and useful. A tough bar to get over. But this is the current state of contemporary science popularization. I.e. The shit is getting really good.
Like I get why the esteemed author did not want to degrade his work by pandering to us common folk. But why didn't he (they) make the ol' Cog Psy chestnut: the what is by the butt, the where is by the hair. It's a corny as hell joke about top and bottom brain function and structure. But it helps you remember the shit. And not using the joke became the 10,000 lb gorilla in the room. The whole time I was screaming in my quiet voice "WHY DON'T THEY JUST USE THE DUMB JOKE FOR FUX SAKE" help a brother out.....man that fuckin bugged the shit out of me for some reason...anyway.
BTW: I took the online test. And (fart noise).
3 stars.............I still feel bad, I hope Linda and the kids will be o.k..
slimikin's review
3.0
Top Brain, Bottom Brain's greatest strength is undoubtedly its ability to clearly, if rather stiltedly, explain the scientific basis for its Theory of Cognitive Modes. I found the neuroscience and psychological experiments fascinating, and I especially enjoyed Kosslyn and Miller's invitation to the scientific community to, essentially, critique and challenge their conclusions. That's an unusual statement to find in a personality book, to say the least.
Where the book is weaker is in the theory, itself. The science seems to indicate that these four modes exist, but there haven't been enough studies conducted on how the modes present in the personalities of the people who operate in them. So the descriptions of Mover, Perceiver, Stimulator, and Adaptor may be accurate...but also may not be.
Even the test the authors present as a tool to assist the reader in determining his or her primary mode has not, as yet, been tested for validity. That is, it has not been tested for whether it measures what it's supposed to measure. It has supposedly passed its reliability tests, so it ought to provide consistently similar results...but I got vastly different results each of the three times I took the test.
All in all, I found Top Brain, Bottom Brain an engaging introduction to a new perspective on the brain, but I'll continue to greet the descriptions and assessments of the four cognitive modes with a hefty dose of salt. ...And I admit, I'm a little tempted to write the authors about why, exactly, I find their modes unconvincing.
Where the book is weaker is in the theory, itself. The science seems to indicate that these four modes exist, but there haven't been enough studies conducted on how the modes present in the personalities of the people who operate in them. So the descriptions of Mover, Perceiver, Stimulator, and Adaptor may be accurate...but also may not be.
Even the test the authors present as a tool to assist the reader in determining his or her primary mode has not, as yet, been tested for validity. That is, it has not been tested for whether it measures what it's supposed to measure. It has supposedly passed its reliability tests, so it ought to provide consistently similar results...but I got vastly different results each of the three times I took the test.
All in all, I found Top Brain, Bottom Brain an engaging introduction to a new perspective on the brain, but I'll continue to greet the descriptions and assessments of the four cognitive modes with a hefty dose of salt. ...And I admit, I'm a little tempted to write the authors about why, exactly, I find their modes unconvincing.
aloyokon's review
3.0
An interesting new system to understanding how the brain works and what the different personalities of people consist of.
More...