Steven Pinker takes a completely scientific approach to understanding the mind and how it works, based on sound theory and a rational process. Though wordy at times, the book is well-designed and provides great insight to the inner workings of our mind. Steven Pinker's book, "How the Mind Works", is a study of the human brain, how it works, and why it works the way it does. In eight chapters it reconstructs the brain from the bottom up, starting from the simplest of processes and combining them into the complex thoughts and behaviors we experience. The book is as much about how the mind works as it is about evolution, Pinker's main solution for the 'why'. He begins with the "Standard Equipment" of the mind, how it is an organ system made up of many subunits called modules. Then, he discusses in length the Computational Theory of Mind, essentially the idea that our brains are information processing machines, not to be confused with the 'mind as a computer' model, which differs slightly but in very fundamental ways. With the fundamental 'how' taken care of, Pinker jumps headlong into the 'why'. Over the next two chapters he gives an expert description of the theory of evolution, and his thoughts on why our brains could have evolved from an ape's. He calls to light our ancestor's massive devotion to visual processing in the brain, and the ability to see and understand in three dimensions, adding that most attempts to understand abstract concepts result in mapping them in 2- or 3-dimensional space (graphs, charts, etc.). He goes on to describe the benefits of increased intelligence from an evolutionary standpoint, and how it would outweigh the costs associated with it. With the basic concepts of how and why the mind works as it does, in the next few chapters he extrapolated these ideas across a number of human behaviors and abilities, on topics such as love, kinship, art and music. Finally, he ends the book with a perhaps overzealous chapter title: The Meaning of Life". Pinker suggests that he cannot profess to know if these ideas are absolutes, and furthermore that there may be some things, such as consciousness, which we may never be able to comprehend because of the way we are made. Of course, all these claims are contingent on the Computational Theory of Mind and the Theory of Evolution, but both theories are well supported and there is no reason not to except sound rationalizations based upon them. Pinker is an academic, and it shows in his style. He tends to delve into almost excessive rigor in describing and defending his ideas on the matter at hand. At times this can make it difficult to read, especially in a casual manner, and reminds one of reading an academic journal more so than a book for the layperson - this may be due in part to the actual subject matter, which itself needs long and sometimes arduous explanation for anyone not familiar with it. Verbosity aside, the format of the book is excellent. It provides a neat step-by-step analysis of each part of the currently discussed issue, citing its pros and cons and moving successively closer to the final conclusion by rejection and substitution of 'lesser' theories or models with more robust ones. Then each major idea is expanded or built upon to introduce and explain higher or more complex levels of thought. Pinker essentially relies on two major theories for everything in his book: The Computational Theory of Mind and the Theory of Evolution. In fact the explanations of those two theories take up roughly one third of the book, and with good reason. Because of the way the book is structured, the underlying theories make up the meat of the message he is trying to send; everything else is simply a logical extrapolation from the rules set by the theories he bases his ideas on. Therefore the most scrutiny should be put on how he defines the rule set and how those rules are put to use. The Computational Theory of Mind is fairly straightforward. Pinker simply iterates through various models of neural circuitry and how it accomplishes a task on a very basic level. The abstract model is based on symbols, a sort of mental identifier of a concept, that are used to describe things with more complexity by combination of symbols. Each subsystem in the brain is made up of a hierarchical set of sub-subsystems which are in turn contrived of yet another set of subsystems, and so on until you reach a basic unit that is not much more than a switch, which is similar to how computer circuits work. Pinker's application of this model to vision is quite interesting. Vision is not simply a recording like a home video, but a set of inputs that go through a tremendous amount of processing in real time throughout parallel circuits which analyze different aspects of the input. He explains these stunningly with the use of a number of optical illusions or phenomena. Most memorable being the folded sheet, which is a grid with two bends in it and a plus shape coloring. He uses an analogy of a painter, a lighting specialist and a metalworker trying to recreate that image. Each can produce the image individually, but if a supervisor utilizes each one optimally, the cost is significantly reduced. This supervisor in the analogy is the algorithm that computes the most likely rendering of what we see based on a sort of cost analysis, with more common or normal renderings being 'cheaper'. The analogy, though simplified, is enlightening. The discussion of evolution is similarly engaging. It is a great description of why certain structures, such as his favorite, the eye, would have come to be so complex. Furthermore, he adequately dispels many misconceptions about evolution. One being that all features of an animal are adaptations to some selective force. This is simply not true, and is a gross assumption to make. Applying evolution to many cultural aspects of humanity explains a lot. Pinker shows that cohesive social groups and intelligence are potentially reciprocating stimuli for improving the other. Being a social creature requires more intelligent interaction to maintain the good of the whole and to protect oneself from any mal intent of others in the group. Similarly, higher intelligence and the ability to predict the consequences of an action allow social creatures to share resources in return for mutual protection and fidelity; an alliance. These benefits would select for more intelligent creatures over the generations. Evolution, Pinker says, has resulted in the "ultimate revenge of the nerds". The intelligent - but weaker, smaller, and slower - animals have overtaken the large, fast, and strong, essentially by being able to plan more effectively. Unfortunately, one aspect of the mind that Pinker seems to neglect is the plasticity of the mind. Pinker seems to maintain the model of the mind as a sort of compartmentalized system with innate abilities and tasks assigned to each. However, it has been shown that this is not the case. The mind can in fact rewire itself (at any age) to learn new things, or to strengthen new or old connections. (See the studies of Paul Bach-y-Rita) Overall the book sheds an amazing new light on the world and ways we interact with it, as well as why we interact that way. With few exceptions, Steven Pinker's presentation here is well-formed, compelling, and intriguing. If you have issue with evolutionary theory, you may have difficulty accepting much of what is postulated throughout the book. However, if approached with an open mind, the ideas within can at least make you think about the world a little differently, even if you don't accept the content.

This book isn't about neural pathways and neurotransmitters. Rather, it's a thoroughly compelling reverse engineering of the functional and emotional modules the mind of a social primate with a genome -- and hence emotional repertoire -- little changed since its hunter-gatherer days would have to possess to out-compete the rest of the biosphere (at least while Earth still has one). The book is solidly grounded in evolutionary and cognitive psychology -- just 2 of the fields in which Pinker has credentials second to none -- and offers at least one "Aha!" moment on every page, not all of them flattering. I caught myself muttering something akin to "Darn, so that's why we keep doing that!" so often I had to give it a nickname I can't share here. As usual, Pinker somehow manages to write clearly and engagingly without loss of precision while leaving no doubt as to where he gets his data. If professional scientific publications were written this way, we'd be a lot farther along, but it's =extremely= hard to do. Lord knows I've tried. Pinker focuses on the instinctual (read "emotional") prods our genes use to steer us toward the 90% solutions evolved for success up to and during our hunter-gatherer days. With the explosive growth of technology over the last century or so, many of those once 90% solutions have become 90% backfires, but they continue to motivate our individual and collective actions nonetheless. Before man-made fires became widespread, moths' light-seeking instinct was almost always adaptive. Modern humans likewise repeatedly fly into all manner of figurative "fires" of our own invention -- often with precious little insight into why we keep doing so despite ample opportunities to learn better from instantaneous global news coverage ostensibly pursued for just that purpose. If widely read and taken to heart, this book could make a good dent in that. Seriously.

I was really surprised to see how controversial Steven Pinker is for some people. Apparently, there is a lot of anger by some scientists. I'm not sure why. I'm not a scientist, but, I read a lot of science. It may be that he has very strong opinions that he defends well on controversial subjects. Maybe it is professional jealousy. He is free in his criticism of scientists he feels let politics influence them and it might be that this upsets some people who like them. What you get here is a survey of the psychology of the mind, and it is a pyrotechnical feat. The range of subjects, quotations and examples is astonishing. Will you learn how the mind works? Not really, because no one knows yet. But, you will get many insights into it, you will get myths shattered, suspicions gratified and more explanations than you can probably absorb. At least, I can't absorb it all. It is not in my opinion as good a book as The Language Instinct, nor as good as The Blank Slate, which it resembles in some ways (I am reading them simultaneously, though I read TBS years ago for the first time, and you can't help but notice the cross-over). So, I considered giving it four stars. But, then I decided, it is such a powerful performance, and so well written, that it shouldn't get less than five stars just because he didn't surpass himself. I have another book of his on tap and I'm going to get right to it. I will offer this minor criticism. Have you ever sat through a fireworks display that just never ended? It might have benefitted from a little tighter editing, but it seems like he just doesn't want to leave anything out. If he knows it, he want us to know it too.