Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind

Kluge a decent book with some interesting points, but overall I didn't think it offered any ground-breaking insights and was not particularly rigorously supported. I don't deny Marcus' main premise, that the brain is an imperfect kluge pieced together by natural selection and many of the traits we have do not promote happiness and wellbeing. But I think he underestimates the adaptive value (at least in a Darwinian sense) of some of the aspects of our brains. It's easy to overlook some subtle advantage of a trait and conclude it has no adaptive value. Gerd Gigerenzer's  Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious , for instance, convincingly argues that many apparent reasoning errors are actually "highly intelligent social judgments" which are helpful overall in the real world (as opposed to a contrived logic puzzle, for instance).It's easy to propose an alternative design for some aspect of the human mind without any real way to test if humans would indeed be better off with it. For instance, Marcus says "in a system that was superlatively well engineered, belief and the process of drawing inferences (which soon become new beliefs) would be separate, with an iron wall between them." But it's not clear to me that this is the best system. Each time we see a bird flying, should we conclude gravity doesn't exist since we're drawing inferences without regard for pre-existing beliefs? Sometimes observations seem to contradict well-founded beliefs and resistance to changing those beliefs is not necessarily irrational or counterproductive (although sometimes it is). Are we better off in the end with some other system? Perhaps, but would our ancestors have been better off with that system in the Pleistocene? It's not as simple a question as Marcus makes it out to be.The original hardcover version of this book did not include the word "evolution" in the subtitle, and its after-the-fact addition to the paperback reflects the paucity of evolutionary information within. Marcus never really highlighted the crucial fact that our brains are adapted to the ancestral environment in which we evolved, which was in small bands of hunter/gatherers. Many aspects that are poorly designed for the modern world (our endless predilection for salty and fatty foods, for instance) may have been well adapted to life in the Pleistocene (where fat stores could be called upon during periodic food shortages). The same is true for all the hours we spend watching TV (perhaps a substitute for storytelling) or seeking non-procreative sex (sex and procreation, for the most part, could not be decoupled in the Pleistocene). While it remains true that these things are non-adaptive today (from a gene's point of view), it would have been enlightening to know that they were recently adaptive and not just evolutionary shortcomings, as Marcus suggests. He doesn't seem to be an expert on evolution; he mainly relies upon what he sees as imperfections of the modern mind in the modern world without much regard for the evolutionary history of those traits, and is quick to label them as evidence of a sloppy design.For instance, Marcus cites a study which concludes "teenagers may have an adult capacity to appreciate short-term gain, but only a child's capacity to recognize long-term risk" and concludes "evolutionary inertia takes precedence over sensible design." But isn't it possible that post-pubertal peer acceptance is a critical factor for reproductive success, and therefore reckless susceptibility to peer pressure during teenage years is an adaptation and not just some evolutionary mistake? Studies show that teens actually overestimate the dangers of the activities they partake in, yet they do them anyway to gain peer acceptance. And it plausibly increases their reproductive success to this day, despite contraception.To be fair, many of the traits described were just as maladaptive in the Pleistocene as they are today and many points remain valid.For great discussions of mental imperfections, I recommend  How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life  and  Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts ). For a scientifically rigorous (and fairly technical) discussion of the evolutionary history of human mind, I recommend Melvin Konner's  The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit . Kluge also offers a brief and simplistic explanation of religion; for an account of the evolutionary origins of religion, I recommend Pascal Boyer's  Religion Explained , or for a more technical and scholarly coverage of that subject, Scott Atran's  In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition Series) .

As someone who's fairly well-read but not (as several other reviewers of this book) well-versed in the specialty of evolutionary biology, I found this book to be engaging, clear, and thought-provoking. I'd recommend this particularly to those interested in philosophy, psychology, computer programming, and the scientific method. What's most remarkable about this book is that although it delves deeply into many counter-intuitive qualities of human nature, it's utterly readable outside of an academic setting and offers practical advice on understanding of human failure and conflict.Marcus' basic premise, that the human mind is highly flawed from an "engineering" standpoint, is highly compelling (to be accurate- this premise is based on the research of evolutionary biologists and does not necessarily reflect any originality on Marcus' part). In chapters on Memory, Belief, Choice, Language, and Pleasure, the author attributes many of the foibles of human nature to deficiencies in the human mind based on the fact that culture, deliberate reasoning, and long-term planning (vs. reacting in the moment) did not offer survival advantages over the course of the human being's adaptive evolution. Just a few examples of potential weaknesses described include: 1) a contextual (vs. "postal code") memory resulting in an average of 55 minutes per day looking for things we know we own but can't find; 2) an inflated craving for sugar, fat, salt, and sex based on evolutionary scarcity; 3) a tendency to believe things that fit in with our pre-existing beliefs (i.e., confirmation bias); and 4) a tendency to respond to anecdotes vs. data.This book is interesting even from a purely philosophical perspective; for example, Marcus notes that "evolution didn't evolve us to be happy; it evolved us to pursue happiness"- hence humanity's often tragic and perpetual pursuit of material wealth far beyond necessity.Marcus doesn't shy away from prescribing ways to cope with these challenges, and devotes his entire closing chapter to "true wisdom" gained by self-consciousness of our minds' limitations. A few of his suggestions include "anticipate your own impulsivity and pre-commit" for example by choosing your groceries a week in advance and not when you are hungry; "don't make important decisions when you are tired or have other things on your mind." He also addresses more comprehensive and far-reaching strategies for addressing the problems of the human mind, such as offering high school classes on informal argument, spotting fallacies, interpreting statistics, and understanding the difference between correlation and causation. I couldn't agree more- but is that my confirmation bias?

Good job in portraying how we (might have) evolved to be the interesting and confusing human beings we are today. I say might have, because really, who knows how we got here? It is just short of 5 stars because he spends a bit much on how we are not computers, holding them up as examples of "perfect memory". But if they are, then why is "big data" all the rage, and we are still trying to figure out how to make sense of it? In other words, computers don't have a perfect way to do anything yet either. And BTW we, humans, invented computers, so maybe this is part of our evolution, adding another layer on top of our "carbon-based emotional bag-of-water" foundation?I highly recommend the book.

This book fills a niche, there is nothing quite like it.However the author takes the indefensible position, that von-Neumann-computer-like "Postal Code Memory" would be superior to the self-tuning, robust quantum-consciousness-network we've got. Probably he has not done any large-scale computer programming !FORTUNATELY this "postal code rant" is not woven in, really, you can just ignore it and the rest of the book stands on its own as a great read.

Kluge is a very well-written and easy-to-read book by Gary Marcus explaining how evolution, similar to any other process, has led to both good and bad consequences. I highly recommend it to those who struggle to learn more about their intellectual and mental shortcomings. I consider it one of the best feedback anyone can get about his/her mental performance. The book can seriously help you put different things in their natural rather than exaggerated perspective.

Dieses Buch bringt, meiner Meinung nach, sehr viel Material in die brain-mind Diskussion ein. Dafür 5 Sterne. Die Vorstellung das menschliche Gehirne aus ad-hoc Anpassungen an die Umwelt bestehen gibt der Psychologie neuen Input. Die im Buch genutzte Herangehensweise der Beschreibung psychologischer Funktionen im Hinblick auf ihre neuronale Grundlage, führt bei Menschen seltsamerweise zur absurden Frage, ob es denn einen freien Willen überhaupt gibt. Des Englischen mächtig, sollte man wissen, dass das "brain" deterministisch sein könnte, jedoch der "mind" es eben nicht sein kann. Wenn dem nicht so wäre, könnte Leben, als materielle Grundlage für Bewusstsein, nicht entstanden sein. Für mich bedeutet es, dass die Wurzel aller psychologischen Fragestellungen die für den Mensch als Individuum und als soziales Wesen von Belang sind, in der Evolution seiner neurochemischen Beschaffenheit, bevor man in der Quantenebene forscht, als Abgrenzung zur Neurologie, zu erforschen ist. Der "mind" muss wissen wie sein "brain" funktioniert, um "mind" zu sein. Dieses Buch leistet meinem Eindruck nach seinen Beitrag dazu.

The book meets its objective to analyze the human brain from the evolution point of view. He compares natures 'design' with optimal design that computer software uses. Very good book to understand the brain structures and its limitations. He covers memory, belief, choice, language and pleasure systems.Final section is about how to manage, knowing the limitations. This section is quite disappointing. It could have been better.Overall, its a good read.

Not being a psych or a sociology major perhaps this is more for the layman but it was an enthralling read with great examples and explanations on the functionality of the brain. Since reading and re-reading it, it has become a favourite of mine which I often lend out to friends.

Loved this book. It made me see just how clumsy the development of our brain has been and explained that my problems in remembering are shared by so many of my fellow human beings. It appears that we ate able to design efficient robots with an excellent memory system that nature hasleft us without! The compensation sedms to be how successful we have been despite our inadequacies.A really good read.

Kluge is a well written book with insightful and sometimes humorous references that keep the topic interesting, engaging, and understandable to everyone while providing topics for discussion within a group. An excellent parlour book to that has an interesting proposition on virtually every page providing fodder for discussion among a group.