REVIEW: THE SELF ILLUSION: WHY THERE IS NO ‘YOU’ INSIDE YOUR HEAD

The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your HeadThe Self Illusion: Why There is No ‘You’ Inside Your Head by Bruce M. Hood

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Found out about this book from the You Are Not So Smart podcast and read it on my Kindle.

It reeked of a mechanistic, sterile, matter-of-fact “you are your brain” worldview which I must admit I’m tired of and find boring, but I should have expected as much since You Are Not So Smart comes from pretty much the same mental place.

I don’t find fault with the idea that we don’t have an integral self; obviously, just like Bruce Hood thoroughly and with rich supporting bibliography demonstrates in this book, we’re largely shaped and influenced by our surroundings, our society and our biological limitations, first and foremost those of our brain. But that doesn’t mean that the notion of self is an illusion; rather, it means that the self is not a constant and that it is mutable. In fact, in which case would the self not be an illusion? When would we be in a position to say that the self is a real, concrete, quantifiable thing?

It seems to me that Mr. Hood’s proposition could have just as easily been called “The Soul Illusion”, for his assumption of what a self looks like–or should feel like–closely corresponds to our, for better or worse, highly intuitive notion of what a soul is: an immaterial cohesive agent between all of our experiences, thoughts and actions that creates a feeling of identity. In other words, the definition of the “me” in “I am me”. But is that what the self is, what it should be or all it can be? Is it possible to define what our selves are differently? In “I am me”, who would be the “I”? Who is the consciousness, like Eckhart Tolle would comment with his ultra-calm voice? Who is it–what is it–that reads this book and goes “huh, so I’m an illusion”? You might argue that the sense of self and consciousness are two separate things in order to question my qualms with the central point of the book; “precisely!”, I’d exclaim then, happy that you could intuitively grasp my point.

All that said, I’m giving The Self Illusion three stars instead of two because I must admit that it is well-researched, well-written and has plenty of interesting case studies of various psychological and psychiatrical disorders, “nature vs nurture”, sociological phenomena etc that do a good job of proving that the concept of self, or at least what Mr. Hood understands it to be, is an illusion insofar as it’s highly unpredictable and dependent on environmental and social factors. I particularly enjoyed reading about babies and how their brains develop and about conditions such as Tourette’s and how miming, laughing and facial expressions work in socialising and the development thereof. All this is interesting and rich from a clinical perspective, so it’s worth reading if you’re out to come closer to understanding how the human brain works–a task I personally believe to be impossible anyway. But if you’re not convinced that the brain is responsible for every little thing a person does, thinks, or thinks of doing, in view of the evidence that, contrary to what Mr. Hood quite often and emphatically repeats in the book, does exist, this book will provide little insight.

View all my reviews

The Strange Politics of Decisions // Are We in Control of Our Own Disgust?

Σχετικά και με το προηγούμενο ποστίο. Thanks Άλεξ φορ λινκιν με.

Your Brain On Porn

http://yourbrainonporn.com/

Evolution has not prepared your brain for today’s Internet porn.

 

Basically, this site says that internet porn has hacked into our brain and is playing around with the hormonal centres that handle pleasure, reproduction, addiction and reward. Everytime we masturbate to internet porn our brains register the act as if we were fertilising tens or hundreds of different women. That’s much better than only having one partner, right? You can’t beat the novelty, the variety, the propagation of genes, the accessibility!

All this has lead to situations where people are subconsciously choosing porn instead of real socialising (and feeling OK and quasi-satisfied, if a little bleh, with being solitary and socially anxious) because the brain in a completely subconscious manner prefers the porn with all its addiction, reward and novelty factor, than real intimate partners. Such situations, I’m betting, are much more widespread than anyone’s willing to admit.

In the site you can find many testaments of men who abstained from masturbating for weeks or months and saw a dramatic, to say the least, increase of their libido, self-confidence and testosterone levels. They also rediscovered the beauty of looking into people of the opposite sex as more than just pieces of meat, there as a means for a potential orgasm and little else (and always comparing them, again subconsciously, with their virtual, pornographic counterparts of sexual satisfaction). Moreover, they found out they started focusing more on real women as the real people that they are.

Could it be that the sexuality of a whole generation of men (not to mention today’s teens) is being influenced, no, shaped by high-speed internet porn, making us proud addicts to the murderer of eroticism from a very young age, thousands of synapses at a time? Wilhelm Reich couldn’t havee meant this when he was talking about the Sexual Revolution! Absolutely not. This is serious.

I’m trying this out already, how could I not? All the way. See how long I can last and what happens. I’ll post the results soon.

 

 Philip Zimbardo: The demise of guys?

Some more links to articles on Your Brain On Porn:

Guys who gave up porn: on sex and romance

Was the cowardly lion just masturbating too much?