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

Review: 344 Questions: The Creative Person’s Do-It-Yourself Guide to Insight, Survival, and Artistic Fulfillment

344 Questions: The Creative Person's Do-It-Yourself Guide to Insight, Survival, and Artistic Fulfillment

344 Questions: The Creative Person’s Do-It-Yourself Guide to Insight, Survival, and Artistic Fulfillment by Stefan G. Bucher

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

“The more honest you are with yourself as you go through the book, and the more notes you make in it, the more valuable it will become to you. That’s why this book is small, fexible, and doesn’t cost a lot of money. I want you to take it with you when you go to woek, keep it in your bag, and scribble into it as answers occur to you. Don’t keep this book clean! Mess it up! Write in it freely! Doodle! Put a rubber band around it, so that you can keep interesting articles and extra pages of notes in it. If you keep this book in mint condition, I’ve failed. Because a tattered, bust-up book-filled out and scribbled upon — means you’ve found out new things about yourself and you’re inspired to take action”.

I would heartily agree, Mr. Bucher. A tattered, note-filled book is an addition to every person’s fossil registry of personal story and evolution. It really is a crying shame this book does not inspire any of this. Unavoidably I must come to the heart-wrenching conclusion that you have failed.

First of all, how do you expect, no, demand from people to write on a book made entirely of glossy paper? Have you ever tried writing with a pencil on this material? I always hated my English textbooks for this very reason. Unless this is some indication that you want our answers to be set in Bic ink — hardly the point of the book as you must have planned it Mr. Bucher, I would entertain the thought — the selection of materials is the first poor design choice to come out of this book. I might have actually tried writing with a pen but the subconscious connections with English teachers with terrible Greek accents I so naively thought I had left far behind, ultimately overpowered me.

Then, what sort of questions are these? They gave me the feeling they were either too sterilised or trying too hard to be witty and/or innovative. Most of the book consists of questions that require you to either be extremely honest with yourself or have remarkable skills of self-knowledge to properly answer, mostly both: “What are you doing to sabotage yourself?”, “What are you going to be doing in the next 60 years?”, “Do you prefer your inner or your outer life?”, “How do you handle too much success?”, “How much can you whore yourself out?” etc. They’re insightful questions, but if I were in any position to actually be able to return equally insightful answers, I wouldn’t be interested in buying this book in the first place. If I could answer all these questions as easily as the book has this passive-aggressive aura about it that it’s really possible, I would already be everything I want, can, have or haven’t ever dreamed to be.

OK, let’s say that answering the questions would actually evolve me into such an Übermensch. The auxilliary questions meant to help you on every page, along with the whole flowchart thing going on that makes no sense and if I really followed it I would never even reach half of the questions (how can you have several arrows pointing towards a box in a flowchart, but no arrows pointing outwards and still have it be workable?), are not much better than the main questions themselves. I don’t know if designers use flowcharts –they probably do– but this book would definitely be enough to drive any programmer to insanity!

Some of the less ambitious questions pack some punch and made me think as well as laugh. This is the reason this is getting 2 stars instead of only 1.

This sterilised, efficient, perfectly creative –where creative is implied here to exclude anything that cannot be represented with flowcharts–, ideal model for Westerners, best displayed in cases such as this… It scares the hell out of me, man.

View all my reviews