The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity Reprint Edition

Bruce Hood's The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity is a great book to read for anyone that is interested in learning how we form our "self" identities. Hood chronicles the journey of how our brain develops self from birth and well into adulthood using a psychological and neuroscience approach to verify statements and metaphors to help readers understand complex ideas. This review will give a brief synopsis of the book's overall organization, main point and interesting ideas.Structure:In the prologue Hood briefly introduces themes to be discussed in the book. He writes, "Who we are is a story of our self - a constructed narrative that our brain creates." In the first chapter he delves more deeply into the anatomy of the brain and how the human brain has evolved to allow humans to "coexist in groups". Moreover in chapter two Machiavellian baby, Hood examines how childhood is like the "research and development phase" where the species that spend longer in R&D end up more "sociable". In chapters four through eight, Hood examines how outside influences shape our identity, the things we value, and how we remember. He does through using antidotes of fictional characters like the character Derek's search for identity from the 2001 movie Zoolander and real-life case studies. In the final chapter Hood presents his thesis for book in order to summarize how the brain creates the illusion of self.Thesis:Hood makes the point that the brain creates self in order to make sense of reality. Chapter by chapter he goes through how the concept of self is generated from our experiences through childhood and into adulthood while constantly being shaped by society. "If you think about "I" and the "me" that we usually refer to as self, it provides a focal point to hang experiences together both in the immediate here and now, as well as to join those events over a lifetime." Although every time a memory is remembered it is reshaped by current experience and the self " that is constructed is not necessarily an accurate or consistent version". He concludes that self is merely an illusion in order to make life "purposeful and fulfilled" in order to survive.Interesting Points:One idea I found very interesting in the book was the concept of mirror neurons. Hood cites the work of the Italian neurophysiologist Giacomo Rizzolatti who saw that when a monkey picked up a peanut, neurons fired in the areas of the brain controlling movement. These same neurons fired when the monkey watched the experimenter perform the same action. These mirror neurons give insights into "other people's goals and intentions". Hood notes that since our actions are connected to our minds, by understanding our own minds we know what others are thinking. This interests me because it shows how humans can have empathy towards one another.Secondly, I also found interesting the idea that we have a built in capacity to smile which was proven when babies "who are congenitally both deaf and blind, who have never seen a human face, also start to smile at around 2 months". Smiling has been linked to areas of the brain that are responsible for social behavior. When a person smiles, those around them smile and in turn triggers the corresponding happy "feelings in the emotion centers of our brains that usually associated with this facial expression". I found this fascinating because not only does our brain have ways to adapt and learn about other people, but also we have a built in mechanism to begin the social networking process.Another concept I found very interesting is the "chameleon effect" to describe when we "change in behavior to match others around us". Hood notes that we only mimic those we like, in turn they mimic us in a "synchronized sycophantic symphony of mutual appreciation". This idea is intriguing because if a person does good deeds then they inspire others to do good deeds. However, this also explains mob mentality, in which we conform not because of the "power of the group or peer pressure that shapes our behavior, but rather our desire to be accepted". Sometimes the rule of the mob doesn't always have the best intentions, such as in the Nazi concentration camps.Recommendation:The book is a great read and gives very insightful ideas into why self is created by the brain. Although I am not convinced entirely that self is merely an illusion that the brain creates. Maybe because if this were true then it would mean we are not in control of our lives but constantly being shaped by others. If others were constantly shaping us would we eventually converge into specific ways of thinking? With the advent of the web it's becoming more and more possible to catch glimpses as how others in the world behave and influence these behaviors through selective communication. In conclusion this is a great book to read and I highly recommend this to potential readers.

This is a good book and very accessible to a general audience (this accessibility is responsible for some of my quibbles about the text). That I could get it on Kindle for $1.95 makes it an incredible deal and makes me feel bad for the Bruce Hood - like he's being shorted for the amount and quality of work he put into it.I have no major concerns about the theory put forth. It is well-considered and, if you take a step back and come at it objectively, intuitive (though some might argue this is by definition not intuitive!). To give a very general overview - the self is an illusion (note: often times when people hear this sort of phrase they assume it means X doesn't exist; it just means it does not exist *as we naturally understand it), a malleable narrative that relies almost entirely on external, unchosen factors in defining itself. And he makes clear to point out that this fiction fluctuates wildly, in real time, depending on the external environmental and social factors (some great examples of this are prison experiments).He does a great job in breaking down the popular conception that we have some persistent, "ghost in the machine" style of self. There is a chapter that also deals with the necessarily related concept of "free will;" I was briefly concerned when he started a section regarding quantum mechanics as a possible refuge for free will (quantum mechanics in non-physics texts is generally a red flag for bulls***!), but it turned out to be a false alarm as he provided the convincing arguments against that idea.The issues I had with the book were minor, but I think worth discussing. I felt that the overarching theory and argument was, relatively, unassailable and uncomplicated (conceptually). The feel of the book was more of "here is how it is," with a footnote (numerous footnotes) to experiments and references and a general overview of the experiment. I would have preferred that, rather than briefly address a fairly large amount of evidence, he was more selective but went into more detail - addressing finer points, possible alternative interpretations, etc. While, in theory, anyone interested in such details could simply look up the experiments for themselves... realistically nobody actually does that! I think this approach would have been more enjoyable to me and made it feel less like knowledge handed out and more like knowledge explained.The other problem I had is the terminology and phrasing used to talk about the brain. And before I start here, I'd like to point out that I only find this an issue because the book is intended for the general audience; professionals aren't in danger of taking away the wrong impression but most people, who experience and believe in the dualistic sense of mind and self, can. I completely agree with the author that it is essentially impossible to talk about the self without invoking language and concepts that are dualistic in nature, and I appreciate the separation into "our selves," "my self," etc.But the processes of the brain, while suffering from similar issues, can be talked about more carefully. At numerous points in the book I would read something like (this is a conceptual paraphrasing, not quote) "the brain represents X," when I could easily rephrase it into language that did not apply the same level of agency and intention. That sort of language encourages and does not challenge our natural inclination to think dualistically about the mind and brain - it implies that there is some central figure that things are being represented TO.Anyway, I'm just quibbling at this point. Great and excessively cheap book for a general audience that does a great job at deconstructing our natural understandings of the self. Would recommend!

I am a PhD biochemist, with a publication (among many others) in quantum chemistry. So, as a "hard scientist" I have spent 40 years in the retail/supplier orbit, studying these industries - and shoppers and their behaviors - as a scientist. And I HIGHLY recommend this book, with one small caveat: the title. Bear in mind that when scientists discovered the atom, and eventually it's wave nature, including the vast emptiness of atom space, with compact nuclei and insubstantial electron clouds/waves, they might have concluded that matter itself was an "illusion." Stir into that the uncertainty principle and it is no wonder that the very latest in nuclear science cannot be definitive of what matter is.I relate to "The Self Illusion" in the same way, and I do think that Bruce Hood's outstanding organization of data and reasoning shines a bright light on superficial thoughts about "self." But it is a similar bright light that has shined on the stuff of the universe for a couple hundred years, and has only gotten to the "subatomic" level of visual/neural science in the past few decades. In this sense, Hood's organization and thinking is brilliant. But it is too soon to call the self an illusion, just as it is premature to use science to conclude that "God" is a fiction.I do hope that if you read this book that you will think expansively, and enjoy it as much as I have!Herb Sorensen, [...]

The book offers interesting insights into the complex relationship between our social interactions and our sense of self. It convincingly explores how external factors shape our identities. The chapters cover intriguing topics, albeit in a somewhat disorganized manner. The writing style is straightforward and thought-provoking. However, the author's argument that the self is an illusion lacks a convincing conclusion, offering only a set of unconvincing hints. This leaves room for further debate, including the possibility that the concept of the self as an illusion is, in itself, an illusion. Nevertheless, the book provides a valuable perspective on selfhood and encourages readers to question their understanding of the self.

Rated 5 stars. Amazing read from start to end. Changes your perspective on how you view the world and how the brain works. I would recommend these book to all.

Excelente libro basado en investigación científica contemporánea. Sorprendente, claro y ágil. Ejemplifica de manera puntual y cita autores de gran prestigio en el ámbito de la investigación en neurociencias.

In his book Bruce Hood argues, that the popular notion of a "coherent self' living inside us is an illusion. He argues that the "self" changes according to the circumstances and our influences. He says, not only is the self a product of others influence on us, but we try and learn to become others.This book also challenges the notion of contra causal Free Will and points out the consequences of belief in it.As has been pointed by many, the realization that both "freedom of the human will" and "a coherent self" are persistent illusions can have real consequences in the way we organize our societies, most importantly in some of the basic assumptions of our criminal justice systems and the realization also leaves no rational/logical basis for human hatred.To a lay man in the field of neuroscience, like me, the book doesn't seem too technical, except in few places. It is also funny and entertaining to read.So, for the reasons stated above , I recommend people to read it.

This is an excellent book and one that was a joy to read. Having a fascination with conscioussness and the idea of 'self', I have read almost everything by Antonio Damasio, Joseph Ledoux and VS Ramachandran et al. Damasio in particular, although clearly a genius, does not make the lightest of reading and it can take many months to wade through his books, sometimes being reduced to reading only a couple of pages at a time.This is much more easy going but crucially, it does not sacrifice scientific explanation for an easy ride. I think Damasio could learn a lot from Hood when it comes to writing style.It is also very pleasing to see a scientist draw philosiphical conclusions from neuroscientific evidence. Although Ramachrandan sticks his neck out somewhat in 'the tell-tale brain', Hood is quite happy to draw the most fundamental philosophical conclusions which is enlightening in itself as it least it reassures you that you are drawing proper inferences from the evidence (at leat that is if you come to the same conclusions).If you plan to read this is a light introduction to the subject or if it is intended as a resume of the current scientific standpoint, it is an excellent resource.