-
Contents
- Sweet Confusion: Does high fructose corn syrup deserve such a bad rap?
- Closed Thinking: Without scientific competition and open debate, much psychology research goes nowhere
- subscribe
- give a gift
- renew
- RSS Feeds
- email alerts
- Digital Edition
- Podcast
- Past issues
-
Contents
- Better chow yields more milk: A more nutritious form of corn for dairy cows boosts farm profits, teen investigator finds
- Fuzzy future: Kids may suffer impaired vision from spending too little time outdoors, studies suggest
- Building with moon rocks: Working on the moon with lunar soil and grit could prove easier, more efficient and less costly than using earthly materials
Web edition: July 1, 2011
Print edition: July 16, 2011; Vol.180 #2 (p. 28)
People only think they know what they’re doing. In reality, great ideas, decisions and opinions are all generated well before the conscious brain is in on the task, argues Eagleman, a neuroscientist.
In fresh, clear prose unencumbered by neuro-jargon, Eagleman weaves descriptions of simple, relatable experiments and compelling case studies throughout the book, convincing the reader that deep, mysterious machinations of the brain are calling the shots.
The insight that much of what drives behavior happens behind the scenes of conscious thought has huge implications for the justice system, a topic that Eagleman tackles with relish in later chapters. He invokes the infamous case of Charles Whitman, the University of Texas at Austin’s clock-tower sniper. An autopsy revealed a nickel-sized tumor that was impinging on parts of the brain linked to aggression and fear in Whitman, a former Eagle Scout and U.S. Marine.
The current legal system is based on the idea that, with a few key exceptions, most people are equally able to make decisions, control impulses and understand consequences, Eagleman writes. “While admirable, the notion is simply not true,” he concludes. Brain inequalities make assigning blame problematic, Eagleman proposes, so courts should assess “modifiability,” which considers what can be done to rehab an individual offender’s brain.
The book’s pithy observations, breezy language and wow-inducing anecdotes provide temporary pleasure, but the book’s real strength is in its staying power. A reader will be left to mull over Eagleman’s provocative ideas about “biologically informed jurisprudence.”
Pantheon Books, 2011, 304 p., $26.95
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
By the way, the "clock tower sniper" specifically requested an autopsy in his suicide note because he thought there was something suddenly seriously wrong with him, physically or mentally. The brain tumor finding was dismissed at the time because the tumor was so small: nickel-sized equals mayber 2 cm diameter. Now, with better localization of brain functions, we learn that it was impinging on brain centers related to aggression and fear. Makes a great story.
The relevance to criminology is especially important. If the claim that we are relative automatons means anything it would certainly suggest limited responsibility for criminal behavior or anything else. Why, after all, have elections if we don't even know what we are doing?
The claim that intention is cannot be detected for some brief period before it appears only establishes that, and provides no reason why it is so. Perhaps something is going on that we simply can't measure yet? If you're into quantum theory, perhaps our intentions start out as a kind of undetectable dark energy and the effects of that only become measurable after it acquires the form of an ordinary intention? Farfetched perhaps, but no more so than other claims made by the author. There’s a lot of jumping to conclusions in this book.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.