Customer Reviews

Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(27)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

We'd all like to believe that we're rational and clear-headed, and that our mind, will, and emotions are reliable (except, perhaps, when it comes to romance and chocolate). However, "Kluge" indicates that our Rube Goldberg brain often doesn't work quite as optimally as we believe it does. Thankfully, Gary Marcus' mind functioned well enough to bring us this fine book.

Reading about the brain is probably the ultimate act of navel-gazing, since it's the seat of who we are, and its function determines a large part of our destiny. I was glad to see a well-done and accessible analysis of our most important organ. I found the author's breakdown of the mind enlightening, like with the relationship between memory and context. Why can't I find my clipboard? Because I put it in an unfamiliar place - duh. He also compares our faulty context-dependent memory to the more accurate and systematic way a computer accesses information. Bottom line, we come up short in the total recall department.

Mr. Marcus is firmly in the evolutionary camp, so creationists may take issue with "Kluge." Mr. Marcus believes that a patchwork brain like ours couldn't be the product of a rational, superior creator. Instead, evolution fashioned our brain based on what worked for humanity's genetic propagation, not to imitate what is perfect or holy. "Good enough for survival" was evolution's mantra, as opposed to forming an "image of God," as most creationists advocate. But the author isn't demeaning towards believers, so persons of faith can at least take comfort in that.

As the whole the book was eye-opening, with chapters on concrete themes ("Memory") and more abstract topics ("True Wisdom" - yes, there's a little cognitive self-help advice). Some of the chapters were a bit more compelling than others, but that's mainly a personal preference thing. No matter the subject, each chapter contained one or more "a-ha" moments. For example, I identified with the blinding effect pleasure has on my higher cognitive functions. I've certainly made some dumb rationalizations in order to gain immediate gratification, only to look back after the fact and ask, "What was I thinking?" Of course, I wasn't firing on all cylinders - my "grab bag of crude mechanisms" devoted to pleasure was easily tricked.

My only real gripe with "Kluge" was with the tantalizing, yet too-small bits the author threw out about certain subjects. I wish he had spent more time on, say, sociopathy. He devotes all of one sentence and a footnote to this topic, but I wanted more analysis, since the idea that brain structure might be responsible for a Hannibal Lecter would be fascinating (and somewhat ironic) reading. Indeed, a deeper dip into the link between morality and brain formation/function would have been intriguing (or perhaps disconcerting to a person of faith who believes in the theology of sin and freedom of the will). In addition, Mr. Marcus' take on the idea of changing the brain, vs. simply "doing better," would also have been welcome, since that theory seems to be in vogue these days. I suppose these topics were beyond the book's scope, so I can't complain too much.

"Kluge" is a good read on its own, but I recommend going through it in conjunction with some complementary books: "The Thing About Life is that One Day You'll be Dead," by David Shields, "Sperm Are From Men, Eggs Are From Women," by Joe Quirk, and "The Reluctant Mr. Darwin," by David Quammen.

In "Kluge," psychologist Gary Marcus looks to the many and varied foibles, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies of the human mind and concludes that our brains are not, in fact, models of brilliance and efficiency, but are rather cobbled-together systems, designed for one purpose and pressed into action for another - the classic definition of a kluge.

The most famous kluge is probably the case of the carbon scrubbers on the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission. Crunched for time, engineers managed to create a system out of duct tape and socks (seriously) that worked adequately enough to clean the air on the space module- even though none of the materials they used were designed for, or optimal for, the job at hand. The result was ugly and inefficient - but it kept the astronauts alive. Likewise, Marcus argues, evolution has endowed humans with a hodgepodge of genetic material - the DNA equivalent of duct tape - with which to build all the sophisticated systems that supposedly set us apart from other creatures, like language, memory, and reason. The result is, for example in the case of language, "a vocal apparatus more byzantine than a bagpipe made up entirely of pipe cleaners and cardboard dowels."

It's delightful metaphors like this that make "Kluge" such an entertaining read. Marcus is a talented writer as well as an insightful psychologist, and what emerges from his theory is both fascinating and well-argued. In each chapter, he looks at one aspect of the human mind whose fallacies he traces to the kluge effect. Our tendency to make irrational choices, for instance, isn't necessarily the case of a single, poorly designed system. Rather, it's caused by two separate systems in conflict - our older, more primitive hindbrain, and our evolutionarily newer, deliberate forebrain. Each system on its own is pretty good at what it's designed to do, whether reacting from instinct or reasoning through logic. It's when the multiple layers of our brains try to work together that we get breakdowns and inconsistencies - like choosing the transient pleasure of chocolate cake over the deliberate, long-term goal of losing weight.

Marcus does a great job selling his theory. I heard echoes of Bill Bryson and Matt Ridley in his conversational, often humorous writing style. It's clear that Marcus doesn't just study the human mind; he loves it for the very quirks and eccentricities that define it. His book has a clear thesis - that the kluge effect is further proof of the theory of evolution - but I wish he had done a bit more to clearly connect his thesis to the evidence he provides. Still, I understand it's a fine line to walk, and by keeping the book slim and streamlined he's made for a much better read. Anyone interested in human psychology or evolution will greatly enjoy this well-written, well-researched account of "Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind."

Marcus has written an enormously entertaining and thought-provoking work. It is thoroughly grounded in research and a century's worth of thoughts and research about the human mind, and yet it is completely accessible and conversational in tone.

In just the first chapter he manages to refer to Shakespeare, Wallace & Gromit, MacGyver, the research of Daly and Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Bayesian theory and Aristotle. How can you not love a book that manages to get Homer, Tom Lehrer and They Might Be Giants into one sentence?

Marcus's approach is relaxed but methodical. He argues that the human mind is a kluge-- a jury-rigged whacked-together piece of work that owes more to building on what was already evolutionary present then a well-designed stab at reaching a clear-cut end (the book is a back-door argument against intelligent design, implying that if we were intelligently designed, we would not have ended up with the mess we have).

From memory, a variable mess of gaps and fabrication, we move on to belief and other mental processes that depend upon this hazy kluged-up foundation (choice, language and pleasure). Having shot holes in the idea of the brain as a marvelous machine of reason, Marcus warns of the dangers when the kluge falls apart, but thankfully does not end there, instead offering a solid list of ways to keep ourselves on a clear mental track.

Some of this work will seem familiar to those who have read "Stumbling Toward Happiness," but this is in many ways a perkier and more positive book. First, Marcus throws so many illustrations and examples at the reader that the ideas are clear and easy to understand (also leaving the reader well-armed for those dinner-party discussions about the book). At the same time, he maintains a positive tone. He doesn't consider the kluge-like nature of our brains to be reason to despair-- if we know where the pitfalls are, we can better learn to work with them instead of falling into them.

A great book, like listening to a witty, well-read, highly articulate friend report back on some fascinating stuff. Highly recommended.

When I was learning the basics of journalism, I found out that (a) every article must have a "hook," that gets the reader interested in the article; and (b) the best hook is to maintain that something that is obviously false, or is widely disbelieved, is in fact true. Marcus has apparently learned these lessons. He has many interesting things to tell us about the human mind, but his argument that the human mind is a "clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem" (the definition of a kluge) is just not the case.

Of course, it has been fashionable since Stephen J. Gould's brilliant critique of creationism to maintain that evolution produces acceptable but not optimal solutions. Gould's examples, though, are extremely plausible and based on the existence of better solutions to problems in one organism as opposed to another (e.g., the octopus eye does not have a blind spot). Marcus argues that the human brain is a kluge, but his argument that the computer is a better brain is just too silly to contemplate, even if we limit mental activity to memory.

One of the truly infuriating things about this book is Marcus' willingness to quote facts without regard to their validity or plausibility, and to render judgments without considering alternative hypotheses. For instance, on p. 19 he reports "A recent Newsweek article claims that people typically spend 55 minutes a day `looking for things they know they own but can't find.'" I don't believe this for a second. Show me the study from which this statistic derives. It may exist, but I heartily doubt it. I don't spend 55 minutes a year looking for things I have lost, and I am just a normal guy.

Marcus' argument that computer memory is better than human memory is not convincing, and the reason he gives for this is just wrong. He says that computer memory is based on a "postal address" system in which each piece of information occupies a fixed location in memory. This is just not true. Computer memory is mapped and remapped frequently, with address changes each time. Moreover, it is likely that human memory has exactly the same property. Indeed, it is a major challenge to find information in computer memory, just as it is in human memory. Google became a household word because it provides mechanisms for accessing computer memory.

Marcus would have done better to ask what human memory is supposed to do, and then discussed how efficient the actual solution is. For instance, it is costly to store information, so the brain ignores many signals altogether, and moves only a fraction of short term memory into long-term memory. It would be extremely inefficient if this worked perfectly, because in fact optimality requires a balance between the costs of storage, the costs of discrimination, and the costs of lacking specific pieces of information. The fact that we lose our car keys once in a while is not an indication of a kluge.

This is not to say that human memory is optimal. For instance, we tend to be overconfident concerning our memory of past events. This may serve some psychodynamic purpose, but it may just be a mental defect the correction of which does not have much fitness value, and hence has not occurred.

In dealing with "belief," Marcus takes it as obvious that the ideal type of belief is scientific, based on logic and the laws of evidence. Human believe all sorts of stuff that violate the canons of science, and why they do is an interesting evolutionary question. However, it is not a kluge---it is inconceivable that this aspect of the human mind is not an adaptation. Even scientists believe in things that they have not proved, and it is likely that the capacity to believe is a major creative force in science.

Marcus' treatment of human choice is a recap of the work of Kahneman, Tversky, et al. If you have not seen this material, Marcus is a good place to start. He does a fine job of summarizing this important body of work. However, I do not believe this evidence supports his position that human choice is basically irrational. For an extended critique of the irrationality of human decision-making, see my paper, Herbert Gintis, "A Framework for the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences", Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30,1 (2007):1-61.

Marcus' contribution is one of many recent popular contributions to cognitive psychology that basically take the form "Humans are irrational, but if we know the common pitfalls of the mind, we can vastly improve our capacity to make good decisions." As such Marcus' book is really a self-help manual, and indeed, in the final chapter "True Wisdom," he gives us such wise blandishments as "Try to Be Rational" and "Always Weigh the Benefits Against the Costs." Thanks, Gary. I'll think I'll try these on for size.

This is a fine pop-psych book. However, it completely fails to deliver anything resembling an evolutionary argument. It's as if he wrote a psych book and his editor suggested they tie in evolution, and just peppered in this word every other page or so. In fact, I think that his attempts to say anything about evolution distract from the book.

The book starts with a vague and unacceptable definition of evolution. He never gives any definition of what it means to be successful in evolutionary terms, other than 'what works'. He seems to implicitly assume that evolution is a hill climbing heuristic and always promotes beneficial traits, though this is not true (the classic example being a peacock's tail). He never mentions sex or reproductive success as a driving force for evolution! (except briefly once in that sex is pleasurable)

What I expected from a book on evolutionary psychology is a definition of what it means to be successful evolutionarily and what forces are driving this line of evolution. Using language as an example, he never once states any reason why evolution may have driven the existence of language!

I expected more. For a more rigorous argument about why we may have developed language and other cognitive abilities, I recommend The Red Queen.

This is a curious little book about a simple but interesting topic that, despite including some very worthwhile ideas, is somewhat tarnished by two nagging issues that run the length of the book. The first of which could be dubbed engineer's disorder - the constant criticisms of existing designs with less regard for how they came to be, why they came to be the way that they did, and too much emphasis on the fact that evolution has not left us with the type of task-specific perfection we would expect from a machine. And the second is a tendency that seems to get more noticeable as the book progresses, which is to repeatedly fall back onto a familiar commentary about a particular aspect of human nature and simply state that the reason this particular shortcoming exists is because of the kluged nature of our design. Which may in fact be the case, and often times it probably is the case. But more explanation and less commentary would be effective.

The premise for the book is a sound one -- that the human brain being a product of evolution is a series of systems, built upon existing systems, which were themselves built on existing systems, all of which were "designed" for life in earlier and simpler times. The result of this constrains the abilities and limits the potential of what evolution has left us with - a pastiche of cumbersome and perhaps even clumsy designs that manage to work is spite of their lack of eloquence. The first chapter does a good job of being both entertaining and enlightening as it explains this idea in detail and provides a few interesting examples, such as the fact that our optic nerve has to send visual input all the way to the back of the brain and flip it 180 degrees where it can be processed into sight, as opposed to putting the visual processing in the frontal part of the brain, just behind the eyes. Regrettably, after the first chapter, as the author begins looking at different aspects of our cognitive functions, such as memory, belief, language, and pleasure, the book gets away from the interesting idea of kluges, and specific examples of kluges and merely references kluges as the probable cause for whatever the current topic happens to be. Again, this may in fact be the case, but the tendency to lean towards commentary and away from explanation detracts from the book's value.

Admittedly, there are some ideas worthy of the reader's attention, particularly the theory that our system of cognition is based on two primary processing circuits (for want of a better term), one reflexive, and one deliberative. One of these two, the deliberative, is newer, but rides on the existing framework laid down by millions of years of evolution, and therefore leaves us with a sense of reason and deliberation that is both behind and somewhat subservient to our sense of impulse and reflex. Also there are numerous cognitive studies from psychology offered for support that are interesting enough in their own right. And while too much time does ultimately get spent complaining about evolution's supposed shortcomings, the author is correct to point out early on that natural selection can only select from the choices it has been given, therefore "better" possibilities never get considered - "chance proposes and nature disposes." The author is also correct when he points out that evolution, much like a production system, does not and cannot stop, which might, and probably does, explain many of nature's design selections.

Ultimately the greatest problem in the book is the fact that every time an aspect of our cognitive development is deemed inefficient it gets compared to something created by a world full of kluged individuals. Human memory would be so much better if it were not contextually based but rather based on a type of "postal-code" addressing system which would allow us to recall specific memories in a manor similar to searching on Google. Our processing of sound should be like an iPod with a central unit capable of reproducing any sound rather than using muscles in our throats that twist and contort in thousands of combination allowing us to mold sounds into words, but also increases our chance of choking. In these cases, and others, the models of perfection and excellence (Google, iPods, and even Postal Codes) were built by and for a world of kluge-ridden people. It is difficult at this point to not make the observation that beings such as ourselves, irregardless of our poor design, are capable of creating these tools when needed or desired. Even if it were possible to machine perfection, or at least efficiency, into people they would still make changes to their surroundings that would change the world in which they live. And this would leave them in a state identical to the one the author defines in the first chapter - One where the inhabitants of the world struggle to adapt to that world with the tools left to them for the purpose of existence in a previous generation.

Credit where due, this book still manages to be thought provoking and, at times, engaging. The ideas presented are worth pondering and make for great conversation material. The book is short, with the body of text barely passing 175 relatively small pages. So for those who may consider the book a waste of time, at least it is not very much. Three stars - enjoy.

Gary Marcus' KLUGE: THE HAPHAZARD CONSTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN MIND offers cogent evidence that the human brain is not the product of a supernatural engineer but is, instead, the result of thousands of years of frequently haphazard evolutionary adaptations. That's not to say that the human brain isn't a marvel of nature (it is!) nor does Marcus claim that humans aren't capable of amazing acts of cognition (they are!). Marcus is simply pointing out that there are faults or shortcomings in the "engineering" of the human brain, which themselves demonstrate that our mental faculties are merely a biological kluge that has been pieced together by evolution as our ancestors faced the need for more or different types of survival tools. Study of our mental shortcomings, Marcus says, not only helps us to understand the way that evolution works in general--that is, biological mutations and adaptations are, by necessity, built on top of previous mutations and adaptations--it also offers opportunities for us to better understand the specific evolution of our race. In addition, Marcus shows how an understanding of the mental and intellectual foibles of our species can help us, as individuals, maximize the positive functions of our brain and minimize the negative shortcomings.

While Marcus writes for an educated audience and offers up numerous studies and research projects to back up his argument, KLUGE is not a stuffy academic document. It is written in a colloquial style that as fun to read as it is informative, and any intelligent person with an open mind will find the book to be a quick read that is both thought provoking and entertaining. Highly recommended for anybody who would like a better understanding of the kluge that is their brain.

Chances are you will do a bad job of predicting how much you might enjoy this book. Predicting our future happiness is just one of the things our brains aren't very good at. We're pretty bad at making intelligent choices too. As you'll find out if you read the book, your decision on whether to choose to read it will probably have been influenced by unreasoned responses to a lot of irrelevant details--like the cover design, or even what you were doing just before you came to this web page.

For while we like to think of ourselves as rational, unbiased and well adapted to dealing with life, Gary Marcus details the evidence that leads towards a completely different conclusion: our brains are in fact kluged together, newer and more elaborate ways of thinking grafted onto older, more instinctive methods, in a way that compromises the effectiveness of both. The newer thinking mechanisms apparently haven't had enough time for debugging, either, and like beta quality software they're not as powerful as we might hope, and break down more easily.

After the introduction, the book starts out talking about memory, perhaps the most obviously kluged part of our minds. If I tell you that this book is fantastic and may change your life, you might remember that claim when you see the book in a store, but chances are you won't remember who you heard it from, or where.

Worse, as the chapter on belief later explains, we tend to believe things by default, and then maybe throw away the erroneous beliefs when (or if) we have time to evaluate them later. It's an approach that makes sense for our ape-like ancestors, who learned almost everything via direct experience, but it's dangerous to Internet-reading man.

Throughout the book, examples of experiments and their results are used to underline the points being made. There are even a few exercises you can perform yourself while reading the book; the results may surprise you. (We're all hopelessly biased.)

Yet ultimately, Prof. Marcus believes that we can largely compensate for our brains' defects, and after spending most of the book cataloging our mental shortcomings in great detail, the last chapter lists some very useful tips to try and follow.

I'd recommend this book to anyone who is interested in how the mind really works, why people believe crazy things, and why we often behave in a foolish or even self-destructive manner.

"If it works, don't fix it!", runs the old adage. Any engineer will tell you, however, that this is false confidence. What works today may not work tomorrow when conditions change. Animal brains worked for many millions of years. Then Homo sapiens arose somewhere in Africa with an enlarged, busy brain. Combined with walking and handiness, that brain accomplished - and still accomplishes - wondrous things. Until you wonder where you left your car keys. Gary Marcus, in this fluidly written review, backed by a wealth of references, explains how the workings of our brain have been built up over time, with bits added or enhanced through the ages. It makes us a unique species, but it's anything but a fine design. Instead it's what engineers call a "kluge" - an inelegant, marginally efficient product of evolutionary bits cobbled together well enough to get the job done.

Using the fact of our brains having an evolutionary foundation, Marcus shows how Shakespeare's and the Bible's depictions of the brain are flawed. We have poor, erratic memories, we make irrational decisions, and we'll believe things that are patently untrue - sometimes with real tenacity. Our brains are built up from very ancient structures, probably using the same processes, with added complexity developing over time ["This worked last time, but it's not working now. Cobble something up to fix it."]. Knowing that readers might be overwhelmed with data overload [our memories can't handle it!], the author focusses on a half-dozen aspects of brain "design" demonstrating the positive features and the shortfalls. Memory, Belief, Choice, Language, Pleasure and "Things Fall Apart" - distractions. In each case, he explains how the system is usually depicted, what might be the ideal process, and how it actually works.

The opening segment on Memory lays the groundwork for the entire book. "If evolution is so good at making things work well, why is our memory so hit and miss?" Marcus compares human memory with computer memory. Nothing is lost on the computer's disk and any stored information can be retrieved. It was clearly "designed" for that task. Human memory, on the other hand, lacks access, lacks specificity, lacks reliability. We can retrieve old memories, but can't recall what we had for dinner yesterday. Nor can we assume that old memory, which seems so vivid, is valid. Marcus describes computer memory as "postal code" memory due to the system's design in making an "address book" used to find data. Human memory, along with that of other animals, is "contextual" - recollection comes within a frame of reference. That might be good or bad, depending on the circumstances, but it's hardly reliable or consistent.

The author's use of comparison in memory is followed by similar scenarios in the other sections. Language is particularly vague and imprecise, why does each language have its own version of the sound of a dog's bark. Yet, our brains allow us to work out meaning in contextual ways. Choice seems to be one of the most irregular mechanisms in our brains, since we continue to avoid shifting from decisions resulting in long-term benefits for short-term gains. Those limited scope decisions likely have links with the brain's pleasure centres, hence the current rise in addictions - even video games take time better spent at exercise or learning.

The conclusion of this book may come as a surprise. The unthinking may tend to see this section as one of those "self-help" manuals so common today [and which are designed to overcome the "kluge" aspects of our minds]. Here, Marcus is able to line out a set of recommendations for improving how we use our brains. He recognises that the idea of the human brain as a kluge will find little appeal with some people. That's a prejudice that must be overcome. Evolution, he reminds us, has produced things of tremendous beauty. If the brain falls short, it has the capacity to examine imperfection and understand it. More importantly, those imperfections of the brain can be addressed. Who is capable of that? You are. Don't miss this book. It's about you. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

[NOTE: As the Amazon Vine programme doesn't ship to Canada, this reviewer thanks publisher Houghton Mifflin for providing an ARC of this book]

The author begins with the proposition that a lot of things in nature - including systems in living organisms, even mankind - seems as if they have been cobbled together in haphazard fashion. The idea of intelligent design will not survive a close reading of this book. The great Portuguese king, Alfonso the Wise, once confided to his companions (perhaps while swatting a mosquito) that, if he had been present at the creation, he might have offered a few useful suggestions to the creator.
Marcus is a little more specific. He doesn't offer suggestions but he points out odd lapses in how things like eyes and minds work and how brains do what they do and suggests that there's a lot of "stuff" floating around in how we are put together that is pure artifact. It's there because it's there and it isn't the most efficient or best or even most plausible approach to the evolutionary problem we think it was meant to address.
Marcus is a smart and witty writer but I suggest keeping a salt shaker handy. Science is constantly discovering that things it thought were meaningless or actual problems have some real value. Diseases that we inherit turn out to be protective against much more serious diseases that we could catch. "Useless" organs or systems turn out to have subtle life-protective functions. Too often we see something that we don't understand and label it a mistake instead of a signpost of our own limits of perception.
I think that existence in nature exposes an organism to a tremendously powerful sculpting process and that what survives ought to be presumed to have survival value and function, even if we haven't discovered it yet.
Marcus propounds his very different thesis - that there's a lot in what we are that seems senseless and incomprehensible, if not actually non-functional - and then seems to run out of steam.
The best part of the book, the tests of the validity of his hypothesis and the implications if it is true, remain unarticulated. Marcus is a university professor. From the feel of this book, he is probably a good one. Yet, if he got something like this as a student paper, he would probably guess that it was a first draft and return it for revision with some very pointed and helpful comments.
I enjoyed this book until about halfway through when it seemed to get lost. Worth reading as a humbling exercise, but not clear whether the proper humbling is from realizing that we are highly imperfect and contingent creatures or from realizing that we understand a lot less about what we are and how we are put together than we would like to believe.