What do you think?
Rate this book
Top Brain, Bottom Brain: Surprising Insights into How You Think
In this groundbreaking contribution to the literature of human personality, a celebrated psychologist and an award-winning author offer an exciting new way of thinking about our minds—and ourselves—based on a new way of looking at the brain.With cowriter G. Wayne Miller, Dr. Stephen M. Kosslyn, a leader in the field of cognitive neuroscience, explains an exciting new theory of the brain for the first time. Summarizing extensive research in an inviting and accessible way, Kosslyn and Miller describe how the top and bottom parts of the brain work together, producing four modes of thought: Mover, Adaptor, Stimulator, and Perceiver. These ways of thinking and behaving shape your personality, and with the scientifically developed test provided in the book, you’ll quickly be able to determine which mode best defines your dominant mode of thought. Once you’ve identified your dominant cognitive mode, the possible practical applications are limitless, from how you conduct business, to your romantic relationships, to your voyage of personal discovery.
For the past fifty years, popular culture has led us to believe in the left brain vs. right brain theory of personality types. Right-brain people, we’ve been told, are artistic, intuitive, and thoughtful, whereas left-brain people tend to be more analytical, logical, and objective. It would be an illuminating theory if it did not have one major drawback: It is simply not supported by science. In contrast, the new theory is based on solid research that has stayed within the confines of labs all over the world—until now.
For the past fifty years, popular culture has led us to believe in the left brain vs. right brain theory of personality types. Right-brain people, we’ve been told, are artistic, intuitive, and thoughtful, whereas left-brain people tend to be more analytical, logical, and objective. It would be an illuminating theory if it did not have one major drawback: It is simply not supported by science. In contrast, the new theory is based on solid research that has stayed within the confines of labs all over the world—until now.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published November 5, 2013
84 people are currently reading
1471 people want to read
About the author
Stephen M. Kosslyn
57 books38 followersStephen Michael Kosslyn (born 1948) is an American psychologist who specializes in the fields of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Until 31 December 2010 he was John Lindsley Professor of Psychology in Memory of William James and Dean of Social Science at Harvard University, having previously been chair of the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. As of 1 January 2011, he became director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.
Kosslyn received his B.A. in 1970 from UCLA and his Ph.D. in 1974 from Stanford University, both in psychology. His Ph.D. advisor was Gordon Bower. His former teaching career includes Johns Hopkins and Brandeis Universities.
Kosslyn is known primarily for his research and theories on mental imagery. His theory is that, contrary to common assumption, imagery is not a unified phenomenon. Rather, it consists of a collection of distinct functions, which are responsible for different aspects of imagery. For example, he decomposes imagery into four sets of processes, responsible for generating the image (i.e., activating information stored in long-term memory and constructing a representation in short-term memory), inspecting the object in the image (e.g., by reinterpreting it), maintaining the image over time, and—possibly—transforming the image (e.g., by rotating it, adding or deleting parts, or changing the color). His research, which includes fMRI-imaging and similar techniques, has located some of these functions to different neural networks, some of which are in different cerebral hemispheres of the brain. For example, his laboratory demonstrated that the left half of the brain is better than the right at encoding categories and generating mental images on the basis of categories, whereas the right half of the brain is better than the left at encoding specific examples or continuous distances and at generating images that have such characteristics.
Kosslyn also works on visual display design, showing how psychological principles can be used to produce displays that can be read at a glance. Most recently, he has extended this work to showing how psychological principles of perception, memory, and comprehension can be used to make and deliver PowerPoint presentations.
He has received numerous honors for his research. These include the National Academy of Sciences Initiatives in Research Award, the Prix Jean-Louis Signoret, and three honorary doctorates (from the University of Caen, France; the University of Paris-Descartes, France; the University of Bern, Switzerland). He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Society of Experimental Psychologists.
Kosslyn has published over 300 scientific papers and written or co-authored 15 books and edited or co-edited 13 books; his authored books include Image and Mind (1980), Ghosts in the Mind's Machine (1983), Wet Mind (1992, with Olivier Koenig), Elements of Graph Design (1994), Image and Brain (1994), The Case for Mental Imagery (2006, with Thompson and Ganis), Graph Design for the Eye and Mind (2006), Clear and to the Point: 8 Psychological Principles for Compelling PowerPoint Presentations (2007), and Better PowerPoint (2010). He is also the co-author (with Rosenberg) of the textbooks Psychology: The Brain, the Person, the World (2000, 2004), Psychology in Context (2006), Abnormal Psychology (2010), and (with Smith) Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain. His forthcoming Top Brain/Bottom Brain (with G. W. Miller) develops a new theory of "cognitive modes" -- different thinking styles that affect how each of us approaches the world and interacts with other people.
Kosslyn received his B.A. in 1970 from UCLA and his Ph.D. in 1974 from Stanford University, both in psychology. His Ph.D. advisor was Gordon Bower. His former teaching career includes Johns Hopkins and Brandeis Universities.
Kosslyn is known primarily for his research and theories on mental imagery. His theory is that, contrary to common assumption, imagery is not a unified phenomenon. Rather, it consists of a collection of distinct functions, which are responsible for different aspects of imagery. For example, he decomposes imagery into four sets of processes, responsible for generating the image (i.e., activating information stored in long-term memory and constructing a representation in short-term memory), inspecting the object in the image (e.g., by reinterpreting it), maintaining the image over time, and—possibly—transforming the image (e.g., by rotating it, adding or deleting parts, or changing the color). His research, which includes fMRI-imaging and similar techniques, has located some of these functions to different neural networks, some of which are in different cerebral hemispheres of the brain. For example, his laboratory demonstrated that the left half of the brain is better than the right at encoding categories and generating mental images on the basis of categories, whereas the right half of the brain is better than the left at encoding specific examples or continuous distances and at generating images that have such characteristics.
Kosslyn also works on visual display design, showing how psychological principles can be used to produce displays that can be read at a glance. Most recently, he has extended this work to showing how psychological principles of perception, memory, and comprehension can be used to make and deliver PowerPoint presentations.
He has received numerous honors for his research. These include the National Academy of Sciences Initiatives in Research Award, the Prix Jean-Louis Signoret, and three honorary doctorates (from the University of Caen, France; the University of Paris-Descartes, France; the University of Bern, Switzerland). He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Society of Experimental Psychologists.
Kosslyn has published over 300 scientific papers and written or co-authored 15 books and edited or co-edited 13 books; his authored books include Image and Mind (1980), Ghosts in the Mind's Machine (1983), Wet Mind (1992, with Olivier Koenig), Elements of Graph Design (1994), Image and Brain (1994), The Case for Mental Imagery (2006, with Thompson and Ganis), Graph Design for the Eye and Mind (2006), Clear and to the Point: 8 Psychological Principles for Compelling PowerPoint Presentations (2007), and Better PowerPoint (2010). He is also the co-author (with Rosenberg) of the textbooks Psychology: The Brain, the Person, the World (2000, 2004), Psychology in Context (2006), Abnormal Psychology (2010), and (with Smith) Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain. His forthcoming Top Brain/Bottom Brain (with G. W. Miller) develops a new theory of "cognitive modes" -- different thinking styles that affect how each of us approaches the world and interacts with other people.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
May 21, 2016
There’s potentially a lot of promise behind this book, but as of today, it isn’t convincing enough.
The science and history presented in the first portion of the book almost make it worth reading, regardless of the flaws in the rest.
First, the discussion of the functional division of the various major structures in the brain was well done. For example, there is a great little diagram on page 29 that quickly and clearly delineates what the four lobes of the brain do (somewhat like this, but the book’s version is more parsimonious).
Then the authors shift to the convincing scientific evidence that different people perceive in sometimes substantially different ways, and that this is related to how their brain is wired. This is the Object-Spatial Imagery hypothesis, and it seems pretty solid. Primary visual processing occurs in the occipital lobe, but it seems that objects are recognized and processed in the temporal cortex, whereas spatial processing occurs in the parietal cortex. In other words, one part of our brain figures out what we’re seeing, but is clueless about where it is, while another knows where it is, but really isn’t clear on any details about what it is. Fascinating, but well supported.
This 2006 article is pretty easy reading, as science articles go, and has an embedded test that will quiz you on your preferred style; later portions show examples of the kinds of tests that correspond to what the different styles are good at. I long known that I’m great at spatial reasoning, and I’ve always been slightly mystified when people describe in great detail what takes place in their “minds eye”, but this explains it: I’m pretty close to zeroed out what apparently happens in the temporal lobe. On page 250 (the 12th page) of the article, there’s a “degraded picture” of a common object, and I literally couldn’t see it even after being told what was somehow hidden in there. (Strangely, I was going to say “I still can’t see it”, but when I looked up the page number, I was able to spot the object for the first time, but keep in mind I already knew what I was looking for.)
The old “left-brain/right-brain” comes in for a great drubbing, and includes some very interesting history, especially of Phineas Gage, a man whose improbably survival of a horrific accident led to tremendous advances in pioneering neuroanatomy. If you don’t know the story, you really should check it out. Even if you do know the basics of the story, you might not know some of the details, such as the fact that the iron rod was “three feet, seven inches long, and an inch and a quarter in diameter at its thickest point” and “landed more than sixty feet behind him” — after going through his skull!
But the worthwhile part of the book is over at that point.
The remainder explains the “top brain/bottom brain” hypothesis. They make the claim that, unlike most popular cognition tests floating around the world, theirs is based on actual science. But the connection is weak.
Here’s the gist:
The portion of the brain we’re interested (e.g., cerebral cortex, as opposed to the subcortical portion of the cerebrum or the brain stem) can usefully be divided into the top brain, consisting of the parietal lobe and the top of the frontal lobe, and the bottom brain, consisting of the lower portion of the frontal lobe, along with the temporal and occipital lobes.
I’m going to put more crudely than they do, but effectively the top brain is responsible for planning and the thinking associated with that in a very broad sense. The bottom brain deals with processing sensory input, as well as any associated complex thinking.
Everyone uses all of their brain, but — according to the hypothesis — we’ll rely even more on one of these (or both, or neither), depending on our temperament and habit, some of which devolves from genetic factors.
In their system, if you “rely” on both the top and the bottom, then you tend to use the “Mover mode”. If you rely on the top, but not the bottom, you’re a “Stimulator”. In the reverse, you’d be a “Perceiver”. If you don’t really rely on either, then you’re more of a go-with-the-flow “Adaptor”. Because their test might tell you that you “tend to rely” or “tend not to rely”, there are actually sixteen categories, so there’s some gray area.
The first problem is how they describe those categories. Even though they assert that none of them are better or worse, it will quickly become clear that the “Movers” are going to be the heroes here. And you can’t say you didn’t see that coming — after all, if you don’t rely on some major portion of your brain, you’re likely to run into some problems, aren’t you?
The first disturbing weakness in the “science” shows up when they provide the detailed descriptions of the four modes. They explain how two actual public figures and one imaginary person exemplify that mode’s behavior. One of the real humans is contemporary, the other is historic. Then there is a just-so story made up to “illuminate” the hypothetical person. This should get you wondering: of the many billions of people on the planet that must fit this category, this is the best they can do? Without conducting any actual tests on Michael Bloomberg (the ex-mayor of New York) or the Wright brothers, the author uses them as archetypal Movers. Are there any real “normal” human beings that walk amongst us that are also Movers? Because the best they can do is an almost idealized “Lisa”, who’s story ends with her considering whether to found her own startup.
The depictions of the other three modes are no better, although despite the author’s contention that none are really better than others, they make it increasingly clear that we’re gradually getting into loser territory. Everyone who isn’t a Mover had better marry well, so your spouse compliments there flaws.
Chapter thirteen introduces the test (which you can also take online, although no explanation is provided). The next chapter explains how scientific the test is, although it doesn’t take a very close reading to see some pretty gaping holes.
After writing hundreds of questions, they evaluated many hundreds of response from online test-takers, and figured out which questions correlated well with one another. To them, that means they’re finding questions that measure the same thing, albeit from different angles. Fine, as far as that goes. At that point, they tested how people’s scores on their final test correlated with well established standardized tests — a lengthy list is provided at the bottom of page 166. Frankly, that sounds backwards to me — design the test, and then see if it correlates to what you hoped it would?
The big problem is that the scores from the questions intended to measure reliance on top-brain functions are what correlated to all those tests (which cover quite a spectrum of psych tests), whereas… well, this is the way they put it:
The remaining chapters go into using your knowledge of your mode to learn to play well with others, blah blah blah. Honestly, at that point I was almost skimming, looking for a life saver that would rescue my opinion of this book.
How I scored, personally, also affected my judgement of the book. I don’t think that is a great reason for anyone else to dismiss it, since I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I’m an outlier in many ways, and since those are none of your business, I’m not going to provide any substantiation. However, I will say that I was tagged as a lean-towards Stimulator, which came as something of a surprise, since neither my actual life nor my inner thinking bears any resemblance to what had been described in that chapter. What I actually spend far too much time doing came closest to the librarian described as the hypothetical Perceiver, but that requires that I not rely on my top-brain, which is laughable.
I didn’t give this one star for two reasons: the first is that the introductory chapters are interesting, and worth reading. Get a copy from the library and read through Chapter Six, and you’ll have a quick and easy read about some interesting aspects of neuroanatomy and cognition. Don’t buy a copy, because these authors shouldn’t be rewarded for what is honestly shoddy work.
But the second reason is more nuanced. Enough of what they are working towards seems sensible that this could be a deeply flawed first hint at a better model of how people’s behavior emerges from how the brain is used.
Instead of everyone falling into four modes (or along two intersecting spectrums, which is what the sixteen categories hint at), what this suggests to me is that the more high-functioning you are within a context, the better you’ll use the relevant portion of the brain. Or, probably, the reverse: the better you use a relevant portion of your brain in a certain context, the more high-functioning you’ll be in that context.
Visualization along the spatial/object spectrums is a good indicator: people that can easily image spatial information would be better at navigating, for example (something I excel at), while someone poor at object visualization would make a poor illustrator. In fact, the last two pages of the book returned to an excellent example of this, referring to a research experiment that tested the spatial/object visualization hypothesis.
Pairs of people were assigned the task of navigating a maze (video-game style) peopled with “Greebles”. The navigation task required spatial visualization, the Greeble recognition required object recognition. If one or the other skill was missing from the team, they’d score poorly in the game. If the people with the required task were assigned to appropriate roles, the team scored very well. All that is as one might expect.
However, if the correct skills are present between the two, but those people are assigned to the wrong tasks, it got interesting. If they couldn’t communicate, they did horribly, but if they could talk, they quickly recognized that the trick would be for each to direct the other, and they scored quite well.
The PhD author, Kosslyn, was the last-named author of the paper that described this (the link is above). In coming decades, it seems certain that we will decode which functional structures of the brain do what, and it seems reasonable that the ability to actually perform those functions well will require strong neural linkages to the other brain structures that provide executive function. This book hints at that direction, but poorly so — it should have been shelved for a few years until a clearer picture had developed, and more evidence for any model could be prevented.
The science and history presented in the first portion of the book almost make it worth reading, regardless of the flaws in the rest.
First, the discussion of the functional division of the various major structures in the brain was well done. For example, there is a great little diagram on page 29 that quickly and clearly delineates what the four lobes of the brain do (somewhat like this, but the book’s version is more parsimonious).
Then the authors shift to the convincing scientific evidence that different people perceive in sometimes substantially different ways, and that this is related to how their brain is wired. This is the Object-Spatial Imagery hypothesis, and it seems pretty solid. Primary visual processing occurs in the occipital lobe, but it seems that objects are recognized and processed in the temporal cortex, whereas spatial processing occurs in the parietal cortex. In other words, one part of our brain figures out what we’re seeing, but is clueless about where it is, while another knows where it is, but really isn’t clear on any details about what it is. Fascinating, but well supported.
This 2006 article is pretty easy reading, as science articles go, and has an embedded test that will quiz you on your preferred style; later portions show examples of the kinds of tests that correspond to what the different styles are good at. I long known that I’m great at spatial reasoning, and I’ve always been slightly mystified when people describe in great detail what takes place in their “minds eye”, but this explains it: I’m pretty close to zeroed out what apparently happens in the temporal lobe. On page 250 (the 12th page) of the article, there’s a “degraded picture” of a common object, and I literally couldn’t see it even after being told what was somehow hidden in there. (Strangely, I was going to say “I still can’t see it”, but when I looked up the page number, I was able to spot the object for the first time, but keep in mind I already knew what I was looking for.)
The old “left-brain/right-brain” comes in for a great drubbing, and includes some very interesting history, especially of Phineas Gage, a man whose improbably survival of a horrific accident led to tremendous advances in pioneering neuroanatomy. If you don’t know the story, you really should check it out. Even if you do know the basics of the story, you might not know some of the details, such as the fact that the iron rod was “three feet, seven inches long, and an inch and a quarter in diameter at its thickest point” and “landed more than sixty feet behind him” — after going through his skull!
But the worthwhile part of the book is over at that point.
The remainder explains the “top brain/bottom brain” hypothesis. They make the claim that, unlike most popular cognition tests floating around the world, theirs is based on actual science. But the connection is weak.
Here’s the gist:
The portion of the brain we’re interested (e.g., cerebral cortex, as opposed to the subcortical portion of the cerebrum or the brain stem) can usefully be divided into the top brain, consisting of the parietal lobe and the top of the frontal lobe, and the bottom brain, consisting of the lower portion of the frontal lobe, along with the temporal and occipital lobes.
I’m going to put more crudely than they do, but effectively the top brain is responsible for planning and the thinking associated with that in a very broad sense. The bottom brain deals with processing sensory input, as well as any associated complex thinking.
Everyone uses all of their brain, but — according to the hypothesis — we’ll rely even more on one of these (or both, or neither), depending on our temperament and habit, some of which devolves from genetic factors.
In their system, if you “rely” on both the top and the bottom, then you tend to use the “Mover mode”. If you rely on the top, but not the bottom, you’re a “Stimulator”. In the reverse, you’d be a “Perceiver”. If you don’t really rely on either, then you’re more of a go-with-the-flow “Adaptor”. Because their test might tell you that you “tend to rely” or “tend not to rely”, there are actually sixteen categories, so there’s some gray area.
The first problem is how they describe those categories. Even though they assert that none of them are better or worse, it will quickly become clear that the “Movers” are going to be the heroes here. And you can’t say you didn’t see that coming — after all, if you don’t rely on some major portion of your brain, you’re likely to run into some problems, aren’t you?
The first disturbing weakness in the “science” shows up when they provide the detailed descriptions of the four modes. They explain how two actual public figures and one imaginary person exemplify that mode’s behavior. One of the real humans is contemporary, the other is historic. Then there is a just-so story made up to “illuminate” the hypothetical person. This should get you wondering: of the many billions of people on the planet that must fit this category, this is the best they can do? Without conducting any actual tests on Michael Bloomberg (the ex-mayor of New York) or the Wright brothers, the author uses them as archetypal Movers. Are there any real “normal” human beings that walk amongst us that are also Movers? Because the best they can do is an almost idealized “Lisa”, who’s story ends with her considering whether to found her own startup.
The depictions of the other three modes are no better, although despite the author’s contention that none are really better than others, they make it increasingly clear that we’re gradually getting into loser territory. Everyone who isn’t a Mover had better marry well, so your spouse compliments there flaws.
Chapter thirteen introduces the test (which you can also take online, although no explanation is provided). The next chapter explains how scientific the test is, although it doesn’t take a very close reading to see some pretty gaping holes.
After writing hundreds of questions, they evaluated many hundreds of response from online test-takers, and figured out which questions correlated well with one another. To them, that means they’re finding questions that measure the same thing, albeit from different angles. Fine, as far as that goes. At that point, they tested how people’s scores on their final test correlated with well established standardized tests — a lengthy list is provided at the bottom of page 166. Frankly, that sounds backwards to me — design the test, and then see if it correlates to what you hoped it would?
The big problem is that the scores from the questions intended to measure reliance on top-brain functions are what correlated to all those tests (which cover quite a spectrum of psych tests), whereas… well, this is the way they put it:
Specifically, the scores on the bottom-brain scale did not correlate with any of the other test scores; this means that these scores are measuring something completely distinct.Got that? Because that is all they’re going to say about it. There is no evidence given that the bottom-brain scores have anything to do with bottom-brain functionality. Or, if there is, it didn’t occur to them to provide it (I suppose I may have missed it, but I double and triple-checked). All we know is that the “something completely distinct” being tested is statistically consistent amongst the question, but not what it actually is.
The remaining chapters go into using your knowledge of your mode to learn to play well with others, blah blah blah. Honestly, at that point I was almost skimming, looking for a life saver that would rescue my opinion of this book.
How I scored, personally, also affected my judgement of the book. I don’t think that is a great reason for anyone else to dismiss it, since I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I’m an outlier in many ways, and since those are none of your business, I’m not going to provide any substantiation. However, I will say that I was tagged as a lean-towards Stimulator, which came as something of a surprise, since neither my actual life nor my inner thinking bears any resemblance to what had been described in that chapter. What I actually spend far too much time doing came closest to the librarian described as the hypothetical Perceiver, but that requires that I not rely on my top-brain, which is laughable.
I didn’t give this one star for two reasons: the first is that the introductory chapters are interesting, and worth reading. Get a copy from the library and read through Chapter Six, and you’ll have a quick and easy read about some interesting aspects of neuroanatomy and cognition. Don’t buy a copy, because these authors shouldn’t be rewarded for what is honestly shoddy work.
But the second reason is more nuanced. Enough of what they are working towards seems sensible that this could be a deeply flawed first hint at a better model of how people’s behavior emerges from how the brain is used.
Instead of everyone falling into four modes (or along two intersecting spectrums, which is what the sixteen categories hint at), what this suggests to me is that the more high-functioning you are within a context, the better you’ll use the relevant portion of the brain. Or, probably, the reverse: the better you use a relevant portion of your brain in a certain context, the more high-functioning you’ll be in that context.
Visualization along the spatial/object spectrums is a good indicator: people that can easily image spatial information would be better at navigating, for example (something I excel at), while someone poor at object visualization would make a poor illustrator. In fact, the last two pages of the book returned to an excellent example of this, referring to a research experiment that tested the spatial/object visualization hypothesis.
Pairs of people were assigned the task of navigating a maze (video-game style) peopled with “Greebles”. The navigation task required spatial visualization, the Greeble recognition required object recognition. If one or the other skill was missing from the team, they’d score poorly in the game. If the people with the required task were assigned to appropriate roles, the team scored very well. All that is as one might expect.
However, if the correct skills are present between the two, but those people are assigned to the wrong tasks, it got interesting. If they couldn’t communicate, they did horribly, but if they could talk, they quickly recognized that the trick would be for each to direct the other, and they scored quite well.
The PhD author, Kosslyn, was the last-named author of the paper that described this (the link is above). In coming decades, it seems certain that we will decode which functional structures of the brain do what, and it seems reasonable that the ability to actually perform those functions well will require strong neural linkages to the other brain structures that provide executive function. This book hints at that direction, but poorly so — it should have been shelved for a few years until a clearer picture had developed, and more evidence for any model could be prevented.
February 8, 2014
It was a challenge for me to continue reminding myself that this is just a "personality theory."
It was nice that they steered away form the left brain right brain conversation, and mentioned systemic brain functioning. It did seem a little bit limited on how they view the brain functioning as a system.
The neuroscience behind this was either really weak or poorly explained. The authors proposed that they were sticking with the "grey matter" in reference to how the brain interacts, but totally missed how midbrain and lower brain functioning impacts this (e.g. hypothalamus). They also tried to include the nature vs nurture debate, and emphasized the genetic predisposition predisposes people to a certain lifestyle. There was nothing included about attachment theory. The also included Phineas Gage to support their theory, but I missed how the prefrontal cortex has both top and bottom brain functioning. My basic understanding is that the prefrontal cortex is involved in decision making, emotion regulation, and prioritization.
The self-test they provided also did not match my profile at all (maybe I'm an outlier) and I get the sense that the authors are trying to find any/all evidence to support their theory without including very relevant and important research that would say otherwise.
Time would be better spent reading Daniel Siegel's work, in my opinion.
It was nice that they steered away form the left brain right brain conversation, and mentioned systemic brain functioning. It did seem a little bit limited on how they view the brain functioning as a system.
The neuroscience behind this was either really weak or poorly explained. The authors proposed that they were sticking with the "grey matter" in reference to how the brain interacts, but totally missed how midbrain and lower brain functioning impacts this (e.g. hypothalamus). They also tried to include the nature vs nurture debate, and emphasized the genetic predisposition predisposes people to a certain lifestyle. There was nothing included about attachment theory. The also included Phineas Gage to support their theory, but I missed how the prefrontal cortex has both top and bottom brain functioning. My basic understanding is that the prefrontal cortex is involved in decision making, emotion regulation, and prioritization.
The self-test they provided also did not match my profile at all (maybe I'm an outlier) and I get the sense that the authors are trying to find any/all evidence to support their theory without including very relevant and important research that would say otherwise.
Time would be better spent reading Daniel Siegel's work, in my opinion.
August 4, 2014
This has got to be the most useless book I've ever read. I'm thoroughly confused by all its good reviews... This book was about as good as the weather anchor saying "well, there's a 50% chance of rain today. So. You know. It might rain. Or it might not!" ... except the author said... "well we didn't test this theory intensively, but, basically, you could either use your top brain more or less, or your bottom brain more or less, but they definitely work together, but it varies really." Okay. Cool. Thanks for that.
November 6, 2013
“Kosslyn is one of the world’s great cognitive neuroscientists of the late 20th and early 21st century.”
– Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct.
"An exciting new way to think about our brains, and ourselves. Original, insightful, and a sweet read to boot."
-- Daniel Gilbert, author of the International bestseller Stumbling on Happiness.
"Kosslyn and Miller have written a lively, informative, and easily assimilated summary of several important principles of brain function for the general reader who does not have the time or background to follow the complexities of neuroscience research but would like a scaffolding on which to place the new facts that dominate each day's headlines."
-- Jerome Kagan, emeritus professor of psychology, Harvard University, and author of the critically acclaimed The Human Spark: The Science of Human Development.
“A bold new theory, with intriguing practical implications, formulated by one of America’s most original psychologists.”
-- Howard Gardner, co-author of The App Generation.
"Stephen Kosslyn has long been one of the world’s leading cognitive psychologists. In his new book, along with Wayne Miller, he proposes a novel synthesis for thinking about the different styles of cognition and the neurobiology that underlies it. This is an extremely stimulating book and a wonderfully readable one as well, even containing useful information for how each of us can make sense of our own ways of thinking.”
—Robert M. Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, and MacArthur Fellowship “genius grant” winner
"An invigorating thought-experiment on reassembling the brain’s dynamic parts."
-- Publishers Weekly
"Right brainers are intuitive, left brainers are analytical, and Kosslyn says it’s all hogwash; there’s no scientific proof. Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, he challenges the old orthodoxy by arguing that the brain operates according to patterns best described as Mover, Adaptor, Stimulator, and Perceiver. So which pattern fits your brain? Take Kosslyn’s test."
-- Library Journal, Prepub Alert, May 20, 2013.
– Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct.
"An exciting new way to think about our brains, and ourselves. Original, insightful, and a sweet read to boot."
-- Daniel Gilbert, author of the International bestseller Stumbling on Happiness.
"Kosslyn and Miller have written a lively, informative, and easily assimilated summary of several important principles of brain function for the general reader who does not have the time or background to follow the complexities of neuroscience research but would like a scaffolding on which to place the new facts that dominate each day's headlines."
-- Jerome Kagan, emeritus professor of psychology, Harvard University, and author of the critically acclaimed The Human Spark: The Science of Human Development.
“A bold new theory, with intriguing practical implications, formulated by one of America’s most original psychologists.”
-- Howard Gardner, co-author of The App Generation.
"Stephen Kosslyn has long been one of the world’s leading cognitive psychologists. In his new book, along with Wayne Miller, he proposes a novel synthesis for thinking about the different styles of cognition and the neurobiology that underlies it. This is an extremely stimulating book and a wonderfully readable one as well, even containing useful information for how each of us can make sense of our own ways of thinking.”
—Robert M. Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, and MacArthur Fellowship “genius grant” winner
"An invigorating thought-experiment on reassembling the brain’s dynamic parts."
-- Publishers Weekly
"Right brainers are intuitive, left brainers are analytical, and Kosslyn says it’s all hogwash; there’s no scientific proof. Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, he challenges the old orthodoxy by arguing that the brain operates according to patterns best described as Mover, Adaptor, Stimulator, and Perceiver. So which pattern fits your brain? Take Kosslyn’s test."
-- Library Journal, Prepub Alert, May 20, 2013.
October 31, 2015
Interesting book about the different functions of the brain. Now I understand people more and why some people don't think about how an action will affect other people and also people who don't have filters.
October 25, 2019
I wish Goodreads has option to give rating of zero. Because this what that book is worth.
April 10, 2018
Rather interesting...
June 14, 2014
Read more like a pamphlet for a company team-building exercise than actual science. After reading some truly brilliant books on behavioral science ("The Invisible Gorilla", "Fast Thinking, Slow Thinking") that present large amounts of actual data and provided great insight, this did not hold up well. There is really just nothing here yet - the author has some ideas, and they may be worth studying, but at this point it is all fairly speculative some of it seems somewhat wrong-headed and biased. Which is all OK - everyone has a starting point for ideas, and as time goes by and studies are done and data is collected many of the original ideas prove to be wrong and are replaced by better ideas. That is how science works, and it is perfectly fine to start with speculative and biased ideas. But it seems like a bad idea to publish a BOOK at this point, especially one intended for the general public. For folks who can spot the lack of actual evidence, they feel like they just spent $25 to read baseless speculation. For folks who CAN'T, they'll just assume it is all fact and incorporate it in to their thinking as such.
December 21, 2013
I put this book on my pile due to the praise from my favorite thinker Steven Pinker, but it didn't live up to my unrealistic expectations. The basic idea, drawn from author Kosslyn's deep neurological expertise, is that human brains, complex as they are, can be usefully summarized as carrying two main functions: planning and perceiving.
The book goes into plenty of detail, much backed by neurology, and with multiple anecdotal examples of how this plays out in real life. Unfortunately, the examples seem contrived and un-researched (Sarah Palin is an example of a “Stimulator”, Michael Bloomberg is a “Mover”).
My full review is http://blog.richardsprague.com/2013/1...
The book goes into plenty of detail, much backed by neurology, and with multiple anecdotal examples of how this plays out in real life. Unfortunately, the examples seem contrived and un-researched (Sarah Palin is an example of a “Stimulator”, Michael Bloomberg is a “Mover”).
My full review is http://blog.richardsprague.com/2013/1...
May 23, 2014
The authors make it out to look like they have found some ground-breaking discovery of how the brain works, but there’s nothing like that in there. They argue that the left-right brain divisions are a simplification of the complex “technology” that your brain is made up of. However, they are guilty of the same sin with the top/bottom divisions. There’s hardly anything worthwhile that they explain with their model and I was totally unimpressed. Avoid this book.
November 21, 2017
Top Brain, Bottom Brain is an odd mix. It offers fresh perspective and illuminating insights about how we think. The paradigm it puts forward, if adopted, can be life-changing. I personally liked how it brought to attention blind spots in my own mode of thinking, resulting in an overall greater level of self-awareness . Yet despite all of this, Top Brain, Bottom Brain undeniably fails as a pop psychology book.
Top Brain, Bottom Brain's problems stem from a lack of concrete experiments and too much subjective inference, anecdotes, and the like. In my opinion, the most successful pop psychology books are those that are most well researched and backed up by ample evidence (see: Predictably Irrational and other works by Dan Ariely or The Invisible Gorilla by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons). These books work like this:
You think you know your mind, but you don't. Now, there are multiple aspects of your own mind that you don't know about. For each aspect, we are going to describe and analyze dozens of similar experiments conducted by researchers all over the world. It is going to get dry sometimes, what with the repetition, but it is all necessary for you to understand that independently designed experiments from researchers all over the world have independently produced results that shed some light on this particular aspect of your mind. Now that you understand the basics of this particular aspect of your mind, let us consider how it can be applicable in your daily life in the simplest manner. There will be some form of imagination and extrapolation, but we will be very careful not to over extrapolate, and in the cases where we have to we will qualify it excessively.
The other class of pop psychology books aren't nearly as tedious conscientious. They start each chapter with a brief introduction of the idea they are presenting. Sometimes they include some experiments to prove their point, but not often. Instead of experiments, the authors prefer to present as evidence high-profile public characters - celebrities, tycoons, politicians and the like. They will explain their behavior in a certain narrative, to reinforce the point they are making. As the reader, you are expected to be amazed at how succinctly the theory brings reason to the seemingly erratic behavior of these characters. Yet you can never really shake off the feeling that the examples have been cherry-picked for effect. For examples of such books, see works by Malcolm Gladwell or Maria Konnikova. Personally I am always confused as to whether such books belong in self-help or psychology category, and clearly so are bookstore attendants and librarians.
Top Brain, Bottom Brain's failure lies in striving to be the former class of books, but ultimately behaving like the latter. It cherry picks high profile public characters to reinforce its ideas. It goes a step further, inventing characters that by design fit their narrative. It perplexingly leaves almost all of the scientific evidence and analysis to the last chapters of the book, so that in the first 80% of the book you are wondering if you picked up a self-help book without intending to. Even when it does get to the science, it is shallow and not well elaborated. All these faults lead one to suspect that the authors are writing about a development so new that there is comparatively scant scientific literature for them to draw on. In which case the authors deserve credit for bringing these ideas to the mainstream, while the book bears the brunt of being poorly backed-up by research.
October 29, 2018
There are a ton of books out there exploring left/right brain dichotomy. Among them one finds decent science based books, as well as books filled with pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. With this book I get the sense that the authors have observed that people like to be able to categorize people according to which part of the brain they appear to use the most, and then tried to come up with a novel divide. To their credit the authors do provide arguments for why the top/bottom brain perspective is better than the left/right brain perspective, but I am not convinced. Indeed I was a bit disappointed because when I bought the book I thought that the bottom brain referred to sub-cortical brain regions, such as the limbic system, brain stem, cerebellum etc, but no. One could read this book and not even realize that the brain consists of more than the cerebral cortex (full disclosure: I am a scientist studying the cerebellum).
The story that Stephen Kosslyn is trying to sell is that the dorsal (top) and ventral (bottom) part of the cerebral cortex (the top brain), are to some extent discrete systems performing different tasks, although he is also quick to point out that they constantly work together. There is definitely some truth to the top brain, bottom brain dichotomy. For instance, when we see something we typically use the dorsal stream to analyze movement whereas the ventral stream is used for identification. Still, this book goes way way beyond the evidence.
For example, the authors claim that people rely more heavily on one or both of these systems and depending on which parts of the brain someone uses, he or she is categorized as a mover (top+bottom), stimulator (top), perceiver (bottom), or adapter (context dependent use). It is said that movers are good, both at making plans and observing and adapting to the consequences. Stimulators meanwhile make plans and execute them but are insensitive to the consequences of their plans. Perceivers don’t make much happen but are good at observing what happens around them. To be logically consistent I guess that adapters should be terrible at making plans and terrible at observing what happens around them, but instead it is argued that their top and bottom brain activity is contextually dependent, as if that is not true for all people. I do not know of any evidence to support this idea except that people are different which is hardly a revolutionary observation.
I do not know of any evidence to support this idea except that people are different which is hardly a revolutionary observation. Readers of this book will almost certainly read about the different categories and think that they resemble one category more than the others, but this does not mean that the theory is accurate. People are experts when it comes to confirmation bias. Give people a general astrological description (e.g. in general you like being with people but sometimes you feel shy), and a high percentage will think that it is a good description of their personality. People generally do not seek to falsify such statements.
In sum then, I think that there is a possibility that this book has hit upon an interesting brain dichotomy which we may want to explore further. However, the claims made in this book are very far distanced from the scientific foundation. For the reader who wants a good introduction to the brain I recommend going for Incognito instead.
The story that Stephen Kosslyn is trying to sell is that the dorsal (top) and ventral (bottom) part of the cerebral cortex (the top brain), are to some extent discrete systems performing different tasks, although he is also quick to point out that they constantly work together. There is definitely some truth to the top brain, bottom brain dichotomy. For instance, when we see something we typically use the dorsal stream to analyze movement whereas the ventral stream is used for identification. Still, this book goes way way beyond the evidence.
For example, the authors claim that people rely more heavily on one or both of these systems and depending on which parts of the brain someone uses, he or she is categorized as a mover (top+bottom), stimulator (top), perceiver (bottom), or adapter (context dependent use). It is said that movers are good, both at making plans and observing and adapting to the consequences. Stimulators meanwhile make plans and execute them but are insensitive to the consequences of their plans. Perceivers don’t make much happen but are good at observing what happens around them. To be logically consistent I guess that adapters should be terrible at making plans and terrible at observing what happens around them, but instead it is argued that their top and bottom brain activity is contextually dependent, as if that is not true for all people. I do not know of any evidence to support this idea except that people are different which is hardly a revolutionary observation.
I do not know of any evidence to support this idea except that people are different which is hardly a revolutionary observation. Readers of this book will almost certainly read about the different categories and think that they resemble one category more than the others, but this does not mean that the theory is accurate. People are experts when it comes to confirmation bias. Give people a general astrological description (e.g. in general you like being with people but sometimes you feel shy), and a high percentage will think that it is a good description of their personality. People generally do not seek to falsify such statements.
In sum then, I think that there is a possibility that this book has hit upon an interesting brain dichotomy which we may want to explore further. However, the claims made in this book are very far distanced from the scientific foundation. For the reader who wants a good introduction to the brain I recommend going for Incognito instead.
Read
February 25, 2022Górny mózg, dolny mózg. Sprawdź, w jaki sposób myślisz i naucz się robić to lepiej. Stephen Kosslyn, Wayne G. Miller.
„Górny mózg, dolny mózg. Sprawdź, w jaki sposób myślisz i naucz się robić to lepiej” to książka napisana przez dwóch autorów. Pierwszym jest prof. Stephen M. Kosslyn, amerykański psycholog i neuro-naukowiec poznawczy. Autor kilkuset artykułów naukowych oraz kilkunastu książek. Wyniki jego badań nad obrazami umysłowymi należą do klasyki psychologii poznawczej. Drugim autorem jest G. Wayne Miller, amerykański pisarz, dziennikarz i producent filmowy. Członek redakcji dziennika „The Providence Journal”.
Myśl, że mózg jest podzielony na dwie połowy, analityczną lewą połówkę i kreatywną prawą, towarzyszy nam od dawna jako ustalony fakt naukowy. Jednak autorzy tej książki, próbują przekazać czytelnikowi, że mózg można również podzielić w drugą stronę-podział na górny oraz na dolny mózg. Tę nowo opracowaną teorię mózgu według której, górna część mózgu zaangażowana jest w funkcje poznawcze takie jak planowanie, podejmowanie decyzji, a dolna natomiast odpowiedzialna jest za przetwarzanie bodźców i dokonywaniu ich analizy, autorzy przedstawiają jako szeroko zakrojone badania, w sposób zachęcający, ale co najważniejsze przystępny i zrozumiały dla każdego. Autorzy książki opisują, jak można zidentyfikować i zrozumieć ludzki mózg za pomocą czterech typów myślenia przedstawionych w omawianej publikacji. Tryb działania i tryb stymulacji, które należą do górnego mózgu oraz tryb obserwatora i tryb adaptacji, które należą do dolnego mózgu. Te sposoby myślenia i zachowania kształtują osobowość człowieka. W każdym z trybów poznawczych dolna i górna część mózgu różni się stopniem wykorzystywania. Przykładowo człowiek, który działa w „Trybie stymulacji”, w sposób minimalny wykorzystuje dolny mózg, a w głęboki – górny mózg. Autorzy książki mówią jednak o tym, że należy pamiętać o tym, że pomimo różnic w funkcjonowaniu tych części mózgu oraz różnic w stopniach użycia, to są one połączone ze sobą dzięki ‘informacjom zwrotnym’. Dolny mózg przetwarza bodźce i wysyła je do górnego mózgu, który przetwarza je i wywołuje odpowiednią reakcję. Formułując przykład z życia, gdy uruchamia się komputer, dolny mózg rejestruje ekran logowania i wysyła o tym sygnał górnemu mózgowi, który ustala plan wpisania hasła.
W książce można znaleźć naukowo opracowany test pozwalający określić, który z tych typów myślenia definiuje czytelnika. Odbiorca treści, który zrozumie swoje tryby poznawcze oraz tryby osób, które go otaczają, może bardziej efektywnie pracować ze swoją rodziną, przyjaciółmi czy współpracownikami. Osoby, którym, brakuje umiejętności, zdolności i zamiłowania do pracy, mogą skupić się na tym, co robią dobrze, uzupełniając się talentami innych osób.
Publikacja ta, świetnie przedstawia i rzuca nowe światło na istniejącą już charakterystykę mózgu i procesu myślowego. Mimo że koncepcja stworzona przez Stephena M. Kosslyna opiera się na dobrze znanym wszystkim podziale mózgu na prawą i lewą półkulę, to jednak zwrócenie i skupienie uwagi na tym, jak neurony w konkretnych obszarach mózgu wpływają na sposób myślenia, jest bez dwóch zdań czymś nowym i świeżym. Książka pokazuje, że opracowywanie nowych wniosków psychologiczno-neurologicznych, może przybliżyć ludzkość do lepszego zrozumienia ludzkiego umysłu.
Z książki autorstwa Stephena M. Kosslyna oraz G. Wayne Millera czytelnik dowie się jak na przykład zmienić swój tryb poznawczy. Dowie się o charakterystyce wszystkich 4 wzorów zachowania opracowanych w tej publikacji. Dzięki wkładowi w proces tworzenia książki pisarza i producenta filmowego książka stara się omijać naukowe słownictwo, tak by każdy zainteresowany tematyką, a nie koniecznie zajmujący się psychologią na co dzień był w stanie doskonale ją zrozumieć.
„Górny mózg, dolny mózg. Sprawdź, w jaki sposób myślisz i naucz się robić to lepiej” to książka napisana przez dwóch autorów. Pierwszym jest prof. Stephen M. Kosslyn, amerykański psycholog i neuro-naukowiec poznawczy. Autor kilkuset artykułów naukowych oraz kilkunastu książek. Wyniki jego badań nad obrazami umysłowymi należą do klasyki psychologii poznawczej. Drugim autorem jest G. Wayne Miller, amerykański pisarz, dziennikarz i producent filmowy. Członek redakcji dziennika „The Providence Journal”.
Myśl, że mózg jest podzielony na dwie połowy, analityczną lewą połówkę i kreatywną prawą, towarzyszy nam od dawna jako ustalony fakt naukowy. Jednak autorzy tej książki, próbują przekazać czytelnikowi, że mózg można również podzielić w drugą stronę-podział na górny oraz na dolny mózg. Tę nowo opracowaną teorię mózgu według której, górna część mózgu zaangażowana jest w funkcje poznawcze takie jak planowanie, podejmowanie decyzji, a dolna natomiast odpowiedzialna jest za przetwarzanie bodźców i dokonywaniu ich analizy, autorzy przedstawiają jako szeroko zakrojone badania, w sposób zachęcający, ale co najważniejsze przystępny i zrozumiały dla każdego. Autorzy książki opisują, jak można zidentyfikować i zrozumieć ludzki mózg za pomocą czterech typów myślenia przedstawionych w omawianej publikacji. Tryb działania i tryb stymulacji, które należą do górnego mózgu oraz tryb obserwatora i tryb adaptacji, które należą do dolnego mózgu. Te sposoby myślenia i zachowania kształtują osobowość człowieka. W każdym z trybów poznawczych dolna i górna część mózgu różni się stopniem wykorzystywania. Przykładowo człowiek, który działa w „Trybie stymulacji”, w sposób minimalny wykorzystuje dolny mózg, a w głęboki – górny mózg. Autorzy książki mówią jednak o tym, że należy pamiętać o tym, że pomimo różnic w funkcjonowaniu tych części mózgu oraz różnic w stopniach użycia, to są one połączone ze sobą dzięki ‘informacjom zwrotnym’. Dolny mózg przetwarza bodźce i wysyła je do górnego mózgu, który przetwarza je i wywołuje odpowiednią reakcję. Formułując przykład z życia, gdy uruchamia się komputer, dolny mózg rejestruje ekran logowania i wysyła o tym sygnał górnemu mózgowi, który ustala plan wpisania hasła.
W książce można znaleźć naukowo opracowany test pozwalający określić, który z tych typów myślenia definiuje czytelnika. Odbiorca treści, który zrozumie swoje tryby poznawcze oraz tryby osób, które go otaczają, może bardziej efektywnie pracować ze swoją rodziną, przyjaciółmi czy współpracownikami. Osoby, którym, brakuje umiejętności, zdolności i zamiłowania do pracy, mogą skupić się na tym, co robią dobrze, uzupełniając się talentami innych osób.
Publikacja ta, świetnie przedstawia i rzuca nowe światło na istniejącą już charakterystykę mózgu i procesu myślowego. Mimo że koncepcja stworzona przez Stephena M. Kosslyna opiera się na dobrze znanym wszystkim podziale mózgu na prawą i lewą półkulę, to jednak zwrócenie i skupienie uwagi na tym, jak neurony w konkretnych obszarach mózgu wpływają na sposób myślenia, jest bez dwóch zdań czymś nowym i świeżym. Książka pokazuje, że opracowywanie nowych wniosków psychologiczno-neurologicznych, może przybliżyć ludzkość do lepszego zrozumienia ludzkiego umysłu.
Z książki autorstwa Stephena M. Kosslyna oraz G. Wayne Millera czytelnik dowie się jak na przykład zmienić swój tryb poznawczy. Dowie się o charakterystyce wszystkich 4 wzorów zachowania opracowanych w tej publikacji. Dzięki wkładowi w proces tworzenia książki pisarza i producenta filmowego książka stara się omijać naukowe słownictwo, tak by każdy zainteresowany tematyką, a nie koniecznie zajmujący się psychologią na co dzień był w stanie doskonale ją zrozumieć.
March 30, 2014
For various reasons (some good, some lame, all exhaustively detailed momentarily), I'm reluctant to harsh on this book. But alas, my honest assessment is that it is Close But Not Quite (CBNQ).
Top 10 -REALLY BAD- reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
10: I like the cover art/marketing. I was drawn in by the simple, clever cover art and promising sounding publishers blurb.
9: It was expensive. I paid full price. This triggered a bit of cognitive dissonance (in this case, the need to rationalize the rather poor purchase decision made despite some seriously bad reader reviews).
Perhaps my need to reduce the shame and anxiety elicited by being drawn in by the cool marketing motivated me to want to upgrade my assessment.
8: I was excited about it when I bought it. Again with the cognitive dissonance (I just read Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, an actually really good book. And now I'm seeing everything through the framework those authors argued).
7: It's about the brain. I like books about the brain, neuroscience, psychology, particularly modularity.
6: A lot of really respectable (nay awesome) people endorsed the book. A list that includes a few of my most lorded intellectual heroes including:
I: Steven Pinker
II: Robert Sapolsky.
And some other very esteemed members of my personal psych pantheon of lordlyness such as:
III: Howard Gardner
IV: Jerome Kagan.
Plus:
V: Dan (whatever) Gilbert.
It's confusing to not like something these guys are raving about (see below)
I: Kosslyn is one of the world’s great cognitive neuroscientists of the late 20th and early 21st century.”
– Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct.
II: "Stephen Kosslyn has long been one of the world’s leading cognitive psychologists. In his new book, along with Wayne Miller, he proposes a novel synthesis for thinking about the different styles of cognition and the neurobiology that underlies it. This is an extremely stimulating book and a wonderfully readable one as well, even containing useful information for how each of us can make sense of our own ways of thinking.”
—Robert M. Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, and MacArthur Fellowship “genius grant” winner
III: “A bold new theory, with intriguing practical implications, formulated by one of America’s most original psychologists.”
-- Howard Gardner, co-author of The App Generation.
IV: "Kosslyn and Miller have written a lively, informative, and easily assimilated summary of several important principles of brain function for the general reader who does not have the time or background to follow the complexities of neuroscience research but would like a scaffolding on which to place the new facts that dominate each day's headlines."
-- Jerome Kagan, emeritus professor of psychology, Harvard University, and author of the critically acclaimed The Human Spark: The Science of Human Development.
V: "An exciting new way to think about our brains, and ourselves. Original, insightful, and a sweet read to boot."
-- Daniel Gilbert, author of the International bestseller Stumbling on Happiness.
Back to the - Top 10 bad reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
5: Self doubt (see above endorsements). Who am I after all. Just some dude who ruined his life a few times and became a therapist after loosing my cushy union gig when the banking system crashed in 2008........ect.
--No negative self talk please :)
4: The person who wrote the book seems old. No real evidence for this, just an intuition. I could google it. But I'm just going with it for now.
The writing seems kind of dated. Based on the endorsements, the author must have been very influential. And now he's probably trying to lob a best seller out there in order to cash in on his pioneering work. What kind of dick slags that sweet old guys hard work. Not me.........etc.
--No emotional thinking please :)
3: The person who wrote the book seems nice. See above.
2: The person who wrote the book seems like they worked hard on the book and research (actually a kind of decent reason not to slag a book).
1: The person who wrote the book seems like they may be terminally ill and need money, and called in favors from old friends and former students (see Pinker and Sapolsky and others above).
LATE NIGHT PHONE CALL: "Steve, I'm asking for a big favor, I'm not doing well, Steve, for Linda and the kids, could ya please give my book a sparkler of a review".
---Again with the complete fabrications and emotional thinking. For the record I have no idea weather any of this is even remotely factual. If it is. It's a remarkable coincidence.
My #1 good reason for giving this book a fair, but mediocre review, is that I didn't think it was very clear or useful.
I feel like the book missed (or rather dodged) the opportunity to ground the theory presented in an evolutionary framework. The other (really good) books on the market that discuss modularity of mind/brain theory do ground their ideas in the framework of evolutionary theory. And it's clarifying and useful when they do. It might turn out to be wrong. But so may this non evolutionarily grounded theory. What ever. It's helpful to at least provide some type of rationale for the existence and potential adaptive benefit of proposed modules. To be fair. The author does a little of this. But not enough, and it leaves the reader kind of lost.
Another gripe I have is (as loathsome as this can be) the author failed to render the ideas in a memorable and relatable way. The consequence is that the info was kind of in one ear and out the other. I partially blame my self for this. But in the age of information overwhelm, easy to learn and remember is the new difficult to learn and remember. Please make it memorable (if possible) by using creative metaphors, images, case studies etc. The author does case studies pretty well, but fails on the memorable images and metaphors tip. Something his contemporaries do extremely well.
See Jonathan Haidt's - Rider and the Elaphant metaphore, Robert Sapolsky's Ulcerless Zebras, dickish Baboons and outrageous hippy humor and Steven Pinker's dry but deadly wit.
All of the above mentioned qualities make these authors work entertaining, clear and useful. A tough bar to get over. But this is the current state of contemporary science popularization. I.e. The shit is getting really good.
Like I get why the esteemed author did not want to degrade his work by pandering to us common folk. But why didn't he (they) make the ol' Cog Psy chestnut: the what is by the butt, the where is by the hair. It's a corny as hell joke about top and bottom brain function and structure. But it helps you remember the shit. And not using the joke became the 10,000 lb gorilla in the room. The whole time I was screaming in my quiet voice "WHY DON'T THEY JUST USE THE DUMB JOKE FOR FUX SAKE" help a brother out.....man that fuckin bugged the shit out of me for some reason...anyway.
BTW: I took the online test. And (fart noise).
3 stars.............I still feel bad, I hope Linda and the kids will be o.k..
Top 10 -REALLY BAD- reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
10: I like the cover art/marketing. I was drawn in by the simple, clever cover art and promising sounding publishers blurb.
9: It was expensive. I paid full price. This triggered a bit of cognitive dissonance (in this case, the need to rationalize the rather poor purchase decision made despite some seriously bad reader reviews).
Perhaps my need to reduce the shame and anxiety elicited by being drawn in by the cool marketing motivated me to want to upgrade my assessment.
8: I was excited about it when I bought it. Again with the cognitive dissonance (I just read Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, an actually really good book. And now I'm seeing everything through the framework those authors argued).
7: It's about the brain. I like books about the brain, neuroscience, psychology, particularly modularity.
6: A lot of really respectable (nay awesome) people endorsed the book. A list that includes a few of my most lorded intellectual heroes including:
I: Steven Pinker
II: Robert Sapolsky.
And some other very esteemed members of my personal psych pantheon of lordlyness such as:
III: Howard Gardner
IV: Jerome Kagan.
Plus:
V: Dan (whatever) Gilbert.
It's confusing to not like something these guys are raving about (see below)
I: Kosslyn is one of the world’s great cognitive neuroscientists of the late 20th and early 21st century.”
– Steven Pinker, bestselling author of The Language Instinct.
II: "Stephen Kosslyn has long been one of the world’s leading cognitive psychologists. In his new book, along with Wayne Miller, he proposes a novel synthesis for thinking about the different styles of cognition and the neurobiology that underlies it. This is an extremely stimulating book and a wonderfully readable one as well, even containing useful information for how each of us can make sense of our own ways of thinking.”
—Robert M. Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, and MacArthur Fellowship “genius grant” winner
III: “A bold new theory, with intriguing practical implications, formulated by one of America’s most original psychologists.”
-- Howard Gardner, co-author of The App Generation.
IV: "Kosslyn and Miller have written a lively, informative, and easily assimilated summary of several important principles of brain function for the general reader who does not have the time or background to follow the complexities of neuroscience research but would like a scaffolding on which to place the new facts that dominate each day's headlines."
-- Jerome Kagan, emeritus professor of psychology, Harvard University, and author of the critically acclaimed The Human Spark: The Science of Human Development.
V: "An exciting new way to think about our brains, and ourselves. Original, insightful, and a sweet read to boot."
-- Daniel Gilbert, author of the International bestseller Stumbling on Happiness.
Back to the - Top 10 bad reasons I am reluctant to harsh this book.
5: Self doubt (see above endorsements). Who am I after all. Just some dude who ruined his life a few times and became a therapist after loosing my cushy union gig when the banking system crashed in 2008........ect.
--No negative self talk please :)
4: The person who wrote the book seems old. No real evidence for this, just an intuition. I could google it. But I'm just going with it for now.
The writing seems kind of dated. Based on the endorsements, the author must have been very influential. And now he's probably trying to lob a best seller out there in order to cash in on his pioneering work. What kind of dick slags that sweet old guys hard work. Not me.........etc.
--No emotional thinking please :)
3: The person who wrote the book seems nice. See above.
2: The person who wrote the book seems like they worked hard on the book and research (actually a kind of decent reason not to slag a book).
1: The person who wrote the book seems like they may be terminally ill and need money, and called in favors from old friends and former students (see Pinker and Sapolsky and others above).
LATE NIGHT PHONE CALL: "Steve, I'm asking for a big favor, I'm not doing well, Steve, for Linda and the kids, could ya please give my book a sparkler of a review".
---Again with the complete fabrications and emotional thinking. For the record I have no idea weather any of this is even remotely factual. If it is. It's a remarkable coincidence.
My #1 good reason for giving this book a fair, but mediocre review, is that I didn't think it was very clear or useful.
I feel like the book missed (or rather dodged) the opportunity to ground the theory presented in an evolutionary framework. The other (really good) books on the market that discuss modularity of mind/brain theory do ground their ideas in the framework of evolutionary theory. And it's clarifying and useful when they do. It might turn out to be wrong. But so may this non evolutionarily grounded theory. What ever. It's helpful to at least provide some type of rationale for the existence and potential adaptive benefit of proposed modules. To be fair. The author does a little of this. But not enough, and it leaves the reader kind of lost.
Another gripe I have is (as loathsome as this can be) the author failed to render the ideas in a memorable and relatable way. The consequence is that the info was kind of in one ear and out the other. I partially blame my self for this. But in the age of information overwhelm, easy to learn and remember is the new difficult to learn and remember. Please make it memorable (if possible) by using creative metaphors, images, case studies etc. The author does case studies pretty well, but fails on the memorable images and metaphors tip. Something his contemporaries do extremely well.
See Jonathan Haidt's - Rider and the Elaphant metaphore, Robert Sapolsky's Ulcerless Zebras, dickish Baboons and outrageous hippy humor and Steven Pinker's dry but deadly wit.
All of the above mentioned qualities make these authors work entertaining, clear and useful. A tough bar to get over. But this is the current state of contemporary science popularization. I.e. The shit is getting really good.
Like I get why the esteemed author did not want to degrade his work by pandering to us common folk. But why didn't he (they) make the ol' Cog Psy chestnut: the what is by the butt, the where is by the hair. It's a corny as hell joke about top and bottom brain function and structure. But it helps you remember the shit. And not using the joke became the 10,000 lb gorilla in the room. The whole time I was screaming in my quiet voice "WHY DON'T THEY JUST USE THE DUMB JOKE FOR FUX SAKE" help a brother out.....man that fuckin bugged the shit out of me for some reason...anyway.
BTW: I took the online test. And (fart noise).
3 stars.............I still feel bad, I hope Linda and the kids will be o.k..
March 17, 2018
I read about 20% of this book before deeming it to be redundant and useless. From the start, I was very skeptical towards the questions in the quiz to determine which mode I prefer to use the most. They seemed random and silly and were quite short (20 questions). This book then goes on and on about how scientific the theory of top/bottom brain is, and even took a jab at its nemesis, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and how unscientific and made-up it is. However, because of the way this book is written, I felt like I learned more about myself through MBTI than through learning how much of my top/bottom brain I use. I'll explain why. This book constantly goes through examples, which is fine if they were actually useful. Like most people, after taking the quiz, I jumped to the chapter that talked more about my mode. Instead of giving insights into how this mode works, the book goes through examples of celebrities, because of course, famous people are the closest thing to normal people as you can get, and then through an example of a made-up character. These examples consist of observations, really, and had no tie to any scientific studies. And that was the whole chapter about my mode.
I gave it 2 stars instead of 1 because the beginning was actually pretty interesting, when the author explained the concepts and provided a peek into how the application of this theory could be used to maximize productivity and solve problems in the everyday workforce and life (unfortunately the latter is short-lived).
I gave it 2 stars instead of 1 because the beginning was actually pretty interesting, when the author explained the concepts and provided a peek into how the application of this theory could be used to maximize productivity and solve problems in the everyday workforce and life (unfortunately the latter is short-lived).
October 7, 2019
The authors argue that the accepted view of the brain as right (creative) and left (analytical) halves is oversimplified and unsupported by the scientific research. Instead, they posit that it is more supported by research, nuanced and practical to view the brain as top and bottom parts that work together. Based on a person's tendency to use or not use their top and bottom brain, the authors divide into 4 "modes" of operating, identifying strengths and weaknesses within each. Included in a latter chapter is a quiz that can determine the mode(s) in which one tends to operate.
One criticism is that, in describing the "modes," the authors repeatedly state that one "mode" is not necessary better than another. However, when actually reading the text, it is clear that some "modes" DO seem to have more drawbacks and others more benefits than others. Overall, though, I found this to be a helpful perspective/way to look at personality and interaction styles. The book was also very educational, utilizing everyday language to provide a review of some history of brain science and current understanding of brain anatomy, areas and functioning.
One criticism is that, in describing the "modes," the authors repeatedly state that one "mode" is not necessary better than another. However, when actually reading the text, it is clear that some "modes" DO seem to have more drawbacks and others more benefits than others. Overall, though, I found this to be a helpful perspective/way to look at personality and interaction styles. The book was also very educational, utilizing everyday language to provide a review of some history of brain science and current understanding of brain anatomy, areas and functioning.
March 17, 2020
The concept is definitely good. However, like most other scientists, these people also have not yet perceived the importance of "Default mode network" and how coupling the "left brain" and "right brain" with default mode network steer a person throughout his life. They have mentioned temperament but only that much. This in fact, I believe, decides how a person ends up using his top brain and bottom brain. In that sense I would recommend the book "Please Understand me 2" by David Keirsey which helps a lot more in predicting a person's behavior. But overall "Top brain bottom brain" is worth a read once.
September 26, 2021
I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this book is mainly about a cognitive typology. I had fun reading the various profiles (fictional and real) of people embodying each mode. My own result was squarely "Adaptor"--which is theorized to be a good, romantic match with the "Mover"! This typology reminded me forcibly of the four-type "work styles" one (on which I am, consistently with Adaptor, "Amiable"). My personality is certainly not like the baseball player A-Rod's, though we share the Adaptor dominant mode. Still: I was surprised by my result initially, and appreciated the chance to see myself in some of its descriptions.
January 6, 2021
Interesting theories, but I don't think the evidence was laid out as clearly as it could be. The support for it seemed mainly subjective which tends to be the issue with qualitative type research, but it presents some questions or stirrings of what could be asked about the brain and the problem solving capabilities. There seems to be a strengths-based approach to viewing people in this as well.
July 21, 2017
As someone who is looking to improve myself &move forward in my life, I found this book to be a great addition to my systems for growth. Knowing how my brain addresses situations, &how I can improve to be more well rounded gives me another leg up in my quest for self-discovery.
May 18, 2022
Very interesting theory and a relatively easy read compared to many of the other neuroscience books I read. Love how it provides an alternative theory based on evidence compared to the long discredited left brain/right brain theory of how we use our brains.
December 27, 2016
Pioneering theory. Steeped with fool proof examples. Closes with a great history of the human brain. One of the best books on human brain.
Read
November 1, 2021zmarnowany potencjał:(
November 13, 2016
I do not regret buying this book, or listening to it (audio version). Up through Chapter 7 it provided a nice context for the reader to understand where the authors' theory comes from. And the fairly simple system of thinking "modes" probably has some value for making quick observations or decisions, perhaps for analyzing potential employees or partners.
However, I think the theory behind the book is much weaker than it could have been. It is an oversimplified approach based on a dichotomy between top and bottom brain regions -- ironic, because the authors are critical of the left-right brain dichotomy that is a favorite subject for banal observations people make about each other while engaging in small talk. They've done almost the same thing with the top-bottom dichotomy. They do emphasize that these two gross brain regions are systems, and that they work together to take in, process, and act upon the world. But the idea that there are exactly 4 "modes" of thinking comes off as preposterous. Why not simply discuss brain regions and discreet functions like they did in the early chapters?
Starting with Chapter 8, it apparently becomes unlikely that someone could be strongly specialized in *some* thought activities of the lower brain regions, and at the same time be strongly specialized in some or all of the upper brain processes. Suddenly it is all or nothing -- if you strongly prefer making lists, you will strongly show the trait of completing what is on those lists, and strongly show the trait of controlling emotional outbursts, and strongly show the trait of creating narratives to make sense of and remember large amounts of random data. That's the underlying assumption of the top-bottom theory. You might be equally proficient in both parts, but you won't be strongly proficient in only a subset of the activities native to one of those parts. Fortunately or unfortunately, that is simply not supported by research, and it doesn't hold up to anecdote.
Are there normal people who have strong goals, and accomplish those goals, yet hate making lists? How about people who are interested in fabric textures and negotiating the best prices with suppliers for the textiles they are interested in, but have a weak sense of direction and are not at all interested in 3 dimensional shapes? Brains are not so simple that they will fit into a system with only two elements. It is an interesting train of thought to start on, but I think it should have come to more than it did.
However, I think the theory behind the book is much weaker than it could have been. It is an oversimplified approach based on a dichotomy between top and bottom brain regions -- ironic, because the authors are critical of the left-right brain dichotomy that is a favorite subject for banal observations people make about each other while engaging in small talk. They've done almost the same thing with the top-bottom dichotomy. They do emphasize that these two gross brain regions are systems, and that they work together to take in, process, and act upon the world. But the idea that there are exactly 4 "modes" of thinking comes off as preposterous. Why not simply discuss brain regions and discreet functions like they did in the early chapters?
Starting with Chapter 8, it apparently becomes unlikely that someone could be strongly specialized in *some* thought activities of the lower brain regions, and at the same time be strongly specialized in some or all of the upper brain processes. Suddenly it is all or nothing -- if you strongly prefer making lists, you will strongly show the trait of completing what is on those lists, and strongly show the trait of controlling emotional outbursts, and strongly show the trait of creating narratives to make sense of and remember large amounts of random data. That's the underlying assumption of the top-bottom theory. You might be equally proficient in both parts, but you won't be strongly proficient in only a subset of the activities native to one of those parts. Fortunately or unfortunately, that is simply not supported by research, and it doesn't hold up to anecdote.
Are there normal people who have strong goals, and accomplish those goals, yet hate making lists? How about people who are interested in fabric textures and negotiating the best prices with suppliers for the textiles they are interested in, but have a weak sense of direction and are not at all interested in 3 dimensional shapes? Brains are not so simple that they will fit into a system with only two elements. It is an interesting train of thought to start on, but I think it should have come to more than it did.
January 5, 2014
Top Brain, Bottom Brain's greatest strength is undoubtedly its ability to clearly, if rather stiltedly, explain the scientific basis for its Theory of Cognitive Modes. I found the neuroscience and psychological experiments fascinating, and I especially enjoyed Kosslyn and Miller's invitation to the scientific community to, essentially, critique and challenge their conclusions. That's an unusual statement to find in a personality book, to say the least.
Where the book is weaker is in the theory, itself. The science seems to indicate that these four modes exist, but there haven't been enough studies conducted on how the modes present in the personalities of the people who operate in them. So the descriptions of Mover, Perceiver, Stimulator, and Adaptor may be accurate...but also may not be.
Even the test the authors present as a tool to assist the reader in determining his or her primary mode has not, as yet, been tested for validity. That is, it has not been tested for whether it measures what it's supposed to measure. It has supposedly passed its reliability tests, so it ought to provide consistently similar results...but I got vastly different results each of the three times I took the test.
All in all, I found Top Brain, Bottom Brain an engaging introduction to a new perspective on the brain, but I'll continue to greet the descriptions and assessments of the four cognitive modes with a hefty dose of salt. ...And I admit, I'm a little tempted to write the authors about why, exactly, I find their modes unconvincing.
Where the book is weaker is in the theory, itself. The science seems to indicate that these four modes exist, but there haven't been enough studies conducted on how the modes present in the personalities of the people who operate in them. So the descriptions of Mover, Perceiver, Stimulator, and Adaptor may be accurate...but also may not be.
Even the test the authors present as a tool to assist the reader in determining his or her primary mode has not, as yet, been tested for validity. That is, it has not been tested for whether it measures what it's supposed to measure. It has supposedly passed its reliability tests, so it ought to provide consistently similar results...but I got vastly different results each of the three times I took the test.
All in all, I found Top Brain, Bottom Brain an engaging introduction to a new perspective on the brain, but I'll continue to greet the descriptions and assessments of the four cognitive modes with a hefty dose of salt. ...And I admit, I'm a little tempted to write the authors about why, exactly, I find their modes unconvincing.
March 4, 2014
يطرح صاحب هذا الكتاب (Kosslyn) نظريته في تقسيم جديد للدماغ، وبالتحديد للقشرة الدماغية (cerebral cortex) فيجعل منه جزأين أعلى وأسفل. وهذا التقسيم يستند إلى التقسيم الخَلقي، كما يرتبط بترابطات الخلايا العصبية.
وبناءً على الاختصاص الوظيفي لكل من الجزأين واستخدام الإنسان لأي منهما أو كليهما بدرجات متفاوتة؛ يضع المؤلف الناس في أقسام (أنواع) أربعة من حيث التفكير .
ويختم كتابه بفصلين تطبيقيين أحدهما يشتمل على اختبار (استبيان) لتحدد من أي الأصناف أنت.
بدايةً، أرى أن الكتاب وبإزالة الحشو الكثير جدًا فيه، لا يعدو أن يكون مقالًا في 10-20 صفحة.. لكنه وباستخدام "الحشو" و"الثرثرة" يصير كتابًا يقارب ال200 صفحة!! وغالب الحشو كان سردًا تاريخيًا.
لم يطرح الكتاب أدلة قوية تثبت نظريته في التقسيم، واعتمد على بعض الملاحظات الصحيحة وذات المصداقية.
كما أن الكاتب في نقده لنظرية نصفي الدماغ "الأيمن والأيسر" –والتي كنت مهتمًا جدًا بقراءة نقد علمي رصين لها- لم يرقَ بنقده إلى مستوى الكتابة العلمية المطلوبة.
كما أنني أتوقف طويلاً عند فكرة "التقسيم " و"التصنيف" التي تتعامل مع النظم المعقدة بسذاجة، وأتوقف أطول عند أسلوب الاستبيانات في تحديد وتقسيم الشخصية الإنسانية.
الكتاب –بجملة- ضعيف جدًا من حيث الطرح والمستوى، ولربما كانت فكرته في تقسيم الدماغ بطريقة أخرى تستحقّ التفكّر ومزيد من الدراسة .
وبناءً على الاختصاص الوظيفي لكل من الجزأين واستخدام الإنسان لأي منهما أو كليهما بدرجات متفاوتة؛ يضع المؤلف الناس في أقسام (أنواع) أربعة من حيث التفكير .
ويختم كتابه بفصلين تطبيقيين أحدهما يشتمل على اختبار (استبيان) لتحدد من أي الأصناف أنت.
بدايةً، أرى أن الكتاب وبإزالة الحشو الكثير جدًا فيه، لا يعدو أن يكون مقالًا في 10-20 صفحة.. لكنه وباستخدام "الحشو" و"الثرثرة" يصير كتابًا يقارب ال200 صفحة!! وغالب الحشو كان سردًا تاريخيًا.
لم يطرح الكتاب أدلة قوية تثبت نظريته في التقسيم، واعتمد على بعض الملاحظات الصحيحة وذات المصداقية.
كما أن الكاتب في نقده لنظرية نصفي الدماغ "الأيمن والأيسر" –والتي كنت مهتمًا جدًا بقراءة نقد علمي رصين لها- لم يرقَ بنقده إلى مستوى الكتابة العلمية المطلوبة.
كما أنني أتوقف طويلاً عند فكرة "التقسيم " و"التصنيف" التي تتعامل مع النظم المعقدة بسذاجة، وأتوقف أطول عند أسلوب الاستبيانات في تحديد وتقسيم الشخصية الإنسانية.
الكتاب –بجملة- ضعيف جدًا من حيث الطرح والمستوى، ولربما كانت فكرته في تقسيم الدماغ بطريقة أخرى تستحقّ التفكّر ومزيد من الدراسة .
September 28, 2014
The difficult part of giving a rating of 2 is that I know Kosslyn has been immensely influential to the field of cognitive neuroscience. But getting a character-reference by Pinker isn't enough. I have full respect for Kosslyn as a thinker. As such, I would recommend his book "The Case for Mental Imagery".
This is clearly a pop-science book, meant for an uninitiated audience. Clearly they want to ride the neurohype to sell a few books. What the authors don't seem to grasp is that their typical neuroscience "fanboy/girl" is highly educated, and are not going to be satisfied by what is presented in this book. This book is strictly skimming the surface.
The conclusion is highly fascinating, a new personality scale! Maybe Kosslyn has good reasons to postulate what he does. But to the reader with a modicum of logical thinking, the conclusion does not follow the very sparse premises.
In short: the book isn't long enough.
This is clearly a pop-science book, meant for an uninitiated audience. Clearly they want to ride the neurohype to sell a few books. What the authors don't seem to grasp is that their typical neuroscience "fanboy/girl" is highly educated, and are not going to be satisfied by what is presented in this book. This book is strictly skimming the surface.
The conclusion is highly fascinating, a new personality scale! Maybe Kosslyn has good reasons to postulate what he does. But to the reader with a modicum of logical thinking, the conclusion does not follow the very sparse premises.
In short: the book isn't long enough.
November 17, 2013
i recently received Top brain, Bottom brain as a free first reads from goodreads giveaway. I have mixed feelings about this book, while it was informative the authors desire to give credit to the people he quoted or used case studies from and the flipping back and forth for the footnotes made it a very hard read. But i did learn i think with the top right part of my brain mostly and did enjoy the tests that were in the book.I think it might be one of those books i'll have to read a couple times to figure out all of what the author was trying to impart.
March 16, 2014
This book, which I won through the First Reads program, was a typical case of a too-pop psychology book. There was no real intellectual meat here, no science or studies, no proper methods followed. It felt at times like a strange blend of a "Chicken Soup" book and a copy of Us Weekly. Okay to kill time, but I wouldn't read it again or waste money on it.
December 16, 2013
Very interesting facts, nevertheless the book is giving a pure and plain scientific point of views in which there are no entertainment for some level of reader who depend generally in interesting and attracting elements. In general it is a very useful book in giving you certain knowledge on how your brain generally function.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews