Who's in Charge?

Free Will and the Science of the Brain

By: Michael S. Gazzaniga

Narrated by: Pete Larkin

Length: 8 hrs and 5 mins

Publisher's summary

The father of cognitive neuroscience and author of Human offers a provocative argument against the common belief that our lives are wholly determined by physical processes and we are therefore not responsible for our actions.

A powerful orthodoxy in the study of the brain has taken hold in recent years: Since physical laws govern the physical world and our own brains are part of that world, physical laws therefore govern our behavior and even our conscious selves. Free will is meaningless, goes the mantra; we live in a “determined” world.

Not so, argues the renowned neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga in this thoughtful, provocative book based on his Gifford Lectures - one of the foremost lecture series in the world dealing with religion, science, and philosophy. Who's in Charge? proposes that the mind, which is somehow generated by the physical processes of the brain, “constrains” the brain just as cars are constrained by the traffic they create. Writing with what Steven Pinker has called “his trademark wit and lack of pretension”, Gazzaniga shows how determinism immeasurably weakens our views of human responsibility; it allows a murderer to argue, in effect, “It wasn’t me who did it - it was my brain.” Gazzaniga convincingly argues that even given the latest insights into the physical mechanisms of the mind, there is an undeniable human reality: We are responsible agents who should be held accountable for our actions, because responsibility is found in how people interact, not in brains.

An extraordinary book that ranges across neuroscience, psychology, ethics, and the law with a light touch but profound implications, Who’s in Charge? is a lasting contribution from one of the leading thinkers of our time.

©2011 Michael S. Gazzaniga (P)2011 Tantor

Critic reviews

"A fascinating affirmation of our essential humanity." ( Kirkus)

Wonderful

One of my favorite books on free will and behavior. I got to know about this book from the book Behave by Robert Sapolsky, which is also equally wonderful.

Good, not great. Read Eagleman's Incognito instead

This was a good book. There were two or three really mind-blowing concepts that I hadn't heard before. But I give it fewer stars because (1) it doesn't really spend very much time on the titular question -- specifically "free will". It's really a book about how the brain works, which is really interesting to me, but this book's not as good as David Eagleman's "Incognito", in my opinion. (2) It spends quite a bit of time on how current neuroscience impacts law and courtroom proceedings. Those parts seemed repetitive and dull to me.

narrator has deep voice; not about improving

i thought it would have more actions about improving use of free will and control. it was very interesting material but at times struggled with it.

the narrator was good but sometimes his voice is so deep that it pulls me out of the story

Neuroscience discoveries that challenge freewill

This book is a solid overview of what we now know about how human brains work, and about our behavior, and why self-control and autonomy of mind is just a convenient illusion.

I found this interesting.

The author makes a compelling argument for his theory. The narration, while clear, becomes monotonous.

Learned information about the brain, not free will

This was an interesting read and my first book on neuroscience.

I noticed before starting that several reviews mentioned that the vocab is more geared towards those familiar with neuroscience and was too specific and for the first chapter or two I was starting to agree and was worried it might be a bit much for the layman but it lessened once I got further into it. I also started out hating the narrator and thought he sounded condescending in the beginning before getting used to it and not minding his narration by the end.

There's some really interesting stories and information here, particularly I enjoyed the chapters about the authors split-brain patients, the social aspects of the brain, and especially the connection between neuroscience with the judicial system towards the end of the book. However, I wouldn't say there's as much about free will as one would expect from the title.
I'm not sure I would read it more than once but I did come away with some interesting information and may be looking into more books on neuroscience after this one.

Good brain book, not really about free will

Although the author purports to address the issue of free will from a neuroscience point of view he goes off on many, many tangents and is oddly reticent to make any firm assertions.

He gives a good tour of the current state of what we understand about how the brain works. This is meant to set the stage for addressing the question of whether brain chemistry and wiring pre-determines out decisions or if free will really exists. However, although he asserts that he thinks free will exists he does not create any structured arguments to support his belief. Either he feels the evidence speaks for itself (in which case he has over-estimated his audience) or his hypothesis never crystallized in his mind.

As an experienced neuroscientist he has a masterful grasp of the subject (although I found his frequent, parenthetical comments of "so-and-so, who worked in a lab across campus from me" did not add anything to the story.) Not only does he understand what he is writing about, but he has thought deeply about the implications and he presents the material accurately.

I found the performance to be rather snarky and it distracted from the text.

The survey of current neuroscience makes the book worth reading, but I think he does a disservice to claim the book is about free will.

Not for Everyone, but Definitely for Some of Us

This book is not the kind of thing you want to get distracted from while listening. It's rather technical at certain points. Even if you listen perfectly, you may have the sense from time to time that you must have missed something.

I realized while listening that I've read a lot recently about moral psychology, rationality, evolution/epigenetics and neuroscience, so there was a lot of material I had read or heard before. If you've been keeping up with Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker, etc, you'll already be familiar with a good bit of what's here. However, if you are interested in one of these subjects and haven't read up much on them lately, I think you'd enjoy the book.

The author's tone of voice is ... well, hilarious. It's like a man reading with a perpetual smirk while waiting for his next martini to be stirred, not shaken, because he knows, thankyouverymuch, that you don't shake martinis, for the love of all that's holy. (I've done my best to give you a sense of his voice in the text I've written -- a nearly impossible feat, but if you have a listen, you might see what I mean.) I'd choose to listen to this reader again, but I have a feeling his tone is not for everyone.

There's a lot of technical stuff. You may or may not remember as much as you'd like once it's over, but it's a good overview of where we are with understanding consciousness in the early 21st century. Also, it's not a terribly long book, and the illustrations are often amusing, so it's worth taking a chance on, IMHO.

Good... if a bit dry

Any additional comments?

The book is good. The author does an ok job of explaining in layman's terms some the more difficult ideas. The book also delves into some of the more philosophical implications of the authors research.

distribution of cognition

a fairly well written and interesting review of the state of neuroscience literature, the most interesting pieces are the case study split brain findings and the interplay between decision making and the interpreter module. the dive into the legal system was more philosophical than evidence driven, I wish he would've used that space to explore more about corollaries in other sciences. overall, worth your time for the many pondering points in understanding what a human is.