The Myth of Mirror Neurons

The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition

De: Gregory Hickok

Narrado por: Eric Jason Martin

An essential reconsideration of one of the most far-reaching theories in modern neuroscience and psychology.

In 1992, a group of neuroscientists from Parma, Italy, reported a new class of brain cells discovered in the motor cortex of the macaque monkey. These cells, later dubbed mirror neurons, responded equally well during the monkey's own motor actions, such as grabbing an object, and while the monkey watched someone else perform similar motor actions. Researchers speculated that the neurons allowed the monkey to understand others by simulating their actions in its own brain.

Mirror neurons soon jumped species and took human neuroscience and psychology by storm. In the late 1990s theorists showed how the cells provided an elegantly simple new way to explain the evolution of language, the development of human empathy, and the neural foundation of autism. In the years that followed, a stream of scientific studies implicated mirror neurons in everything from schizophrenia and drug abuse to sexual orientation and contagious yawning.

In The Myth of Mirror Neurons, neuroscientist Gregory Hickok reexamines the mirror neuron story and finds that it is built on a tenuous foundation - a pair of codependent assumptions about mirror neuron activity and human understanding. Drawing on a broad range of observations from work on animal behavior, modern neuroimaging, neurological disorders, and more, Hickok argues that the foundational assumptions fall flat in light of the facts. He then explores alternative explanations of mirror neuron function while illuminating crucial questions about human cognition and brain function: Why do humans imitate so prodigiously? How different are the left and right hemispheres of the brain? Why do we have two visual systems? Do we need to be able to talk to understand speech? What's going wrong in autism? Can humans read minds?

The Myth of Mirror Neurons not only delivers an instructive tale about the course of scientific progress - from discovery to theory to revision - but also provides deep insights into the organization and function of the human brain and the nature of communication and cognition.

©2014 Gregory Hickok (P)2014 Audible Inc.

Excellent overview of a very dense and viscous topic

Enjoyed listening to this book, though it was tough going in many spots.
Needs a fairly good science and specifically neuroscience background to comprehend to any degree of understanding.
Very thought provoking on the subject of Mirror Neurons that have become the master explanation for all things Brain. Puts the function and theory in its place leaving wide gaping holes that research will fill, hopefully.

lots of information, slow reader

I came into this knowing nothing about the subject matter so it was good from that perspective. author went on a wild ride of ideas that were good then disproven then reproven. book reader was very slow, I ended up playing it at 1.5 times normal speed and understood him just fine

Highly technical

I find no fault with the logic or science of this book. I'm not a neuroscientist or psychologist but have an interest in these topics. A lot of it would have been easier to follow in print whee I can easily reread sections. That said I think the author did an excellent job debunking mirror neurons and I have a general understanding of why after this.

Great idea terrible execution

What did you like best about The Myth of Mirror Neurons? What did you like least?

The idea of the book, a thorough dissection of a scientific theory for the public audience, is a great one and the first half of the book is excellent. But by the second half of the book he drowns himself in obscure attacks against various critics and half cocked theories about how consciousness might work.

What could Gregory Hickok have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?

The book could have been about half the length and it would have been perfect, it felt like it tread the same ground over and over from different angles, a fine idea in a scientific paper but it makes for a disconnected and unpleasant book.

Would you listen to another book narrated by Eric Martin?

The performer was snoozeville, the material was weak but the person reading it did it with so little zest and zeal that I would often get lost halfway through paragraphs. I'd love if he narrated it with the power Dan Carlin brings to the equally dry topic of history. I don't think I'd avoid a book read by him but he wouldn't draw me in.

Worst narrator ever

Interesting material, but the narrator was so choppy in disjointed in his speaking that I often found myself repeating things in my head for clarity. I would have preferred to read this in book form.