Skip to main content

The Happy Brain - Dean Burnett ****

This book was sitting on my desk for some time, and every time I saw it, I read the title as 'The Happy Brian'. The pleasure this gave me was one aspect of the science of happiness that Dean Burnett does not cover in this engaging book.

 Burnett's writing style is breezy and sometimes (particularly in footnotes) verging on the whimsical. His approach works best in the parts of the narrative where he is interviewing everyone from Charlotte Church to a stand-up comedian and various professors on aspects of happiness. We get to see the relevance of home and familiarity, other people, love (and sex), humour and more, always tying the observations back to the brain.

 In a way, Burnett sets himself up to fail, pointing out fairly early on that everything is far too complex in the brain to really pin down the causes of something as diffuse as happiness. He starts off with the idea of cheekily trying to get time on an MRI scanner to study what his own brain does when he's happy, but an MRI expert, Chris Chambers, points out how this would be a waste of an intensively used resource, given it's very difficult to pin down 'happiness' in any quantitative fashion and MRI does not produce the simplistic 'this bit of the brain does that' outcomes that you might think from some popular science.

 This doesn't stop Burnett from repeatedly bringing in what bits of the brain (and neurotransmitters) are involved in various situations which makes for a weaker aspect of the book as (if you're not a biologist) the repeated naming of assorted brain parts which mostly produce no mental image doesn't do a lot for the reader. 

 Burnett's matey style also seems to bump up a little against some of the physical and mathematical aspects of the science. At one point he says 'Chemicals are made of atoms, which are in turn made of electrons, protons and neutrons, which are in turn made of gluons.' Unfortunately electrons have nothing to do with gluons, while to say protons and neutrons are made of gluons is like saying houses are made of mortar. The mathematical aspect that was most worrying was the statement 'There's compelling evidence to suggest that happier employees are up to 37 per cent more productive... Conversely, unhappy employees can be 10 per cent less productive.' Leaving aside whether compelling evidence should do more than just suggest, one has to ask '37 per cent more productive than what?' Clearly not than unhappy employees, or the second part doesn't make sense.

 At the start of the book, Burnett makes in plain that this isn't going to be a self-help happiness book. And it might seem that there's not much left to do scientifically when everything seems so uncertain about exactly what does what in the brain. However, in practice the book is an enjoyable read, giving plenty of intriguing information. I particularly enjoyed the interviews, and, oddly enough, the chapter on 'The Dark Side of Happiness' - why we sometimes enjoy making other people unhappy. This was truly fascinating. Despite the limitations of our knowledge of the brain's functions, there's a lot of science lurking in here as well as well-informed speculation and I'm happy to say that it makes for a very enjoyable whole.

Paperback (US is hardback):  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

 
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more