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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

Vector - Robyn Arianrhod ****

This is a remarkable book for the right audience (more on that in a moment), but one that's hard to classify. It's part history of science/maths, part popular maths and even has a smidgen of textbook about it, as it has more full-on mathematical content that a typical title for the general public usually has. What Robyn Arianrhod does in painstaking detail is to record the development of the concept of vectors, vector calculus and their big cousin tensors. These are mathematical tools that would become crucial for physics, not to mention more recently, for example, in the more exotic aspects of computing. Let's get the audience thing out of the way. Early on in the book we get a sentence beginning ‘You likely first learned integral calculus by…’ The assumption is very much that the reader already knows the basics of maths at least to A-level (level to start an undergraduate degree in a 'hard' science or maths) and has no problem with practical use of calculus. Altho

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on