|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
I know how petty this is, but it was an absolute deal-breaker for me. The woman who read the audio version of the book is so overly dramatic and annoying that I finally had to give up on it completely. I am sure it contains a lot of good information, but her theatrics overwhelmed the writing. If you're interested in what it has to say, get the written version.
Also, if you're sensitive to endless descriptions of pretty horrific experiments on animals, you may want to skip this one altogether.
Rating:  -
THIS BOOK HAS VERY SMALL PRINT, HARD TO READ. AND, THE INK IS TOO PALE. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. I WILL RETURN IT.
Rating:  -
...but I just couldn't get past the fact that Buddhist monks would/could justify the maiming of animals to prove something to...who? WHY does "science" have to "prove" what practitioners in other disciplines of endeavor have known for millennia? And why would anybody who would be drawn to this book need proof of what they know from people who maim animals? I'm not even a bleeding heart anti-vivisectionist, but something about this assumption, that science has to prove everything, was made disturbingly clear to me in this book. I suppose that's worth something. I gave it three stars because it's well written.
Rating: -
I was disappointed in that the content seemed to pretty much an attempt to convince the reader of the potential for plasticity of the brain, and not so much on method. Personally I felt that relatively little information was inflated with fluff. It is not on the recommendation list for my "students".
Rating: -
As a physical therapist I am well aware of the neuroplasticity research coming out over the past decade, and had high hopes for this book. I was disappointed there was so much implication that all this research was simply confirming what the Tibetan Buddhists and the Dalai Lama already knew, and the overuse of the term "dogma" in describing neuroscience. In the past twenty years I never got that impression from the research I'd read, but I'm not in academia. I was also disappointed in the mind-brain discussion; it seemed very confused. She was trying to embrace some sort of dualism, but without the pineal gland. Perhaps the reductionists are all wrong, but whence the ghost in the machine?
Much of the research on brain reorganization is encouraging, especially in regards to stroke, blindness, amputation, and other physical maladies. What is disappointing is the amount of training that appears necessary to truly make changes in your brain. For most people just get 30 minutes of physical activity a day seems impossible--how will anyone find 1-2 hours a day to work on compassion meditation for their depression or OCD?
|
|
|
|
