The Hidden Brain
How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars and Save Our Lives

The author has written an interesting book that poses questions about human behavior that seems odd or unexpected and attempts to connect this behavior to what he calls "the hidden brain." This is the part of our brain that stores information from our everyday lives: The places and objects and people we see all the time. Our brain has a database of this kind of ordinary information that we take for granted. Yet this information is informing our words and actions in ways we don't recognize. It can lead us to act in a manner that actually contradicts our stated values.

Ever found yourself blurting out words you immediately wanted to take back? You might have been in a situation where you were not consciously thinking about what you were saying, calling on stereotypes stored away in your hidden brain database. Just like our brain "knows" how our lungs breathe, how our food digests and other automatic bodily functions, our brain also "knows" that most heads of corporations are men and most urban criminals are black. It also "knows" to go with the herd in emergency situations rather than taking time to think out the best course of action.

This, according to the author, has nothing to do with our actual thought-out ideas, such as how we feel about gender and race, but does drive our behavior in situations where we must decide something quickly. He points out that we make snap decisions all the time, mostly in relatively unimportant matters (what to eat for lunch, which route to take driving to the grocery store, etc). But, always, our hidden brain is contributing to our actual behavior, sometimes leading us to make decisions that are biased, not rationally-based, even though we think they are.

Is This Explanation a Bit Too Simple?

I enjoyed reading this book, but I am not sold on the author's theory. I can accept that we draw on what our brain's database of ordinary information indicates about the gender of heads of large corporations, for example, so if you told me I was going to meet the CEO of Gigantic Consolidated Corporation, I would probably say, "It will be great to meet him," without even asking if this CEO is a man or a woman. If I heard that the Detroit Police had just picked up a drug dealer on the East Side, I would probably picture in my mind a young black male.

Those are assumptions based on past experience, information my brain stores, along with loads of trivial stuff. But what if I was on a jury and the drug dealer on trial was, in fact, a young black male? Would I be more likely to find him guilty than if he were an older white man? I really don't know, but the author says, Yes -- I would be more likely to find the black man guilty and I would not be aware of my bias.

He also ties this in to "herd behavior," which doesn't seem really related, but what we do in a sudden crisis does involve quick action, non-thinking action. It is certainly true that if a bunch of people quickly react a certain way, others tend to do the same. The author cites examples from the 9/11 twin towers attack, where whole groups either stayed at their desks or headed together for the stairway.

Why DO People Fail to Help Someone in Need?

He gives another horrific example that struck a chord with me because it involved Detroit (I live in the Detroit area). A woman is approached and harassed by a man as both are enjoying recreation on Belle Isle. The woman is frightened and heads for her car and starts driving toward the bridge; the man gets in his car and follows. There are lots of cars on the bridge, but the man weaves in and out of traffic to keep near the woman, who knows he is following. Eventually cars stop because of traffic and the man leaves his car and approaches the woman's car on foot. He manages to pull her from her car and begins striking her. She gets away, but he relentlessly pursues, catching her again, pulling her clothes off and beating her. She is terrified and ends up running along the bridge, trying to get away. Finally, perched naked on the bridge railing and watching her attacker come for her once again, she looks down at the swirling water in the Detroit River. Lots of people are in cars on the bridge and see this happening, but no one helps this terrified woman. Finally, she jumps to her death.

The author says that everyone waited for SOMEONE ELSE to make the first move to help. No one was willing to be that first person and it later was learned that no one had even called 911 right away. The police were never anywhere near the incident; they only investigated later (finding most of the witnesses refusing to testify) after the woman's body was brought out of the river. One can possibly explain the lack of help by thinking the people who watched it happen were afraid of the man and did not want to become another of his victims.

But that is not really a very satisfying explanation, is it? The author thinks if just one person had stepped forward to stop the man, others would have joined him and the actions of multiple helpers could have saved the woman's life. I don't know if that is so, but I do know I cannot just excuse people for not assisting another person in such obvious need. If our "hidden brain" tells us to "stay out of it" in these situations, then I cannot accept that our "non-hidden brain" would never be able to override that immediate reaction. One woman who saw the whole thing and did nothing later wondered why she had failed to help and DID testify against the perpetrator.

Bad Behavior? Let's Just Blame Our Hidden Brain!

The author ends the book with a chapter that urges us all to lobby for gun control because he says the facts are clear that the presence of guns is the reason for our high homicide rate. He wants us to put "science" ahead of our feelings. We FEEL safe if we have a gun in our home, he says, but we are not actually safer. We are very much less safe, from ourselves (accidental shooting or suicide) or from a family member with access to the gun who might shoot themselves or us. Personally, I don't have a gun or want one in my home, but I don't think people really trust appeals based on "science." These appeals tell me that I am biased, but somehow a scientist is always rational and always interprets the data correctly. Doesn't this scientist also have a hidden brain to lead him astray? What about morality, or is that a concept that is too unscientific?

The anecdotes in this book do show how even children exhibit bias. It is apparently based on their own "hidden brain" database of what they have seen in their young lives. These kinds of experiments do reveal hidden bias that may be at odds with our rational ideas. Even when we do not condone discrimination and believe everyone should be treated fairly, in some situation we may call on our brain's hidden database and say or do something that is not how we usually think of ourselves. ("OMG! I just said something racially offensive! Why did I say it?" )

The author may have a point here in terms of our brain calling on what amounts to stereotypes when it needs to make sense of something real fast, but I think we cannot just blame our hidden brain when we fail to act according to our stated beliefs. We must accept responsibility for our actions or (in the case of the woman on the bridge) our inactions.

Although I think the author overstates his case, the book was well-written and makes some good points about how much we take for granted about ourselves and how we might act in unusual situations. The questions he poses are worth thinking about.

Buy The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars, and Save Our Lives at amazon.com

Click here for
Amazon Best Sellers