In author Matthew Lieberman’s “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect,” he expounds on his research in social neuroscience, where he reveals how essential our need to interact and connect with others around us is and the role that the lack of social interaction is playing in our everyday lives. He goes on to explain that this need to be social is as, if not more, important as our physiological needs, such as food, water, and shelter. Lieberman uses various forms of data collected from research and experiments that he conducted to support the claims made in Social. Based on his research, Lieberman finds that our brains perceive social and physical pain and pleasure in almost the same way. Moreover, he wants to prove how vital of a role
…show more content…
They felt that Lieberman was condescending, arrogant, and stated that he was clueless about social dynamics. A few of them explained that the book began very readable, included interesting neuroscience facts in which they learned a lot from. One reviewer said that the author “offered vague guesses and some questionable studies, and took the readers through a lot of pages to make a point.” The issues brought up by these reviewers didn’t suggest that the Social was a bad book, in fact they thought Lieberman’s writing was “clear and stylish, and got better the the closer he got to his research and the farther he got from self-congratulation.” His oversimplification and arrogance in his presentation of his findings is what drove readers to rate Social as low as they …show more content…
He was condescending in how he discussed his research, unnecessarily prolonged points for the reader, and used mundane language. Besides those negative aspects of the book, a majority of the readers praised Lieberman and his work. To them, he took the complicated subject, how social life is an essential need for the brain, and wrote a book for the layman to understand. His use of technical insight and references to the anatomy of the brain ensure the readers that he knows what he his talking about. Lieberman’s groundbreaking research is, for the most part, applauded, for its findings that can be used to improve school setting, work environments, and the society as
They felt that Lieberman was condescending, arrogant, and stated that he was clueless about social dynamics. A few of them explained that the book began very readable, included interesting neuroscience facts in which they learned a lot from. One reviewer said that the author “offered vague guesses and some questionable studies, and took the readers through a lot of pages to make a point.” The issues brought up by these reviewers didn’t suggest that the Social was a bad book, in fact they thought Lieberman’s writing was “clear and stylish, and got better the the closer he got to his research and the farther he got from self-congratulation.” His oversimplification and arrogance in his presentation of his findings is what drove readers to rate Social as low as they …show more content…
He was condescending in how he discussed his research, unnecessarily prolonged points for the reader, and used mundane language. Besides those negative aspects of the book, a majority of the readers praised Lieberman and his work. To them, he took the complicated subject, how social life is an essential need for the brain, and wrote a book for the layman to understand. His use of technical insight and references to the anatomy of the brain ensure the readers that he knows what he his talking about. Lieberman’s groundbreaking research is, for the most part, applauded, for its findings that can be used to improve school setting, work environments, and the society as