As a cognitive scientist, Daniel Dennett is second to none. His expositions on the developmental evolution of the human mind are the stuff of legend. But as a science popularist (a person who takes complex scientific concepts and makes them pleasing and palatable for schmucks like me) he leaves a lot to be desired. Don’t get me wrong, I respect and admire Dr. Dennett to the moon and back but I would never recommend this book to a layperson. It’s just too deep.

Exhibit A: I am convinced that Professor D never uses a short explanation when a twenty two page dissertation will do. Does he get paid by the word? And to make matters worse he coins phrases and invents analogies which, in theory, should help clarify his concepts but, in reality, they too need explanations (e.g. skyhooks and intuition pumps). It is a vortex intent on pulling us all down a rabbit hole.

Exhibit B: Dennett assumes his readers have a high level of familiarity with other theorists which is fine if one is teaching grad students at Tufts U but it is problematic if one is aiming for a wider demographic. For me, an armchair anthropologist who makes his living in I.T., this was hit & miss (yes I am familiar with Richard Dawkins’ meme, no I am not familiar with Noam Chomsky’s merge).

I know this sounds like a Down-with-Dennett rant but it’s not. I love the guy. I’m just weary from searching for a toehold on this Mensa Mountain climb.