Unless you have a specific set of scathing reviews in mind, the reviews of it in the literature don't really appear to match up with that characterization very

Unless you have a specific set of scathing reviews in mind, the reviews of it in the literature don't really appear to match up with that characterization very much: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13546805.2010.537945 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13546805.2010.5... https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11010053 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828853/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-011-9235-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-011-9235-x > it is worth noting that the book has been much praised by neuro-scientists as diverse as Ramachandran, Panksepp, Hellige, Kesselring, Schore, Bynum, Zeman, Feinberg, Trimble and Lishman. It'd be surprising if it were poorly received regardless, because the book itself is little more than a review of the relevant literature on the topic, packed with references, and some added philosophy about it's implications sprinkled on top. Not that much different from one of Michael Gazzaniga's popular books, and certainly not as out there as Julian Jaynes.