East meets west: How the brain unites us all - science-in-society - 10 March 2009 - New Scientist
Well, the short answer to the title of this post is: Yes. In the sense that all learning changes the structure of the brain at the cellular level (neurons linking to other neurons) - in that regard ALL brains are different and certainly brains from individuals within a culture will have similar learnings that are culturally defined and therefore "different" from other cultures.
However, the article tries to tackle the idea that the differences might be much more profound than just minor differences in general learning. The evidence they bring up both pro and con are quite interesting, but inconclusive. Some anthropologists (which I have linked here previously) would argue that there are no significant cultural differences that could be ascribed to evolutionary divergence. They point to things like gender roles and perception across cultures as the basis for this thinking.
I don't think I buy any argument that would go so far as to say that thinking across vastly different cultures has become evolutionarily divergent, but developmentally divergent would be a more accurate description.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Remote control brains?
Yep....remote controlled brains.
Obviously this is still research in the most rudimentary and basic stages, but the potential is kind of astounding. As with any basic research there are still huge hurdles to surmount before any of this becomes practical in any way, but hey....proof of concept is enough to get you exicted, no?
Obviously this is still research in the most rudimentary and basic stages, but the potential is kind of astounding. As with any basic research there are still huge hurdles to surmount before any of this becomes practical in any way, but hey....proof of concept is enough to get you exicted, no?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
When Politics gets in the way of Science
Genetic Future : Should scientists study race and IQ?
I haven't read the referenced articles yet - and to be honest I'm quite sure I won't. I'm not sure I could stomach the "no we shouldn't" article.
I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. MacArthur's thoughts concerning the necessity of studying ALL aspects of a topic that can be effectively studied through scientific methodologies. I also agree that letting politics get in the way or simply eliminating scientific inquiry because the issue is highly socially charged is a huge mistake.
I feel compelled to mention the idea that there are certain topics where preliminary scientific inquiry has emboldened one side of a debate to claim that there is scientific consensus that their side of the issue is the correct or even the only rational or ethical side to take (can anyone say global warming debate?). This is also a mistake as it will stifle true scientific inquiry. Confirmation bias is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome in science, the more political or social stake is attached to an issue, the more value is given to finding "evidence" to support the "consensus" - and that sounds an awful lot like strengthening the effect of confirmation bias.
True, unbiased, scientific inquiry is hard enough to do without having the hopes and expectations of hoards of political/social activists (and the influence/money they control) waiting in the wings to reward scientists that confirm their agenda or excoriate those that disagree with them. Unfortunately, that is the climate we work in and what we have to deal with. This climate exists in EVERY political climate - if Republicans or Democrats are in charge the only thing that changes is the agenda. The influence and the consequences thereof are still just as present.
I haven't read the referenced articles yet - and to be honest I'm quite sure I won't. I'm not sure I could stomach the "no we shouldn't" article.
I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. MacArthur's thoughts concerning the necessity of studying ALL aspects of a topic that can be effectively studied through scientific methodologies. I also agree that letting politics get in the way or simply eliminating scientific inquiry because the issue is highly socially charged is a huge mistake.
I feel compelled to mention the idea that there are certain topics where preliminary scientific inquiry has emboldened one side of a debate to claim that there is scientific consensus that their side of the issue is the correct or even the only rational or ethical side to take (can anyone say global warming debate?). This is also a mistake as it will stifle true scientific inquiry. Confirmation bias is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome in science, the more political or social stake is attached to an issue, the more value is given to finding "evidence" to support the "consensus" - and that sounds an awful lot like strengthening the effect of confirmation bias.
True, unbiased, scientific inquiry is hard enough to do without having the hopes and expectations of hoards of political/social activists (and the influence/money they control) waiting in the wings to reward scientists that confirm their agenda or excoriate those that disagree with them. Unfortunately, that is the climate we work in and what we have to deal with. This climate exists in EVERY political climate - if Republicans or Democrats are in charge the only thing that changes is the agenda. The influence and the consequences thereof are still just as present.
Subliminal messaging
Subliminal messages really do affect your decisions - life - 14 February 2009 - New Scientist
Well, the overall result would seem to not necessarily confirm the long-standing belief that I can convince you to do nearly anything with subliminal messages, but at least with visual images our brains seem to register things in the background while we aren't really paying attention.
Not quite the earth-shattering finding the title suggests, but still, an interesting finding nevertheless.
Well, the overall result would seem to not necessarily confirm the long-standing belief that I can convince you to do nearly anything with subliminal messages, but at least with visual images our brains seem to register things in the background while we aren't really paying attention.
Not quite the earth-shattering finding the title suggests, but still, an interesting finding nevertheless.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
What is the source of happiness?
The New Science of Happiness - TIME
This is an article from a while back (2005) - but it is still worth looking at. I was reminded of this article through a hyperlink embedded in this article.
This is an article from a while back (2005) - but it is still worth looking at. I was reminded of this article through a hyperlink embedded in this article.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Listening to cells think/communicate
BBC NEWS | TODAY | Tom Feilden's blog | Do cells think...and is this what it sounds like?
This is a somewhat freaky sound recording, but be sure to pay attention to the caveat that the sound was "processed to sound like a human voice" - so essentially the signal characteristics of neurons communicating was processed heavily until it could simulate sound.
Still....that is very cool.
This is a somewhat freaky sound recording, but be sure to pay attention to the caveat that the sound was "processed to sound like a human voice" - so essentially the signal characteristics of neurons communicating was processed heavily until it could simulate sound.
Still....that is very cool.
Friday, January 16, 2009
How to halucinate
Check out this link: Boston.com - Ideas - Globe
Awesome. Although, we're not talking the type of acid-trip halucination you're probably thinking about. It would produce more of a "distortion" type of illusion that wouldn't be terribly dramatic.
Still - tripping out sans drugs.....could be a neat party trick.
Awesome. Although, we're not talking the type of acid-trip halucination you're probably thinking about. It would produce more of a "distortion" type of illusion that wouldn't be terribly dramatic.
Still - tripping out sans drugs.....could be a neat party trick.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Picking college applicants based on politics
Dr. Helen: Should schools pick applicants based on their adherence to "social justice"?
This is a truly disturbing post, and an even more disturbing trend. Some of the comments are really worthwhile as well. "Diversity" usually boils down to the where and to whom someone was born - whereas who a person actually becomes is a product of their personal decisions. So, diversity, if people really meant what they wanted it to mean, would include not just skin color or nationality, but also religious, philosophical and political ideology. If that were actually the case, just imagine how fun a class discussion would be with a truly diverse student body? That would be a dream come true (assuming that the discussion stays civil).
There are some that would argue that personal ideology is very accurately reflected in the individual based on the ideology of their parents and/or environment. But that really is a straw-man argument. I can 100% guarantee that if you are born in Nigeria, you will be considered Nigerian. If you are born to dyed-in-the-wool religious southern conservative parents, there is a very real possibility that you could end up an atheistic, socialist left-winger. There is just no way to predict with 100% accuracy.
That's the beauty of the kind of diversity mentioned. True diversity would span every aspect of humanity - not just nationality or skin color or even socioeconomic status.
This is a truly disturbing post, and an even more disturbing trend. Some of the comments are really worthwhile as well. "Diversity" usually boils down to the where and to whom someone was born - whereas who a person actually becomes is a product of their personal decisions. So, diversity, if people really meant what they wanted it to mean, would include not just skin color or nationality, but also religious, philosophical and political ideology. If that were actually the case, just imagine how fun a class discussion would be with a truly diverse student body? That would be a dream come true (assuming that the discussion stays civil).
There are some that would argue that personal ideology is very accurately reflected in the individual based on the ideology of their parents and/or environment. But that really is a straw-man argument. I can 100% guarantee that if you are born in Nigeria, you will be considered Nigerian. If you are born to dyed-in-the-wool religious southern conservative parents, there is a very real possibility that you could end up an atheistic, socialist left-winger. There is just no way to predict with 100% accuracy.
That's the beauty of the kind of diversity mentioned. True diversity would span every aspect of humanity - not just nationality or skin color or even socioeconomic status.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Substitute brain-blog list
101 Fascinating Brain Blogs
I'll probably just put this link up as my blog list in the next few weeks. Or never.
You never know.
I'll probably just put this link up as my blog list in the next few weeks. Or never.
You never know.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Scientists get desperate....
Eating at buffets plus not exercising equals obesity in rural America
Look at that headline linked above again.....now, contemplate how absurdly stupid it is to create ANY kind of article based on that concept. Really? Eating lots and not exercising make you fat? No. Freaking. Way.
Of all the "duh" articles I've ever linked to in the past, this one takes the cake. The study actually does point in the direction of using these findings to "help determine methods to help [rural residents]" - it doesn't say how this fairly obvious research will help in that regard, but, hey....at least they're thinking meta.
They also drop the gem that "Society...will be better off finding ways to prevent obesity instead of trying to treat the condition." Again, the farmers almanac has been telling us this for hundreds of years: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I'm trying to figure out if this is actually an Onion article in disguise.
UPDATE: A commenter has left a note about how I missed the point of the article. If you read carefully I actually did read the article and actually did get the point of the study - I just found it inane both from the point of the title of the article and the article itself. I was actually trying to make two points: 1) the headline is, in fact, stupid, regardless of whether it was written by a science news service or not (and, granted, I probably didn't carry off that point very well); and 2) the study itself is rather unspectacular. The findings of the actual study (and not the absurd headline) basically say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that people readily find excuses not to exercise. I'd like to point out once again that the study, while finding that people don't exercise enough, and pointing out that we need to find ways to make it less easy for people to find excuses for not exercising, still doesn't suggest any methods for their recommendations.
One of the unspoken purposes of this blog is to reflect on the way science is presented in the media - and this particular article hits pretty near the top of "you've got to be kidding me" status.
Look at that headline linked above again.....now, contemplate how absurdly stupid it is to create ANY kind of article based on that concept. Really? Eating lots and not exercising make you fat? No. Freaking. Way.
Of all the "duh" articles I've ever linked to in the past, this one takes the cake. The study actually does point in the direction of using these findings to "help determine methods to help [rural residents]" - it doesn't say how this fairly obvious research will help in that regard, but, hey....at least they're thinking meta.
They also drop the gem that "Society...will be better off finding ways to prevent obesity instead of trying to treat the condition." Again, the farmers almanac has been telling us this for hundreds of years: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I'm trying to figure out if this is actually an Onion article in disguise.
UPDATE: A commenter has left a note about how I missed the point of the article. If you read carefully I actually did read the article and actually did get the point of the study - I just found it inane both from the point of the title of the article and the article itself. I was actually trying to make two points: 1) the headline is, in fact, stupid, regardless of whether it was written by a science news service or not (and, granted, I probably didn't carry off that point very well); and 2) the study itself is rather unspectacular. The findings of the actual study (and not the absurd headline) basically say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that people readily find excuses not to exercise. I'd like to point out once again that the study, while finding that people don't exercise enough, and pointing out that we need to find ways to make it less easy for people to find excuses for not exercising, still doesn't suggest any methods for their recommendations.
One of the unspoken purposes of this blog is to reflect on the way science is presented in the media - and this particular article hits pretty near the top of "you've got to be kidding me" status.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
It's all about the process.....
U.S. students' math, science scores deliver mixed results - USATODAY.com
Yes, our scores don't match those of other countries, and yes, those scores generate lots of hand-wringing and tons of conversation about how we can improve them. So what?
I have only one question for all those hand-wringers: have you seen how the system works in other countries? The countries that have higher scores in any area have MUCH more intensive school programs than those in the US. If you want the same results, you should try picking up a few of the practices. If their measures are a little too draconian for your tastes, then stick with the system we have and please shut up.
Honestly - nothing annoys me more. We try to improve scores without changing the overall philosophy of the system, or without upsetting the apple-cart too much. Go and watch how other countries manage their educational systems. In some industrialized nations the rigors of education are incredibly more stringent and demanding than the U.S. system. They expect more, and they get more - along with some adverse side-effects.
Our system is what it is. Don't expect the high scores unless you're going to change the system. Working within the current system will only produce a minimal change. Our system doesn't demand the same kind of results; we want the same results, we don't demand them. I'm not saying that is the wrong approach or that other countries have it right, I'm just stating the facts. So, unless you're take some drastic measures and really shake things up, just shut the heck up about it.
Yes, our scores don't match those of other countries, and yes, those scores generate lots of hand-wringing and tons of conversation about how we can improve them. So what?
I have only one question for all those hand-wringers: have you seen how the system works in other countries? The countries that have higher scores in any area have MUCH more intensive school programs than those in the US. If you want the same results, you should try picking up a few of the practices. If their measures are a little too draconian for your tastes, then stick with the system we have and please shut up.
Honestly - nothing annoys me more. We try to improve scores without changing the overall philosophy of the system, or without upsetting the apple-cart too much. Go and watch how other countries manage their educational systems. In some industrialized nations the rigors of education are incredibly more stringent and demanding than the U.S. system. They expect more, and they get more - along with some adverse side-effects.
Our system is what it is. Don't expect the high scores unless you're going to change the system. Working within the current system will only produce a minimal change. Our system doesn't demand the same kind of results; we want the same results, we don't demand them. I'm not saying that is the wrong approach or that other countries have it right, I'm just stating the facts. So, unless you're take some drastic measures and really shake things up, just shut the heck up about it.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Drugs for your brain
Brain-boosting drugs: Why not?, experts say U.S. Reuters
More of a debate article - and I've posted about this before. My only concern is Blogger: Searching for Mind - Edit Post "Drugs for your brain"the side-effects. How good is our data on the long-term effects of "brain-boosting" drugs? There is also the unfortunate reality that neurological drugs don't have a universal effect on the population - meaning that the effectiveness varies from person-to-person. I've seen a few articles that hint that the effectiveness (generally of brain-drugs) is just slightly above that of placebo (although with the power of the studies it is still statistically significant).
So, just like steroids, good in theory, wonderful in the short-term - but long-term is the concern. Also, the individuality of our brains makes this almost a person-to-person prospect, which is just not practical.
More here and here. The subject seems to keep coming up this year.
Here is a great article in Nature about the subject.
Still more here.
More of a debate article - and I've posted about this before. My only concern is Blogger: Searching for Mind - Edit Post "Drugs for your brain"the side-effects. How good is our data on the long-term effects of "brain-boosting" drugs? There is also the unfortunate reality that neurological drugs don't have a universal effect on the population - meaning that the effectiveness varies from person-to-person. I've seen a few articles that hint that the effectiveness (generally of brain-drugs) is just slightly above that of placebo (although with the power of the studies it is still statistically significant).
So, just like steroids, good in theory, wonderful in the short-term - but long-term is the concern. Also, the individuality of our brains makes this almost a person-to-person prospect, which is just not practical.
More here and here. The subject seems to keep coming up this year.
Here is a great article in Nature about the subject.
Still more here.
We don't need no stinking FACTS!
Google generation has no need for rote learning - Times Online
This is a very interesting idea. Again, as with the previous post, I tend to agree with it in theory. The problem that arises is with authenticity and accuracy of information. However, I don't think it's as big a problem as some have made it out to be.
Back in the day the "authority" on information was the encyclopedia. There were several brands, some more comprehensive (and expensive) than others. If you wanted general information you went down to your local library and looked it up in your encyclopedia of choice. The information was updated (mostly) on a year-to-year basis. There was absolutely NO way to verify how accurate the information was - unless you were an expert in your own right, and then you usually found small errors or at least misinterpretations of material. And if the information wasn't in the encyclopedia, you were usually out of luck - finding the information from another source was going to take some serious effort.
The internet provides the same type of information (Wikipedia) you have the same type of information, there is more of it, it is more frequently updated AND there is a method for altering or verifying the information that is much quicker. Some of the best Wikipedia articles (and a trait of the web in general) provide links to source documents. How is that possibly worse than an encyclopedia?
So, a lot of the arguments about "we're not sure it's accurate" can be valid if you're just searching pages created by cranks or someone with an axe to grind (although those are also the most entertaining to read, generally) - but the availability of original documents and large repositories of "expert generated" material is easily the equivalent of the old "encyclopedia" source.
The thing you're really bucking is YEARS of ingrained thinking that, say, Encyclopedia Britannica was THE authoritative source of info. When you think about it, however, it is not any more or any less accurate than other "authoritative" sources like Wikipedia.
However, all that being said - we don't yet have that type of information at our beck and call 24 hours a day, and having a host of embedded memories of facts can also provide a great basis for pattern recognition, so eliminating every type of learning "by rote" isn't really a prudent choice.
This is a very interesting idea. Again, as with the previous post, I tend to agree with it in theory. The problem that arises is with authenticity and accuracy of information. However, I don't think it's as big a problem as some have made it out to be.
Back in the day the "authority" on information was the encyclopedia. There were several brands, some more comprehensive (and expensive) than others. If you wanted general information you went down to your local library and looked it up in your encyclopedia of choice. The information was updated (mostly) on a year-to-year basis. There was absolutely NO way to verify how accurate the information was - unless you were an expert in your own right, and then you usually found small errors or at least misinterpretations of material. And if the information wasn't in the encyclopedia, you were usually out of luck - finding the information from another source was going to take some serious effort.
The internet provides the same type of information (Wikipedia) you have the same type of information, there is more of it, it is more frequently updated AND there is a method for altering or verifying the information that is much quicker. Some of the best Wikipedia articles (and a trait of the web in general) provide links to source documents. How is that possibly worse than an encyclopedia?
So, a lot of the arguments about "we're not sure it's accurate" can be valid if you're just searching pages created by cranks or someone with an axe to grind (although those are also the most entertaining to read, generally) - but the availability of original documents and large repositories of "expert generated" material is easily the equivalent of the old "encyclopedia" source.
The thing you're really bucking is YEARS of ingrained thinking that, say, Encyclopedia Britannica was THE authoritative source of info. When you think about it, however, it is not any more or any less accurate than other "authoritative" sources like Wikipedia.
However, all that being said - we don't yet have that type of information at our beck and call 24 hours a day, and having a host of embedded memories of facts can also provide a great basis for pattern recognition, so eliminating every type of learning "by rote" isn't really a prudent choice.
Teasing is good
In Defense of Teasing - NYTimes.com
I like the logic behind this and I agree with it in principle. The policy implementation for a stance like this requires a lot of subjectivity, so I also see the "no tolerance" policy that most schools employ.
It's all a matter of degrees and who is interpreting those issues.
I like the logic behind this and I agree with it in principle. The policy implementation for a stance like this requires a lot of subjectivity, so I also see the "no tolerance" policy that most schools employ.
It's all a matter of degrees and who is interpreting those issues.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The internet is...uh...not mighty?
Lots of TV and Web harms kids' health | U.S. | Reuters
Well, honestly...too much of just about anything is bad for you, so this isn't really much of a surprise. Really what it should more probably read is "sedentary life-style leads to health problems" - that would be more accurate. But, hey, blaming the Internet and TV is more fun and sensational, so, why not?
Well, honestly...too much of just about anything is bad for you, so this isn't really much of a surprise. Really what it should more probably read is "sedentary life-style leads to health problems" - that would be more accurate. But, hey, blaming the Internet and TV is more fun and sensational, so, why not?
Monday, December 01, 2008
Brain exercise!
Brain exercises are 'waste of time' says Scottish professor | Science | The Observer
The conclusions are mostly correct. The flim-flammery propogated by most commercial entities seeking to exploit the "brain fitness" craze are indeed based on flimsy science or a ridiculously overextended conclusion based on minor effects at best or complete nonsense at worst.
However, the underlying science is indeed there in many cases, it is just misinterpreted by those trying to make a buck. Then again - as with the placebo effect mentioned in the last post - if you are doing something that you believe is helping you cognitively, there's around a 30% chance that your desires will be self-fulfilling.
However, like the professor mentioned - I really, REALLY wish that all the nonsense about neuroscience would go away. My biggest pet peve (which is also mentioned in the article) is the exceptionally stupid "we only use 10% of our brains" meme....which is beyond lame. I don't know where the meme started, but it needs to die a slow painful death. Shortly after that we need the whole "Left-brained/Right-brained" thing to also go away.
And I'm sure that I have lots of misconceptions about other areas of science that I'm not as versed in as I probably should be, but I'd love it if someone could set me straight.
The conclusions are mostly correct. The flim-flammery propogated by most commercial entities seeking to exploit the "brain fitness" craze are indeed based on flimsy science or a ridiculously overextended conclusion based on minor effects at best or complete nonsense at worst.
However, the underlying science is indeed there in many cases, it is just misinterpreted by those trying to make a buck. Then again - as with the placebo effect mentioned in the last post - if you are doing something that you believe is helping you cognitively, there's around a 30% chance that your desires will be self-fulfilling.
However, like the professor mentioned - I really, REALLY wish that all the nonsense about neuroscience would go away. My biggest pet peve (which is also mentioned in the article) is the exceptionally stupid "we only use 10% of our brains" meme....which is beyond lame. I don't know where the meme started, but it needs to die a slow painful death. Shortly after that we need the whole "Left-brained/Right-brained" thing to also go away.
And I'm sure that I have lots of misconceptions about other areas of science that I'm not as versed in as I probably should be, but I'd love it if someone could set me straight.
Gender under pressure
Gender and performance under pressure: new evidence | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists
This is a very interesting study and I'd like to see a bit more of how they accounted for all the variables - but the conclusions they draw are very interesting and, I'm sure, controversial.
This is a very interesting study and I'd like to see a bit more of how they accounted for all the variables - but the conclusions they draw are very interesting and, I'm sure, controversial.
Placebo effect - kinda crazy
Not Exactly Rocket Science : Pain in the eye of the beholder
The argument has been made that in the realm of neuromedicine (including therapy and pharmacology) the ONLY thing that makes a difference is the placebo effect.
I'm not sure I would go that far, but it is awfully surprising the things that our brains can accomplish on their own.
The argument has been made that in the realm of neuromedicine (including therapy and pharmacology) the ONLY thing that makes a difference is the placebo effect.
I'm not sure I would go that far, but it is awfully surprising the things that our brains can accomplish on their own.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Internet is mighty! Part 2
Casual Internet Use Is Good for Kids, 3 Year Study Concludes - ReadWriteWeb
There are all kinds of reasons why this would be true, not least of which is the idea that it promotes more reading in children. It's interesting to them and they can read on the things that are most important to them.
What's not to like?
Well, there's lots to not like as well, but it's nice to know that there are some benefits.
There are all kinds of reasons why this would be true, not least of which is the idea that it promotes more reading in children. It's interesting to them and they can read on the things that are most important to them.
What's not to like?
Well, there's lots to not like as well, but it's nice to know that there are some benefits.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Music rocks.
Research shows that time invested in practicing pays off for young musicians
One more reason to make sure that we keep music in our education system, and yet another reason to make the effort and at least try to introduce your children to music in some way.
One more reason to make sure that we keep music in our education system, and yet another reason to make the effort and at least try to introduce your children to music in some way.
Mirror Neurons - not in my brain!
"No evidence of Human Mirror Neurons"
Wow - after all the talk about how mirror neurons are responsible for so many aspects of human cognition, and now it turns out that they may not exist at all in human brains? That is just marvelous - really. Not only does it stop a lot of fevered talk about the vast (and sometimes obviously overblown) influence of mirror neurons but it alo lets us move past it and look for other solutions.
As with most early studies, I'd take the conclusions with a grain of salt for now (just as I would have taken all the breathless conclusions about the seemingly infinite power of mirror neurons prior to this study) - but still - the contrast between the two polls is (as always) striking.
Wow - after all the talk about how mirror neurons are responsible for so many aspects of human cognition, and now it turns out that they may not exist at all in human brains? That is just marvelous - really. Not only does it stop a lot of fevered talk about the vast (and sometimes obviously overblown) influence of mirror neurons but it alo lets us move past it and look for other solutions.
As with most early studies, I'd take the conclusions with a grain of salt for now (just as I would have taken all the breathless conclusions about the seemingly infinite power of mirror neurons prior to this study) - but still - the contrast between the two polls is (as always) striking.
Turning 40 sucks
Brain Slows at 40, Starts Body Decline : Discovery News
And this news doesn't make it any more fun to anticipate. As someone who is rapidly knocking on the door of 40, this is just not what I want to be reading.
And this news doesn't make it any more fun to anticipate. As someone who is rapidly knocking on the door of 40, this is just not what I want to be reading.
Evolutionary psychology
BPS RESEARCH DIGEST: "Is evolutionary psychology a dubious science?" and other battles...
My answer, as always, is: yes, evolutionary psychology is a dubious science. Mostly because it's NOT science - it's speculation. There is no way to objectively verify through observation that any evolutionary theory is "truth" - it could be very accurate and even make a great deal of sense, but it is still not a true science.
If there is no empirical observation, it is a philosophy, not a science.
My answer, as always, is: yes, evolutionary psychology is a dubious science. Mostly because it's NOT science - it's speculation. There is no way to objectively verify through observation that any evolutionary theory is "truth" - it could be very accurate and even make a great deal of sense, but it is still not a true science.
If there is no empirical observation, it is a philosophy, not a science.
Brain scans LIE!
Five Ways Brain Scans Mislead Us: Scientific American
Well, not really LIE as such, but they certainly don't show us anything that is really useful in most respects. They are exceptionally cool - but they don't really tell us much about HOW cognition works or the why. All it does is tell the where, essentially it's neo-phrenology.
Well, not really LIE as such, but they certainly don't show us anything that is really useful in most respects. They are exceptionally cool - but they don't really tell us much about HOW cognition works or the why. All it does is tell the where, essentially it's neo-phrenology.
Is your brain asleep?
FuturePundit: Sleepy Feeling Means Parts Of Brain Already Asleep
I knew that some avians (ducks for example) could shut off part of their brain at a time - I wonder if the same effects apply in humans. Would the ability to "rest" portions of your brain give you an increased ability to avoid sleep?
I knew that some avians (ducks for example) could shut off part of their brain at a time - I wonder if the same effects apply in humans. Would the ability to "rest" portions of your brain give you an increased ability to avoid sleep?
Segmented Reading
Freeing up Mental RAM with Segmented Reading | Tools for Thought
Brilliant stuff. I've started practicing this and it is absolutely marvelous. It's almost addictive once you see how effective it is.
Brilliant stuff. I've started practicing this and it is absolutely marvelous. It's almost addictive once you see how effective it is.
pop culture meets science?
Men are Logical, Women are Emotional
The video that the article links to is pretty funny, but I'm also seeing it as playing pretty fast and loose with scientific facts. And, ironically enough, although it's presented by a (essentially) a pastor, it follows the lines of thinking of evolutionary psychologists.
Good times.
The video that the article links to is pretty funny, but I'm also seeing it as playing pretty fast and loose with scientific facts. And, ironically enough, although it's presented by a (essentially) a pastor, it follows the lines of thinking of evolutionary psychologists.
Good times.
An old brain.....
'Super-aged' brains reveal first secrets of sharp memory in old age
As with most brain science the discovery is all kinds of sexy-cool - but how does it translate into practical developments? Although, if there were any kind of breakthrough this would be one area where I'd really like to see some kind of breakthrough.
As with most brain science the discovery is all kinds of sexy-cool - but how does it translate into practical developments? Although, if there were any kind of breakthrough this would be one area where I'd really like to see some kind of breakthrough.
More video game crap...
Violent video games tied to teen aggression - Games - msnbc.com
Man, this is one of those issues that is just NOT going to go away. I'll continue to blog them because they are interesting, but I'm not looking forward to a resolution for quite some time.
Man, this is one of those issues that is just NOT going to go away. I'll continue to blog them because they are interesting, but I'm not looking forward to a resolution for quite some time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)