John Ioannidis has documented serious flaws in the ways that many - if not the vast majority of - neuroscience studies are designed, analysed and reported.
That should perhaps be a warning whenever we read headlines about studies capturing snapshots of the brain on ''love'', ''fear'', ''religion'' or ''politics''. It turns out that many of these colourful brain scans may offer little more than mirages, obscuring the true picture of the mind in action.
...
fMRI is based on studying the flow of blood in the brain, with more blood rushing to areas working the hardest. The scans reveal bright splotches of neural activity inside people's heads, as they engage in different tests of their capacity to see, feel, remember or think.
We are instantly (too quickly) seduced by these technicolour insights.
To understand why, first consider that a typical typical fMRI scan of the whole brain contains as many as 100.000 three dimensional pixels, called voxels, a vast amount of dasta to analyse. Researchers use specialized software to find clusters of voxels that light up, when participants view images that trigger, say, empathy or emotional responses.
However, the challenge is that true signals can be obscured by underlying random fluctuations in those voxels - a bit like static noise on a untuned TV. fMRI software tries to filter that out, but it cannot work miracles, so many areas will inevitable show some increased activity simply by fluke.
...
Ideally, neuroimagers should use two set of scans, One set is for identifying which voxel clusters are highly activated during the experiment. Having found these regions, you look at these regions in a second set of scans to confirm that the response wasn't due to random fluctuations.
...
Pashler and Vul found that many researchers made the mistake of using just one set of data, which allows random noise to inflate an apparent link to a behavioural response or trait...
Some exciting, but premature, conclusions have made because of these problems, including overly simplistic ideas about the origin of personality traits. ...
The critique didn't go as far as overturning broader conclusions, but it raised question marks ...
The idea that you can map complex personality traits to a few specific regions, like the Amygdalae, is increasingly considered to be a pipe dream, says cognitive neuroscientist Tal Yarkoni.And it gets worse:
Personality traits are now thought to be associated with ''lots of different brain regions interacting in complex ways''.
A study from Michigan demonsrated that an fMRI experiment could be analysed in nearly 7000 ways - and the results could vary hugely.The story of the brain just seems to be growing more complicated:
With so much flexibility, neuroimagers can unintentionally (or indeed deliberately) analyse their results in ways that yields the most favourable results. One tongue-in-cheek report showed that even a dead salmon's brain could appear to be thinking inside a scanner, if the wrong techniques were used.
...
The results were grim. The number of subjects used in the experiments was simply to small for reliable results to come out of them, even if they passed the standard statistical tests.
In other words, four out of five studies might have been missing the actual biological effect or mechanism, and therefore reported false negatives...
...
And with such low statistical powers, if you detect something that seems to be significant, it has a higher chance of being a false positive...
Based on such investigations, neuroscientists used to think that one region of the brain, the socalled fusiform face area (FFA), uniquely responds whenever a person sees a face. But the story has grown more complicated, as further research turned up a network of other regions that cooperate to recognise faces.
...
Suggesting that (FFA) can be subdivided into three separate areas. While these all respond to faces, each is also involved in processing different categories of other objects, such as flags, cruxifixes and snakes...
Making the FFA something like a swiss army knife in visual recognition.
It doesn't mean that the initial view of the ''face area'' was wrong. It was just incomplete.
-Simon
Simon Laub (Let me Google that for you).
www.simonlaub.net
this ''greatest idea in the history of science'' has passed every test. And could easily be disproved, if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order.Nevertheless, not all is explained, and a lot of issues are still contentious.
A surprising, even shocking, feature of banks is that they never lend out the money that people have deposited. They hold that as reserve against losses, and for day to day transactions.So, do we really understand the complex multiply connected commercial world we have created?
Instead, banks create money. Money comes into existence in the very act of borrowing it.
-Simon
Simon Laub (Let me Google that for you).
www.simonlaub.net
If today we were to make the face-to-face acquintance of an Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), Homo Ergaster or Paranthropus robustus, what would we see? Intelligence, fear and curiosity is my guess, for starters. And they would see the same in us - because we truly are kindred spirits.We are connected to them, indeed:
Human love, greed, heroics, envy, and violence all trace the threads of their origins back to the deoxybonucleic acid of the humans who came before us.And we obviously need to understand them, if we want to understand who we really are as individuals and as a species. Without understanding ''we will not be able to build a future that is not simply human, but also humane''.
When night fell, it was black and total with nothing more than the puny illumination provided by the long spine of the Milky Way, a fickle moon, or an occasional wildfire in the distance sparked suddenly and inexplicable by lightning or an illtempered volcano. And the big cats of the savanna like to hunt when the sun has set...Luckily, human toddlers are the most successful learning machines yet devised in the universe.
So, in time they disappeared, presumably one band at time. ...Sometimes to disease.. Sometimes to climate change... Or sometimes they may have cooperated and befriended their clever, slim competitors, until there was no difference between the two, and they had disappeared into the gene pool of their cousin species.Chip Walter wonders what the Neanderthals might have been thinking:
Without more refined language, maybe the Neanderthals' worldview was less logical, and more dreamlike, almost surrealistic. ...Still, the Neanderthals might not have been all that different:
We ourselves touch on the mystical, the surrealistic, and the metaphysical in meditation, religious trances and hypnosis. Doesn't dance and music sometimes bring people to a mystical, trancelike state?
If we can come to these states, perhaps Neanderthals did, too, and then some, given the way the perceived the world. It makes you wonder what Neanderthal dreams might have been like. and it makes you wonder how accurate our ''reality'' is.
Still, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon (radiocarbon dated to about 43,000 years ago) existence may not have been terribly different from the way Native Americans lived on the plains of North America as recently as the nineteenth century. Moving with the seasons, following large animals, hunkering down in the winter against the elements. ... Life was a short, harsh cycle of perhaps thirty to thirty-five winters and summers of close cooperation, family feuds and occasional encounters with other humans, then death, at which time the next generation took on the fight. ... They too sought love, enjoyment, and friendship and searched for ways to express themselves just as we do. They were, after all human as well. Just a different variety of humans.But they probably didn't play as much...
Because they were so quickly snuffed out, and because they congregated in small groups, evolution apparently began to favor Neanderthal children who grew up faster, could bear children sooner, reached adult size and strength as rapidly as possible to replace the older members of the troop who passed on so quickly.And, playing, singing and dancing is important.
This would have two immense and not terribly favourable long term effects.
First, it meant Neanderthal children spent less time playing, learning, and developing socially and creatively in early life.
The effect - less personal adaptipility and creativity. They had less time to develop unique personalities and talents.
Second, it meant fewer mentors who could pass valuable knowledge to younger members of the clan. Neanderthals became so focused on their short-term need to survive that they were unable to develop the more complex skills that saved us (Homo sapiens) over the long haul.
''I conclude that musical notes and rythm were first acquired by the male and the female progenitors of mankind for the sake of charming the opposite sex. Thus musical tones became associated with some of the strongest passions an animal is capable of feeling... We can thus understand how it is that music, dancing, song and poetry are very ancient arts.''Zoologists call the singing, dancing or fighting that animals do to gain the attention of mates for lekking. It is all about being funny, insightful, charming, articulate and quickwitted.
Researchers have found that women, for example, laugh more when they are in the company of men. This isn't because men are exceptional funny, but because (subconsciously) women are encouraging men to lek, so they can gather information and observe what the man has to offer. The more she laughs, the more he shares and reveals.Indeed, the brain is invisible. So it reveals its fitness by generating behaviours that are extraordinary, surprising and impressive. By making behaviours that others will find it difficult to do. People wants to matter. In Chip Walters words:
If you don't survive physically, you die.Creativity:
If you don't survive socially, it means you don't matter, and that is, in its own way, also deadly.
In the end it is going to be the child in us, that is going to bail us out - if anyone. It is the one inside of us that can fancy the impossible, and wonder why. It is the one who has gotten us this far.What a remarkable and wonderful book!
-Simon
Simon Laub (Let me Google that for you).
www.simonlaub.net