The same part of the brain lights up

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

We've all heard it, and we've all said it. The problem is, it doesn't mean what we think it means.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/08/pop_neuroscience_is_bunk/

By now you've seen the pretty pictures: Color-drenched brain scans capturing Buddhist monks meditating, addicts craving cocaine, and college sophomores choosing Coke over Pepsi. The media—and even some neuroscientists, it seems—love to invoke the neural foundations of human behavior to explain everything from the Bernie Madoff financial fiasco to slavish devotion to our iPhones, the sexual indiscretions of politicians, conservatives' dismissal of global warming, and even an obsession with self-tanning.

Brains are big on campus, too. Take a map of any major university, and you can trace the march of neuroscience from research labs and medical centers into schools of law and business and departments of economics and philosophy. In recent years, neuroscience has merged with a host of other disciplines, spawning such new areas of study as neurolaw, neuroeconomics, neurophilosophy, neuromarketing, and neurofinance. Add to this the birth of neuroaesthetics, neurohistory, neuroliterature, neuromusicology, neuropolitics, and neurotheology. The brain has even wandered into such unlikely redoubts as English departments, where professors debate whether scanning subjects' brains as they read passages from Jane Austen novels represents (a) a fertile inquiry into the power of literature or (b) a desperate attempt to inject novelty into a field that has exhausted its romance with psychoanalysis and postmodernism.

Brains are in demand. Once the largely exclusive province of neuroscientists and neurologists, the brain has now entered the popular mainstream. As a newly minted cultural artifact, the brain is portrayed in paintings, sculptures, and tapestries and put on display in museums and galleries.

The prospect of solving the deepest riddle humanity has ever contemplated—itself—by studying the brain has captivated scholars and scientists for centuries. But never before has the brain so vigorously engaged the public imagination. The prime impetus behind this enthusiasm is a form of brain imaging called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), an instrument that came of age a mere two decades ago, which measures brain activity and converts it into the now-iconic vibrant images one sees in the science pages of the daily newspaper.

As a tool for exploring the biology of the mind, neuroimaging has given brain science a strong cultural presence. As one scientist remarked, brain images are now "replacing Bohr's planetary atom as the symbol of science." With its implied promise of decoding the brain, it is easy to see why brain imaging would beguile almost anyone interested in pulling back the curtain on the mental lives of others: politicians hoping to manipulate voter attitudes, marketers tapping the brain to learn what consumers really want to buy, agents of the law seeking an infallible lie detector, addiction researchers trying to gauge the pull of temptations, psychologists and psychiatrists seeking the causes of mental illness, and defense attorneys fighting to prove that their clients lack malign intent or even free will.

The problem is that brain imaging cannot do any of these things—at least not yet.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In example:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203084254.htm

Dr. Martinez and colleagues found that increased social status and increased social support correlated with the density of dopamine D2/D3 receptors in the striatum, a region of the brain that plays a central role in reward and motivation, where dopamine plays a critical role in both of these behavioral processes.

The researchers looked at social status and social support in normal healthy volunteers who were scanned using positron emission tomography (PET), a technology that allowed them to image dopamine type 2 receptors in the brain.

This data suggests that people who achieve greater social status are more likely to be able to experience life as rewarding and stimulating because they have more targets for dopamine to act upon within the striatum.

Dr. Martinez explains their findings: "We showed that low levels of dopamine receptors were associated with low social status and that high levels of dopamine receptors were associated with higher social status. The same type of association was seen with the volunteer's reports of social support they experience from their friends, family, or significant other."

OK, so far so good, a nice straightforward description of their findings, totally consistent with Sapolsky's work on social status...

Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry commented, "These data shed interesting light into the drive to achieve social status, a basic social process. It would make sense that people who had higher levels of D2 receptors, i.e., were more highly motivated and engaged by social situations, would be high achievers and would have higher levels of social support."

WHOA WHOA WHOA SAY WHAT? Back that train up! Did this guy really just attribute cause and effect to this correlation? And worse, did he really just make a statement which implies that there is a biological basis for poverty?

FUCK NO.

But he did. He said that.

The article goes on to say:

These data also may have implications for understanding the vulnerability to alcohol and substance abuse, as the work of Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues suggests that low levels of D2/D3 receptors may contribute to the risk for alcoholism among individuals who have family members who abuse alcohol. The current data suggest that vulnerable individuals with low D2/D3 receptors may be vulnerable to lower social status and social supports, and these social factors have previously been suggested as contributors to the risk for alcohol and substance use.

Wow.

Given that everything we know about the brain and social status up to this point, from countless studies over the last 30 years, suggests that social status affects the brain more than the brain affects social status, how are so many people jumping on this premature cause-and-effect bandwagon? In this case, as in most, it isn't the research that's mindless or irresponsible; it's the interpretation.

[Junkenstein]

Making a note to look at this when I've got fresh eyes, may need to revise some stupid thinking.

[Pæs]

I imagine we'll be accepting brain scans as evidence in court well before we can look at a scan and translate it into an emotion.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I imagine we'll be accepting brain scans as evidence in court well before we can look at a scan and translate it into an emotion.

Oh dear lord I hope not.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

More good articles:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/brain-stats/
http://neurobonkers.com/2012/08/21/the-science-of-bad-neuroscience/

The lecture video is totally worth watching.

Oh and this guy! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/#.UhAHElPF9wI I love that guy.

[McGrupp]

Cool article! Really makes me question the efficacy of neurofeedback as treatment.

Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry commented, "These data shed interesting light into the drive to achieve social status, a basic social process. It would make sense that people who had higher levels of D2 receptors, i.e., were more highly motivated and engaged by social situations, would be high achievers and would have higher levels of social support."

WHOA WHOA WHOA SAY WHAT? Back that train up! Did this guy really just attribute cause and effect to this correlation? And worse, did he really just make a statement which implies that there is a biological basis for poverty?

FUCK NO.

But he did. He said that.

This. Everything I've read about neurofeedback, including stuff in medical journals makes this leap concerning correlation and cause. Most of the ADD studies are basically: Well, we see an excess of theta waves and less than normal beta waves on EEG in ADHD patients. We'll just train their brain to produce more beta and less theta then they'll be cured. No more ADHD.

Despite the fact that all they have is correlation and we still don't know what else the different wave forms could mean. When you get into amatuers attempting to do neurofeedback they jump to conclusions even quicker. There may be a place for neurofeedback in therapy but no one really knows for sure and the implications haven't been studied enough. Also most of the papers published on neurofeedback are from the doctors who are charging money for it. Reminds me of the grasshoppers with no legs can't hear joke.

Super cool articles and very relevant to my interests.

[McGrupp]

It occurs to me that I should have pointed out at the beginning of my last post that I recognize that fMRI and EEG are totally different things. I just latched on to the concepts as they are the so similar to what I've seen from EEG studies in neurofeedback.

Also the facial recognition study in dead fish is priceless.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It really is. Did you read the poster? It's fucking hilarious.

Also, this is making me LOL: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/is-this-the-most-bizarre-paper-ever-published-in-a-peer-reviewed-journal

[McGrupp]

It really is. Did you read the poster? It's fucking hilarious.

I just went back and read the poster. That makes it seem a bit less bizarre. I think they made a good call with using the dead fish. Really draws to their point on potential false positives.

Also, this is making me LOL: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/is-this-the-most-bizarre-paper-ever-published-in-a-peer-reviewed-journal

I have no idea what I just read. That is insane.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I feel like every research facility should have at least one full time employee whose only job is to walk around with a rolled up newspaper whacking scientists every time they conflate correlation and causation.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I feel like every research facility should have at least one full time employee whose only job is to walk around with a rolled up newspaper whacking scientists every time they conflate correlation and causation.

The interesting thing is that it seems like most of the time, the fault isn't with the researchers. It's with bad science journalism and with clinicians who misinterpret the results to fit their pet conjectures.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I feel like every research facility should have at least one full time employee whose only job is to walk around with a rolled up newspaper whacking scientists every time they conflate correlation and causation.

The interesting thing is that it seems like most of the time, the fault isn't with the researchers. It's with bad science journalism and with clinicians who misinterpret the results to fit their pet conjectures.

You're right. I guess I've just given up hope on journalists.

[GrannySmith]

In example:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203084254.htm

Dr. Martinez and colleagues found that increased social status and increased social support correlated with the density of dopamine D2/D3 receptors in the striatum, a region of the brain that plays a central role in reward and motivation, where dopamine plays a critical role in both of these behavioral processes.

The researchers looked at social status and social support in normal healthy volunteers who were scanned using positron emission tomography (PET), a technology that allowed them to image dopamine type 2 receptors in the brain.

This data suggests that people who achieve greater social status are more likely to be able to experience life as rewarding and stimulating because they have more targets for dopamine to act upon within the striatum.

Dr. Martinez explains their findings: "We showed that low levels of dopamine receptors were associated with low social status and that high levels of dopamine receptors were associated with higher social status. The same type of association was seen with the volunteer's reports of social support they experience from their friends, family, or significant other."

OK, so far so good, a nice straightforward description of their findings, totally consistent with Sapolsky's work on social status...

Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry commented, "These data shed interesting light into the drive to achieve social status, a basic social process. It would make sense that people who had higher levels of D2 receptors, i.e., were more highly motivated and engaged by social situations, would be high achievers and would have higher levels of social support."

WHOA WHOA WHOA SAY WHAT? Back that train up! Did this guy really just attribute cause and effect to this correlation? And worse, did he really just make a statement which implies that there is a biological basis for poverty?

FUCK NO.

But he did. He said that.

The article goes on to say:

These data also may have implications for understanding the vulnerability to alcohol and substance abuse, as the work of Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues suggests that low levels of D2/D3 receptors may contribute to the risk for alcoholism among individuals who have family members who abuse alcohol. The current data suggest that vulnerable individuals with low D2/D3 receptors may be vulnerable to lower social status and social supports, and these social factors have previously been suggested as contributors to the risk for alcohol and substance use.

Wow.

Given that everything we know about the brain and social status up to this point, from countless studies over the last 30 years, suggests that social status affects the brain more than the brain affects social status, how are so many people jumping on this premature cause-and-effect bandwagon? In this case, as in most, it isn't the research that's mindless or irresponsible; it's the interpretation.

That fucking asshole.  reminds me a bit about "the mismeasurement of man" where all sorts of biased interpretations to statistics are exposed.

It really is. Did you read the poster? It's fucking hilarious.

Also, this is making me LOL: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/is-this-the-most-bizarre-paper-ever-published-in-a-peer-reviewed-journal

And that reminded me of mathgen, thanks for that! Mathgen is a website in which you can randomly generate math papers with any names you like, and they look MUCH BETTER than that unintelligible example. Here's mine:

http://thatsmathematics.com/mathgen/paper.php?nameType%5B1%5D=custom&customName%5B1%5D=G.+Smith&nameType%5B2%5D=famous&nameType%5B3%5D=custom&customName%5B3%5D=&nameType%5B4%5D=custom&customName%5B4%5D=&seed=1888551468&format=pdf

[Ben Shapiro]

Did you ever finish watching those lectures of that neurologist who  was explaining to Dawkins and others the results of spirituality, and religion on the human brain. If humans have bad wiring that cause them to be spiritual then we shouldn't blame them since its not there fault they didn't choose to be wired wrong etc.

I don't remember how long ago those lectures were though. Since my semester is over its on a list of things I want to catch up to.