Is living in a city damaging your brain?

If we are to believe the results of a new study from Marc Berman, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, the answer is "yes". These finding come at an interesting crossroads-- for the first time ever, more humans live in cities than in rural settings. The findings argue that the brain becomes confused and tired as it is forced to respond to the massive amounts of stimulii that are present in cities. The brain is constantly searching its surroundings, trying to anticipate threats. Not only does one have to negotiate traffic and constantly re-assess the changing visual landscape, but this is often done while carrying on a conversation or mentally planning a route through the city. Quoting from Boston.com:

The reason such seemingly trivial mental tasks leave us depleted is that they exploit one of the crucial weak spots of the brain. A city is so overstuffed with stimuli that we need to constantly redirect our attention so that we aren't distracted by irrelevant things, like a flashing neon sign or the cellphone conversation of a nearby passenger on the bus. This sort of controlled perception -- we are telling the mind what to pay attention to -- takes energy and effort. The mind is like a powerful supercomputer, but the act of paying attention consumes much of its processing power.
Interestingly, the researchers found that just showing people a picture of an urban environment was enough to cause substantial impairment to the test subject's levels of attention and working memory. Similarly, a different study quoted in the article shows that even very small amounts of exposure to nature were enough to confer significant improvement on subjects' cognitive abilities and sense of well-being. Additionally, the research indicates that living in cities may also have a harmful effect on one's level of self-control.

Continue ReadingIs living in a city damaging your brain?

James (Amazing) Randi is still debunking and his $1M challenge fund is still safe

My local alternative weekly newspaper, The Riverfront Times, just published a detailed article on James "The Amazing" Randi, professional magician and debunker of claims of the paranormal. I learned a lot. Here's an excerpt:

Randi has debunked more than 100 psychics and faith healers in a quest to rid the world of hucksters. It also makes him the subject of scorn among purveyors of the paranormal, true believers who say Randi has made himself rich, pulling in nearly $200,000 a year from his foundation, at the expense of others' careers.

Now, however, Randi's work may be in jeopardy. His foundation has been hemorrhaging money, and Randi, who has spent his career challenging the notion of an afterlife, now faces his own mortality. He has intestinal cancer and may not have long to live. Randi has been a commanding presence for four decades, but it's unclear who could fill his role as the face of the skeptic community.

Continue ReadingJames (Amazing) Randi is still debunking and his $1M challenge fund is still safe

Government-Hating: An American Value

G.O.P. Chairman Michael Steele made a few remarkably in-your-face comments recently about the health care debate. Here, in his own words, is pretty much where he thinks the nation is going, why it shouldn't go there, and what the Republican Party stands for. This morning on NPR he tangled with Steve Inskeep, in particular over this. One quote in particular caught my eye: " Simply put, we believe that health-care reform must be centered on patients, not government." When you listen to the NPR interview it's clear that we're hearing another in the now decades-long tirades against the government which has become the hallmark of Right Wing politics in this country. In this country, in theory, the government is supposed to be us, the people. We elect our representatives, we tell them how we want them to vote, we change our minds, we are supposed to be in charge. In theory. Obviously, the reality is far from that. For one, we are not a full-fledged democracy, we are a republic, and while we elect those who operate the machinery of the republic on our behalf, we do not have a direct say in the running. Nor could we, really. it is simply too complex. We send our representatives to the various points of departure---state capitols, Washington D.C., county seats, city halls---to do that for us because it is a big, complex, often indecipherable melange of conflicting goals, viewpoints, and problems. We do not have the time to pay the necessary attention to do that work ourselves, so we pay people to do it for us. So why do we distrust it so much? Well, because we distrust each other.

Continue ReadingGovernment-Hating: An American Value

On the importance of disagreement

The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves. –Eric Hoffer Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. –Mohandas Gandhi Greetings all! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Brynn, and I'll be joining the fantastic stable of authors at Dangerous Intersection. I'm flattered that Erich asked me to be a part of what is being built here. Lots of very talented people are contributing their thoughts to the ongoing discussion generated on various topics, and I'm honored to be a part of that. I’ve been a regular reader of DI for about a year, and I’ve been impressed with the quality posts as well as the engaging discussion that often occurs in the comments following the post. One thing that is never shied away from is disagreement. Nor should disagreement be avoided. There is no party line here, there is no heresy. What is abundant is the type of quality discussion and debate that is the hallmark of a vigorous, open community.

Too often in contemporary American society, honest debate is stifled. Politicians have learned to speak in sound bites. Media commentators have learned to present insipid and truncated stories to a largely passive and apathetic audience. The constraints of time or column inches prevent a lengthy examination of any given issue. Talking points are adopted by the major parties’ respective constituencies as though they were absolute truth. The vehemence with which one holds an opinion has become a substitute for thoughtful reflection on the reasons why one holds an opinion.

This must change. The staggering array of challenges that face us demand a well-informed and engaged citizenry . . .

Continue ReadingOn the importance of disagreement

Creative denial of mortality as an evolutionary adaptation?

The August 6, 2009 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers) includes a fascinating letter by Ajit Varki, a Professor of Medicine and Cellular & Molecular Medicine at the University of California San Diego, La Jolla. Varki begins his letter by recognizing some of the unique features of human animals, such as theory of mind, "which enables inter-subjectivity." These impressive human cognitive abilities might have been positively selected by evolution "because of their benefits to interpersonal communication, cooperative reading, language and other critical human activities." Varki then describes his conversations with a geneticist named Danny Brower (now deceased), who was fascinated with the question of why theory of mind emerged only recently, despite millions of years of apparent opportunity. Brower offered Varki a tantalizing explanation for this delay:

[Brower] explained that with the full self-awareness and inter-subjectivity would also come awareness of death and mortality. Thus, far from being useful, the resulting overwhelming fear would be a dead end evolutionary barrier, curbing activities and cognitive functions necessary for survival and reproductive fitness. . . . in his view, the only way these properties could become positively selected was if they emerged simultaneously with neural mechanisms for denying mortality.
In other words, self-awareness is a double-edged sword that tends to kill off (through terror-induced paralysis) those who become too readily self-aware. Therefore, self-awareness evolved together with denial of death--Brower was suggesting that those who became too clearly self-aware would become incapacitated by something of which chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants remain blissfully ignorant: the fact that they will inevitably die. Image by Puroticorico at Flickr Varki suggests that Brower's idea would not only add to ongoing discussions of the origins of human uniqueness, but it could shed light on many puzzling aspects of human psychology and culture:
[I]t could also steer discussions of other uniquely human "universals," such as the ability to hold false beliefs, existential context, theories of afterlife, religiosity, severity of grieving, importance of death rituals, risk-taking behavior, panic attacks, suicide and martyrdom.
Perhaps we are simply incapable of viewing life "objectively," in that evolution has rigged us up with equipment that protects us by deluding us. It seems, then, that the co-evolution of delusion and awareness (if this is the case) dovetails quite well with Terror Management Theory (TMT), which I summarized in a post entitled "We are gods with anuses: another look at “terror management theory”:

The problem is that the evolution of our powerful ability to be conscious made us aware that we are mortal beings and that all of us are heading toward inevitable death. The “solution” is also offered by our highly developed cognitive abilities: we have developed the ability to wall off our cognitively toxic fear of death by “objectifying” our existences and living idealized lives free from fear of death.

Brower and Varki thus suggest that the ability of humans to be extraordinarily aware and curious is too dangerous to be dispensed by evolution in its pure form. Too much knowledge can might be too dangerous. To safely allow the continuation of the species, human awareness might need to be deluded and distorted in ways that account for some of the most baffling "cultural" aspects of what it means to be human. Image by Latvian at Flickr (creative commons) This approach sounds promising to me, though it also raises many other questions, such as this one: Why are some of us apparently immune from these delusions? Why are some of us much more able to disbelieve claims of gods and afterlives?

Continue ReadingCreative denial of mortality as an evolutionary adaptation?