I laughed when I read the following statement on ratemyprofessor.com about a professor I know: "I would rather poke myself in the eye with a pencil than listen to one of his lectures."
Phineas Gage got "poked in the eye" by an iron tamping rod in 1848. Specifically, an explosion drove the rod through his skull and brain, entering just below his left eye and exiting the top of his skull right behind his forehead.
He survived, but he was changed by the accident. His personality, emotional control, and intelligence were all affected. His story is well-documented and is found in every psychology textbook. You can easily find the photos of his skull and the iron rod on the internet.
Before we had the technology like EEG, MRI, and fMRI to study the brain we had to rely on brain injuries to learn about it. Phineas Gage's injury, survival, and personality changes taught us a lot, especially about the role of the brain's frontal cortex.
According to a recent article in The Research Digest, through the years almost everyone has attributed his personality changes to the damages to his frontal cortex, but there have always been dissenters that attribute the changes, not to the brain injury, but as a response to the hideous deformity the injury must have caused, by the damage to his face. Defensive, aggressive personality changes are common in people who are deformed by disease or injury.
Now, those dissenting voices have been silenced by the discovery of a photo of Phineas Gage after the injury. The existence of the photo has been known for over 30 years but it has just recently been identified as Phineas.
The photo shows that he was NOT deformed by the rod. Just a scar under his left eye socket, and no eye behind his closed, left eyelid. The photo shows him holding the rod that made him famous.
You can see the photo at http://brightbytes.com/phineasgage/index.html.
We now can confidently say: 1) Phineas was not hideous, and 2) his personality changes were due to damage to his frontal cortex.
I hope I didn't introduce my students to ratemyprofessor.com by this post.
October 10, 2009
October 9, 2009
Plasticity Overpowers Broca
The brain never ceases to amaze those who study it. Give the brain a chance and it will figure out a way to overcome damage done to it.
The word for that is plasticity: if one area in the brain is damaged by injury or disease another can learn to do its job. Growing evidence suggests that this "substitution of function" is possible even in highly specialized areas of the brain.
An example of a specific area found in everyone's brain is Broca's Area, named after the French surgeon who discover it in the 1800's. He had a patient who had very localized brain damage, limited to the area now called Broca's Area. After he was injured, the patient could only say the single syllable, "tan." It has been well-documented that whenever that area is damaged, the person loses the ability to produce speech, even though they can still comprehend it.
It has long been held that Broca's Areas was too specialized for any other part of the brain to do its job. But now, Monique Plaza reports that if the damage is done slowly substitution of function can even happen for Broca's Area.
In a recent article in Neurocase, Plaza reports on his work with a patient who had a slow-growing brain tumor that eventually had to be removed, along with a large portion of his brain, including Broca's Area.
POP QUIZ: What happened to his speech?
"Because his tumor had grown slowly... other areas of [his] brain, adjacent to Broca's Area, had been able to take over language functions... [he] quickly regained most of his speech production abilities."
Plasticity is even more powerful than Broca!
The word for that is plasticity: if one area in the brain is damaged by injury or disease another can learn to do its job. Growing evidence suggests that this "substitution of function" is possible even in highly specialized areas of the brain.
An example of a specific area found in everyone's brain is Broca's Area, named after the French surgeon who discover it in the 1800's. He had a patient who had very localized brain damage, limited to the area now called Broca's Area. After he was injured, the patient could only say the single syllable, "tan." It has been well-documented that whenever that area is damaged, the person loses the ability to produce speech, even though they can still comprehend it.
It has long been held that Broca's Areas was too specialized for any other part of the brain to do its job. But now, Monique Plaza reports that if the damage is done slowly substitution of function can even happen for Broca's Area.
In a recent article in Neurocase, Plaza reports on his work with a patient who had a slow-growing brain tumor that eventually had to be removed, along with a large portion of his brain, including Broca's Area.
POP QUIZ: What happened to his speech?
"Because his tumor had grown slowly... other areas of [his] brain, adjacent to Broca's Area, had been able to take over language functions... [he] quickly regained most of his speech production abilities."
Plasticity is even more powerful than Broca!
October 8, 2009
Better Than Average?
Most Americans think they are above average. They report themselves to be better drivers, better looking, nicer, more popular, more intelligent, etc. It is, of course, statistically impossible for everyone to be above average.
For one to believe that they are better than most has been considered to be a way of protecting one's self from the opinions that others might hold of us... that we are below average in some area.
Now, some recent research by Sander Thomaes and associates, reported in Social Science, suggests that this "positive illusion" doesn't provide such as much a buffer as a realistic view of self does.
206 children, age 9-to-12, played a "Survivors"-type game that resulted in some of them being told they had been "voted off." The results, of course, were just made up.
Three measures were to given to each child, one that rated how much they thought their classmates liked them, and one that measured their mood before the game and after they had been rejected.
Not surprisingly, those children with a low view of their popularity experienced a large drop in mood.
Surprisingly, those children with an elevated view of their popularity exprerienced an equally large drop in mood.
Who experienced the smallest drop in mood after learning they had been rejected? Those children with a realistic view of their popularity.
Thomaes' conclusions included, "Vulernable children holding positively or negatively distored self-views may benefit from interventions that target their biased social-reasoning processes."
In English, that means knowing you are not the most popular kid is okay. Parents should help their kids learn that. Some people will like them and some won't.
Feeding your kid a constant diet of "You're the best/prettiest/fastest/smartest/most popular" won't result in your child being protected from feeling bad about themselves. Everyone feels bad about themselves, gets their feelings hurt, gets their heart broken, is sad at times. Eventually, they will find someone who is prettier/smarter/faster/more popular than they are. If they thought that wasn't possible, what then? Better to know that you are loved for who you are... "warts" and all. You don't have to be the best, or to believe you are.
Of, course, this is the very best blog in the whole wide world, right?
For one to believe that they are better than most has been considered to be a way of protecting one's self from the opinions that others might hold of us... that we are below average in some area.
Now, some recent research by Sander Thomaes and associates, reported in Social Science, suggests that this "positive illusion" doesn't provide such as much a buffer as a realistic view of self does.
206 children, age 9-to-12, played a "Survivors"-type game that resulted in some of them being told they had been "voted off." The results, of course, were just made up.
Three measures were to given to each child, one that rated how much they thought their classmates liked them, and one that measured their mood before the game and after they had been rejected.
Not surprisingly, those children with a low view of their popularity experienced a large drop in mood.
Surprisingly, those children with an elevated view of their popularity exprerienced an equally large drop in mood.
Who experienced the smallest drop in mood after learning they had been rejected? Those children with a realistic view of their popularity.
Thomaes' conclusions included, "Vulernable children holding positively or negatively distored self-views may benefit from interventions that target their biased social-reasoning processes."
In English, that means knowing you are not the most popular kid is okay. Parents should help their kids learn that. Some people will like them and some won't.
Feeding your kid a constant diet of "You're the best/prettiest/fastest/smartest/most popular" won't result in your child being protected from feeling bad about themselves. Everyone feels bad about themselves, gets their feelings hurt, gets their heart broken, is sad at times. Eventually, they will find someone who is prettier/smarter/faster/more popular than they are. If they thought that wasn't possible, what then? Better to know that you are loved for who you are... "warts" and all. You don't have to be the best, or to believe you are.
Of, course, this is the very best blog in the whole wide world, right?
October 5, 2009
Tell a Joke, Live Longer
The mind/body connection is well established. The impact of attitude on health is recognized. Possitive attitude helps with coping. Religious beliefs can help with healing.
Now... telling jokes increases life-expectancy?
Steve Pritzker, PhD, at Saybrook University, says that you should become a comedian, not a musician, if you want to live longer. He used something with which I am not familiar -- life-span calculations by Psychiatrist Arnold Ludwig.
According to his research among entertainers, reported in the 2009 Monitor on Psychology, musicians live just 57 years, actors live 63 years, composers live 65 years, and comedians live 72 years.
"The key to comedians' longevity may stem from their ability to make light of adversity," according to Pritzker. That's a pretty good theory.
How about this theory: small planes. Musicians live the shortest lives because of small planes.
Just think about how many musicians have died in plane crashes: John Denver, Jim Croce, Ricky Nelson, Aaliya, the Big Bopper, Buddy Holly, Patsy Cline, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Glenn Miller, Otis Redding, Ritchie Valens, Stevie Ray Vaughan, just to name a few.
The oldest of them was just 55 years old.
So, go ahead, become a musician, just stay off of small planes.
Now... telling jokes increases life-expectancy?
Steve Pritzker, PhD, at Saybrook University, says that you should become a comedian, not a musician, if you want to live longer. He used something with which I am not familiar -- life-span calculations by Psychiatrist Arnold Ludwig.
According to his research among entertainers, reported in the 2009 Monitor on Psychology, musicians live just 57 years, actors live 63 years, composers live 65 years, and comedians live 72 years.
"The key to comedians' longevity may stem from their ability to make light of adversity," according to Pritzker. That's a pretty good theory.
How about this theory: small planes. Musicians live the shortest lives because of small planes.
Just think about how many musicians have died in plane crashes: John Denver, Jim Croce, Ricky Nelson, Aaliya, the Big Bopper, Buddy Holly, Patsy Cline, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Glenn Miller, Otis Redding, Ritchie Valens, Stevie Ray Vaughan, just to name a few.
The oldest of them was just 55 years old.
So, go ahead, become a musician, just stay off of small planes.
October 4, 2009
Can I Have Money AND Friends?
One characteristics of a proverb is that it is generally true but there are exceptions. For example, "Raise a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will act like he should." I always advise parents to raise their children in "the way they should go" because that is the best bet in the child doing so. But I (and probably you, too) have know MANY exceptions to that proverb. Good parents, good parenting, rotten kids
What about the "Money can't buy happiness" proverb?
Research has consistently shown that happiness is not correlated with happiness. Some of the happiest people in the world are among the world's poorest. Some of the most miserable are among the richest. On the other hand, some of the poorest are the unhappiest, and some of happiest are the richest.
Another consistent finding in "happiness" research is that when people who report themselves to be happy list the things they have in life, one thing is always on their lists... friends.
Now, the October 2009 Monitor on Psychology reports that Ed Diener, PhD, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has analyzed the proverbial Gallup poll to find the secret to happiness. (Who has time to study polls of 136,000 people like he did?) What did the polls reveal to him?
According to the Monitor - "People with larger incomes reported a stronger sense of happiness." But, "Income did not correlate with stronger social relationships, feelings of respect or daily reports of positive feelings."
Hmmm. Happy with no friends, no self-respect, no positive feelings on a regular basis.
Doesn't that kind of sound like, "I think she is beautiful, except for her face and her body." What is LEFT to be beautiful?
What is there to be happy about without friends, self-respect, or daily positive feelings?
Maybe they don't know what real happiness IS! Think about how happy they would report themselves to be if they had money PLUS friends, self-respect and regular positive feelings. I imagine something like, "Wow! I used to think I was happy. Now I realize how miserable I really was."
Maybe these people just LIED to Mr. Gallup. I'm going to go with that one.
What about the "Money can't buy happiness" proverb?
Research has consistently shown that happiness is not correlated with happiness. Some of the happiest people in the world are among the world's poorest. Some of the most miserable are among the richest. On the other hand, some of the poorest are the unhappiest, and some of happiest are the richest.
Another consistent finding in "happiness" research is that when people who report themselves to be happy list the things they have in life, one thing is always on their lists... friends.
Now, the October 2009 Monitor on Psychology reports that Ed Diener, PhD, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has analyzed the proverbial Gallup poll to find the secret to happiness. (Who has time to study polls of 136,000 people like he did?) What did the polls reveal to him?
According to the Monitor - "People with larger incomes reported a stronger sense of happiness." But, "Income did not correlate with stronger social relationships, feelings of respect or daily reports of positive feelings."
Hmmm. Happy with no friends, no self-respect, no positive feelings on a regular basis.
Doesn't that kind of sound like, "I think she is beautiful, except for her face and her body." What is LEFT to be beautiful?
What is there to be happy about without friends, self-respect, or daily positive feelings?
Maybe they don't know what real happiness IS! Think about how happy they would report themselves to be if they had money PLUS friends, self-respect and regular positive feelings. I imagine something like, "Wow! I used to think I was happy. Now I realize how miserable I really was."
Maybe these people just LIED to Mr. Gallup. I'm going to go with that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
