Far-ranging neurons, targets for psychedelic drugs, and complex influence on brain activity — new studies yield insight into this tiny, sheet-like structure.
Nine brains, blue blood, instant camouflage: It’s no surprise that octopuses capture our interest and our imaginations. Science-fiction creators, in particular, have been inspired by these tentacled creatures.
An octopus’s remarkable intelligence makes it a unique subject for marine biologists and neuroscientists as well. Research has revealed the brain power of the octopus allows it to unscrew a jar or navigate a maze. But, like many children, the octopus also develops an impish tendency to push the boundaries of behavior. Several aquariums have found octopuses memorizing guard schedules to sneak into nearby tanks to steal fish; meanwhile, marine biologists have discovered that wild octopuses will punch fish … for no apparent reason.
According to Dr. Jennifer Maher, a professor at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, there are a “number of [different] types of learning [for octopuses]: cognitive tasks like tool use, memory of complex operations for future use, and observational learning.”
Just by observing the natural behavior of someone we know well, our brain activity can start to sync up with theirs, according to new research published in NeuroImage. The findings shed light on the fascinating interplay between social behavior and brain activity.
Successful social interaction depends on our ability to exchange information with others and continuously update our understanding of their inner states and actions. The authors of the new study sought to better understand the role of a phenomenon called interpersonal neural synchrony (INS) – the alignment of brain activities between people who are interacting.
Previous studies have supported the idea that INS can predict the success of social interactions. However, most research on INS has focused on structured social tasks, trying to establish a relationship between INS and social behavior. What has been less clear is how INS originates or what triggers it.
A new neuroimaging study has found that individuals who consumed their first alcoholic drink before the age of 18 had weaker connections in the brain’s cognitive control network compared those who consumed their first alcoholic drink after the age of 18. This suggests that starting to drink alcohol at a young age might make this brain network less effective. The study was published in Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging.
Although the adverse effects of alcohol consumption and related long-term health risks are well known, it is estimated that 30% of youth in the United States use alcohol by the eighth grade. 62% of adolescents report drinking their first alcoholic drink by the time they graduate from high school, around 18 years of age.
Studies have found that individuals who start using alcohol earlier are more likely to develop alcohol-related problems later in life. Individuals who drink their first alcoholic drink earlier are also more likely to get drunk for the first time at an earlier age. They are also more likely to participate in binge drinking i.e., to consume more than 5 standard drinks for men or more than 4 for women on a single occasion.
In September 2020 we sat down with Robert Sapolsky, Stanford professor and the author of Human Behavioral Biology lectures (https://youtu.be/NNnIGh9g6fA) to discuss if it’s possible for our society to reconcile our understanding of justice with scientific understanding of human behaviour.
Why do humans, most likely, have no free will? How does that link to depression and other psychiatric disorders? Can people accept the idea that there is no free will and start using, what science tells us about the reasons behind our behaviour, as a basis for making sense of justice and morality? If yes, can we even imagine what such society would look like?
Robert Sapolsky is one of the world’s leading neuroscientists, with a focus on the physiological effects of stress. (For years, he spent his summers in Kenya, alone except for the baboons he was observing.) Steve asks Robert why we value human life over animals, why he’s lost faith in the criminal justice system, and how to look casual when you’re about to blow-dart a very large and potentially unhappy primate.
This episode was originally published March 5, 2021.
For a full transcript, resources, and more, visit: https://freak.ws/3WQAjmF
In this episode, I interview Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Neurology & Neurosurgery at Stanford University. We discuss stress, what defines short-term versus long-term stress, and how stress can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the context. We also discuss stress mitigation and how our sense of control over stress mitigation techniques, including exercise, determine health outcomes. Dr. Sapolsky explains some of the key effects of the hormone testosterone — how it can amplify pre-existing tendencies for aggression or sexual behavior, but that it does not produce those behaviors per se. He also explains how testosterone impacts our social hierarchies, sense of confidence, and willingness to embrace challenges of different kinds. He also explains how our behaviors and perceptions shape testosterone levels. And we discuss estrogen and the powerful role it plays in brain development, health and longevity. Finally, we discuss free will, what it means to have free will, and if we have any free will, including how knowledge alone might allow us to make better decisions for ourselves and society.
#HubermanLab #Testosterone #Stress.
An upcoming resupply mission to the International Space Station will include stem cells destined to be grown into tiny, 3D models of the human brain.
Davis (2014) called for “extreme caution” in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to treat neurological disorders in children, due to gaps in scientific knowledge. We are sympathetic to his position. However, we must also address the ethical implications of applying this technology to minors. Compensatory trade-offs associated with NIBS present a challenge to its use in children, insofar as these trade-offs have the effect of limiting the child’s future options. The distinction between treatment and enhancement has some normative force here. As the intervention moves away from being a treatment toward being an enhancement—and thus toward a more uncertain weighing of the benefits, risks, and costs—considerations of the child’s best interests (as judged by the parents) diminish, and the need to protect the child’s (future) autonomy looms larger. NIBS for enhancement involving trade-offs should therefore be delayed, if possible, until the child reaches a state of maturity and can make an informed, personal decision. NIBS for treatment, by contrast, is permissible insofar as it can be shown to be at least as safe and effective as currently approved treatments, which are (themselves) justified on a best interests standard.
See Full PDF
Exercise gives your brain a “bubble bath of neurochemicals,” says Wendy Suzuki, a professor of neural science.
Up next, Forensic accountant explains why fraud thrives on Wall Street.
► https://youtu.be/GHKyDYtKGEg.
Continue reading “The #1 way to strengthen your mind is to use your body | Wendy Suzuki” »
Davis (2014) called for “extreme caution” in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to treat neurological disorders in children, due to gaps in scientific knowledge. We are sympathetic to his position. However, we must also address the ethical implications of applying this technology to minors. Compensatory trade-offs associated with NIBS present a challenge to its use in children, insofar as these trade-offs have the effect of limiting the child’s future options. The distinction between treatment and enhancement has some normative force here. As the intervention moves away from being a treatment toward being an enhancement—and thus toward a more uncertain weighing of the benefits, risks, and costs—considerations of the child’s best interests (as judged by the parents) diminish, and the need to protect the child’s (future) autonomy looms larger. NIBS for enhancement involving trade-offs should therefore be delayed, if possible, until the child reaches a state of maturity and can make an informed, personal decision. NIBS for treatment, by contrast, is permissible insofar as it can be shown to be at least as safe and effective as currently approved treatments, which are (themselves) justified on a best interests standard.
